I think it is kind of funny how everyone here is arguing like one side of the Government is any better than the other. Both sides have done what they can to fill their own pockets at the expense of Taxpaying Americans, but this is to be expected. Incompetence is to be expected. Sledding down a hill, you can’t rightly decide halfway that you don’t want to sled anymore, unless you roll off (how is Canadian immigration laws these days…?). You put the power in their hands to fleece you, turn a blind eye to criminal behavior, then act all insulted afterwards as it becomes apparent they aren’t going to be your friends? This is what THEY do. It is their job. You think they have their wealth from hard work and diligence?
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Latest Entries »
AH, but before you start passing out poll numbers, take a look at all of them, don’t just single out the one you like best, such as “More than 8 in 10 are dissatisfied with the way the nation is being governed, 53% have little or no trust in political officeholders, and 57% lack trust in government to solve domestic problems;” or “Forty-three percent of Americans say Barack Obama has been a better president than George W. Bush, 22% say he has been about the same, and 34% say he has been worse. Obama compares less favorably to Bill Clinton: 12% say Obama has been better, 35% about the same, and 50% worse.” Ya know, just to balance things out.
More on House Republicans
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost
Of course, everyone bitches about tax breaks for the Big Business while the Little Guy, the Everyday Fella, and the Working Class all get Shafted. This is definitely not a post in defense of constant and consistent trampling of the Middle and Lower Classes. But there does need to be a standing consideration for Tax Breaks for Big Business. Remember, these are usually the Bastards you and I punch the clock for. The guys who put butter on our bread and keep our lights on. The Bastards that we – unfortunately, sometimes – work for.
So, let’s stipulate some Standing Rules for Tax Breaks for Big Business, Guidelines for squirming through the Loopholes, as it were…
- No less than 80% of employment must be kept within the United States’ borders, by U.S. Citizens.
- Any Company requesting a tax break must not have filed for Bankruptcy or used any funds of a Government Bail-Out nature in the past Ten Years.
- Companies must provide comprehensive and affordable Health Insurance Coverage to all employees (the better and more affordable the insurance, the better the tax break).
- Companies contribute to the Growth and Betterment of the Communities they reside in.
- The more Benefits provided to employees, the better the Tax Break.
- Tax Breaks are for the Company, not for the CEO, not for the President of This or That, not for Stockholders. Those all qualify as Individuals and will be Taxed as so.
- Attempts to misguide or misconstrue resources in order to attain Tax Breaks will involve penalties that do not leave the Employees hurt in any way, while those involved in any Cover-up will suffer.
And, I do think there should be Tax Breaks for the Americans working hard and trying to do the right thing. Instead of seeing our Tax Dollars fall into the lap of Succubi, those who Work to Maintain the System should be Benefited by the System…
- Independence of Government Aid.
- Maintaining Standing Employment for Five or more years with same Employer.
- Two children or less.
- Staying Married for Ten or more years (with same spouse…)
- Volunteer work in one’s Community (excluding any work done for a political affiliation).
- Pursuit of a Higher Education, on one’s own dime.
And I am sure there could be so many more additional criteria to such lists. What are some thoughts/opinions/contributions you may have?
I am trying to accustom myself to talk radio shows, if just to listen to going-ons in the world and consider a different perspective. I listened a little bit to NPR on that trip to Indiana, but too much of the programming was not political talk, only a National Geographic-like discussion on New Guinea or something, with maybe five minutes of actual news per hour. Here, in Akron, I found this 100.1 FM station which touts itself as a talk show, but it is really turning out to be a babble-fest for an over-the-hill radio personality to yell out his opinions on things without doing the least bit research or inquiry on the subject matter.
That these stations contain more commercials that actual talking is a shame, especially as the callers who seek to engage in discussion are more often shouted over by the radio personality who doesn’t want someone else’s opinion catching more airtime than his own. Whether Conservative or Liberal, Democrat or Republican, this is usually the case for whatever talk show I happen to catch a few minutes of between commercial breaks.
This mid-morning show on WNIR is just the same, though the radio personality is no expert. He seems, instead, directed towards simply stirring the pot without adding any stew meat to the meal. It seems he spends more time impersonating Rush than actually looking into the various subject matters that he could be presenting. When a caller rings up with more information than he has (than he is willing to present), he overspeaks above the caller and repeats the misinformation that he showcases his show with.
That the show is a rabid Conservative soap box is not a surprise, nor is it a turn-off. I like it. More of the callers come off as more informed on the subject matter than the rabid Liberals, even though both sides are adamant towards not considering both sides of an argument.
That the idiot repeats the “What do you think of my…?” is really sad, because it is evident that he is not interested in presenting these issues, but rubbing his own ego and convincing the listeners that his opinion is wholly right, without looking fully into the facts. This is consistent with many talk radio Personalities, who are not interested in presenting facts, only showcasing his or her own opinions and his or her tightly-held agenda…
Instead of reporting and presenting the happenings of the community and the country and the world, it is all a pissing contest. Which, yeah, can be expected, but then to use the shooting and death of an 11 year old girl as a platform against Liberal agendas and reasons why the country is going to Hell in a Handbasket, that just solidifies this opinion that these shows do not care about reporting the news, but force-feeding political agendas, turning one side against the other instead of ever working towards the common ground.
Of course, of course, it is possible to find a political agenda slant in every news story and every reporting source. It is always there: what stories are reported on, what page a story appears on or how many inches are given to one side of a viewpoint versus how much space is given to the other side. The news becomes decided by political affiliations and advertising contributions. Nothing new here.
I am curious towards a news radio show that isn’t interested in one side or the other, but in reporting the news and understanding that there are two sides to every story. And, yes, opinions and thoughts are good to share, but they should not be used as weapons, and they should not be given half-assed, half-informed. To argue on an on-air platform without even holding all the facts only accentuates that personality’s ignorance and makes that viewpoint appear full of halfwits and bigots. This is why there is such a fight over radio talk shows. The format allows any idiot to say anything, with only the minimum restraint.
I fight the urge to call up on one of these shows, because I know I would be rude – whether or not I agreed with the idiot – and it would only be a pointless antagonization. These guys are not paid to inform, to keep the listeners up to date, to accept any other opinion than the one they are sitting on, nor would their egos allow it. Their role is intended to stir the pot without adding in a damn thing. Their insight is spewed out with the least bit of research and the least bit responsibility. These shows are made to be controversial, made to be combative. In most cases, the “Other Side” caller is probably someone on the radio station’s payroll who is prompted to call in order to heighten the tension; is it odd that someone who sits at the other end of the political spectrum is always listening and always gets through on the phone line? Or maybe I just have a touch of paranoia…?
Yeah, I am sure I will still listen to a radio talk show and I am sure that I will keep looking around for one which I find comfortable (any soft English-accented ladies on the air, let me know…), but I don’t think there are too many stations out there which put informing the listeners over feeding the fire and I don’t think there is much chance that any one talk radio personality will ever put their ego or the practicality of presenting intelligent discussion over the chance to piss people off. Maybe I am wrong – my track record is definitely not stellar – but I don’t believe that is ever a direction really sought after. What would be the point?
I think it is the mystery of a debt ceiling that has me so puzzled. I know, for instance, what a debt ceiling would mean for me and that once it is reached, I’m back to Ramen Noodles and tap water. Of course, with honest management, ahead of time, I boil up them Noodles once or twice a week and I maybe avoid hitting that Ceiling and being forced to sip at that swill coming out the faucet. Theoretics, of course, of course…
So, in such a scenario, a Debt Ceiling is an honest and real concept. There is a Limit, and to break through that Limit means Consequences. But we’re discussing the Federal Government, where Consequences are as real as the Tooth Fairy, long as you’re keeping your junk off Twitter…
The Debt Ceiling has been “raised” nearly seventy-five times in the last fifty years, and has been raised ten times in the last ten. This means that seventy-five times in the last fifty years, the Government saw that they did not have enough money to do their Business and, instead of adjusting their spending or coming up with honest ways to make money, they just decide to raise the level of spending allowance they have. Why make changes when all you have to do is say you’re allowed to spend more money?
This Debt Ceiling, this borrowing, counts for upward of fifty percent of Government Spending. Okay. This concept makes sense Or, at least, more sense. Everyone has credit cards to increase their spending allowance (well, not everyone, I know, and I know I am not the only one staying away from those slices of devilry…), so that more things can be purchased at times when the wallet is a little thinner. And part of that agreement is that you pay back onto that credit card so that the debt is managed, if not always manageable. Most credit cards, they have a limit of spending allowance granted: i.e. a debt ceiling. You know what it takes for the Debt Ceiling for you and me to be raised? Consistent and honest repayment. Steady positive interaction. Commitment to the deal we signed on for.
Hmm…
Switching channels, why is Barry showing his face on this? Why is he announcing that a deal has been agreed upon between the Dems and the Repubs? This ball is not on his court just yet. He just needs to put his face out there because, hey, guess what’s around the corner…? Which is the same reason why he nixed an earlier proposal that was pointed at raising that ceiling so that negotiations could be continued on how to lower all this spending and spending. Because the timeline for anything suggested clashes with his Re-Election Tour coming up. It’s the same for all these Politicians, of course; once that Big Red Box starts looming on the Calendar, there is actual caution practiced, because no one wants mud on their shoes right before the Dance…
No one wants to buckle down either.
The Debt Ceiling is 14.29 TRILLION DOLLARS. You heard that, right? And it needs to be raised. An added stipulation to the current agreement is a trillion in cuts. Now, even talking about these numbers becomes only concept talk, something beyond imagination for the you’s and me’s. How is it we get to a point where we are spending that much money that no one has and have to ask for more? Is that not indicative of a serious problem?
But, really, this isn’t all about the money. Maybe even more so, it is about power and stepping on the other guy and not backing down. It is about Party Politics, rather than America, and that should come as no surprise. Here is one idea that will never real a reality: a wage freeze for any elected politician in Congress, Senate, or the White House till there is no deficit. Because, really, what are paying them for? If I go into work tomorrow and I can’t get the job done, guess where I will be? If I spend all my money, guess what I will get? Maybe it is necessary time that the People we put in place to steer the boat are held to actual Standards, are held Responsible for the actions that truly blight our Country. Maybe more worry needs to be paid to getting the Job done, and nevermind the sexting or junk-shots or infidelities. Maybe it’s time to hold our Leaders to their Word?
Further Musings…
Of course, through the day, there was no talk of this Congressional Power Strain going on, of course not, not here, safe in the Corn Belt with a huge pan of fried chicken, spiraled honey ham — how could anyone even dare think such thoughts?
But I checked in when I got back to the hotel and was completely unsurprised that there had been no resolve. I mean, one, there’s Saturday Morning Cartoons, so nothing gets done till nearly noon, then lunch, and the afternoon was so hot… And a new question occurs:
A debt ceiling implies that there is a debt; a debt implies that we owe someone some money. Who, exactly? Please clarify. Please.
Along this line of thinking was the thought that we give away way too much money. Who are we giving this money to? What are these recipients doing for us? Are they, in taking this money, doing anything that leads to a less dependance on charities and hand-outs?
There is a thought out there that charitable financial givings should be lessened, at least by ten percent. Ten percent? Barely a dink in the bucket. Closer to fifty percent, I think, and at the least a twenty-five percent decrease. This may seriously disrupt the economies of these countries, but it may also be a catalyst needed to get these countries moving on their own? Wow, why would we want that?
Would they argue? “No, hey, that just isn’t enough free money, we need more…” Would the bleeding hearts feel we are being less American if we gave other people less in order to take care of Americans? Are we obligated to save the world, at the expense of ourselves?
This Scrooge thinking led in different paths, as anything in my head tends to. One thought was on the paychecks of these Senators and Congressmen. I would have to do some digging – something I am not set ready to do at the moment – but didn’t they just give themselves a raise within the recent decade? And, yes, this pay raise is not responsible for any deficit, but what was the percentage of that raise? Why would the same percentage not given to the rest of Americans, along with that free medical coverage? Just a thought…
I really think, in this day and age, there should be a better way for the American Public to give input on anything that goes on in those Sacred Halls. You know that no one actually gives honest answers to pollsters, and any news media is only going to focus on the one side of the political spectrum that is paying their bills. There is no clarity.
There was something else I was thinking, but I’m tired now and The Goonies is on, and we have a few hours of peace. Sometimes that’s harder to come by than national financial security…
I usually don’t listen to NPR. Too stuffy in their liberal views – the preppy college kid who acts as though they are really giving back because they notice the poor slums and the starving children on the other side of the world, hell, they’ll even go talk to them. As with any all politically-slanted media, it only portrays one aspect of the going-ons in the world and only tries to appeal to one corner of listeners. I do, however, really dig that chick with the English accent. I don’t know what she is talking about, I just get all mushy at the sound of her Britified, whispery voice – thanks, Mel…
But in the country roads of Indiana, when nothing else but country music even remotely cackles on the car radio, there wasn’t too much choice to listen and pay attention. On the way to the surprise birthday celebration of an elderized lady, with the Missus having nodded off, I had nothing else to focus on. And the topic of the week is the troubles Congress is having with rasing the debt ceiling. There is no explanation on what it all is about, and I have been avoiding news, on both the national and local fronts, for the past few months as I re-assimilate. But it is a national debt ceiling, pretty easy to figure out. The talk is about who in the country, which citizens will be short-changed because there isn’t enough money to go around. Some little old lady in Iowa. A firefighter in Texas. Border patrol guards in Arizona. The regular people. No mention of politicians at all, without consideration that one of their paychecks will cover for three of the people’s needs. That would be ludicrous, of course.
Congress is at a stalemate, a filibuster, as the Republicans will not pass the proposals the Democrats put on the table in reference to a higher debt ceiling. There is not clear declaration on who the debt is to – taxpayers, other nationalities, corporations? – which I think should be an important consideration. Is it that big a deal if we owe it back to our own pockets? What are other countries going to do it we decide to not pay on their schedule? What do the Republicans want in order to pass the movement? What necessities are in the air that make such a raising needed? Because, usually, I see a lot of politicians asking for money for issues that should have been handled differently: if funds were not mis-used, then more funds would not need to be beggared for. Of course, of course.
And those gray-suited bastards are hard at work over the weekend, trying to hammer out a deal that both parties can agree to, while Barry is on the golf course saying how the Republicans are against him, are against us all.
I bring this up because, listening to all this talk about how our economy hangs in the balance, how our way of life depends on this higher debt ceiling (which, if you consider it, is the NEW American Way of Life: Live on Credit and Put the Receipts in a Shoebox), I didn’t hear any talk about how much money we are handing out to the Middle East so that they can rebuild. I didn’t hear a word on how much money we give away, based on someone else’s decisions, to countries that have learned it is easier for them to scratch by on hand-outs than it is to knuckle down and be responsible for themselves. Nothing said about the debts we owe to countries that have reneged on their own promises and debts.
The United States has focused too much, for too long, on being a global presence, and it is time to reign that back in and take care of our own yard. As a parental unit, the United States would have lost custody long ago, and may have gotten lucky with supervised visitation rights, but as a national force, it is left to self-implode, along with its citizenry.
Here’s a thought: every move a Congressman or Senator makes is recorded and reported to those citizens he or she answers to. If it is a decision those voters dislike, that can be made immediately. Screw this writing the Congressman a letter that gets read and laughed at by some underpaid aide; there should be a forum made available that shows every move there in Washington and what the general public thinks of it. Maybe if the opinions and wishes of the public were honestly known, the politicians would move in a direction that truly focuses on this country, or give reasons why such decisions are unwise.
After today’s shin-dig, I want to read more on this debt ceiling and I will follow this up as soon as I can. With more blind opinions, name-calling, and ingratuity, of course.
A copy of an email that came to me, a sort of “hoax email.” It’s not true, not a real speech, but it says things people are calling “racist,” “bigoted,” and “hateful.” Why? Because saying anything that smacks of strong patriotism can only mean you are full of hate and prejudice these days…
Australia says NO – Second Time he has done this !
He’s done it again..
He sure isn’t backing down on his hard line stance and one has to appreciate his belief in the rights of his native countrymen.
A breath of fresh air to see someone lead.
I wish some leaders would step up in Canada & USA ..
Australian Prime Minister does it again!!
This man should be appointed King of the World.. Truer words have never been spoken.
It took a lot of courage for this man to speak what he had to say for the world to hear. The retribution could be phenomenal, but at least he was willing to take a stand on his and Australia ‘s beliefs.
Whole world needs a leader like this!
Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks..
Separately, Rudd angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation’s mosques. Quote:
‘IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT.. Take It Or Leave It.
I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians. ‘
‘This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom’
‘We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!’
‘Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented It is certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.’
‘We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.’
‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE’.’
‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.’
Maybe if we circulate this amongst ourselves in Canada & USA , WE will find the courage to start speaking and voicing the same truths.
If you agree please SEND THIS ON and ON, to as many people as you know
I looked into whether it was fact-based or not and found the following websites if you care to read further on it:
http://www.hoax-slayer.com/howard-muslim-speech.shtml
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/australia.asp
http://www.reconciliationtalk.com/2009/02/why-search-for-kevin-rudd-speech-on-islam.html
I know some people won’t like reading that I’d post this, though I’m not too worried about that.
Today’s society faces an ever-growing pool of social problems, ranging from drug abuse to unemployment to violent crimes, homelessness to inadequate health care, racism, poverty, a wide educational gap between economic poles, and a growing political stratification. It may seem trite to consider divorce as a social problem that has, in light of other concerns, a damaging impact on the social structure of the United States, especially in consideration of the acceptability of marital divorce and a relaxation of the stigma that has accompanied divorce for centuries, and which still is present in many foreign countries. That divorce is a contemporary social problem that the nation must address often seems to insult the citizenry, though the problems that are borne of marriage dissolution are often demanded to be rectified by government entities at the local, state, and national levels (Robinson, 2000).
However, as family is a cornerstone of individual personality and development, the ramifications of divorce have a reach much further than what is generally considered. It is not only the divorcing spouses which are impacted by divorce, nor only their children and immediate family. In one way or another, divorce puts stress on family and social circles in an ever-widening circle, placing demands on social structures that affect even those with no connection to the relationship. Educational resources, employment opportunities, and economical institutions all feel the effects of divorce, and those effects are passed out along nearly all social interactions (Tischler, 2007), affecting all of society as a whole, even as those affects are generally overlooked as a social problem stemming from divorce and are usually dismissed as a problem of an individual.
Statistically, the occurrence of divorces can be confusing. Because states no longer formally collect statistics reflecting marriages and divorces as they once have, the information is now gathered by outside sources, which sometimes do not include pertinent information. With the passage of no-fault divorce laws in the 1970’s, the actual reasons for divorce are usually difficult to discern. In fact, the reasons that directly contribute to divorce usually begin two to three years before the actual divorce and are rarely listed as the reason for the divorce. Before no-fault divorce laws were passed in all fifty states of the country, it was necessary to have a just cause for divorce, which was usually limited to infidelity or abuse, though reasons such as incarceration, inability to financially support a spouse, and mental illness were sometimes accepted as justifiable reasons for divorce. The passage of no-fault divorce laws was not meant to promote divorce, but to help regulate the instances of deception some spouses committed in order to gain a divorce and to free the court system of long and messy cases where agreements to terms was difficult to accomplish (O’Connell-Corcoran, 1997). As divorce became easier and less expensive to acquire, the divorce rate quickly skyrocketed. It seems that the divorce rate has lessened over the last decade, but this may also be a product of non-standard collection of data and the reluctance of divorcing spouses to participate in studies. Current statistics are non-committed to exact numbers and often are confusing because of different criteria used to arrive at any number, but the oft-quoted percentage is between forty and fifty percent of marriages will end in divorce. Age brackets, gender, economic standing, education, whether first marriage or beyond, and parental history are some of the criteria used in figuring out the divorce rate for the United States, each additional attribute making the raw numbers all the more baffling.
Unfortunately, forty to fifty percent is considered a low number (Hoover, 2009), and little is done to dissuade the population from seeking divorce, or to better regulate marriage laws so to help prevent the chances of divorce even before the risk becomes apparent. In fact, there seem to be more incentive towards divorce than to keep a marriage together, both monetarily and socially. The stigma of broken homes has been replaced, in the community and by the media, by the general attitude that divorce and single-parent households are instead the norm.
Divorce is not a new concept, nor is it a solely American issue. History shows that divorces have been granted nearly as long as history has been recorded, though it has never reached the proportion it currently sits at now. The Church of England split from the Catholic Church in 1534 because King Henry the VIII was unable to acquire a divorce from the Pope of the Catholic Church (Robinson, 2000). Nearly every culture of the world, throughout history, allows for some variation of divorce, though its popularity has only skyrocketed since the middle of the Twentieth Century, and the United States holds the highest divorce rate across the globe. That it is all the easier to obtain a divorce in current society may also contribute to a flippant attitude in entering into marriage, even though the marriage rate has decreased over the years and couples are generally marrying later in life, after education and career goals are pursued.
It is estimated that it costs society thirty thousand dollars a year for every divorce that is reached. This includes court costs, including time spent of the courts to finalize divorces, welfare programs and collection costs of child support and alimony (Eleoff, 2008), not to mention possible jailing costs for those that do not pay for child support or alimony. These are costs that are usually absorbed by taxpayers. There are virtually no public programs funded that work towards preventing divorces, through counseling or pre-marriage programs. For those couples that wish to work towards keeping their marriage together, those costs are left to them to cover.
Aside from monetary costs to society, the impact of divorce affects our nation at different levels. Obviously, the individuals that divorce are directly affected, but so are any children which are borne of any relationship, as they are children and later into their adult lives. Social programs have been established for the sole purpose to deal directly with the aftermath concerns of broken homes. Economical welfare is threatened by the impact of divorce; the number of families receiving government assistance or living below the poverty line is staggering (Borden, 2010). It can even be surmised that personal security in the consideration of marriage has been broken down because of the number of divorces and the chance that any new union runs such a high risk of ending within the first eight years of marriage.
Often, the topic that comes under greatest consideration in relation to marital divorce is how a couple’s children are affected by the divorce. Generally, any change in a child’s usual habits becomes considered an affect of the divorce, whether it be a drop in school grades, or promiscuity, or drug and alcohol use, or just depressive moodiness (Addotta, 2006). For many years, any straying from contemporary acceptable behavior that had the slightest correlation to a broken marriage was considered a result of divorce, of children’s response to the splitting up of their family. To be sure, a divorce certainly does change the life of a child and throws his or her emotions into turmoil, but it is more often than not the behavior of the parents and how they, as adults, handle the situation that most strongly negatively affects children’s reactions. Too often, the parents, dealing with a frustrating situation as it is, neglect to emotionally support their children through the difficult time. The time following a divorce is often harder for the children, especially those that grow up exclusively with a single parent, which is where many of the worrisome troubles for children are generally found. In the majority of instances where children’s reactions are destructive in some way, it’s found that the parents’ divorce was drawn-out and complicated, and that one or both parents were not as supportive of the child’s needs as necessary.
Children, when cared for through the divorce process, generally come to accept that their parents are not splitting up to hurt them and that the divorce’s intention is to bring an end to unhappiness. However, children do not come from a divorced family without its effects making an imprint on their lives. Perhaps even more important than the immediate effects of divorce on children is the long-lasting repercussions that it leaves with children as they grow into adulthood (Eleoff, 2008). It’s unfortunate that having grown up with divorced parents increases the odds that a couple now will turn to divorce, but current statistical information shows that these couples are at a much higher risk for their marriage ending than those couples which did not live with their parents’ divorce as children. One reason why some sociologists speculate that children of divorced parents face such a higher risk is that divorce is seen as a viable option to marriage problems, for both those children that endured a complicated divorce and those whose parents’ divorce run smoothly with compassion and understanding. Children, even before divorce became such a social issue, have always looked to their parents firstly as models for future relationships. Whether it is the good traits of a family’s relationship or the troubling mistakes parents make, these all leave their mark on the children and are carried forth into their adult years.
The impact broken marriages have on society may seem to be a less concern than many of the other factions that weaken society’s structure, especially as society takes a more liberal attitude towards family affairs. Still, it is understood that there is a sort of correlation between those that live through divorce and many of the problems that contemporary society faces (Schaefer, 2006). An end of divorce would certainly not bring about an end to crime, or to alcoholism, or to unemployment or war, but it may be a better support system for society to look towards a way towards suggesting a path other than divorce, instead of making it all the easier to end a marriage. It’s been suggested that to lower the current divorce rate means presenting a new approach to marriage, that pre-marital counseling may be a helpful tool in readying individuals for entrance into a serious, healthy relationship. As marriage is a lawfully-recognized union and divorce is a legal dissolution of that union, the country’s courts should exert more effort in programs which promote healing at-risk marriages, instead of making it easier and easier for troubled spouses to divorce. This is the idea set by many individuals who see marriage as more than just a foundation for the family unit, and therefore society, but as a holy union that is more than a legal bond, and there may be merit in such idealism. Sociologists theorize that marriages which hold together produce healthier, happier individuals, even those which weather bad times, and these marriages tend to promote a healthier attitude in those individuals involved in such families, individuals which pursue cooperative and compromise to find solutions, rather than bring things to an end. The products of divorce become fault lines of the community, of society, and more energy is expended towards damage control, rather than investing in services that would counsel against dissolution, despite the costs to society that broken families brings. As citizens demand less intrusion by government into personal issues, courts back off from involvement in divorce cases, in some cases turning the whole affair over to mediators who work with the divorcing spouses towards an easier split, and this has definitely contributed to the higher number of divorces in the United States. The flip side of this lessened involvement is that, after divorces, citizens and communities demand that the government pay for and resolve the issues that develop from these divorces, such as a rising poverty rate, child care, and social services. The responsibility of consequences becomes the problem of society to deal with, even though it is the unwillingness of the responsible individuals to handle those issues that they have brought into being. This trend of demanding that the government fix the problems and mistakes created by individuals is certainly not a new thing, but has increased over the last few decades as previous standards and morals are tweaked to changing ideologies that lend more favor to a society demanding more and more from the government and undertaking less accountability for their own actions, all the while claiming personal rights for that which was once earned (Robinson, 2000). Obviously, this opinion does not describe society as a whole, but has been a growing response to many of the issues the government is now charged with resolving. Those that have not lived with the direct impact of divorce in their lives argue that it is doubtful its repercussions can undermine social structure as much as some social scientists say, but there are too many instances of social troubles which hold divorce in the background for such impact to be overlooked.
In years before the divorce laws were changes, sociologists theorize that the troubled families that stayed together and worked through the troubling issues were more apt to produce children who grew into adults which did not turn to divorce in their own marriages, granting that the initial issues were not of abuse of any kind. The children of these marriages were also more apt to choose marriage partners with greater care, as opposed to the flippancy which occurred once divorces were of a greater ease to obtain. Once an easier way out of marriage was available, more marriages ended for no other reason than the two spouses no longer wished to be together. Knowing that such dissolution was within easy reach allows for individuals to turn away from problems, from dealing with issues towards a resolution (O’Connell-Corcoran, 1997). It isn’t only this weakening of marital structure that suffers from a refusal to work towards solutions, rather than let society handle the consequences, but it may be said that numerous social issues stem from this weakening of the family unit. The family is the basic building block of the community, of society. While the traditional nuclear family may be rare in today’s society, it should not be as difficult to maintain a healthy family structure, yet this hope is hindered by the attitude that troubles should be abandoned, rather than resolved. Sociologists continue to note that numerous social issues hold this same refusal to face problems and this may be another aspect of divorce that is overlooked in its impact (Schaefer, 2006), as children grow up with the decisions their parents make shaping the decisions they make themselves. This consistent circle becomes more of a spiral, of a downward spiral, as individuals incorporate this attitude into more aspects of life. Society becomes overwhelmed with the consequences of troubles, with the aftermath of issues, and energies which would have better effect concentrated at the root of society’s issues are expended on the results of those issues.
For whatever social structure marriage and the family unit is set to become in contemporary America, it is not left to the country’s government to provide a crutch for the individuals who decide to shuffle aside the problems they set into place. As social issues grow in their impact and become problems on a national scale, the consideration that the social troubles created by divorce lead towards much more damaging effects needs to be realized and understood that waiting till those effects occur before dealing with them has been greatly unsuccessful. While divorce is most likely never going to be abolished, and forcing people who are unhappy together to stay together can lead to disastrous results, to not take action towards supporting healthier marriages can only lead to society merely providing damage control after the fact, a situation that will not approve until society, and its citizens, work towards building stronger relationships instead of simply making it easier to cast aside troubles when one is unhappy.
Resources
Addotta, K. (2006). Divorce! Kip Addotta Encyclopedia of People, Products, Services, Health & Entertainment. Retrieved October 2, 2010 from http://www.kipaddotta.com/legal/divorce.html
Borden, L. (2010). Divorce statistics. Divorceinfo. Retrieved October 02, 2010 from http://www.divorceinfo.com/statistics.htm
Eleoff, S. (2008). Divorce effects on children: An Exploration of the ramifications of divorce on children and adolescents. The Pennsylvania State University College of Medicine. Retrieved October 2, 2010 from http://www.childadvocate.net/divorce_effects_on_children.htm
Hoover, A. (2009). Divorce rates. Divorce. Retrieved October 2, 2010 from http://divorce.lovetoknow.com/Divorce_Rates
O’Connell-Corcoran, K. (1997). Psychological and emotional aspects of divorce. Retrieved October 2, 2010 from http://www.mediate.com/articles/psych.cfm
Robinson, B.A. (2000). Divorce and remarriage: U.S. divorce rates for various faith groups, age groups, & geographic areas. Retrieved October 2, 2010 from http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Schaefer, R.T. (2006). Sociology: a brief introduction, 6th ed. McGraw-Hill. NY.
Tischler, H.L. (2007). Introduction to Sociology, 9th ed. Thompson Wadsworth; Thompson Learning, Inc. Belmont, CA.
I hope you see
how I so want you,
that everything in me only wants this life with you,
that nothing of my heart
can ever wish for anything more.
What struggles must be faced,
what pain that is to be endured,
I cannot ever consider
anything that would cut away this encompassing desire
for you.
There’s so little that would want me apart from you,
save life’s passing,
and I cannot accept the stumbles that come
to ever be worth
giving you up.
Life’s mysterious magic
led me to you
for the reason
that our hearts fit,
for the purpose
that the future ahead of us
be entwined.
My love of you
is fathomless,
even in moments of shadow,
and will never extinguish;
my love for you
is that one true beacon
that shines through dark days and bright.
I will not ever waver
in my devotion, in my love,
and I cannot accept
a life without your love, without your hand holding mine.
