JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
There is no one who would fault Fulop over this except people who would not vote for him anyway and are looking for political points.

I voted for him.

JCMan8 wrote:
There is no one who would fault Fulop over this except people who would not vote for him anyway and are looking for political points.

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop says he ordered police to take down the sidewalk memorial to cop-killer Lawrence Campbell because it was a threat to public safety.

?I made the decision,? he said. ?This is in the best interest of safety until things can calm down. That?s where we are.?

It is a perfectly understandable reaction from this heartbroken rookie mayor. But it is also exactly the wrong reaction.

For one, this could just as easily inflame tensions. Who knows how the deranged souls who put up this memorial will react? This patch of sidewalk could become a new flash point.

But the bigger problem is that Fulop is using the machinery of government to favor one type of speech over another.

More

Fulop fumbled this one. If he had just left the stupid memorial alone, the story would have died out after just one news cycle. By ordering the police to take it down (and bragging about it in a press release), he not only overreached, but he likely antagonized a neighborhood where suspicion and mistrust of the police already ran deep. Worst of all, his actions have shifted the story away from Officer Santiago and his sacrifice - and made it all about Campbell and his crazy family/supporters, extending that shelf life beyond one news cycle. Fulop should have realized that you don't fight crazy, you ignore crazy. The mayor shouldn't have dignified the Campbell memorial with any sort of reaction. Instead, he should have doubled down on Officer Santiago's story, talking up his life and deeds.

user1111 wrote:
Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop says he ordered police to take down the sidewalk memorial to cop-killer Lawrence Campbell because it was a threat to public safety.

?I made the decision,? he said. ?This is in the best interest of safety until things can calm down. That?s where we are.?

It is a perfectly understandable reaction from this heartbroken rookie mayor. But it is also exactly the wrong reaction.

For one, this could just as easily inflame tensions. Who knows how the deranged souls who put up this memorial will react? This patch of sidewalk could become a new flash point.

But the bigger problem is that Fulop is using the machinery of government to favor one type of speech over another.

More

JCMan8 wrote:

All of this is to reiterate that I think the approximately 75% black fatherless rate is one of the single biggest preventable social problems currently facing this country. I don't know what the solution is, or how to alleviate it, but it is very disheartening to me that we cannot even begin to address the problem (just look at the NJ News reporter). I think an open dialogue on this issue would go a long way towards finding a solution.

mwa7368 wrote:
Nope it's up now. I reported it as harassing me or someone I know. We'll see if they take it down. I would be surprised if they do.

Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

MikeyTBC wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Lets see Fulop take this down

NOT gonna happen.

The saddest thing is that the page already has 312 likes, as of a few minutes ago. Keep it classy, JC!

It will be close to 5k in a day or so...

Are you one of those "likes?"

I highly doubt that User is but it seems that Facebook itself is by refusing to remove it, claiming it doesn't violate their community standards. As far as this situation goes, I feel that if FB isn't against that page, it's supporting it.

Thanks! FB has removed the page.

nyrgravey9 wrote:
Ahhh and now a news reporter has been suspended for speaking his mind on this topic:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/ ... utm_campaign=ShareButtons

Keep digging your goddamn heads in the sand people. Keep firing the people with opinions who aren't afraid to speak the truth on this topic.

Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

MikeyTBC wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Lets see Fulop take this down

NOT gonna happen.

The saddest thing is that the page already has 312 likes, as of a few minutes ago. Keep it classy, JC!

It will be close to 5k in a day or so...

Are you one of those "likes?"

I highly doubt that User is but it seems that Facebook itself is by refusing to remove it, claiming it doesn't violate their community standards. As far as this situation goes, I feel that if FB isn't against that page, it's supporting it.

Thanks! FB has removed the page.

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
The American flag at the PATH plaza at Journal Square was NOT at half mast when I walked by Tuesday night, WTF?

MikeyTBC wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Lets see Fulop take this down

NOT gonna happen.

The saddest thing is that the page already has 312 likes, as of a few minutes ago. Keep it classy, JC!

It will be close to 5k in a day or so...

Are you one of those "likes?"

I highly doubt that User is but it seems that Facebook itself is by refusing to remove it, claiming it doesn't violate their community standards. As far as this situation goes, I feel that if FB isn't against that page, it's supporting it.

OneSkirt wrote:
And the scum have put the memorial back up.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic ... -dismantled-overnight.htm

caj11 wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Lets see Fulop take this down

NOT gonna happen.

The saddest thing is that the page already has 312 likes, as of a few minutes ago. Keep it classy, JC!

It will be close to 5k in a day or so...

Are you one of those "likes?"

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Lets see Fulop take this down

NOT gonna happen.

The saddest thing is that the page already has 312 likes, as of a few minutes ago. Keep it classy, JC!

It will be close to 5k in a day or so...

JCMan8 wrote:
I don't know if I would call this poverty as much as the reality for 99% of people in any society. Unless you are independently wealthy, you will have to work to support yourself and your children. So I don't see any feasible way around the lone parent having to spend large periods being absent, even with government assistance.

JCMan8 wrote:
Even in the divorce situation you mentioned, there is usually a father in the picture who (many times but not always) contributes financially. And has visitation, providing some social structure. So I don't think it is comparable to being raised without a father.

JCMan8 wrote:
Also consider the emotional repercussions. Although I have not experienced it personally, I have heard stories (which are very plausible) of such children feeling unwanted and abandoned, which leads to anger. I'd imagine this kind of internal emotional turmoil might be something that one constantly thinks about. This may be found in divorced kids as well but obviously to a lesser degree, as the father is usually still in the picture.

JCMan8 wrote:
Finally, I see your point about nature vs nurture but to me this seems to be treading on the dangerous ground that these kids were essentially born irredeemable, based on the quality of their parents. I think that many kids are born with a clean slate, and nearly all are capable of having the good brought out of them through proper raising. Which would lead to them being productive members of society.

JCMan8 wrote:
All of this is to reiterate that I think the approximately 75% black fatherless rate is one of the single biggest preventable social problems currently facing this country. I don't know what the solution is, or how to alleviate it, but it is very disheartening to me that we cannot even begin to address the problem (just look at the NJ News reporter). I think an open dialogue on this issue would go a long way towards finding a solution.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

user1111 wrote:
Lets see Fulop take this down

NOT gonna happen.

The saddest thing is that the page already has 312 likes, as of a few minutes ago. Keep it classy, JC!

user1111 wrote:
Lets see Fulop take this down

NOT gonna happen.

user1111 wrote:
Lets see Fulop take this down

NOT gonna happen.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:


Do you really believe the issue is the lack of a father figure?? I am not going to argue that a dual parent home isn?t beneficial, but you walk a dangerous route claiming that gangs, violence and everything else that is wrong in the world comes down to single mother homes.

Yes, I do believe this is a large part of the issue. I read a quote recently where someone made the argument that much of gang life comes down to members essentially filling in the void for a father figure. The gang rewards and punishes, just as a father would. The gang also provides the cohesive social structure that otherwise would be found in a two parent house.

Under the current situation, the mother works two jobs to get by while the child returns to the empty house. This becomes untenable over time, so the child joins a gang which fills in the parenting gap, to disastrous results, eventually creating a Lord of the Flies type situation.

I really do believe that things would be a lot better for all involved if that 75% fatherless figure was greatly reduced.

I won't disagree that two parents, working in unison, can provide a happy, healthy and productive structure that encourages good behavior. However, your key notation there wasn't that there was one parent. It was that there was one parent which was also largely absent; "the mother works two jobs to get by while the child returns to the empty house". It seems to me that you recognize the problem isn't the lone parent. It is the issue of poverty and the lengths at which one parent must go in order to try and provide for that child.

Yes, studies were done which can link fatherless children to rudderless kids. However, is it not more plausible, even more probable, that the type of fathers which would abandon their children will not be producing offspring which could be all that productive to begin with? This is the nature v. nurture argument.