NPR — National Public Radio — has long been nothing more than a shallow mouthpiece for the America Left.
Last Tuesday, NPR did a piece which, as so many of theirs do, revealed their hard-core left-wing bias. However, it also revealed their cluelessness, along with their towering, massive, howling, giganterrific… lack of self-awareness.
The feature was called: ‘They Love Their Kids’: Texas Lawmakers Want To Send Fewer Moms To Prison‘”
The crux of the story is that Texas, in imitation of Tennessee, is considering legislation to make it possible for mothers to avoid prison so they can stay with their kids.
Are you freaking kidding me?!? Double standard, anyone? As soon as they enact such legislation, every “dad” in prison should sue to get out and participate in whatever “alternative program” they come up with for the “moms.” It’s called the Fourteenth Amendment, baby! (Equal protection of the laws.)
NPR used a young woman — a certain Kristan Kerr — who had been incarcerated for eight years to illustrate their tale. Kerr’s daughter was three when Kerr went in. Eight years! Kerr was convicted of “aggravated robbery.” She was the driver of the getaway car. She says she “wasn’t making good choices back then.”
Ya frickin’ think?!? What “mom” of a three-year old commits aggravated robbery? Not any mom who should be anywhere near a three-year-old kid, that’s for sure!
Kerr says in support of this program that would get her out of jail, she “can’t do the physical, nurturing part of parenting from prison.” I’ll go along with that. But…
Why don’t we see whether we can restate that more correctly. How ’bout: “While she was out ‘making bad choices,’ and committing aggravated robberies, she was unable to do the physical, nurturing part of parenting because, well, she was apparently unwilling, to do the physical, nurturing part of parenting. Whether she was in prison or not.”
A friend of mine said that I needed to be more succinct: “Before prison she wasn’t doing the physical, nurturing part of parenting… because she was a dumba$$.“(1)
There! That’s better.
But, back to the original premise of this piece: How many “dads” are able to do the physical, nurturing part of parenting from prison?
When was the last time you heard anyone, anywhere, at any time raise that as an issue?
Another part of the NPR feature focused on one Brittany Barnett who founded “Girls Embracing Mothers (GEM),”a “nonprofit aimed at improving outcomes for girls and their incarcerated mothers, after her own mother was sent to prison.”
Here’s a bit of what GEM is all about:
GEM recognizes the dignity and humanity of girls and women directly impacted by maternal incarceration.
“Impacted by maternal incarceration?” Wow! Like it just kinda happened to ’em! I was just standing around minding my own business, doing the physical, nurturing part of parenting when I was impacted by maternal incarceration! It fell down on my innocent noggin when I wasn’t looking!
“Impacted by maternal incarceration?!?” Weasel words that only an attorney who doesn’t want to be tainted by the fact that her mother was a… criminal, who chose to be a… criminal, who didn’t have to choose to be a… criminal, could write. And yes, I understand the desire. I wish, for example, that I didn’t have to face up to the fact that my ex-wife is a drunk, who neglected and abused her children and me, but pretending that it ain’t so doesn’t change a thing.
“Impacted by maternal incarceration.” Do you mean: women tossed into the big house because they broke the law?!? Why do leftist organizations always feel it necessary to dance around the names of things? I know the reason. It’s because if the Left couldn’t use weasel words for some reason, they’d lose all support they have in America overnight.
I’m all about recognizing the dignity and humanity of women prison inmates, but let’s not mince words: They’re not there because they were stellar, upstanding, productive members of society before they went behind bars.
GEM’s hashtag is #AmplifyHER. I don’t know… between you and me, you might actually want to turn that volume down on that just a tad.
GEM founder Barnett says:
“Even though I was a young adult when my mom went to prison, my sister and I were devastated by her incarceration,” Barnett says. “It not only impacts the person in prison, but the children are the hidden victims of their parents’ crimes.”
Uhhh… Duh! Ya think?!?
Did you notice the 800-pound elephant in the room, but missing from Barnett’s formulation? Coughcoughboyscoughdadscough*cough. (Yes, yes, yes, Barnett says, “children” — implying boys also — but her organization is about girls embracing mothers, and this NPR piece is all about going easy on women who are dirtbags who do things like aggravated robberies.)
When parents go to prison do boys all of a sudden just have it easy? Is that the magic key to getting boys on the road to being productive members of society: imprisoning their mothers and fathers? Well! I didn’t know that!
In fairness to Barnett, her organization might very well be focused on girls and mothers because she might not have any brothers. But, where is her father? Why does he not figure anywhere in this piece? Did he avoid prison? Was he the real backbone of the family, as most fathers are? Or was he just a shiftless bum, whom Barnett simply chose not to mention? (anywhere on her web site, I might add)
NPR’s story does mention Dad in passing, almost as if the author, a certain Christopher Connelly, threw the mention in as kind of an oopsie, CYB(2), last-minute afterthought, when someone said to him, “Dude: what if someone mentions the frickin’ fathers?!? There’s a lot more of them in jail, and for a lot longer! Did you ever think of that?!?”
Not having “thought of that,”(3) Connelly mentions “dads“… once. And, in what looks and feels a lot like a total last-minute addition when someone else pointed out what I just pointed out. Also, the author uses the weasel word, “parents” several times. However, the focus, the only interviewees, the only problems mentioned, the only programs being envisioned, the only “alternatives to prison” being imagined, are those of and for… women. Apparently, because we have to be sure that women who do things like aggravated robberies can “do the physical, nurturing part of parenting” for their… daughters. And even though these women have done the very same things that meant that the dads… could never see their kids.
Click on the above link to Connelly’s bio at NPR to learn that he’s a fresh-cheeked, energetic, smiling, aggressive, go-gettin’… plainly childless young man. This dude is not a dad.
Father of a daughter and a son. My daughter’s an officer in the Army, one of the nation’s top military graduates from a prestigious university. She’s funny, intelligent, beautiful, wise-beyond-her-years and… brilliant. My son is a bright, cheerful, handsome, tall (6’7″), rising young Division 1 volleyball player. He’s generous, kind, witty, very deep, and… brilliant.
I raised them as a single father while their mother drank her way through her days. Their mother remains a drunk, who’s paid for her self-indulgence, and her neglect of her kids, with lousy health, and a nearly non-existent relationship with our children.
On Mother’s Day, tomorrow, my kids will do something nice for… me, their dad-and-mom-all-in-one. A visit, some time together, something to make sure that I know that they love me. However, and more germane to this essay: on NPR, there will not be such a piece as this one for “incarcerated dads,” come Father’s Day. Trust me.
While I was raising my children, I sacrificed career aspirations, business opportunities, social life, romantic opportunities and more. I did it for my children, because I loved them more than I can ever say; and I still love them more than I can ever say.
I did the “physical, nurturing part of parenting.” I did the dad and mom part of parenting. And I loved it! I wouldn’t trade it for anything in the world.
I used to tell my now ex-wife, when we were arguing about her drinking, “You don’t want to wake up at age 85 and ask yourself, ‘What did I do with and for my kids?'” She will, though, wake up at age 85 and ask herself that. If alcohol hasn’t rotted her brain, she’ll have no answer to give herself.
Oh, and in all that time, I never once committed aggravated robbery. Nor anything even close, though there were some really tough times for us. Nor did I ever once do anything that might ever even possibly have meant that I might be incarcerated. Oh, I made plenty of “bad choices,” but never anything like that. It wasn’t that difficult. I chose not to.
Don’t you even try to give me any crap about how a father isn’t every bit as important as a mother.
A father’s even more important than a mother… in about half of their upbringing.
An aside: See if you can tell me what the two leading indicators for incarceration of anyone are. Okay, okay… I’ll tell you #1: tattoos, and #2… raised by a single mother. No father present.
Rip a father away from a child, and you immediately strip that child of fully fifty percent of his(4) chances for success in America. And it makes of you a cruel, unfeeling, heartless bastard.
See if you can guess who’s spent the last four generations being the cruel, unfeeling, heartless bastards, ripping fathers away from their sons and daughters. Yep. The American Left. And their political wing, the Democrat Party, whose cruel, unfeeling, heartless bastards have passed the legislation that replaced fathers — replaced half of hundreds of millions of children’s futures! — with… a government check.
That welfare check is the symbol that represents the deepest, most thorough-going condemnation of feminism — for it’s feminists who fabricated the lie that women are superior to men as parents. It’s the crackpot, whack-job, paranoid delusions of feminism that convinced lawmakers of the Left that it’s okay to rip away fully half of a person’s chances for prosperity in this the most opportunity-laden country that’s ever existed.
However, revenons à nos moutons!(5)
In the NPR piece, Barnett says, “These women aren’t bad women, they made bad choices.”
Oh? Do we excuse any men that way? Serious question. Charlie Manson wasn’t a bad guy… he just made bad choices. Jeffrey Dahmer? Richard Speck? Albert DeSalvo? Can we call these guys “bad guys? Or are they really just good guys who “made some bad choices?”
My answer to the question above? Barnett’s wrong: these are bad women. Good people do make bad choices, but bad people commit aggravated robbery. Bad people choose the “disease” of addiction over the futures of their children. Bad people make really bad choices… like aggravated robbery. Kristan Kerr, when she committed aggravated robbery was a bad person, not a good person who’d “made some bad choices.”
Oh, they don’t have to remain bad people, but when they make those really bad choices… they’re… bad people.
Barnett’s mother was a bad person, and a bad mother when she did whatever it was that got her incarcerated.
Kristan Kerr adds:
“Women, they love their kids,” she says. “Maybe they’re stuck with addiction but that’s a sickness, but that doesn’t mean they don’t want their children.”
Honestly, I wish I could chuckle at that, but I don’t because I know this situation very well from the side of the dad. I know of plenty of fathers who are “stuck with addiction,” and “that doesn’t mean they don’t want their children.”
But they can’t have them. And they shouldn’t have them. And no one questions that. Because they’re bad fathers… as long as they’re “stuck with addiction,” that is. Guess what: Mothers who are “stuck with addiction” are bad mothers too. They made a choice to get “stuck with addiction.”
I’m going to say a tough thing here: Hit me with all the “addiction is a sickness” stuff you want, it’s a sickness you choose to have. And if you make the choice to have that sickness, then maybe you don’t deserve to have your children around you. Maybe you don’t deserve to be called a parent.(5a) We certainly have no qualms about telling men that!
Why should women who make the very same dumba$$(6) choices that strip men of any and all parental rights, have a “Get out of Jail Free” card? While the dads, real dads, languish in prison, stripped of all the joys that being a dad can bring; stripped of, much more importantly, the understanding of how being a dad makes it incumbent on a man to be a real man, a good man, a productive, hard-working example of a man for his kids?
The author of the half-witted NPR piece even managed to find a Republican Texas legislator who’s in favor of this idiotic legislation. The legislator is full of rationalizations for why it’s perfectly okay to deny incarcerated dads access to their children while bending over backwards — even to the point of not imprisoning them! — to be sure that mothers who commit crimes can be with their kids.
What on earth?!?!?
In what has to be close to the ultimate irony, the piece contains this passage:
Incarcerated parents who have stronger relationships with their kids, Deitch says [Editor’s note: Michele Deitch, who “studies prison issues at the University of Texas at Austin”], behave better while inside, and are less likely to commit future crimes after they’re released.
“It’s really critical for the parent to not lose touch with their child, and to stay involved and to feel like they can make a difference in the child’s life to be aware of what’s happening to them,” Deitch says.
Growing up with their incarcerated parents can be damaging to their children. That’s part of the reason children with incarcerated parents are more likely to end up in the criminal justice system themselves…
And why are kids who grow “up with their incarcerated parents” more likely to end up in the criminal justice system themselves? Because their parents are rotten, lousy parents, that’s why!
In that last passage is the admission that women inmates have an elevated likelihood of committing crimes after their release. That likelihood decreases, however, when they “have stronger relationships with their kids.”
So, can you tell me why on earth we wouldn’t think of this when pondering what to do with incarcerated dads? Talk about a question shrieking out for an answer! The reason for NPR’s silence on this, though, is simple: Feminism is self-obsession. They’d no more think of applying this “logic” to dads than they’d think of calling for the repeal the 19th Amendment.
That’s probably okay, though, because the entire premise of the NPR story is stupid to begin with. We imprison women who commit things like aggravated robbery because we deem them unfit to be out an about in public. We further deem them to be unfit parents, largely because we deem them unfit to be in public.
These are people who have shown that when they’re out and about in public, they do things like… committing aggravated robbery. I wouldn’t want my kids to be raised by such people, why would society think that any kids would profit from being with mom and dad, the violent criminals?(7)
NPR’s piece is a monumentally stupid pile of half-witted, idiotic, shallow, double-standard-laden codswallop… that’s perfectly typical of NPR, and of the Left in general. NPR calls this kind of ludicrous crap: in-depth analysis and reporting.(8)
(1) My friend’s full quote: “”Before prison she wasn’t doing the physical, nurturing part of parenting either… out making ‘bad decisions’ and committing aggravated robberies, because she was a dumba$$!”
Two quick comments: #1: I note that my friend has never been a punch-puller, and #2: we usually try to avoid that kind of language in these pages, but I feel duty-bound to report the incident exactly as it happened.
(2) Cover Your Backside — see? We really try not to use rugged language around here!
(3) Not “thinking of that,” ie not thinking things through is the phrase you would use if you were asked to describe NPR in four words or fewer.
(4) See what I did there? I used the grammatically correct “his” and you understood me perfectly to know that I meant “his or her.” There was never any sexism, there was never any “gender advantage” in he/him/his being the masculine pronouns, as well as the… generic ones.
(5) Back to the subject! Literally, in French: Let’s get back to our sheep! I’d digressed. However, I thought it was an important digression.
(5a) My ex-wife is such a person. She wanted children, but only to fulfill the expectations of others. She fully expected that those children would have no impact whatsoever on her partying, on her elegant dinner parties, on her ability to sleep in the morning after one of those elegant dinner parties. (Catching a theme here?) I took care of all the “physical, nurturing part of parenting“-type stuff. My now ex took care of the… partying.
(6) Okay, the word seemed right. Cut me some slack.
(7) Nor am I saying that the current system is the answer. However, I can sure tell you I don’t think that allowing people who commit aggravated robberies to remain free is an improvement on what we have now. NPR occasionally touches on our ridiculously bad criminal justice system, and when they do, as in this piece, they generally end up supporting a bunch of nonsense that would almost certainly not be an improvement.
(8) NPR’s not alone in this puff piece that tries to transform women who commit aggravated robbery into figures of sympathy. I kid you not, Salon produced a piece talking about the very same G.E.M organization. The piece has the headline, brace yourself: “Remembering and celebrating incarcerated mothers on Mother’s Day.”
Yep. Celebrating. Hey, why stop there? Why not shoot the works?!? Let’s celebrate Dylann Roof, while we’re celebrating, basically, dirtbags? I mean, roof is kind of an ultimate dirtbag.
We’re living in extraordinarily stupid times. For example, if I commit a crime after the Texas law goes into effect, can I just say that I identify as a women, therefore I’m a mother, and I get to avoid going to jail? I guess I could.