re: Bill Cosby Email
by Bill Sanders - March 21, 2006

It would be hypocritical of me to advocate English for Immigrant-Americans, and not demand the same of those Americans who were born and live in the United States. I wouldn't do that anyway. I understand that English is difficult for some, but to ask, nay DEMAND, that US citizens (native-born or immigrant) do business in other languages in our own country (and Ebonics is like "Jive"... It's SLANG, it's not a LANGUAGE). Even those who speak this "code" (and it can be considered that, too, since so many people do not understand it), should know and be able to speak and write at least basic English. What they do in their own "cliques" is something else entirely. But those too lazy (yes, lazy) to learn basic sentence structure and verb use, at least for work, are destined to work at menial jobs for low wages.

Firemen, police, nurses, doctors, cowboys, etc. -- this list because that's what many children traditionally did and still do dream of becoming "when they grow up" -- must know how to speak and write correctly. They must know how to calculate things (math). They must know science, history (where we learn about why we need to learn, many times), etc. Don't think so? Each of these occupations (and more) REQUIRE:

Reporting

Sciences

Math

Other occupations:

ALL occupations - calculate hours and overtime pay or salary (will I make enough to cover my expenses?) and at some point must write (in good English) SOMETHING, if only a job application. Once there, jobs with benefits usually have multiple selections and you must be able to read about them and calculate what you can afford and what you can't.

Don't want to go to school? That's something almost every school-child in the world feels, at least at some point(s) in their school-career. This IS a problem in the low-income areas (again, all races). since the single-parent (or both parents, if the family has stayed together) works, sometimes multiple jobs, just to make ends meet. This leaves the kids "on their own". I know very few kids who would study without someone MAKING them do so. By the same token, there are those that want to "get out" of the low-income housing and provide more for their families than they themselves were provided. The latter, not necessarily through the fault of the parents.

The need to be "trendy" is part of the way we were brought up, so is part of "parenting". Spoiling your child by buying them whatever they want or "need" leads to them believing that anything they want they can have - one way or the other. Some turn to stealing. Some to robbery. Some turn out ok, but can't figure out why they never have any money.

Personally, I got to the SIZE (height, back then, folks!) where I couldn't be "trendy" if I wanted to. I had to buy from certain places and could only get what they sold. I do not remember ever being "teased" because of what I wore, or even my size. There are some that are. Either that never bothered me (there wasn't much I could do about it), or if it did, it's long gone from my memory. (While not teased, I did have a few that wanted me to fight them because of my size. If we'd lived in a "big city", things might have been different. I was then, and am still, not much of a physical fighter.) I was never, that I can remember, teased because of what I wore. Again, if so, that is not longer remembered. I DO remember being teased because of my naivety about various things, but never clothes.

Some will say that what you wear is a reflection of what you are. This is bull-hockey. Clothes are nothing more than something to cover your "nekididity" and to keep you warm. Your "individuality" is part of your personality, and that's what parents need to teach their children.

Besides, there are idiots out there that will beat or kill someone for their "trendy" clothes, whether they fit them or not! (They can always sell them to someone they DO fit...)

As for those that wear their clothes differently, hats are one thing... wearing clothes backwards and super-baggy clothes are another.

• Backward? Unless you're a doctor or in a hospital gown, that just means you don't have any sense. Or for guys, maybe it's that you want to be a girl (many blouses and dresses button/zip up the back).
• Baggy? In businesses, you are considered a shop-lifter threat. Older people think you're a thug or gang member or just stupid.

If that's what you want, that's what you got. If it's not, change the way you wear them. It can't be comfortable. Backward clothes - they are made to fit one way... the other doesn't work right. Baggy - you have to hold or pull your pants up all the time. And remember, EVERYONE makes jokes about the plumber/construction workers who are always squatting, showing their butt-cracks. If you insist on the Baggy pants, get those "MC-Hammer Parachute Pants" MADE to look that way! And have "decent, normal" clothes for school and work. You will NOT be hired by anyone with your butt-crack and/or underwear showing!

I'm counting piercings as another form of clothing... Kinda like tattoos are "permanent" skin clothes/art. Ears are one thing... Pierced ears have been accepted for some time. Multiply pierced ears... it depends on how many and how "comfortable" they look. Pierced anything else, while it's your decision, you MUST be aware that people will stare, many thinking you're not very intelligent for doing it. You will most-likely NOT be hired at any high-paying position. In other words, the "unobtrusive" piercings and tattoos aren't a problem. It's the ones that will make others uncomfortable. Besides, if you are low-income, can you REALLY afford it? I know, you can "do it yourself", but you could lose a body part doing so. Think about that one!

While extremely difficult for single parents, and "not easy" even for those families where both parents are still together, this, along with education, is the crux of Cosby's diatribe.

I'm no expert. My wife and I divorced when my children were 12 and 13 years old. Even so, for those 12-13 years, we were a united front. There were very few times when discipline was argued in front of the kids ... and then, it was not normally about WHY we were disciplining them, but HOW. The WHY was discussed out of earshot of the kids, usually after they had gone to bed and were asleep. After the divorce, the kids lived with their mother (in Indianapolis), and while discipline continued, I doubt it was as strong as when we were together. We were both afraid of "going to far" and losing the kids (minds and hearts, anyway) to the other. Still, by that time they knew what was right and what was wrong, what they could "get away" with and what they couldn't, and turned out pretty good. (One is graduating graduated from Purdue this year (2006) and the other, while looking for a new job, is going to school at Lincoln Tech, working almost full-time, is doing pretty well - and both are "growing up" right.)

I realize that poor folks (lower-income people - again, any race) don't feel they have the time and/or energy at times to discipline their children. And some are literally never home when their children are. This is where the problems arise. Kid skips school. Parents are called. Parents are working, so not home and can't leave work. Kid doesn't learn. Kid (maybe) gets yelled at for skipping school (if parents ever find out), and that's it. What the kid does while he's skipping school is important, too. If he went the library to read or study for a test or something, that's one thing. Some stay home and watch TV or play video games. But many wander the streets, making friends with the drug-dealers, prostitutes, and gangs. Some are taken by pedophiles. Take the time to discipline your child - spanking (not abusing), time-out, "grounding" from going out, video-games, TV, whatever, and make SURE it's done and consistent. (NOTE: This does NOT mean destroying the collections that they spend their time on - just put that away for a time; or throwing out or selling their video-games or TV - just put it away ...)

As for those women who have eight children by multiple fathers (again, any race) ... This depends on the reason(s).

Parenting, education and religion is the key.

We HAVE to be able to teach our children - "we" being us, ourselves, or through the school-system and/or church - about abstinence (from ALL sex, oral SEX and anal SEX, too - there's a reason they call it "Sex"), protection ("If you're going to insist..."), self-pleasure (for those that INSIST that they have to have the "big-O" without being married, they should just "handle it themselves"), love of self, love of another, and why, according to most religions, it's wrong for a woman (or man) to have multiple sexual partners. And, if the choice is multiple children by multiple men or using protection, we should choose protection, for many reasons.

It used to be a joke about the man who didn't know how many children he had. Now that it's become a reality for many, nobody's laughing. Yes... There are men out there doing the "nasty" with as many girls as they can. They don't care. They were not "taught" about loving someone, and apparently believe that love-songs are simply ways to get into a girl's pants/up her skirt., and not stories about life  (Rap songs about this type of behavior glorifies it, and many grow up to emulate their rap song heroes.)

What we teach our children is what they teach theirs and they teach theirs and so on. If we don't want the responsibility of teaching our own children, we shouldn't have them. And this has nothing to do with whether you can afford them (monetarily) or not. Through the ages, there have been VERY few people who have had children who could not afford the love and life they gave them. This applies to all races and ages.

YOU as a parent are a teacher to your kids. They learn "readin', 'ritin', 'rithmatic" at school. They learn LIFE from you. TEACH YOUR CHILDREN WELL (Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young)