Thursday, August 29, 2013
At the time Mr. King was described as clergyman and activist and he was all of 34 years old having won the Nobel Peace Prize only 3 year earlier at age 31. He was active in the Civil Rights movement and formed the SLCC when he was all of 27. He died at age 39.
I bring up his age as frankly I don't know ONE person in that age range of 27-34 capable of leading a march across the street let alone a movement. This is the generation who equate intelligence to the parameters of a 3x5 card. It is called a "smart" phone it doesn't make you smart.
That was a different time and not a good one by any stretch of the imagination. But King had a dream and he had intelligence. He went to College at a very young age when men of his color were not as lucky. He was a man of faith and we eschew God and the idea of faith as antiquated and a reflection of "un-education." Well he spoke volumes and yet without volume.
I showed 6th graders this year some of the movie about Gandhi to introduce to them the influence and role model of whom MLK emulated. See in some situations learning and emulating others can be a good thing. Who are the role models today? Sports stars? Entertainers? We have no ordinary people doing extra-ordinary things that lead others, inspire them and give them hope to be better, to do better, to help others. A rising tide lifts ALL boats. This generation has little concept of the world ALL it is all MY ME WHY.
I spoke to a young man at a coffee shop, and he is of course an Idiot. I label him that because he is. He has no intellectual fortitude of any kind. And what is tragic is that I doubt he realizes it as most in his generation do not. He and I were talking about some infrastructure issues in the area and he goes "well I don't like it because I bike and it makes it impossible for me to bike anywhere." Note the personal pronouns in that sentence. He is clearly an Opthamologist as he is an "I" specialist. He had no knowledge of why or where or what was being built in the name of mass transportation but he just knew it affected him. "I" hear that a lot. How does it affect "me?"
When you see and hear yesterday's speeches and the profound affect that movement had on others and where it was heading you realize that it was greater than one man, one issue and one nation. Democracy is a big word and it has a clear meaning and we are living within a decreasing one each day.
This year that marked the anniversary of that dream also marks the year the Supreme Court began to decimate the core of that speech, the Voting Rights Act, and in turn Affirmative Action, Class Action, Age Discrimination and "I" am sure next up Women's reproductive rights, an already burgeoning movement across the Nation. We have challenges to equal pay and today marks the move towards fast food employees striking for living wages. MLK would be a proud supporter of that as that is what he was fighting for a few years later when he was struck down in Memphis.
That is the legacy of MLK, the voice of everyman, the idea that a dream is a reality and that if you are willing to wake up and fight for your dream you don't need a raised voice or arms, you need feet and the ability to march and speak up.
Our young would Tweet, Facebook and You Tube their thoughts, as limited as they are. And that does not make a movement it only echos it. Boots on the ground and making it real and visible. Social media only takes it so far. So when I read how would MLK use them today, as tools of communication but of change no. Boots on the ground, seeing, and hearing the personal narratives makes it real. The internet is not real and neither are dreams unless you actually implement them.
Then yesterday I read this article about the decade long quest for equal pay and opportunity at Merrill Lynch, once led by a black man. Of course he was equally as inept and corrupt as his white equivalent in the same positions, so equality was sort of kind of made. It took time and the story about this rough sailing ship to lift all boats is here.
And then below I read the article and the long term affects of this recession/depression/whatever. Note that it affects largely women who are increasingly the sole head of households and that many are no longer even members of family, as having such is becoming increasingly cost prohibitive.
I don't believe we have any idea on how to handle the growing number of singles who live alone without a support network. I learned that the hard way and it is why I am big on the idea of co-housing. However this is not the City as it is increasingly young and in turn attracting the carpet baggers that the tech sector attracts, the anti social, highly "libertarian", angry young men and the oddly unhappy women that follow them. It makes that bubble a good idea as it might keep them in and I won't encounter them much. Don't tap on the glass it makes the animals inside angry.
New Census Numbers Show Recession’s Effect on Families
By SAM ROBERTS
Published: August 27, 2013
"The analysis found a decline in homeownership, more mothers entering the work force and an increasing dependence on food stamps, among other things." The portion of American households made up of married couples with children under 18 fell to 20 percent from 40 percent from 1970 to 2012, the Census Bureau said Tuesday as it detailed other fundamental changes in family life.
The share of people living alone, meanwhile, rose 10 percentage points, to 27 percent.
The analysis also found that the recession profoundly affected American families from 2005 to 2011, resulting in a 15 percent decline in homeownership among households with children and a 33 percent increase in households where at least one parent was unemployed.
The recession also saw more mothers enter the work force and an increasing dependence on food stamps.
The number of households with an unemployed parent soared by 148 percent in Nevada and by more than 50 percent in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey and North Carolina in those years.
“During the recession, economic well-being worsened for families with children,” said Jamie Lewis, a demographer in the bureau’s Fertility and Family Statistics Branch who helped write the analysis. “Even after the recession officially ended in 2009, these measures remained worse than before it began.”
The severity of the decline often depended on whether the parents were married. Nine percent of married families were living below the poverty line and receiving food stamps. The proportion among single-mother households was four times greater.
In another shift that might be recession related, a higher percentage of adults ages 25 to 34 lived in their parents’ home in 2012 than in the early 2000s. The share among men increased to 16 percent from 13 percent; among women, it rose to 10 percent from 8 percent.
Among people 18 to 24, women were more likely to be living with a spouse or an unmarried partner. Eleven percent of women and 6 percent of men in that age group were married; another 12 percent of women and 8 percent of men were cohabiting.
Of the nation’s 115 million households, 56 million were married couples and 32 million were people living alone (12 million of whom were 65 or older). Married couples made up 48.6 percent of households, compared with barely short of 50 percent as recently as 2010.
The analysis, drawn from the American Community Survey and the Current Population Survey, found the proportion of women ages 65 to 74 living alone had halved, though only 45 percent of women in that age group lived with their spouse, compared with 72 percent of men.
Divorce rates may have been accountable for a sharp rise in the share of men ages 15 to 64 living alone, to 34 percent, from 23 percent in 1970.
The census found stark differences in family structure by race and ethnicity. Married couples made up 81 percent of Asian, 80 percent of non-Hispanic white, 62 percent of Hispanic and 44 percent of black family groups.
Twenty-eight percent of children over all live with one parent — 55 percent of black children, 31 percent of Hispanic, 21 percent of white and 13 percent of Asian. Still, 64 percent of all 74 million children lived with married parents — a decline from 69 percent just a decade ago. <
“Over the last half-century, the trend in the U.S. has been toward smaller households, fewer family and married-couple households with children, and more people living alone,” said Jonathan Vespa, another co-author of the report. “Many of these trends reflect a rising age at first marriage and older adults who can live in their own home for longer.”
“A family postponed is not necessarily a family forgone,” he said.
Sixty-six percent of households in 2012 were family households — two or more people related by birth, marriage or adoption — compared with 81 percent in 1970. Among cohabiting couples with children, 51 percent lived only with the biological children of both partners.
The census survey found 605,000 same-sex couple households, married and unmarried, of whom 321,000 were female and 284,000 were male. Same-sex couples were more likely than opposite-sex married couples to both be college graduates (31 percent) and more likely to be of different races (12 percent).