Freedom Rider: Demonizing the Poor


by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

Americans don’t know how bad off they are, compared to citizens of nations that have real social safety nets. Their ignorance is encouraged by newspapers like the New York Times, which recently devoted thousands of words to blaming single motherhood for a host of social ills that are actually caused by low wages and inadequate child care and health care. “Instead of needlessly glamorizing married people, and making one segment of society seem superior to another, we should have a much needed examination of what kind of country we ought to have.”


Freedom Rider: Demonizing the Poor

by BAR editor and senior columnist Margaret Kimberley

In the 21st century the American media has nothing to offer except platitudes about the plight of single mothers who made bad decisions about men.”

It is sad and, frankly, frightening when Americans explain away the harshness and lack of compassion in their country by vilifying individuals who manage to survive in difficult circumstances. A lack of class consciousness, racism, puritanism, and pure delusion about America’s purported superiority result in nonsense being passed off as social science and matters which should be political being made personal.

A recent New York Times article examined the lives of two Michigan mothers, one the married mother of two and one the unmarried mother of three. The unmarried mother struggles on an annual salary of $25,000 without health care benefits. She survives with the assistance of food stamps and the earned income tax credit.

The article, “Two Classes, Divided by ‘I Do,’” makes a big deal not about the single woman’s status as an hourly wage worker, or her lack of health benefits. Her marital status is made the central issue when in fact it is of secondary importance.

The reporter goes to great pains to repeat that college educated married couples have higher incomes, better health and fewer divorces. Unmarried parents are at higher risk of everything bad, and the New York Times and its experts conclude that marriage alone is the key to the good life.

No mention is made of the fact that in more advanced, truly civilized countries, single mothers can live quite well. It doesn’t matter if they have children with more than one man, or dare to keep dating, which according to the New York Times is inherently a harbinger of bad tidings.

A single mother gets the short end of the stick in America because she lives in America.”

The fact is that a single mother gets the short end of the stick in America because she lives in America. She lives in a country where women’s pay still lags behind that of men and because there is no safety net to speak of. The unmarried woman in the article took less than the recommended time to recuperate from surgery because she needed the money. If she lived in Sweden or some other frightful den of European socialism, she would have had no such problems.

She would have national health insurance, the dreaded “socialized medicine” used to scare uninformed Americans. She would have been paid for her maternity leave for up to two years. Despite being single she would have a similar standard of living as the married counterpart she was compared to.

What the Times failed to mention is that married couples who are working class can be as badly off as the single mother profiled in the article. If employed at all, they may work long hours for low pay. Their difficult circumstances will make it more likely that they will not stay married for long, and their children will suffer from a variety of ills because their parents lack financial resources.

It is sad that in the 21st century the American media has nothing to offer except platitudes about the plight of single mothers who made bad decisions about men. The paper of record doesn’t even point out that divorce has brought many a well off married mother down to the level of working class misery.

Women’s pay still lags behind that of men and because there is no safety net to speak of.”

If the harshness and lack of compassion in American society were examined, there would be a very different story indeed. Far from being the generous land lionized by apologists, we would be told that our personal decisions can condemn us to lifelong suffering in a country where individuals are at the mercy of a culture of survival of the fittest.

If the single mother in the Times article had only one child instead of three, or no children at all, she would not be much better off. An hourly worker who earns only $25,000 annually is going to have a very difficult life financially. Instead of needlessly glamorizing married people, and making one segment of society seem superior to another, we should have a much needed examination of what kind of country we ought to have.

America needs a true democracy, a nation in which everyone’s material needs are met. Those needs would be met with a fair system of progressive taxation. There would be little money spent on the military and a great deal spent on public education. No one would have to pay for health care, and wealthy people would not have more political power than anyone else. Jails and prisons would have small numbers of incarcerated persons instead of more than any other country on the planet. Race and gender would not prevent anyone from ascending to whatever position he or she chose. Unemployment would be low, and wages for working class people would be high.

Instead we live in a country which is the exact opposite of the one we should live in. That is our biggest problem, not single women having children. Democracy and social justice will fix a variety of ills, not puritanical hand wringing reminiscent of the 1950s.

Margaret Kimberley's Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well as at Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)


Not to Justify NY-Times 'Subtle' Shot at Poor Women [& Men] But:

The Fact is That- Single mother-hood & teen-age pregnancy are big issues in the Black community w any-where from 65% - 75% of Black urban households being father-less [I'm less concerned about legal status than about a functioning positive presence]. This break-down in the Black family can't be trivialized- Yet it must be seen in its TRUE historical context, which the psuedo 'Liberal' NY-Times won't touch- Which is US society's 4 centuries old on-going racist assault on the Black family!

First they chained our fore-mother & fathers to the filthy bottoms of slave-ships. Then they sold them on auction blocks like cattle. And of course Ole 'Massa' often had his way w slave women & girls- even if they were 'married' [a status that was not legally recognized for slaves]- ala Thomas Jefferson & his slave girl Sally Hemmings. Then they breeded slave women & girls w 'stud-bucks' to get more slaves w out having to buy them. And in places like New Orleans, they even specially breeded slave women & girls to be  'escorts' to sexual-service southern white aristocracts. And often ole massa ripped slave families apart- for monetary reasons [It ain't personal it's just business], or as punishment for some alleged infraction, or just on a whim.

Yet despite all of that tramatic history, our parents & grand-parents had a real sense of & inclination toward {extended}family in the post-slavery south. But that began to deteriorate when we left for big-cities up north in search of the 'American Dream' &/or under threat of white-terrorism ala the KKK. - Case in point: For the block where I grew up on Chicago's south-side [in a Black neigborhood], I would estimate that for my peers, at-least 75% - 85% had their fathers present at home, most of whom were responsible hard-working men. But in just 2 generations we've gone from a state in urban America- where 65%, 75%, 85% of working-class Black households w children had their fathers at home, to now 65% - 75% of Black households w children are effectively fatherless. Just how the hell did that happen??? Was it in our genes??? If so then, why when I was growing up, did likely 80% of my peers have their fathers at home??? Or was it because they started dismantling the urban industrial sector in the mid 1970s - 1980s, because of urban neglect, because they unleashed the so-called 'War on Drugs' & 'War on Crime' [IE: opened a new-front on their on-going war on Black & Brown people] which feeds their 'Prison Industrial Complex' / 'New Jim Crow' system??? And was it because they started to openly commercialize sex to sell their commodities, in ever more blatantly rauchy fashion & even developed a pop-cultural so-called 'sexual-revolution' to justify it???

Ultimately many/most things in life come down to personal responsibility & facing the consequences of poor choices, BUT we've got to take a serious analytical look at the environment we been subjected to & conditions that have been imposed on us. That way we can understand that many bad so-called choices we've been making, have effectively been 'programmed' into us without us being consciously aware of it. And we can never let lame-stream talking-heads get away w an overly simplistic [dishonest] {non}analytical 'Blame the Victim' narrative. Even if most Black single moms got married tomorrow, ignoring the fact there is a definite shortage of eligible Black men these days [unless the NY-Times is hinting what some other books, featured stories & movies have said directly- that college educated / 'successful' Black women should marry white men - BUT IMO most white men would be quite reluctant to marry even college educated Black single moms], economically the Black family would likely still be in distress- because the whole damn economy is in distress- DUHH!!! Plus the divorce rate for whites is now +30% for marriages of 7yrs &  up to 40% - 50% for marriages of 10yrs. And traditionally even when the over-all econ was OK for most whites, it was NOT OK for many Blacks!

What this NY-Times does NOT hint at but states directly, is that folks w college degrees [primarily white] do better both economically & even socially- IE: are more inclinded to get & stay married. That may have been so up to perhaps the mid 1990s  - yr 2000. But w the sky-hi cost of education- trapping many/most students in mountains of debt, w little guarantee of finding decent paying jobs- does it even make financial sense to blindly pursue a college education these days??! And w failing inner city public schools [which NCLB / RTTT type DeForm hyped by mainly white college educated elites will make worse]- leading to the school to prison pipeline for too many Black & Brown youth. And the back-lash against affirmative action progs has made / will make college less accessible to Black & Brown students. Thus this simplistic 'Get a college degree for success'- cliche'- being hyped by this NY-Times article may in effective be selling a 'pipe{WET}dream'!  

And the over-all trend for since the past 50 to 100yrs has been an increase in divorces as the number of US college grads increased- IE: the divorce rate in 2007 before the on-set of the Great Recession was 2.3Xs more than in 1930 during the depth of the Great Depression! Yet there were 10Xs more college Grads in 2007 than in 1930 [= the number of grads per US citizens is 4.3Xs greater in 2007 than in 1930]. In 1981 [FYI: during Reagan era the divorce rate reached its peak] the US divorce rate was 2.65Xs greater in 1981 than in 1941 [= the WWII era]. Yet there 5Xs more college grads in 1985 than 1941 or for per % US population an increase college grad rate of 3Xs. Thus the real deal is that divorce in the US has substantially [if not dramatically] INCREASED as college graduation has also increased!  

Furthermore let's not forget that it was college educated {mainly white} folk that crashed the economy primarily thru Wall St Bankster type fraud ['This {global economic} crisis was NOT caused by Black, Indigenous nor poor people... But rather by the irrational {IE: crooked} behavior of some white people with blue eyes {& advanced college degrees}, who before the crisis appeared to know everything about economics and now demonstrate that they know nothing about economics...' - Ex-Brazilian Pres Luiz Lula daSilva at a March 2009 press conference w ex-UK PM Gordon Brown- where he accused the rich of forcing the poor into greater hardship. {see: & ], & also hyped that NAFTA / GATT type trade agreements would be good for both US, Mexican & Haitian workers [March 2010: In the immediate wake of the Haitian earth-quake, ex-US Pres Bill{'I feel Your Pain' - NOT!}Clinton admits that NAFTA / GATT type neo-Liberal free-market trade agreements exacerbated hunger in Haiti and elsewhere- & apologized for championing policies that destroyed Haiti's rice production...]; -&- also lied to the World about Saddam's non-existent WMDs- which lame-stream media press-titute out-lets [IE: The NY-Times] played a major role in hyping! 

Thus having a college degree(s) neither necessarily guarantees more family stability nor more virtuous ethics. And now it's not even a guaranteed path to a stable decent paying job!

IMO This NY-Times article subtly uses a featured white single mom [Ms Schairer] as a surogate- avoiding a blatant in your face assault on Black single mothers. But mid-way thru the article lo & behold it's revealed that the father of Ms Schairer's 3 kids is a Black guy whom she met [ironically] in college. This NY-Times article makes a point that they never got married & of Ms Schairer's description of him as irresponsible. She also admits to subsequently allowing another boy-friend to shack-up w her & the kids for 6 months [his ethnicity is not revealed- which makes me suspect he was white]. IMO: The most telling point made in this article is that in 1990 the rate of out-of-wedlock births for white women w some college education was 10% but now its 30% [I bet for this trend the main culprits are white guys NOT Black & Brown guys- 'What comes around eventually goes around.' - 'Eventually You'll reap what you sow.']. {NOTE: First remember that MSNM outlets IE: The NY-Times, are often propaganda outlets masquerading as news outlets. What are the odds of a white girl from a small-town in Iowa hooking up in college w a Black guy she never knew before- having 3 kids by him & then he cuts-out on her & them? How many Black men are even in college these days compared to either white women & men or even Black women {there's at-least 2 Black women to every Black man in college}? So IMO: its no accident that this NY-Times article featured a white woman who has 3 bi-racial kids by an absent Black dad! Thus one of this article's hidden messages is: In general having relationships w Black men, even college educated ones, is a risky choice for college educated women- be they white or even Black!}

This article emphasizes this point: That the main reason Ms Schairer's boss [Mrs Faulkner- FYI: she & her husband are white] is doing so much better than she is - is because Mrs Faulkner is married [From the article: The main difference between them is not the 'impact of globalization on wages but a guy name Kevin Faulkner']. IMO this statement is likely true at the personal level [I'm all for the sisters marrying loving & responsible brothers], BUT- It is entirely TOO dismissive of the real negative impacts that WTO, NAFTA, GATT styled trade agreements have had on the working-class / working-poor both in the US & even worse abroad! And marriage is NO 'Magic Bullet Theory' that will completely negate that fact [this also increasingly becoming true for college degrees as well]!

PS: The real way to fairly & equitably end welfare as we know it- in addition to encouraging a social & economic environment conducive to keeping families intact- Is a Full Employment policy at a fair & living wage for all able-bodies [excluding pregnant women & mothers of small children], w universal access to relevent education [up-thru at-least the AA / BA / BS degree level] & adequate health-care for all. - Which almost certainly the NY-Times will NOT advocate - Thus the NY-Times is effectively justifying hard-core cold-blooded Neoliberal econ policies & austerity cuts in the so-called social 'safety-net' in hard economic times- by focusing on non-college degreed single mothers as being entirely responsible for their own economic plight- as a clever diversionary tactic. 

The Black counter-insurgency program

Divide & Rule: 1) Turn the children against the adults 2) Turn the women against men 3) Turn the rich against the poor 4) Turn this region against that region 5) Pit that group against that group etc. etc.

All forms of warfare was waged against black people: 1) Economic warfare 2) psychological warfare 3) Chemical/biological warfare 4) Judicial warfare 5) direct police state Terrorism

WE NEED A FULL INVESTIGATION INTO COINTELPRO, "Operation Frühmenschen" ("Operation Primitive Man") and other similar programs like these.

Obama Revives Frühmenschen

by Jeffrey Steinberg

The Rich are on a Capital Strike

The ruling class is trying to get the most money and power without the use of the under-class worker. In the land of derivatives and new technology, the serfs are only good for slave labor and/or part time work.

If you're a person who can't find a good paying job, you should be fighting for what Mittens "old white money" Romney would call: "free shit!"

Free homes, free money, free debt relief, free healthcare, free education, free day care, free food, free clothes etc. If you can't survive, you have to rob people who have stuff.

Here's where the police state apparatus comes in: The ruling class would rather leave you for dead (or kill you) before they get taxed ----- or face the peopl's guillotine!

These people are obsessed with ethnic cleansing:

Designer Babies: Genetically modified babies for the rich:

Abortions as a crime fighting tool: "Freakonomics" The Movie

The Real News Has a Series Called 'The Economic Hunger Games'

 [@ ]: Paul Jay Interviews Jeff Faux: 

FAUX: 'We're shrinking the schools & laying off teachers, kids can't go to college because it costs too much. And we're not creating jobs for educated young people. You go into the Apple Store [or Best-Buy, Radio-Shack, etc] & there is the future. It's not technology. It's all those smart college-educated kids working as retail clerks for $10, $12 an hour. The Bureau of Labour Statistics projects that between 2010-2020, of the 10 largest & fastest-growing occupations in the US, only one requires a college education. The 20-somethings are going to turn into 30-somethings & then 40-somethings w dead-end jobs, because its the policy of both parties. After Reagan the sense of the future disappeared from American politics. Reagan came in & ripped out the solar panels that Jimmy Carter had put into the White House. The future would not be shaped by democratic government; the future would be shaped by the market. And we're still under Reagan's shadow. Obama & Clinton are under Reagan's shadow.-  'Globalization' can outsource anything that you can do w a computer. So lawyers' jobs,  accountants jobs, market research jobs, etc- are all being outsourced- all the kinds of jobs that these kids, who are now graduating from college $20,000 - $30,000 - $40,000 in debt, thought they'd have...' { -- Thus people are going to have to ask the hard question- Is this 'Getting a College Degree = Success'- cliche'  even necessarily true in today's economic reality?

Admittedly I first thought this NY-Times article was a direct in your face frontal attack on Black & Brown single moms. But when I read it I realized it was much more subtle than that. It used a white single mom is a very clever surrogate. But IMO The NY-Times did NOT pick her by chance- considering the small odds of a white girl from a small town in Iowa / MI w a 'Traditional Family Values' type back-ground- meeting a Black guy at a small private college in Iowa & having 3 out-of-wedlock kids by him, & then he cuts-out.   

And then the article falsly equates college education w family stability & even personal virtue. It may be true that college educated women tend to marry before they start having kids, & are financially better off than most single moms- but I learned in my college [yeah me too] stats class that correlation does NOT necessarily = causation! It doesn't take a PhD to figure out that 22, 23, 24 yr old more mature adult women [= the age most folks graduate from college] are on average going to make better / more mature life choices than- 15, 16, 17, & even 18 yr old Teen-aged GIRLS [= the ages many/most single moms often have their first child before even graduating from hi-school - and if they fail to graduate from hi-school obviously they won't go on to college]! So I had to point out that the actual data shows that as the US has had increasing % of college grads, the US divorce rate has also INCREASED! So are we supposed conclude that college degrees = more divorce [No.]?!?

This is the kind of subtle faulty reasoning in the article that made me go there. But when this NY-Times article basically concluded that if single moms were married, that would [magically] entirely negate the negative economic impacts of the neo-liberal / disaster-capitalist / cut-throat austerity agenda- IMO They really showed their hand!

Illuminati calls for destruction of industry in favor of finance

The digitisation of manufacturing will transform the way goods are made—and change the politics of jobs too

Like all revolutions, this one will be disruptive. Digital technology has already rocked the media and retailing industries, just as cotton mills crushed hand looms and the Model T put farriers out of work. Many people will look at the factories of the future and shudder. They will not be full of grimy machines manned by men in oily overalls. Many will be squeaky clean—and almost deserted. Some carmakers already produce twice as many vehicles per employee as they did only a decade or so ago. Most jobs will not be on the factory floor but in the offices nearby, which will be full of designers, engineers, IT specialists, logistics experts, marketing staff and other professionals. The manufacturing jobs of the future will require more skills. Many dull, repetitive tasks will become obsolete: you no longer need riveters when a product has no rivets.

The revolution will affect not only how things are made, but where. Factories used to move to low-wage countries to curb labour costs. But labour costs are growing less and less important: a $499 first-generation iPad included only about $33 of manufacturing labour, of which the final assembly in China accounted for just $8. Offshore production is increasingly moving back to rich countries not because Chinese wages are rising, but because companies now want to be closer to their customers so that they can respond more quickly to changes in demand. And some products are so sophisticated that it helps to have the people who design them and the people who make them in the same place. The Boston Consulting Group reckons that in areas such as transport, computers, fabricated metals and machinery, 10-30% of the goods that America now imports from China could be made at home by 2020, boosting American output by $20 billion-55 billion a year.

The shock of the new

Consumers will have little difficulty adapting to the new age of better products, swiftly delivered. Governments, however, may find it harder. Their instinct is to protect industries and companies that already exist, not the upstarts that would destroy them. They shower old factories with subsidies and bully bosses who want to move production abroad. They spend billions backing the new technologies which they, in their wisdom, think will prevail. And they cling to a romantic belief that manufacturing is superior to services, let alone finance.

None of this makes sense. The lines between manufacturing and services are blurring. Rolls-Royce no longer sells jet engines; it sells the hours that each engine is actually thrusting an aeroplane through the sky. Governments have always been lousy at picking winners, and they are likely to become more so, as legions of entrepreneurs and tinkerers swap designs online, turn them into products at home and market them globally from a garage. As the revolution rages, governments should stick to the basics: better schools for a skilled workforce, clear rules and a level playing field for enterprises of all kinds. Leave the rest to the revolutionaries.

NYT: white trash and black people are having too many damn kids!

Just read the NYT's article.

Is the New York Eugenics Times saying that unmarried Black women caused the financial crisis, and "something" must be done to save the overburdened "tax payer"?

That would follow the line of thinking in this movie:

Abortions as a crime fighting tool: "Freakonomics" The Movie


Its clear who this NYT's article is targeting: Five or six Black cities in Michigan are under banker dictatorship.

The NYT's article is nothing more than a slick reproduction of this article:

"Michigan is breeding poverty"


Since the national attention is on birth control, here's my idea: If we want to fight poverty, reduce violent crime and bring down our embarrassing drop-out rate, we should swap contraceptives for fluoride in Michigan's drinking water.

We've got a baby problem in Michigan. Too many babies are born to immature parents who don't have the skills to raise them, too many are delivered by poor women who can't afford them, and too many are fathered by sorry layabouts who spread their seed like dandelions and then wander away from the consequences.

Michigan's social problems and the huge costs attached to them won't recede until we embrace reproductive responsibility.

Last year, 43 percent of the babies born in Michigan were to single mothers. And even though Medicaid pays for birth control, half of the babies born here were to mothers on welfare. Eighteen percent were born to teenagers who already had at least one child. And nearly 1-in-5 new babies had mothers with no high school diploma.

In Michigan, poverty is as much a cultural problem as it is an economic one.

I spoke with an educator who is dealing with a single mother, mid-30s, with 12 children and a 13th on the way. The kids have an assortment of fathers with one thing in common — none married their mother. This woman's womb is a poverty factory.

[End Quote]

Peep the science behind this white liberal video

They're treating Black people like we're in the ASPCA (American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). This is the Africa policy, and you see this in all the "hopeless" Africa infomercials:

We will kill you and exploit your land because we want to save you from a life of misery. We're helping the savages. The problem isn't the system. The problem is the Black puppy mill that produces too many potential workers (that may not like us). We're helping you by giving you a low protein, high monsanto carbohydrate diet. After all, too much meat consumption is bad for the African environment. We will ban all starving Africans from hunting for food and label all animals "endangered species". - The End

Watch the white liberals on PBS and how they demonize starving Africans as "poachers" when they hunt animals. In the United States its perfectly legal for a white man to own a gun and hunt. But let Mike Vick fight some dogs. They throw him UNDER the jail!