Stepfamilies: The odds are against us

I thought this article went along with Brian's presentation last week. It had some amazing statistics in my opinion. I've never really stopped to think before how may stepfamilies there are now. The stat that really surprised me was that more than 2,100 new stepfamilies are created every day! I knew it was becoming more and more common, but I didn't think it was that much!

I appreciated that they brought out the points that a stepfamily is different from a traditional family. Many people go into it thinking that since they've been through a marriage once, they can use what they learned from that first marriage. To a degree that is probably true - some things they learned the first time, would help the second time. However, it will be more complicated, with new problems and with some of the past history and baggage.

It will be interesting to watch more legislation and hopefully more education start to take place as this issue continues to grow. What are some of the first things you think need to happen to change how things are currently being taken care of?

Homeless mom prosecuted

I'd like to hear what you guys think of this one. A homeless mom was prosecuted for sending her son to a school at in a better school district. She used a friend's address to do this and now she is in trouble and her friend, whose address she used, was evicted from her public housing. I think the consequences are a bit much...you?

Infertility in America

Hi All
A few weeks ago the comment was made that possibly a reason for a lack of policy dealing with infertility issues is due to a lack of need. It has taken me some time to be able to respond to this because this is an issue that touches me very deeply. After five years of trying to conceive and two miscarriages my husband and I are officially dealing with infertility. Infertility is described as a womens inability to concieve over 12 consecutive months. According to the CDC and the Fertility, Family Planning, and Reproductive Health of US Women report (2002) there are 7.3 million women in the US between the ages of 15 and 44 that have an impaired ability to have children (around 11.8% of all women aged 15 to 44 in the US) and 2.1 million women who are unable to get pregnant.

This has significant implication for the women and couples who are facing infertility and desire to have children. The medical treatment of infertility (in all its numerous forms) is expensive and often not covered by health insurance. The use of various hormones that are prescribed to help treat infertility is not monitored or regulated tightly and often hormones are prescribed with little research into their long term effects or their actual helpfulness. My own doctor, who is wonderful, described it as "voodoo" as she was writing out a perscription for me. Ulitmatly infertility treatments may or may not work to assist a family in conceiving biological children and they often drive many couples into debt.

Another alternative is adoption. Though there are numerous policies and laws about adoption it is still a somehwat unregulated affair. Here in Utah the cost to work with an adoption agency to adopt an infant is around $20,000 to $25,000 dollars. International adoptions can cost from $20,000 to $40,000 dollars. There is little indication of what this money actually goes to and is probably one of the reasons the adoption business is booming. An alternative is to work with the state to adopt a child/children in the child protective service system. Well less expensive this system is set up to support the biological parent in reunification (and rightly should) but does little to account for the needs of prospective adoptive parents. For example, in Utah every biological parent is given an 8 month window to work towards reunification (which is hardly enough time for them but is an eternity for a child and its potential adoptive parents).

What is the point of all of this? I guess it is this . . . infertility is an issue in this country and it is growing for a variety of reasons including environmental hazards and delaying child bearing. However, we rarely talk about it and any policies that do exisit only touch on it in a round about way. But one has to ask the question . . . Is the ability to have children a human right? Should every qualified and suitable adult be allowed to parent? Or is it a privelage for the wealthy? Right now it costs a small fortune if you are infertile and want a child and there is little government support (though there is a tax credit for adoption) or protection. If we don't start having conversations about infertility and what it means for families in this country then we will never find a way to help solve the problem.

Obama administration eases pain of Medicare cuts

This article talks about a $6.7 billion infusion into Medicare Advantage plans that received average scores in a national health care plan rating system designed to identify quality health care plans, which would receive bonuses for their quality. The Obama administration states that they will now be giving quality bonuses to Medicare Advantage to promote raising quality and reducing costs. Correct me if I’m wrong but if you wanted to encourage low and average rated health care plans to improve quality to that of 4 and 5 star rated plans, wouldn’t you only give quality bonuses to the 4 and 5 star plans? I also have a hard time believing that this was not part of a larger political agenda designed to improve older American’s perspective of the health care plan. That’s politics for you…

And yes, the bonus money does come from the Medicare Trust Fund. Government does an excellent job at cutting costs, doesn’t it? I’m sure this money could not have been spend more wisely in other medical or non-medical programs.

Dangerous trends in religious freedom

I found this article on religious freedom interesting. I do agree that it seems that government, while claiming neutrality, is becoming more involved in religious debates. Yet at the same time, religion has always played its part within government. It is somewhat amusing and sad to me that in the U.S. people are so incredibly sensitive to phrases like, “In God We Trust”, “One Nation Under God” which have been a part of the nation from the beginning that they fight venomously against them being on coins or saying the Pledge of Allegiance in schools. While on the other hand look at religious belonging of presidential campaigns as a requirement and sometimes discrediting if not religious or from a wrong religion. It’s too bad that people focus so much an little things like this rather than larger issues, religious or not.

A few other points in the article that I thought were interesting included that 70 percent of the world population did not experience religious freedom, which is a lot higher than I thought it would be. I am sure that it is devastating to families to deal with religious persecutions. It can even be more troubling if family members are members of different religious groups. I know that when my father was baptized into the LDS church in Germany at 17 years old, his parents kicked him out. Fortunately, he has made amends with his father but his mother was very anti-LDS until her death even though my family, the only LDS members on my father’s side, were the only people willing to take care of her. If it wasn’t so sad and often destructive, the intolerance people have towards each other would be almost comical.

Also interesting is that the UN would probably not be able to pass a religious freedom declaration today like the one that exists; o.k. that really isn’t very surprising but it is still refreshing to hear someone say it out loud.

The Rights of Man: A founding father discusses Child Benefits and Social Security

Thomas Paine should be well-known to anyone who has even a superficial knowledge of the founding of our country. His work "Common Sense" was one of the driving forces behind the colonies' eventual declaration of their independence, and his series "The American Crisis" ("These are the times that try men's souls: The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands by it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman") are regarded with almost religious reverence by patriotic citizens. They are also rather entertaining, if you are interested in that sort of thing. A close associate of the authors of the Constitution, he was dedicated to the principles therein and wished everyone to have the benefits he perceived as resulting from our form of government.

This is why he wrote and published "The Rights of Man," returning to his native country of England for the purpose. One Edmund Burke had written a pamphlet about how rotten the French revolution was and how wonderful it was to have an aristocracy and a king. This made Thomas Paine quite angry, and led to the aforementioned text about how rotten having a hereditary government was in that it crushed the natural rights of man. This in turn led to him being condemned to death in England, but, having left to France, Thomas Paine was unavailable to receive this recognition of his literary accomplishments.

In the following quotes, Paine has, for the time being, finished explaining how the aristocracy and monarchy were simply drains on the financial resources of the country, the only contribution in return being mismanagement and self-serving policies, crushing the natural, inalienable rights. This being the case, he argues that they must be tossed out. After getting rid of the aristocracy and monarchy and lowering unneeded expenditures on various government functions, he notes that there will suddenly be many pounds of taxes now in excess. That he suggests that the taxes then be lowered should not come as a surprise to anyone, nor that he suggests that more of it be used to reduce national debt. What he proposes next may come as a surprise:

"It is easily seen, that the poor are generally composed of large families of children, and old people past their labour. If these two classes are provided for, the remedy will so far reach to the full extent of the case, that what remains will be incidental, and, in a great measure, fall within the compass of benefit clubs, which, though of humble invention, merit to be ranked among the best of modern institutions..."

"Having thus ascertained the greatest number that can be supposed to need support on account of young families, I proceed to the mode of relief or distribution, which is,

To pay as a remission of taxes to every poor family, out of the surplus taxes, and in room of poor-rates, four pounds a year for every child under fourteen years of age; enjoining the parents of such children to send them to school, to learn reading, writing, and common arithmetic; the ministers of every parish, of every denomination to certify jointly to an office, for that purpose, that this duty is performed. The amount of this expense will be,

    For six hundred and thirty thousand children
     at four pounds per annum each                    L2,520,000

"By adopting this method, not only the poverty of the parents will be relieved, but ignorance will be banished from the rising generation, and the number of poor will hereafter become less, because their abilities, by the aid of education, will be greater. Many a youth, with good natural genius, who is apprenticed to a mechanical trade, such as a carpenter, joiner, millwright, shipwright, blacksmith, etc., is prevented getting forward the whole of his life from the want of a little common education when a boy..."

"Besides these there will be constantly thrown off from the revolutions of that wheel which no man can stop nor regulate, a number from every class of life connected with commerce and adventure."

"To provide for all those accidents, and whatever else may befall, I take the number of persons who, at one time or other of their lives, after fifty years of age, may feel it necessary or comfortable to be better supported, than they can support themselves, and that not as a matter of grace and favour, but of right, at one-third of the whole number, which is one hundred and forty thousand, as stated in a previous page, and for whom a distinct provision was proposed to be made..."

"To pay to such person of the age of fifty years, and until he shall arrive at the age of sixty, the sum of six pounds per annum out of the surplus taxes, and ten pounds per annum during life after the age of sixty. The expense of which will be,

    Seventy thousand persons, at L6 per annum      L  420,000
    Seventy thousand persons, at L10 per annum        700,000
                                                      ———-
                                                   L1,120,000

"This support, as already remarked, is not of the nature of a charity but of a right. Every person in England, male and female, pays on an average in taxes two pounds eight shillings and sixpence per annum from the day of his (or her) birth; and, if the expense of collection be added, he pays two pounds eleven shillings and sixpence; consequently, at the end of fifty years he has paid one hundred and twenty-eight pounds fifteen shillings; and at sixty one hundred and fifty-four pounds ten shillings. Converting, therefore, his (or her) individual tax in a tontine, the money he shall receive after fifty years is but little more than the legal interest of the net money he has paid; the rest is made up from those whose circumstances do not require them to draw such support, and the capital in both cases defrays the expenses of government."

Here Thomas Paine argues for a measure to reduce child poverty and provide for those that are past their prime, issues that are not irrelevant to our discussions in class. Or is this irrelevant? Does it have any bearing on what we are discussing in class? Does his treatment on poverty back then relate in any way to poverty today? Does his suggestion to support children in poverty with a yearly amount taken from taxes surprise anyone? How about the financial support of the elderly as a "right?" I am very interested to hear your reactions and comments.

Easter, Immigration, and Retirement

I thought these were prevalent with Easter on its way and our topics for the week.

Should we Praise or Not?

http://www.nea.org/home/42298.htm

My mom, an educator, sent me this article. It talks about how generally praising children (i.e.: You're so smart) can often work to the child's detriment. Being specific in praise (i.e.: You worked so hard on that painting) can be more beneficial. This article was very interesting, especially with the 'Tiger Mom' article in mind. Where do we draw the line? Is there a line to be drawn? Should there be a policy implemented in the school systems where teachers can only use specific types of praise? If so, what if certain children (those with disabilities) never hear praise because they don't seem to be as good as the other students? What are your thoughts?

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Families

I'm posting a story about a family that recently had an encounter with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) department here in Logan, Utah. I'm looking forward to next weeks debate. One morning a man opened his door to go to work and found four men from the ICE department waiting for him. Before taking him away they gave his wife a number she could call to find out information about where he would be. Later that day she received a phone call from him letting her know that he was in Salt Lake and to try to get a lawyer. That evening my husband and I went to visit her after hearing what had happened. She was very distraut - beside herself. She did not know what was going to happen to her husband, to her, or their daughter. She was a stay at home mom and did not have any money. She didn't even have access to her husband's bank accounts. She didn't completely understand why her husband was taken away since he did have a work permit. The number she was given was useless to her because she did not speak English. The next day I offered to call to see if I could help her get someone who knew Spanish to let her know what was happening. When I called and asked if they had someone who spoke Spanish that she could speak to, they said they did not. The lady also informed me that if someone wanted to call a United States government office, they should know English. I then asked if there was some other resource that they offered when the family does not know English. I also became flustered and asked if they had a resource for the families, a way to make sure the children were okay and not abandoned. I recovered my cool and proceeded to ask for the general process that detainees went through. I knew I could not get specific information because I was not family. But I hoped to be able to inform her of the process so she could have an idea of what was happening. She said it would take about a month to process his papers for deportation. She also gave away information about him, saying that he had not been interviewed by them yet, he was just in jail. So I asked something about if they provide a list of lawyers for him to contact. And she said that he would not need one. He is getting deported there is no question. I asked if he had rights, she said no. So needless to say I finished the call very frustrated. I am not meaning to focus this account on whether the man was at fault or not. I just want to illustrate the difficulties that the family goes through. She was left in the dark. Yes he called her, but he did not know much himself. She was ready to pack things up and leave to her parents' house - she was going to be left without a breadwinner, and a husband. She had a daughter to take care of and figured she needed to take action. In the end, she moved out of her apartment that weekend. One or two weeks later, he was released and they are now back together again. So fyi, yes he got a lawyer, yes he had rights, and now he's home. So what would have happened if he was a single dad? Sure he would have been able to make that phone call to tell someone, but what about the hours in between? If there was no immediate family who would the child have gone to? What about the trauma to that child? I will be looking at ICE's policies pertaining to this area. I'll let you know if I find any. I will also be researching reports on the Swift company's ICE raids and what happened then. In the mean time, do you think that the ICE department or the INS department has a responsibility here? Should there be policies in place that better inform the family no matter the language they speak, or can't. Should there be policies that require them to contact a resource to inform the family? By resource, I mean some kind of agency that helps these families? Lastly, I wonder what you think should happen to the children of individuals who are deported and no other parent is around? Should they be sent to their parent's country? I should look up the story about that Cuban boy - I can't remember his name. Well, I look forward to your replies.

Utah refusing extension of unemployment benefits

I was surprised when I read the title. After reading the article, I understand why a little more. Not really sure what I think though. I think for some people it's been really hard to find a job and 13 more weeks would be pretty beneficial. I think I'd offer it to people but attach some pretty tight strings to the money I didn't agree with the comment that it's not the role of government to provide jobs for people. I think if the government can find jobs for people until they can find better jobs, that would be a good thing. I don't agree with just giving them money without having them work for it. Especially right now when unemployment is still pretty high and it's hard to find work for some people. Giving them a temporary job that contributes to society, could make it easier for them to find a real job. I wouldn't pay a ton so they want to find a new job, but a little more than welfare amounts. That way they have the incentive to work, but also the incentive not to stay with that job forever.

"abortion culture" to blame for Social Security woes

I saw this and thought of the upcoming entitlement program discussion. The statement from Santorum is a little surprising but it brings up a lot of issues, like abortion, social security, and the declining birthrate.
I kind of liked Santorum until I read this comment. I disagree with his statement, but it is interesting considering China's recent proposed relaxation of the one child policy. We talked in class about European countries birthrate problems. I think I recently read the the US birthrate dropped below replacement levels(not considering immigration and also the impact of the recession). I wonder if the US needs to be concerned about birthrates?

Women vs Walmart

We've been talking about gender equality in the workplace a bit and thought this might be interesting. What implications does this issue have for families?

What role does religion play and what role should religion play in family policy?

When I was reading articles on the immigration bill for my family issue paper, I was interested to find multiple references to the LDS church, one of which I have provided. According to the articles, various people supposedly representing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (I say supposedly because certain experiences have led me to question journalists as reliable witnesses) were involved in an entity called the Utah Compact, which was involved in getting the recent immigration bills passed. It has been stated that the main interest of the LDS church in this issue was the preservation of family units, something that new bills do address. The articles state that the LDS church is responsible, at least in part, for this aspect of the legislation. As religion has been implicitly or explicitly related to multiple entries on this blog, I would like to pose the admittedly delicate question that makes up the title of this entry: what role do you all think religion does play and what role should it play in family policy?

Students will pay more as state support erodes

This article might be of interest to all of us because we are going to college now and most likely will want our children to obtain an affordable education themselves. This article points out that college tuition has doubled in the past decade. Looking into the future, it seems like the price will continue to rise. What are some solutions to help make a college education affordable to everyone while the state's budget continues to tighten?

Ron's opinion of government

This is a clip from the show Parks and Rec. I thought of this during our class discussion on state and federal government involvement. Enjoy the whole clip, but the part I'm referring to is at the end. It starts at 4:05 and ends at 4:30.

5 Myths About Nuclear Energy

Hi everyone;

I came across this article and found it pretty interesting. I would like to know some of your thoughts about using nuclear energy. I know it's not specifically about family policies but I argue the point that a nations stance on energy sources influences families directly through cost, such as: utilities, gasoline, propane. From an environmental viewpoint, those costs can also be associated with decreasing air and water quality through pollution.

I am personally a huge fan of nuclear energy. It is also the most cost effective clean energy source available with todays technology, even more so than wind farms which require extensive maintenance to even keep them operational. The argument against this is that nuclear plants are expensive to build, which they are very expensive to build, and that they are not clean because of nuclear waste. However, opposition to these arguments include the long life of power plants (i.e. they are expensive but they last a very long time) and by expanding development of Fast Neutron Reactors (FNR power plants) nuclear waste can be dramatically reduced and potentially decrease current nuclear waste stock piles. This is possible because FNRs use the nuclear waste from other nuclear power plants as fuel turning it into almost pure plutonium (commonly referred to as military or weapons grade plutonium). The plutonium waste from FNRs can then be recycled (numerous times), this form of reactor is also much more efficient that traditional reactors. The down side is these reactors are even more expensive to build than traditional reactors (although they are also more resistant to over heating, i.e. safer) and people don't like the idea that the byproduct is military grade plutonium, event though it is recyclable and can be disposed of safely once it has been recycled numerous times. (See http://www.world-nuclear.org for more info)

If through nuclear reactors electricity can be made inexpensive enough it would solve most if not all of the United States dependence on oil, this is a contradiction from the article. He states that oil will still be required for cars and such but he is not entirely correct. By making electricity less expense the expansion of hydrogen vehicles instantly becomes a viable option. Although companies like GM have pushed for hydrogen vehicles for decades (Honda, Toyota and others also make hydrogen vehicles), the push for these vehicles has been slowed by the costs of hydrogen production. While hydrogen is the most abundant element, making up almost 2/3 of all matter. The difficult comes from extracting hydrogen, while easily extracted form water it requires large amounts of electricity. Thus, high energy costs and energy being produced from environmentally damaging methods does nothing to encourage hydrogen vehicle production even though their only byproduct is water vapor.

8 Reasons Why The "Gender Pay Gap" Is A Total Sham

Have any of you done any research in this area? The source of the information is certainly legitimate, but I personally have looked into this debate very little. The argument presented here makes a lot of sense to me, however.

I ran across this article a day or two ago, and I thought of it during our class discussion today.

What say ye?

Hi All
So I might be showing my age by posting these but I thought they might make for a nice break from the regular grind. These are the two School House Rock bits on laws and the three branches of government. Enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLQg7G3hkGY&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEJL2Uuv-oQ

Taking Action on Proposed Budgets

http://www.zerotothree.org/public-policy/action-center/policy-vidoe-library.html

Hi All
Not sure how many of you are human development folks but if you are at all interested in little ones zerotothree.org is a great resource. Above is a link to a couple of videos they have posted to help get the word out about upcoming proposed budget cuts to child care and Head Start funding. Regardless of where you sit politically I urge you to watch them. I will admit, they are a bit dry, but the first one has an excellent and simple explaination of how the budget process works at the federal level and the second one gives a great synopsis of what is happening right now budget wise and what the continuing resolution's mean. These are great insights and examples of what work is being done in family policy. Yes . . . it is child care again (because I love it!) but the information on federal budgets is great and afterall . . . children may just be our most important resource :).

Should parents monitor their children's online activity

This video made some interesting points about online safety. It mentioned that parents are the first line of defense. They should make sure that they do "walk-bys" and establish rules. They also mentioned that it's actually a good idea to install spyware and monitor kid's activities online.

They mentioned that if you tell them that you will be monitoring it is no longer spying. As soon as you mention that you will be doing it, it's enough to deter a lot of teens and kids from doing that risky behavior.

Do you think this is going too far? Should it be a last resort and only happen if you have a reason not to trust them? Is it something that works or will kids still be able to hide their activity?

Do Taxes Affect Families?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110308/ap_on_re_us/us_broken_budgets_anti_tax_pledge

So I just read this article on yahoo news and it brought up some interesting questions for me. I had never really heard of the "pledge" to not raise taxes that was being discussed but I did find it disconcerting. If we consider the theory of paradox it would seem that a pledge of this sort would limit any side from being able to work towards a compromise.
It also occured to me that, though tax increases are not always discussed in the family policy realm they do weigh heavily on family policy and family perspective. On one hand families may be burdened with increased taxes that they really can't afford in tough financial times and on the other hand if tax increases don't happen many states will be cutting services to those very same families, again placing a burden on them to make up the difference.
I also think this article, though I will admit bias towards the left, provides an excellent example of how groups outside of government can really guide and affect policy . . . and this group isn't even big oil or big food.
The comments posted were also very interesting and continued to bring up questions for me. I don't really know if there is a right or wrong answer on this issue but I would love to hear your comments as well!

Mother finds herself and decides to leave kids

The video is about 7 minutes longer and somewhat shocking. The written story isn't that great, it's a good introduction but the video is most informative.
It is about a woman who decided to leave husband and two kids. Her explanations of why seem a little shocking to me. I personally don't respect her decision at all. I think it gives a bit of a glimpse into how individualistic Americans can be. Surprisingly the individualism came out in a collective culture.
She left her kids 10 years ago and now has a relationship with them but still does not appear to be very involved. She calls the time together quality time but it seems she is not interested in any quantity of time.
The informal today show poll about how 28 percent of the women polled wanted to leave kids was kind of shocking.
In the video she did not show very much affect, she was rather flat. She almost smiled when talking about time with her kids now.

Obama to States: If You Can Do Health Reform Better, Go For It

Obama to States: If You Can Do Health Reform Better, Go For It

This article shares a type of an opt-out plan of the health reform.
Is this a good way of making a controversial policy more of a win-win type of situation for everyone?
Don't hold back, I want to hear your ideas.

The importance of recognizing and promoting ideals

Many speeches that I have heard have had a profound influence on my life, my ways of thinking, and my chosen educational focus. This speech, given by Jeffrey R. Holland in 2008, has remained with me since the day I first heard it. In his remarks, Elder Holland offers a parable of sorts about the fundamental role of ideals and patterns in consideration of the family during our era of what I consider a significant decline in essential family values.

Obama admin will no longer defend federal marriage act in court

Here it goes: changing of support in policy. The Obama administration will no longer support the defense of marriage as between a woman and man.

How do you think this will effect policies? Will more states be willing to adopt this policy? I wonder if they will feel 'pressured' to do so. It will be interesting, to say the least.

The Ounce

Hi All
So just in case you hadn't figured it out yet, my passion is pretty much anything to do with children and providing them the best possible world. This is an awesome clip from The Ounce. It is a national initative to gain support for and investment in children.
I think we have touched on presenting family policy needs in terms of the investment or financial outcomes and this video does just that. It is also a great example of how preventative policy can work wonders!
In other news . . . I am also including a couple of links in case any of you are also passionate about children. There are a couple of things happening right now at both the state and federal level that will affect kiddos (besides health care) and I just wanted to bring them to your attention.
http://www.utahchildren.org/
This website provides information on what is happening in Utah for children. It currently has legislative updates on bills that affect children. A couple of interesting ones is HB 111 on full day kindergarten (which would limit funding to extended day kindergarten services for at risk children) and HB 181 which will prohibit public schools from offering child care or preschool services.
Lastly at the federal level, part of the proposed budget cuts include cutting child care subsidies for low income parents by $39 Million. These are delivered in block grants to states to administer as state need dictates and many families rely on the subsidized child care in order to be able to have a liveable wage. In addition many family and center child care providers who serve these children depend on this funding. They also are proposing a $1 Billion cut to Head Start, the only federally supported free preschool option for at risk children. So if you want to take action and express your opinion you are urged to call your representative.
http://www.naeyc.org/policy/federal/2_14_2011 has more info and good updates.

30 days with an immigrant family

This is a video to provide perspective. It shows how complex the issue is.
Frank is a minuteman who goes to the border and calls immigration officers when he sees people trying to cross illegally. What is interesting is that he is Cuban. His family was able to come legally because of his dad's work, but had that not been the case he would have either still been in Cuba or in the same position as the family that he goes to stay with in the video. He goes to live with a family of illegal immigrants and is quite opinionated. He says to the cameras, If I could, I would call them in right now.
The video is 50 minutes long, if you have some time I really recommend seeing the entire thing. If you're short on time fast forward to the part when Frank goes to Mexico and finds out the previous living conditions of the family and what motivated them to come to the U.S. illegally. I recommend watching from 9:00 to about 23:00 or so, then 30:00 to 36:00.

30 Rock Clip

This is the clip I was talking about in class today. Pretty funny.

Chinese vs Western Mothers

This article is by a Chinese mother on how practices of Chinese mothers are superior to Western mothers. She makes 3 statements about Chinese practices:

1. "Western parents are concerned about their children's psyches. Chinese parents aren't."

2. "Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything."

3. "Chinese parents believe that they know what is best for their children and therefore override all of their children's own desires and preferences."

At first reading, I was appalled by most of what was in the article. Then I really focused on the following statement by the author: "All decent parents want to do what's best for their children. The Chinese just have a totally different idea of how to do that." I know for sure that these aren't practices that I would be a part of, but it seems to work for their culture.

What are you thoughts/ideas?

The mother/parenting song

I thought this was pretty entertaining. (And, she has an amazing voice.)

Utah House committee approves illegal immigrant guest worker bill

We all knew an article like this was going to be posted so I might as well start it...

I am personally against the bill. For one, I don't believe a state has or should have the ability to change or protect someone's undocumented/unauthorized immigrant status. I don't even understand why people might think we can...yes, States must obey federal laws. But no, the Federal government does not have to recognize state laws when there are federal laws that supersede them.

And two, it's all about the money. I love the beginning where it described that many Americans don't want to work in farm & labor type jobs. While that may or may not be true (more research is needed before I choose my side), it definitely highlights the motives behind such a bill, money...money...money... I don't think that there is anything wrong with making a buck but lets find another way to do; one that does NOT promote unauthorized immigration. This is another example of government policy that would promote a negative behavior (disregarding the law, i.e. not going through the proper channels for legal immigration or staying past the original visa time frame).

"A Soldier's Valentine's Day"

Here is an interesting post from a blog called Motherlode: Adventures in Parenting. This is an example of how different families are from one another. They each have to take their situation and decide for themselves what will be best for their family.

I lean towards the sequential deployment for the sake of the children. At the same time, I understand their rationale. Nurturing the couple relationship will help them to be better parents. Being apart could have hindered that relationship, the marriage, and the parenting.

What do you think?

Bread winer Mother, stay at home Dad

I thought about this during our last class, seems like it was a discussion question but never came up. I wonder what the concerned view would say about stay at home dad's. The "ideal" family is the bread winner father and stay at home mother. Does a stay at home dad and bread winner mother have cause for concern?

Lawmaker's proposals have gay rights community concerned - ksl.com

Lawmaker's proposals have gay rights community concerned - ksl.com

Watch the video or read the article from this link. I am curious to know any background information any of you know or your opinion about the clip or article.

a family court system

This link is to the University of Baltimore's School of Law Center for Families, Children and the Courts. You might find information on the family court system there, I just got it off of my brochure. Yesterday, I attended the first ever Utah Family Impact Seminar. The topic was about family courts. A Senior Fellow came from the University of Baltimore and talked about family court systems. Other presenters were of the opinion that Utah is already doing a good job of serving families in it's juvenile and district court systems. What do you think about family courts vs. juvenile or district courts?

Some of the discussion included:
Due Process (services being provided when fault has not yet been proven)

Specialization (A judge who is specialized in divorce and property distribution having to then serve a child abuse case)

"Back to the Future" (Is this just going back to the way things were and bringing that to present day or taking it to the future)

Number of judges a family will end up going to

Cost of services (therapy) and should those be provided by the state or the private sector

What other advantages or disadvantages do you see?

Healthcare is not a right

Dr. Leonard Peikoff gave this excellent address regarding the philosophical debate against public healthcare. His statement is in direct reference to Clinton's healthcare plan of the 90s, but it applies perfectly in principle to our predicament today. I agree with this statement--I think that should go without saying. But carefully digest the author's argument. It is quite simple. Let us all know what you think.

Here is my response. Following it is a quoted section of Dr. Peikoff's statement.

Is healthcare a "right"? Absolutely not. However, I have the right to pursue good health through my hard work and diligence. The idea that I have the right to healthcare at the involuntary expense of another is, at very best, asinine. I frankly agree with Dr. Peikoff that such an idea is morally wrong, and certainly disharmonious with the inspired principles of self-government on which our country was founded. As Dr. Peikoff argues, our rights represent the capacity to act, as long as our actions do not impinge on others' capacity to act.

"Now our only rights, the American viewpoint continues, are the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. That's all. According to the Founding Fathers, we are not born with a right to a trip to Disneyland, or a meal at Mcdonald's, or a kidney dialysis (nor with the 18th-century equivalent of these things). We have certain specific rights -- and only these.

"Why only these? Observe that all legitimate rights have one thing in common: they are rights to action, not to rewards from other people. The American rights impose no obligations on other people, merely the negative obligation to leave you alone. The system guarantees you the chance to work for what you want -- not to be given it without effort by somebody else.

"The right to life, e.g., does not mean that your neighbors have to feed and clothe you; it means you have the right to earn your food and clothes yourself, if necessary by a hard struggle, and that no one can forcibly stop your struggle for these things or steal them from you if and when you have achieved them. In other words: you have the right to act, and to keep the results of your actions, the products you make, to keep them or to trade them with others, if you wish. But you have no right to the actions or products of others, except on terms to which they voluntarily agree."

Living at Home

I thought this particularly fitting after our discussion last week, especially what Maegan shared about working for the state of California.

Can be found at http://comics.com/flight_deck/?Page=3.

World Family Policy Center

The World Family Policy Center examines United Nations documents that contain family policy implications. WFPC's motive is to facilitate pro-family debate and education among member countries of the United Nations. Navigate to the above link and you will find a list of salient family policy issues that have been and are currently being addressed by the WFPC.

One interesting article addressed the inadequacies of the charter of children's rights that was adopted during the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1989. The author of WFPC's article offers a revised charter which he entitles "What Children Really Need."

What do you all think of the charter? What do you think of the author's justification for the revision? Below, the ten articles of the charter are quoted.

Article I: Each Child Has the Right to a Mother
Article II: Each Child Has the Right to a Father
Article III: Each Child Has the Right to a Home Built on Marriage
Article IV: Each Child Has the Right to Siblings
Article V: Each Child Has the Right to Ancestors
Article VI: Each Child Has the Right to a Posterity
Article VII: Each Child Has the Right to Religious Faith
Article VIII: Each Child Has the Right to Live in a Healthy Community
Article IX: Each Child Shall Have a Right to Innocence
Article X: Each Child Has the Right to a Tradition

Foster Care in Utah

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/705364663/Utah-foster-care-placements-up-40-in-past-decade-legislative-audit-finds.html?pg=1

It seems that foster care in Utah is a whole lot different than foster care in other states. This article mentions, "Over the past decade, foster care placements in Utah have increased by 38 percent while the number of families that receive in-home supports that allow children to stay in their family homes has decreased by 40 percent".

I am not very familiar with the foster care policies of the state. Is there an abundance of a "zero tolerance policy" here than in other states? Or are there just more children in Utah than in other states and that's why the ratios are so different here?

Email Addresses

Please remember to email Dr. Piercy your email address (the one you want to be listed for the blogger site).