In the best of times and under the most progressive administrations, most families with children will tell you that --as a culture -- we are not particularly family-friendly.   The twin engines of capitalism and consumerism that drive our society are neither fueled nor ameliorated by such non-material intangibles as close and healthy families, strong marriages, or emotionally well-adjusted children.   These are considered private matters and our economic and political institutions treat them as irrelevant to the overall health and prosperity of our nation. 

I could not disagree more.

Dr. Jack P. Shonkoff, Dean of the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University, in a July 24th op-ed in the Boston Globe writes:

New research findings raise concerns about biological markers of elevated stress and behavioral measures of increased aggression in young children who spend long hours in child care. Meanwhile, in Congress, the reauthorization of the federal welfare law is moving forward with a significant number of lawmakers pushing for increased work requirements for mothers of very young children. What is wrong with this picture?

[...]

Common sense supports the conclusions of the scientists. How young children learn to solve problems, deal with conflict, control their temper, read a book, and tell the difference between right and wrong are all influenced by what they are taught and how they are treated. And no influence is more important than that of a parent.

Welfare reform has taken a different route. It tells us that the best way to move families toward economic independence is through mandated maternal employment and time limits on public assistance. It also tells us that the care and education of young children living in poverty whose mothers are forced to work can be provided by people with limited skills who are willing to work for low or no pay.

Under the existing federal welfare law, mothers are required to work 30 hours per week, but states are permitted to allow those with children under age 6 to work only 20 hours weekly and to exempt completely those with children less than 1 year old. The bill in the House of Representatives would change all this. It could require all mothers who are on welfare - even those with young babies - to work 40 hours per week. The Senate is debating its version of the reauthorization this week.

About 20 percent of families on welfare have a child under age 2. More than one in eight have a child less than one year of age, yet fewer than half of the states exempt their parents from work requirements. As of June 2001, 14 states mandated employment for mothers of children beginning as early as age 3 months, and four states allowed work requirements for mothers of newborns on a case-by-case basis.

Mandates clearly work if the objective is moving mothers from welfare to work. However, at some point the question must be asked: What about the babies?

If the ultimate goal of welfare reform is to break the cycle of intergenerational poverty, it must be guided by two complementary strategies. The first must focus on moving adults from chronic unemployment to stable work that generates a livable wage. This requires education, skills, and job opportunities.

The second strategy must focus on promoting the healthy development of young children. This requires good parenting, which can be taught, and reliable and competent care from other adults when parents are at work, which can be assured through a child care and early education system that has strong quality standards.

A nation that does not promote the parenting skills of its young families, particularly in the face of economic hardship and limited education, undermines its own future.

A welfare system that forces mothers of babies to work and does not provide high-quality child care for their children (including staff who are qualified to manage challenging behaviors) raises concerns about both its moral compass and its understanding of the concept of human capital development.

I am very concerned that when it comes to reauthorizing the welfare program, the current Congress will take the same short-sighted view of the needs of our countries most vulnerable families as they appear to be taking in significantly underfunding the Head Start program.

11:11:03 PM    

A disclaimer:

As I re-read things I have written here, I cringe at the amount of typos, spelling and grammatical errors I find.  While I try to correct the most egregious ones, the fact remains that as I am doing this reading and writing in snatched moments [often as TLG stands next to me narrating the exploits of Sera his triceratop as he dangles her off the edge of the computer table, with only Cranky the Crane's little magnet preventing her from plunging to the floor].  I barely have time enough to ensure that the majority of my sentences have subjects and predicates, let alone that the case matches and the things are appropriately capitalized.  So, while I have always prided myself on my very high standards of excellence and attention to detail, I find, sadly, I am unable to apply them here. 

So, for the record  [and to protect my own sense of vanity on the issue] I want to say that this blog and the reflections and essays posted here should be seen as rough drafts and works-in-progress.  Most won't meet my exacting standards for written communication.  But in any case they will reflect my ideas and interests of the moment.

Thank you for your attention.

And now I am off to do laundry, help TBG with dinner, and maybe even clear a path through the cars, donosaurs dinosaurs, and puzzle pieces strewn across the living room floor.

5:46:20 PM    

From JMM's Talking Points' Memo :

Back during Steve Hadley's ritual sorta-kinda defenestration last week, White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett, who was there to oversee the event, piped in to dispute one of the alleged instances in which the CIA tried to warn the White House off the Niger claims.

He said ...

There is a conspiracy theory out there that there was some protracted negotiation, or that this was information that was in a clandestine way being forced into the speech by various factions of the administration. It's simply nonsense.

Now, as I've said before a number of times, calling something a 'conspiracy theory' has become what amounts to the lazy man's way of discrediting an argument.

[...]

Bartlett was talking about the conversation between CIA officer Alan Foley and NSC staffer Bob Joseph about the uranium line in the State of the Union speech. Foley says the two haggled about the line after he raised the Agency's concerns with Joseph. (Bear in mind too that he apparently also said this before a congressional committee; thus, presumably, under oath.) Joseph, a lot less convincingly, says he has no recollection of Foley raising these concerns.

In any case, according to Bartlett, believing Foley rather than Joseph amounts to a buying into a 'conspiracy theory.'

Hey, weren't we going to get lunch?

No.

Yeah, remember, I called. We were going to meet at noon at ...

Stop with your conspiracy theories!

5:12:05 PM    

Anyone who has read any of my political posts in the last two weeks is clear where I stand on the current admin.  I believe they are guilty of a near-criminal abuse of power.  Their behaviour and tactics are eminently more suited to a totalitarian or fascist regime than the president of democratic republic.  To date I have been frustrated by the commentary and analysis I have been reading about this.  Much of it approaches a critical analysis of the Bush-regime from a political and pragmatic point of view.  No one who knows me off-line will be surprised to know that what inflames me are the larger ethical issues. 

Finally, however, I am finding folks discussing the ethical implications of the Bush-regimes actions.  Here are some places people are writing about it with some insight (and humor):

Asymptote; Crooked Timber; Hellblazer

I will add more as I continue following links-to-links and find them.

4:57:44 PM    

This ad appears in today's New York Times, Houston Chronicle and St. Louis Post-Dispatch [thanks to billmon for the head's up].  I think it is fanstastic that this issue is being taken up by folks who can afford to finance this kind of publicity.  I just wish the ad had taken a different tactic.  In my opinion, it makes the weakest and most easily dismissed charges against the administration:

(1) That the by-now-infamous "16 words" should not have been included in the speech

Well, the administration has ostensibly taken responsibility for this "mistake" with Tenet and Hadley's mea culpa.  So this is probably one of the weakest charges to reiterate at this point.  From a marketing point of view, reiterating this claim--which has received plenty of news play-- doesn't buy you whole lot.  I would imagine anyone who is going to be outraged at this already is; and anyone that has already decided to give the admin a pass on this will not be persuaded to change their mind on the basis of this ad.

(2) That no WMD have been found and that there was no compelling evidence to suggest that they still existed.

To make this point, the ad contrasts various Bush-regime claims with a January 2003 quote by the Director of the Atomic Energy Agency asserting, "...we have found to date no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program since the elimination of the program in the 1990's." 

The weakness of this attack on the admin is clear.  One, just because no compelling evidence of WMD have yet been found does not prove that they are not there.  So, the fact that the Bush-regime repeatedly asserted their existence has not yet been [and probably can never be] proven as a lie. Two, what Bush-regime apologist is going to take seriously an assertion by the Atomic Energy Agency?  Once again, the ad is not likely to persuade anyone who isn't already critical and suspicious of the admin at this point.

(3) The ad calls the President on his absolutely absurd statement: "And we gave him a chance
to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power...” 

Now of course this statement is blatantly false.  It is so blatantly, obviously, ridiculously, transparently false then I cannot even fathom it as a lie.  Lying is predicated on trying to fool someone.  Bush could not have been trying to fool anyone here.  The horrifying thing about this statement is it reveals the extent to which the President is either severely self-deluded or misinformed.  In either case it calls seriously into question the appropriateness of his leadership.

So the ad basically argues: We want the truth about why we went to war because: some of the accusations President Bush made against Iraq were inaccurate and some may be inaccurate.

Well, this arguement implies that the Bush-regime may be incompetent -- to be sure -- but it doesn't level the most important and damaging charges against them.   To wit:

(1) that the administration purposefully twisted or spun the facts in order to manipulate this nation into a preemptive war for reasons which -- had they been shared with the US Congress and citizenry -- would have most likely been rejected by both. 

(2) that the administration purposefully overstated the immediacy of the threat that Iraq posed in order to further the Bush-regime's own objectives which, again, had they been shared with the US Congress and citizenry -- would have most likely been rejected by both. 

(3) that both the above, if true, are a serious unconstitutional abuse of power.

So, despite the fact that I am heartened by its existence, I am dissapointed at the ad's substance.  I do not think it will change anyone's mind about anything.

4:17:53 PM