Anonymous said...
I've perused your site and seem to have a similar opinion of most topics...but, having grown up on the Texas coast, I supposed I have a different point of view about living in hurrican alley versus the earthquake zone. Both frighten me...have done for my 51 years. Having dealt with one devasting hurricane as a high schooler, I now know that I would high-tail it out of town if I lived anywhere near a prospective strike point for a hurricane. Not sure just how to do that for an earthquake. Would enjoy your comments about my blog, www.musingsfrommyopia.blogspot.com
----------------------------------------
Like your blog. Interesting comments about New Orleans, whether it never should have been built there in the first place. I've been to the Big Easy, and there's definitely something weird about walking uphill to see a riverbank.
Still, people and particularly Americans are a hard-headed and persistent bunch. I suspect the city and surrounding area will be rebuilt simply to prove the point to Mother Nature.
It seems so sudden. After a seemingly endless line of hurricanes earlier in the year, this one seemed a yawner until it hit land. I can't imagine being crushed by a wall of water.
I live in a former flood plain near the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers. I have flood insurance even though my lender didn't require it. I feel safe and secure behind the levees. My wife points to the CNN feed from the Gulf States and says, "aren't you glad we got the rider?"
Again, that's why I prefer earthquakes as my instrument of doom. They come, do their stuff and leave. You can also defend against them. When the '89 quake hit San Francisco, the only part of the city which failed was the neighborhood built on the mushy landfill from the 1915 World's Fair. The Oakland freeway fell for a similar reason. The big buildings stayed up, because they're designed to roll with the punches. I worked as a night watchman at a downtown construction dig during college and the architect showed me how he literally built the skyscraper to bounce and swap during a quake. You just can't do that with a hurricane. You're stuck.
Tuesday, August 30, 2005
Thought for the Day
With thought to California's pointless special election, called by the Governator for this November, where recent polling finds that both of his key ballot proposals are supported by just over thirty percent of the voters.
-------------------------------------
"In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants."
- Lewis Black
-------------------------------------
"In my lifetime, we've gone from Eisenhower to George W. Bush. We've gone from John F. Kennedy to Al Gore. If this is evolution, I believe that in twelve years, we'll be voting for plants."
- Lewis Black
The -True- Home of the Free
From a friend's story of his recent trip to British Columbia:
----------------------------------------------------------
Canadian law enforcement is going after an American member of the Marijuana Party, at the behest of the U.S. Gum'mint. More information here.
"Well, what the Canadians are pissed most about is that their cops are busting Canadians at the behest of the U.S. DEA ...".
"We were nervous, but dressed just like Vancouverites (imagine a giant Berkeley). If pressed, we said that no, we weren't Americans, we were from California."
----------------------------------------------------------
Canadian law enforcement is going after an American member of the Marijuana Party, at the behest of the U.S. Gum'mint. More information here.
"Well, what the Canadians are pissed most about is that their cops are busting Canadians at the behest of the U.S. DEA ...".
"We were nervous, but dressed just like Vancouverites (imagine a giant Berkeley). If pressed, we said that no, we weren't Americans, we were from California."
Monday, August 29, 2005
There's a Stiff Wind A' Blowin'
From today's New York Times:
"I'm afraid this is the one we've dreaded. I don't think the scenario could be any worse for us."ROBERT R. LATHAM JR., director of Emergency Management Operations for Mississippi.
-------------------------------
As a native Californian who travels to and talks to the rest of the country for business, I'm constantly asked, "How do you people live with those earthquakes?"
My answer, "How do you live with those hurricanes (and tornadoes)?"
Response, "But we can see them coming!"
Counter-response, "Doesn't seem to do much good."
In 47 years of living in California, most of it in the Bay Area, I've rolled through two major shakes and any number of minor ones. Ain't no big. You roll with, pardon the pun. Since you -don't- have warning, you don't worry about it.
I can't imagine anything scarier than seeing a big. black twister barrelling toward you, or the wind picking up more and more speed as the hurricane descends. That's a living horror movie, where the monster/crazed maniac slowly sneaks up on the helpless victim, who can do nothing but think about the dismemberment to come.
Hurricanes come early and late, and seemingly quite often. You have "hurricane" season. Ever hear of "earthquake" season? There ain't one. There ain't even an earthquake decade.
Who foots the bill to rebuild every mosquito infested "Red state" after its monthly attack by Hurricane Kickass? Why, the Blue staters, of course, through the generosity of our contributions to the federal government. Third World economies in Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina certainly can't do it. Only the hard-working stiffs of the coastal and Northeastern states have that collective capability.
Perhaps we Blue staters should consider withholding our portion of the federal budget for this. After all, why should we subsidize their poor choice of where to live?
"I'm afraid this is the one we've dreaded. I don't think the scenario could be any worse for us."ROBERT R. LATHAM JR., director of Emergency Management Operations for Mississippi.
-------------------------------
As a native Californian who travels to and talks to the rest of the country for business, I'm constantly asked, "How do you people live with those earthquakes?"
My answer, "How do you live with those hurricanes (and tornadoes)?"
Response, "But we can see them coming!"
Counter-response, "Doesn't seem to do much good."
In 47 years of living in California, most of it in the Bay Area, I've rolled through two major shakes and any number of minor ones. Ain't no big. You roll with, pardon the pun. Since you -don't- have warning, you don't worry about it.
I can't imagine anything scarier than seeing a big. black twister barrelling toward you, or the wind picking up more and more speed as the hurricane descends. That's a living horror movie, where the monster/crazed maniac slowly sneaks up on the helpless victim, who can do nothing but think about the dismemberment to come.
Hurricanes come early and late, and seemingly quite often. You have "hurricane" season. Ever hear of "earthquake" season? There ain't one. There ain't even an earthquake decade.
Who foots the bill to rebuild every mosquito infested "Red state" after its monthly attack by Hurricane Kickass? Why, the Blue staters, of course, through the generosity of our contributions to the federal government. Third World economies in Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina certainly can't do it. Only the hard-working stiffs of the coastal and Northeastern states have that collective capability.
Perhaps we Blue staters should consider withholding our portion of the federal budget for this. After all, why should we subsidize their poor choice of where to live?
Wednesday, August 24, 2005
Failure -is- an option
Do a "Google" Web search on the word " Failure."
--------------------------
The second choice is perhaps the most misunderstood recent resident of the Big House. The third one is just there for political "cover thine ass" balance.
--------------------------
The second choice is perhaps the most misunderstood recent resident of the Big House. The third one is just there for political "cover thine ass" balance.
Sunday, August 21, 2005
Roe vs. Wade meets Welfare Reform
One of the fun things about public policy are the unintended consequences we bring on ourselves.
Take abortion. For years, educated, professional women were the backbone of the pro-choice movement because they had the most to lose due to an unplanned pregnancy. When I was in college I knew several women who had terminated pregnancies (none due to me) because they had classes to attend, internships to accept, a future to build for. The female cadres of Operation Rescue yahoos were generally uneducated and less to lose through an unwanted pregnancy.
That's changed.
According to a recent report, the number of abortions performed has diminished considerably. That's good when it means that more men and women are using preventative measures, bad when it means there are no service providers about. In general, though, both sides agree that in a perfect world, there would be no abortions. Of course, that can't happen, so we need reproductive choice.
What's interesting is that even though the numbers have gone down, who is getting abortions has changed. With the passage of welfare reform and back-to-work and all for welfare mothers, more working class and less educated women are terminating unwanted pregnancies. For the same reasons my college acquaintances did. An unwanted pregnancy throws a serious curve into life plans. If the government wants 'em working, they'll work, by God. And no unwanted pregnancy will stop them.
So we have to thank the Republicans who worked with President Clinton to bring more women into the workforce, off welfare. As a result, we have even fewer unwanted children, too.
Take abortion. For years, educated, professional women were the backbone of the pro-choice movement because they had the most to lose due to an unplanned pregnancy. When I was in college I knew several women who had terminated pregnancies (none due to me) because they had classes to attend, internships to accept, a future to build for. The female cadres of Operation Rescue yahoos were generally uneducated and less to lose through an unwanted pregnancy.
That's changed.
According to a recent report, the number of abortions performed has diminished considerably. That's good when it means that more men and women are using preventative measures, bad when it means there are no service providers about. In general, though, both sides agree that in a perfect world, there would be no abortions. Of course, that can't happen, so we need reproductive choice.
What's interesting is that even though the numbers have gone down, who is getting abortions has changed. With the passage of welfare reform and back-to-work and all for welfare mothers, more working class and less educated women are terminating unwanted pregnancies. For the same reasons my college acquaintances did. An unwanted pregnancy throws a serious curve into life plans. If the government wants 'em working, they'll work, by God. And no unwanted pregnancy will stop them.
So we have to thank the Republicans who worked with President Clinton to bring more women into the workforce, off welfare. As a result, we have even fewer unwanted children, too.
Saturday, August 20, 2005
Time vs. Newsweek on Darwin
Time magazine recently featured the evolution wars. At the same time, Newsweek highlighted new research into infants' minds. It's too bad no one wrote about the connection between the two.
People are social creatures. We can't help it. It's why we survived millions of years being chased by beats on the savanna, and how we managed to have mastodon burgers for dinner. One guy couldn't fight off a sabertooth tiger or bring down a hairy elephant, but a bunch could. And did. And those who did lived to pass on the tendency to their survivors.
So the first thing any babe needs to do to survive is locate and connect with their caregivers. Those who do this well survive. Those who don't, don't. So the trait survives in the species. Evolution at work.
This is really obvious when you see infants at work. My son didn't mind being held by others as a baby. As long as I or his momma or aunt were nearby. He'd look up at the stranger holding him, then look over to make sure a familiar face was nearby, and he was fine. Just insuring his defense, if needed. Again, evolution at work. Those babes who didn't keep the first line of defense on hand didn't survive, and didn't pass it on.
After a time, my son started to squirm and cry in the stranger's arms. "He misses his dad", they'd say. "No, he's sleepy", I said. "Just watch." Sure, within minutes of coming back to me, he was sound asleep. "How'd you know that?", they'd ask. "Simple. Sleeping is when a child is most vulnerable. He might sit in a stranger's arms and be fine, but he'd be durned if he was dozing off with someone who might not rise to the occasion if a saber-toothed tiger threatens him. He'd cry if he woke up from a nap and didn't see anyone. All I had to do to calm him would call from the next room, to let him know his parents were near. He'd stop and start cooing. Didn't need to see us, just know that we were near in case the hyenas came along. Again ...
This isn't to say that we're just critters, or as some have said, "monkeys with car key." Alone of all the beasts on the Earth, people can wonder. We can look up at the sky and wonder where all the stars come from and what they do up there. Without scientific knowledge, people created astrology, because we knew there had to be a reason for all that up there.
And the universe, through whatever agency, had to create people. After all, why have such endless splendor if there were no one around to wonder about it all? It would be highly illogical, to quote a well-known Vulcan, for it be otherwise.
People are social creatures. We can't help it. It's why we survived millions of years being chased by beats on the savanna, and how we managed to have mastodon burgers for dinner. One guy couldn't fight off a sabertooth tiger or bring down a hairy elephant, but a bunch could. And did. And those who did lived to pass on the tendency to their survivors.
So the first thing any babe needs to do to survive is locate and connect with their caregivers. Those who do this well survive. Those who don't, don't. So the trait survives in the species. Evolution at work.
This is really obvious when you see infants at work. My son didn't mind being held by others as a baby. As long as I or his momma or aunt were nearby. He'd look up at the stranger holding him, then look over to make sure a familiar face was nearby, and he was fine. Just insuring his defense, if needed. Again, evolution at work. Those babes who didn't keep the first line of defense on hand didn't survive, and didn't pass it on.
After a time, my son started to squirm and cry in the stranger's arms. "He misses his dad", they'd say. "No, he's sleepy", I said. "Just watch." Sure, within minutes of coming back to me, he was sound asleep. "How'd you know that?", they'd ask. "Simple. Sleeping is when a child is most vulnerable. He might sit in a stranger's arms and be fine, but he'd be durned if he was dozing off with someone who might not rise to the occasion if a saber-toothed tiger threatens him. He'd cry if he woke up from a nap and didn't see anyone. All I had to do to calm him would call from the next room, to let him know his parents were near. He'd stop and start cooing. Didn't need to see us, just know that we were near in case the hyenas came along. Again ...
This isn't to say that we're just critters, or as some have said, "monkeys with car key." Alone of all the beasts on the Earth, people can wonder. We can look up at the sky and wonder where all the stars come from and what they do up there. Without scientific knowledge, people created astrology, because we knew there had to be a reason for all that up there.
And the universe, through whatever agency, had to create people. After all, why have such endless splendor if there were no one around to wonder about it all? It would be highly illogical, to quote a well-known Vulcan, for it be otherwise.
Wednesday, August 17, 2005
Swimming with Sharks
The Tennessean reports that Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss., “accuses Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of betraying him during a GOP revolt in a new, tell-all biography that expresses little remorse for the racially tinged remarks that led to Lott’s loss of power and Frist’s ascension.
In ‘Herding Cats: A Life in Politics,’ available in bookstores Aug. 23,” Lott “blames the media and a handful of his GOP colleagues for the loss of his Senate leadership job in December 2002.” Lott writes that ‘“I consider Frist’s power grab a personal betrayal,’” because ‘“When he entered the Senate in 1995, I had taken him under my wing. ... He was my protege and I helped him get plum assignments and committee positions.’”
--------------------------------------------
My momma would say:
"You swim with sharks, you get bitten."
"You're known by the company you keep."
But perhaps Honest Abe (the last honest Republican) said it best:
"Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing."
In ‘Herding Cats: A Life in Politics,’ available in bookstores Aug. 23,” Lott “blames the media and a handful of his GOP colleagues for the loss of his Senate leadership job in December 2002.” Lott writes that ‘“I consider Frist’s power grab a personal betrayal,’” because ‘“When he entered the Senate in 1995, I had taken him under my wing. ... He was my protege and I helped him get plum assignments and committee positions.’”
--------------------------------------------
My momma would say:
"You swim with sharks, you get bitten."
"You're known by the company you keep."
But perhaps Honest Abe (the last honest Republican) said it best:
"Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing."
Thursday, August 04, 2005
G.O.P. Spells "Pork"
From the Washington Post:
"If you look at fiscal conservatism these days, it's in a sorry state," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of only eight House members to vote against the $286.5 billion transportation bill that was passed the day before the recess. "Republicans don't even pretend anymore."
Last week, Congress approved transportation and energy bills that burst through the president's cost limits. Annual spending bills are inching above caps set by Congress itself in its budget plan for 2006. And a massive water projects bill passed by the House last month authorizes spending that would exceed current levels by 173 percent.
Lawmakers have seen little to fear from a political backlash, some acknowledge, and Bush has yet to wield his veto pen. In fact, the White House has proved itself largely unable to overcome the institutional forces that have long driven lawmakers to ply their parochial interests with cash.
Indeed, Congress has exceeded the allocations or assumptions in its budget resolution four times -- and the year's legislative work is far from complete. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, those budget violations have raised spending through 2010 by roughly $2.2 billion above Congress's limits and tacked $115 billion onto the federal budget deficit through the end of decade, including $33 billion in 2006 alone.
When lawmakers return in the fall, they are almost certain to vote for more tax cuts. They also will vote on a huge new defense spending bill. But proposals for cutting entitlement programs including Medicaid have yet to pick up much support.
This week, House GOP leaders sent their legislators 52 pages of talking points, some addressing fiscal discipline, others touting the spending. The final page lays out 12 "Ideas for August Recess Events," none of which trumpets small government.
"You have to be courageous to not spend money," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), "and we don't have many people who have that courage."
------------------------------------------------
"Do as I do, not as I say", the wise men advise. Now, when the Democrats take back Congress, we won't have to listen to all that "tax and spend" nonsense. Proof's in the pudding that, like many revolutionaries, the problem the GOP wasn't a matter of principle, it just a matter of power. Spending like a German tourist in Bangkok is just fine when you're the one doing it.
Now that they have the keys to the national safe, well, they're true to form. It's just one corporate welfare bill after another. While "welfare momma" is told to get her lazy butt down to Wal-Mart or starve, Halliburton gets license to spend whatever and whenever in Iraq. And if we don't pay up, well, the good people of Iraq will have to, according to Donald Rumsfeld, although they never had any say in turning over their hard-earneds to Cheney's boys in the first place. Haven't you Americans ever heard of "No taxation without representation?" they must wonder.
Then there's the energy bill, which gives fat energy companies gazillions in tax breaks because the free market rise in energy prices just ain't good enough. Since that money that's not going into the federal treasury will have to be made up by borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, it's a backdoor subsidy without the efficiency of just handing them the money directly.
Then there's the prescription discount for seniors. Ridiculously pricey because the government can't haggle for bulk rates under the law. You know, like a business would. (Whatever happened to "running government like a business?")
The economic cost of this will be felt for years to come. LBJ tried to run a cosmetics-and-cannon fiscal policy during the Vietnam year and we paid for it with 1970's "stagflation." Bush, Jr.'s borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, in good part on an equally pointless war, certainly risks the same. If we're "at war", where's the call for sacrifice? Americans willingly paid an extra charge on plane tickets for airport and related security. Where are the Iraq war bonds? Where's the call to duty on foreign shores and deserts?
Nowhere. The result is spend on useless armaments for a war with no reasonable goal and domestic transfers like energy and prescription drugs which could be left to the market or direct government subsidy. It's nothing for nothing, and we're all going to pay for it.
I believe most Americans want their government to take in and spend the way they do, take in what goes out, with credit used for long term and/or extraordinary expenses. The Dems need to remind folks that "tax and spend" is a problem when spend exceeds tax for no reason, and when spend is spent on stupid stuff, like corporate giveaways instead of Humvee armor.
Who would have thought that one of George Bush, Jr.'s legacies would be to turn the Democratic Party into the land of fiscal responsibility? Perhaps we should erect an inexpensive statue in his honor outside DNC HQ in 2009. It is, indeed, a pretty fundamental realignment and he should be. Something made of tin, several statues, with George taking a hammer to a child's piggy bank while a much bigger pig labeled "Greed, Inc." stands by waiting for the result, ought to do nicely.
"If you look at fiscal conservatism these days, it's in a sorry state," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), one of only eight House members to vote against the $286.5 billion transportation bill that was passed the day before the recess. "Republicans don't even pretend anymore."
Last week, Congress approved transportation and energy bills that burst through the president's cost limits. Annual spending bills are inching above caps set by Congress itself in its budget plan for 2006. And a massive water projects bill passed by the House last month authorizes spending that would exceed current levels by 173 percent.
Lawmakers have seen little to fear from a political backlash, some acknowledge, and Bush has yet to wield his veto pen. In fact, the White House has proved itself largely unable to overcome the institutional forces that have long driven lawmakers to ply their parochial interests with cash.
Indeed, Congress has exceeded the allocations or assumptions in its budget resolution four times -- and the year's legislative work is far from complete. According to the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, those budget violations have raised spending through 2010 by roughly $2.2 billion above Congress's limits and tacked $115 billion onto the federal budget deficit through the end of decade, including $33 billion in 2006 alone.
When lawmakers return in the fall, they are almost certain to vote for more tax cuts. They also will vote on a huge new defense spending bill. But proposals for cutting entitlement programs including Medicaid have yet to pick up much support.
This week, House GOP leaders sent their legislators 52 pages of talking points, some addressing fiscal discipline, others touting the spending. The final page lays out 12 "Ideas for August Recess Events," none of which trumpets small government.
"You have to be courageous to not spend money," said Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), "and we don't have many people who have that courage."
------------------------------------------------
"Do as I do, not as I say", the wise men advise. Now, when the Democrats take back Congress, we won't have to listen to all that "tax and spend" nonsense. Proof's in the pudding that, like many revolutionaries, the problem the GOP wasn't a matter of principle, it just a matter of power. Spending like a German tourist in Bangkok is just fine when you're the one doing it.
Now that they have the keys to the national safe, well, they're true to form. It's just one corporate welfare bill after another. While "welfare momma" is told to get her lazy butt down to Wal-Mart or starve, Halliburton gets license to spend whatever and whenever in Iraq. And if we don't pay up, well, the good people of Iraq will have to, according to Donald Rumsfeld, although they never had any say in turning over their hard-earneds to Cheney's boys in the first place. Haven't you Americans ever heard of "No taxation without representation?" they must wonder.
Then there's the energy bill, which gives fat energy companies gazillions in tax breaks because the free market rise in energy prices just ain't good enough. Since that money that's not going into the federal treasury will have to be made up by borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, it's a backdoor subsidy without the efficiency of just handing them the money directly.
Then there's the prescription discount for seniors. Ridiculously pricey because the government can't haggle for bulk rates under the law. You know, like a business would. (Whatever happened to "running government like a business?")
The economic cost of this will be felt for years to come. LBJ tried to run a cosmetics-and-cannon fiscal policy during the Vietnam year and we paid for it with 1970's "stagflation." Bush, Jr.'s borrowing and borrowing and borrowing, in good part on an equally pointless war, certainly risks the same. If we're "at war", where's the call for sacrifice? Americans willingly paid an extra charge on plane tickets for airport and related security. Where are the Iraq war bonds? Where's the call to duty on foreign shores and deserts?
Nowhere. The result is spend on useless armaments for a war with no reasonable goal and domestic transfers like energy and prescription drugs which could be left to the market or direct government subsidy. It's nothing for nothing, and we're all going to pay for it.
I believe most Americans want their government to take in and spend the way they do, take in what goes out, with credit used for long term and/or extraordinary expenses. The Dems need to remind folks that "tax and spend" is a problem when spend exceeds tax for no reason, and when spend is spent on stupid stuff, like corporate giveaways instead of Humvee armor.
Who would have thought that one of George Bush, Jr.'s legacies would be to turn the Democratic Party into the land of fiscal responsibility? Perhaps we should erect an inexpensive statue in his honor outside DNC HQ in 2009. It is, indeed, a pretty fundamental realignment and he should be. Something made of tin, several statues, with George taking a hammer to a child's piggy bank while a much bigger pig labeled "Greed, Inc." stands by waiting for the result, ought to do nicely.
Preschool Enters the 21st Century ... finally
Sacramento's known for its toasty summers, but the afternoon was quite pleasant in the (dry) high '80s when I picked up Leroy from his afternoon daycare. I chatted with his teachers and some of his friends, and we left for home.
Leroy's been attending his particular daycare for two years now. He started when he began kindergarten. The daycare program is on-site, which meant that he simply had to go from class across a short yard to aftercare. As he was still on the school grounds, he could eat in the school cafeteria.
The program works under contract with the school district. This means it's subsidized in part. The rates are a hundred dollars a month less than local private care. Best of all, the staff gets paid a decent wage, with benefits. As a result, they stay. His private daycare, before he started school, attracted decent enough staff but many of them were in life transition. The young ones were working before or right after college. The older ones were often just working to get out of the house. There was easily about a fifty percent turnover each year, and the owner bemoaned how hard it was to get folks to stay for longer than two years.
There's a long argument wracking Congress over how to re-authorize the welfare bill. Part of it deals with how to fund daycare for workers going back in to the workforce.
The rightwingers want to limit it. The sensible people realize that a worker who can't pay for daycare won't be a worker much longer. The rightwingers don't like the idea of mommy not playing "Donna Reed" like the "good old days." The sensible people realize that that was then, this is now, the time of the two-income couple and single moms.
So we need universal daycare. The arguments against it are pretty much the ones heard 150 years ago when universal public education was first proposed. "Why is some other kid -my- responsibility?" Because when every child is educated, and comes into school well-attended and prepared, we all do better.
It's really just an extension of the universal public education, given what we demand out of kids today.
Kindergarten was developed on the idea of giving kids some prep on the basics of sitting in class. That's been done away with. Today's kindergarteners get homework. It's really not kindergarten anymore, it's pre-first grade. Preschool/childcare has become what kindergarten used to be. We need to finally accept that.
Like most good progressive ideas, this is built on enlightened self-interest.
Like public education, it will come. And it will come because business will insist on it. Just as the economic interests understood the need for an educated workforce 150 years ago, so they'll come to see the value of kids coming into school well-prepared. They'll also see the value of workers who aren't juggling home and family care as much. I know from my own experience and that of my co-workers with kids, you're a lot more focused when you know your young 'un is well-cared for while you're at the office. Many business benefit packages already offer childcare reimbursement as part of pre-tax benefits.
They'll come 'round. You can't outsource everything. Some economics are predicting another coming labor shortage, which puts employees back in the driver's seat, as it did with health care during the Clinton Prosperity of the '90s. Little Jane and Johnnie will like that.
For an interesting brief on the need for universal pre-school:
http://readysetgrowctkids.org/press_article_35.html
Leroy's been attending his particular daycare for two years now. He started when he began kindergarten. The daycare program is on-site, which meant that he simply had to go from class across a short yard to aftercare. As he was still on the school grounds, he could eat in the school cafeteria.
The program works under contract with the school district. This means it's subsidized in part. The rates are a hundred dollars a month less than local private care. Best of all, the staff gets paid a decent wage, with benefits. As a result, they stay. His private daycare, before he started school, attracted decent enough staff but many of them were in life transition. The young ones were working before or right after college. The older ones were often just working to get out of the house. There was easily about a fifty percent turnover each year, and the owner bemoaned how hard it was to get folks to stay for longer than two years.
There's a long argument wracking Congress over how to re-authorize the welfare bill. Part of it deals with how to fund daycare for workers going back in to the workforce.
The rightwingers want to limit it. The sensible people realize that a worker who can't pay for daycare won't be a worker much longer. The rightwingers don't like the idea of mommy not playing "Donna Reed" like the "good old days." The sensible people realize that that was then, this is now, the time of the two-income couple and single moms.
So we need universal daycare. The arguments against it are pretty much the ones heard 150 years ago when universal public education was first proposed. "Why is some other kid -my- responsibility?" Because when every child is educated, and comes into school well-attended and prepared, we all do better.
It's really just an extension of the universal public education, given what we demand out of kids today.
Kindergarten was developed on the idea of giving kids some prep on the basics of sitting in class. That's been done away with. Today's kindergarteners get homework. It's really not kindergarten anymore, it's pre-first grade. Preschool/childcare has become what kindergarten used to be. We need to finally accept that.
Like most good progressive ideas, this is built on enlightened self-interest.
Like public education, it will come. And it will come because business will insist on it. Just as the economic interests understood the need for an educated workforce 150 years ago, so they'll come to see the value of kids coming into school well-prepared. They'll also see the value of workers who aren't juggling home and family care as much. I know from my own experience and that of my co-workers with kids, you're a lot more focused when you know your young 'un is well-cared for while you're at the office. Many business benefit packages already offer childcare reimbursement as part of pre-tax benefits.
They'll come 'round. You can't outsource everything. Some economics are predicting another coming labor shortage, which puts employees back in the driver's seat, as it did with health care during the Clinton Prosperity of the '90s. Little Jane and Johnnie will like that.
For an interesting brief on the need for universal pre-school:
http://readysetgrowctkids.org/press_article_35.html
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Family Values
July 29, 2005
French Family Values
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Americans tend to believe that we do everything better than anyone else. That belief makes it hard for us to learn from others. For example, I've found that many people refuse to believe that Europe has anything to teach us about health care policy. After all, they say, how can Europeans be good at health care when their economies are such failures?
Now, there's no reason a country can't have both an excellent health care system and a troubled economy (or vice versa). But are European economies really doing that badly?
The answer is no. Americans are doing a lot of strutting these days, but a head-to-head comparison between the economies of the United States and Europe - France, in particular - shows that the big difference is in priorities, not performance. We're talking about two highly productive societies that have made a different tradeoff between work and family time. And there's a lot to be said for the French choice.
First things first: given all the bad-mouthing the French receive, you may be surprised that I describe their society as "productive." Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, productivity in France - G.D.P. per hour worked - is actually a bit higher than in the United States.
It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. But that's because French workers spend more time with their families.
---------------------------------------------
Nothing highlights social conservatives' hypocrisy than the fact that they beat the drum for "family values" yet refuse to support or outright oppose policies which actually support families.
The U.S. has by far the least modern approach to reconciling work and family life. We allow little maternity leave or time for family. Want to have a baby? Sure, just be back at the desk in a couple of months, eh? Got to take time for a sick spouse or family member? Fine, but get back soon or your job belongs to someone else. We're not here to help you work through your life, kid. In other words, choose between taking care of your family's financial health or physical and emotional health. You can't do both. So many people don't. And they end up criticized for it.
Business screams that it's not fair for them to foot the bill. Yet Europe shows that when the cost is mandated across the field, it levels it. The result is a happier and healthier workforce, and more cohesive families. Which is what the social conservatives want, isn't it?
This contradiction points out just how far the social conservatives are well-used by corporate interests. In return for gobs of cash to push antediluvian social policies, they get thousands of earnest ground pounders who buy the "anti-everything" (except expensive tax breaks) line. It's a happy marriage, pun intended, which undermines adopting and implementing true pro-family policies.
It's so sad. I wonder what Jesus would say about expanded family leave? He'd probably think it's a good idea.
French Family Values
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Americans tend to believe that we do everything better than anyone else. That belief makes it hard for us to learn from others. For example, I've found that many people refuse to believe that Europe has anything to teach us about health care policy. After all, they say, how can Europeans be good at health care when their economies are such failures?
Now, there's no reason a country can't have both an excellent health care system and a troubled economy (or vice versa). But are European economies really doing that badly?
The answer is no. Americans are doing a lot of strutting these days, but a head-to-head comparison between the economies of the United States and Europe - France, in particular - shows that the big difference is in priorities, not performance. We're talking about two highly productive societies that have made a different tradeoff between work and family time. And there's a lot to be said for the French choice.
First things first: given all the bad-mouthing the French receive, you may be surprised that I describe their society as "productive." Yet according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, productivity in France - G.D.P. per hour worked - is actually a bit higher than in the United States.
It's true that France's G.D.P. per person is well below that of the United States. But that's because French workers spend more time with their families.
---------------------------------------------
Nothing highlights social conservatives' hypocrisy than the fact that they beat the drum for "family values" yet refuse to support or outright oppose policies which actually support families.
The U.S. has by far the least modern approach to reconciling work and family life. We allow little maternity leave or time for family. Want to have a baby? Sure, just be back at the desk in a couple of months, eh? Got to take time for a sick spouse or family member? Fine, but get back soon or your job belongs to someone else. We're not here to help you work through your life, kid. In other words, choose between taking care of your family's financial health or physical and emotional health. You can't do both. So many people don't. And they end up criticized for it.
Business screams that it's not fair for them to foot the bill. Yet Europe shows that when the cost is mandated across the field, it levels it. The result is a happier and healthier workforce, and more cohesive families. Which is what the social conservatives want, isn't it?
This contradiction points out just how far the social conservatives are well-used by corporate interests. In return for gobs of cash to push antediluvian social policies, they get thousands of earnest ground pounders who buy the "anti-everything" (except expensive tax breaks) line. It's a happy marriage, pun intended, which undermines adopting and implementing true pro-family policies.
It's so sad. I wonder what Jesus would say about expanded family leave? He'd probably think it's a good idea.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
