President Obama at Newtown vigil: "We can't tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change."

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This was exactly what was needed, a great leader providing comfort and projecting determination at a time of crisis:


You can read the transcript here. Here are the parts that I found most moving, and that, reading them again now, bring me again to tears:

Read more »

It all comes down to this, America: Don't be cruel.

Guest post by Ramona

Ed. note: I'd like to welcome a new guest blogger to The Reaction -- Ramona of Ramona's Voices, an excellent blog that I recommend highly. I first came across Ramona while I was doing the blog round-up at Crooks and Liars a while back and since then I've become a big fan. There's just something about her. She's serious but without pretension, providing perceptive commentary with both depth and levity. In addition to the post below, check out recent posts on Erin Burnett and Occupy Wall Street and on the religious test in American politics, as well as her regular "Friday Follies" feature, a round-up of the week that was. Go read her blog and look forward to more guest posts from Ramona down the road. But let's start with this one. It is, if I may say so, outstanding. -- MJWS

**********

Ramona is a freelance writer based in Michigan's Upper Peninsula. Her blog, "Ramona's Voices," is liberal-leaning, with such a small amount of navel-gazing you'll hardly even notice. She is also on the masthead at dagblog, a gathering place for dissidents and reprobates and other friendly people.

Sabrina Tavernise, The New York Times, September 14, 2011:

WASHINGTON -- Another 2.6 million people slipped into poverty in the United States last year, the Census Bureau reported Tuesday, and the number of Americans living below the official poverty line, 46.2 million people, was the highest number in the 52 years the bureau has been publishing figures on it.

And in new signs of distress among the middle class, median household incomes fell last year to levels last seen in 1997.

Economists pointed to a telling statistic: It was the first time since the Great Depression that median household income, adjusted for inflation, had not risen over such a long period, said Lawrence Katz, an economics professor at Harvard.

''This is truly a lost decade,'' Mr. Katz said. ''We think of America as a place where every generation is doing better, but we're looking at a period when the median family is in worse shape than it was in the late 1990s.''

The bureau's findings were worse than many economists expected, and brought into sharp relief the toll the past decade -- including the painful declines of the financial crisis and recession -- had taken on Americans at the middle and lower parts of the income ladder. It is also fresh evidence that the disappointing economic recovery has done nothing for the country's poorest citizens.

The report said the percentage of Americans living below the poverty line last year, 15.1 percent, was the highest level since 1993. (The poverty line in 2010 for a family of four was $22,314.)

When all is said and done, if we can ever get beyond the grand-standing, the bloviating, the harumphing, and the chest-pumping, the awful truth is that millions and millions of American citizens are now among the chronically hurt because of the current no-fault-of-their-own economic crisis, exacerbated by the current we'll blame them anyway political climate.

Families are hurting. Our elders are hurting. Children are hurting. Future generations will be hurting. We've let yesterday slip by and tomorrow shows no great promise. The time to do something is now.

Everybody knows that something must be done, but what keeps the wheels from turning, from moving us forward, is an ongoing, time-wasting argument about how best to appear to be saving the country while saving face, saving precious personal skins, saving the privileged elite.

There is no point wasting time talking about past history -- a couple of centuries worth of the same mistakes, the same indulgences at the top, the same misery at the bottom -- when nobody is in the mood to learn from it.

We have now become one of those countries known throughout the world for deliberate cruelty to its own citizens -- the kind of despised country whose citizens we ourselves would have taken pity on not so long ago.

It's cruel to pretend that, while it may be true that unprecedented numbers of America's children have experienced hunger or homelessness, or a desperate, unrequited need for health care, no single sweet child of ours is affected. We're masters at shutting our eyes to real, live, scared, and suffering kids.

It's cruel to play games with needed unemployment benefits by pretending they're one more example of undeserved governmental handouts to the lazy or misbehaving.

It's cruel to humiliate the jobless even more by pretending that anyone without a job isn't looking hard enough.

It's cruel to pretend that outsourcing and off-shoring have nothing to do with the loss of millions of life-sustaining jobs.

It's cruel to pretend that workers don't need or deserve representation when the need is so much greater now.

It's cruel for the richest country in the world to give private insurance companies the power to deny anyone health care and pretend that people aren't dying because of it.

It's cruel to allow profiteers to attempt to kill off one major historic source of national pride -- public education for every child without regard to race, creed, or income level -- and pretend that a) the public schools did it to themselves, and b) no child is being left behind because of our negligence.

It's cruel to divert our national treasure, including and especially our young men and women, to foreign wars that don't concern us or affect us nearly as much as our own at-home social and economic wars.
But the cruelest reminder is that we almost had it in our grasp -- a fair and prosperous country we could be proud of -- and we let it slip away.

There's no pretending it didn't happen. There are enough of us still around who remember a different country, where it looked as if the American Dream would actually become a major possibility. It was taken away from us, not by happenstance but by the mean and deliberate actions of politicians and power brokers.

You can say it a million different ways, but what it comes down to is cruelty by a thousand cuts. There was a time when we all would have fought against that sort of thing.

I'll say it again: This is some strange new century...

(Cross-posted at Ramona's Voices.)

Sign of the Apocalypse #75: Kids being sued for "negligence"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

We all know American society is becoming increasingly litigious, with everyone seemingly suing everyone else, but I'm not sure we knew it was quite this bad:

Citing cases dating back as far as 1928, a judge has ruled that a young girl accused of running down an elderly woman while racing a bicycle with training wheels on a Manhattan sidewalk two years ago can be sued for negligence.

The ruling by the judge, Justice Paul Wooten of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, did not find that the girl was liable, but merely permitted a lawsuit brought against her, another boy and their parents to move forward.

The suit that Justice Wooten allowed to proceed claims that in April 2009, Juliet Breitman and Jacob Kohn, who were both 4, were racing their bicycles, under the supervision of their mothers, Dana Breitman and Rachel Kohn, on the sidewalk of a building on East 52nd Street. At some point in the race, they struck an 87-year-old woman named Claire Menagh, who was walking in front of the building and, according to the complaint, was "seriously and severely injured," suffering a hip fracture that required surgery. She died three months later of unrelated causes.

Her estate sued the children and their mothers, claiming they had acted negligently during the accident. In a response, Juliet's lawyer, James P. Tyrie, argued that the girl was not "engaged in an adult activity" at the time of the accident — "She was riding her bicycle with training wheels under the supervision of her mother" — and was too young to be held liable for negligence.

In legal papers, Mr. Tyrie added, "Courts have held that an infant under the age of 4 is conclusively presumed to be incapable of negligence." (Rachel and Jacob Kohn did not seek to dismiss the case against them.)

But Justice Wooten declined to stretch that rule to children over 4. On Oct. 1, he rejected a motion to dismiss the case because of Juliet's age, noting that she was three months shy of turning 5 when Ms. Menagh was struck, and thus old enough to be sued.

*****

Mr. Tyrie had also argued that Juliet should not be held liable because her mother was present; Justice Wooten disagreed.

"A parent’s presence alone does not give a reasonable child carte blanche to engage in risky behavior such as running across a street," the judge wrote. He added that any "reasonably prudent child," who presumably has been told to look both ways before crossing a street, should know that dashing out without looking is dangerous, with or without a parent there. The crucial factor is whether the parent encourages the risky behavior; if so, the child should not be held accountable.

So this isn't about the mother being sued, this is about the child being sued. A four-year-old child. (And how is even a five-year-old capable of negligence?)

This is insane. And a sure sign that the Apocalypse is just around the bend.

**********

Eugene Volokh, analyzing the decision, writes:

I also suspect that the whole inquiry into how reasonably prudent four-year-olds behave is unlikely to yield any meaningful result. Most four-year-olds are prudent sometimes and imprudent at other times, and I quite doubt that one can identify even in one's head what sort of care a reasonably prudent four-year-old would likely take. Naturally, this is a matter of degree, and at some age the question becomes more meaningful, even given that fourteen-year-olds and for that matter twenty-four-year-olds will often act rashly.

But I'm inclined to say that the wiser move for a state legal system would be to set the absolute bar to liability for the child (setting aside the possibility of the parent's being liable for negligent supervision) at a considerably higher age — maybe seven, or maybe even older. Otherwise, the result is more litigation with no real likelihood that we'll have any sensible jury decisions in such litigation.

Yes -- considerably higher. And certainly higher than four.

Simply put, children should allowed to be children, and not taken to court whenever they do something that, in adult terms, may be imprudent and possibly negligent.

In what kind of a sick society is this allowed to happen?

Fox News likes spanking children

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Fox News -- surprise, surprise -- is playing up a new study purportedly showing that "[y]oung children spanked by their parents may grow up to be happier and more successful than those who have never been hit."

That is to say, that corporal punishment is good for you -- so just bend over and take it. This, presumably, is the message, firm and clear, that Fox wants you to take away from this.

I must add, though, that the study was conducted by Marjorie Gunnoe, a psychology professor at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Calvin College is a conservative Christian college:

We pledge fidelity to Jesus Christ, offering our hearts and lives to do God's work in God's world,

the college states in its Mission Statement. It's a college full of Republicans. President Bush even gave the Commencement Address there in 2005.

I must add that John Calvin, after whom this college was named, was hardly known to be soft with respect to violence and punishment.

I must add that perhaps America's leading proponent of corporal punishment of children is James Dobson, a leading evangelical Christian.

Finally, I must add that other studies refute the results of this one. In 2002, for example, a psychologist at Columbia University, Elizabeth Thompson Gershoff published "a large-scale meta-analysis of 88 studies" on relationship between corporal punishment and positive/negative behaviours in children. As George Holden of the University of Texas put in in a commentary that accompanied the study, Gershoff's findings "reflect the growing body of evidence indicating that corporal punishment does no good and may even cause harm."

I cannot comment specifically on Gunnoe's study, nor on what motivates her. She may be doing what she thinks is "God's work in God's world," or she may be a serious academic engaging in serious, meaningful work. (There are some seemingly serious academics who have disagreed with Gershoff's findings, and I suppose we ought to take their findings seriously, even if we oppose corporal punishment.) I just find the above connections rather curious.

What I don't find curious is Fox's enthusiasm for the story, and for the findings of Gunnoe's study, given its enthusiasm for brutality (i.e., bombing, torturing) generally.

Captain Obvious! Your story is up!

By Carl

Well, I mean, duh!:

Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.

The new analysis of data from a large federal survey found that more than half of youths became sexually active before marriage regardless of whether they had taken a "virginity pledge," but that the percentage who took precautions against pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases was 10 points lower for pledgers than for non-pledgers.

Now, look, I understood and could even support to an extent the concept behind virginity pledges: If you've raised a fairly obedient kid, and have lectured him or her about the evils of drugs, cigarettes, alcohol, and sex (particularly any combination of the four), likely you can expect to raise a child who remains unmolested by at least one of the above.

If you are really, really lucky. And I mean, "hit the lottery the same day that your rich uncle dies and Michelle Pfeiffer (or Pierce Brosnan) asks you on a date" lucky.

That lucky.

So hey, it could happen and hey, it's not a bad idea to reinforce your belief that a child shouldn't be having sex. Parents are supposed to set boundaries. Children are supposed to knock them down if they can.

Here's what is laughable about this whole trope, the way it's been rolled out in America: the exact people who SHOULDN'T be using this form of contraception ARE!

The only scenario in which this kind of paternalistic parenting approach works is a family environment where love, tolerance, acceptance and education prevail:

DAD: You know I respect you and love you, but I want you to promise me something. Promise me that you won't have sex until you are married and that you will come talk to me and be honest with me if you decide to break this promise.

CHILD: Dad, because you've always been honest and open with me, and given me guidance, I will promise not to have sex until I am married, with the understanding that mistakes happen, and I may not always be in control of how a promise like this might be broken. When it happens, I will need your guidance and trust, rather than your anger and disappointment.

The kid's likely to fail. Take it as a given. However, this type of relationship is likely the ONLY one that will produce a marked record of success. The child is making the promise out of a sense of security and safety, not out of fear.

It is in the climate of fear, however, that this promise is usually made:

DAD: Goddamit, don't you EVER have sex until you're married! I will not support you and some tramp/boy and your baby while you two figure out how to play house. Promise me, dammit, now!

CHILD: Um, OK, Dad, I promise. Can I go play with my, um, Wii now?

You get the picture. Not only is the second kid less likely to keep the promise, but is more likely to be unprepared for when he or she does break it. After all, it's not likely that this kid is going to find birth control, and certainly unlikely that he or she will keep it on hand. Worse, this kid is going to work overtime to make sure that Dad never finds out, that Mom never finds out, and that means he or she will have to lie like an area rug when Mom and Dad begin the formal inquisition.

Anyone who believes this kind of program is going to make the excitement and stimulations of teenaged sex go away is deluding themselves. You can throw all the cold showers and church retreats and PG-rated activities you want, the simple fact is, kids will have sex, which will influence their friends to have sex, which will influence more friends to have sex, and so on.

You want to know what will stop kids from having sex? Nothing. You want to know what will make kids think responsibly about sex?

Thinking responsibly about kids.

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

What will the new Congress do?

By Carol Gee

When the U.S. House and Senate come back into session in early January, it will be a changed legislative body. There will be a number of new senators and House members, for starters. And most of them will be Democrats. But will it mean a real change, or just a change of bodies? It will be interesting to observe whether Congress can listen to its better angels, or whether it will in 2009 again be business as usual.

If they are smart -- Congress can easily renew the SCHIP children's health insurance program before it expires in March 2009. It could be one of the easiest and earliest successes possible. A recent poll showed that they could even garner widespread support for covering the children of legal immigrants, according to the Congressional Quarterly. And Congress is wisely considering adding a number of other health care measures to the economic stimulus package, the Washington Post reports, a clever way to "kill two birds with one stone."

If they are vigilant -- They will continue to investigate. There are pertinent committees chaired by smart peopole with no lack of situations that cry out for the light of day, and/or legislative fixes. ProPublica's recent investigative pieces include: Unsafe/unhealthy housing provided to Katrina victims; gaps in aviation security; as well as threats to the nation's water supply. The economic rescue program alone could occupy a dozen committees for a dozen months. Yahoo! News spotlights the banking bailout scandal regarding huge gifts to banking execs#. Another similar story points out that there has been no overall accounting of how the banks spent# the bailout monies.

If they are patriotic -- They will investigate the true nature of the loss of civil liberties in the past eight years, as chronicled by Tom Head at About.com/civil liberties. And they will investigate themselves as the peoples' guardians of constitutional protections in the process, as the latest Glenn Greenwald post at Salon.com suggests. Jeff Schweitzer at the Huffington Post reveals just how bizarre are Dick Cheney's recent revelations# on the administration's blatently lawless view of a unitary presidency. Will there be any criminal prosecutions? It remains to be seen.

If they are brave -- They will begin to try to bridge the partisan divide, the widest in a long time, according to a fascinating recent Congressional Quarterly study. And they should work hard to avoid intra-party divisions, that could be nudged along by spoiler Republicans, according to Politico.com.

If Congressional leaders are to be a match for our new presidential leader, they will turn over new leaves, letting go of their previously ineffectual tactics. There will be no more excuses in 2009.

Hat Tip Key: Regular contributors of links to leads are betmo* and Jon#.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Sign of the Apocalypse #61: Seclusion rooms for special-needs children

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I can only hope that the people behind this barbarity get what they deserve.

And, all across the country, there need to be laws, with clear guidelines, restricting -- and perhaps banning, if a suitable alternative can be found, as surely one can -- the use of these so-called "seclusion rooms," or "time-out rooms."

Is this seriously how special-needs children ought to be treated? By being thrown into isolation?

It makes you wonder how civilized our civilization really is.

A more direct repudiation

By Carl

You may recall, if you followed politics at all in the 1990s, there was a move afoot on the part of the Gingrich revolters to reform how government worked.

What happened up to that point was that the federal government would distribute funds to states targetted for very specific goals. These were called "categorical grants." Gingrich and his orc minions proposed to change this to a "block grant" system, whereby a state would be given a chunk of money and directed to spend it as it saw fit. In a perfect world, there would have been substantially no difference between the two methods. Ideally, they would solve the same problems and be the same amount of money, with the state having a bit more discretion in how it could target money it received.

But, well... politicians, money... you can see where this headed.

There's an interesting dynamic afoot here, and I want to study it from the ground up with you for a moment.

Little noticed outside of New York City (and even then, amidst the Obamathon, only among wonks here) was the release of an emergency budget proposal by Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Much of the hoopla over this budget stemmed from the loss of an entire graduating class at the police academy, cutting back on night-time fire coverage, as well as the suspension of a property tax rebate, an increase in property tax rates, and a 5¢ surcharge on all plastic bags.

All to close a $4 billion budget gap to $1.3 billion. Presumably, smoke and mirrors would take care of the rest. Actually, I know what will take care of the rest, but that's a different post.

Little noticed in the budget proposal, which will have to go to the city council for approval, was an item that would eliminate a program that has been around for over 100 years: public dentistry for children.

Remember when you had to present a note from your dentist, once a year, certifying that you had been seen and were under his care? Some kids couldn't afford private dentists, and since these notes were mandatory, the city stepped in and established dental clinics around town for indigent (and, sometimes, just lazy) kids to be checked up.

Even in the depths of near-bankruptcy thirty years ago, this program was considered sacrosanct. We could close down firehouses, reduce police presence, cut back on garbage pickup (which used to be daily), find myriad ways of saving a buck or two, but childrens' teeth were deemed essential.

This is a good thing, by the way.

Now, not so much. I pondered this rather curious earmark in the budget proposal. One day it hit me: with a President Obama, children's health insurance would be mandatory, meaning that these dentists would essentially be working for the federal government now. He was kicking the ball upstairs.

I filed this away: city councils are notoriously slow, partly around Christmas time and PARTICULARLY ahead of an election year, to start mucking around with unions.

Comes today, this item:

ALBANY - Faced with a worsening economy, Gov. Paterson wants to slash school aid, shrink health care funding and hike public college tuition, the Daily News has learned.

The governor, who will propose $2 billion in budget cuts Wednesday, also wants public employees to go without raises for at least a year, sources said.

About $1.4 billion of the cuts to this fiscal year's budget would come from education and health care.

"Aha," says I. That cut in children's health aid, roughly a half billion dollars, would mean severe cuts in the federally mandated children's health care program, Child Health Plus.

CH+ is funded by Medicaid, as part of those block grants I told you about earlier. You might recall the ruckus in Congress last year over renewing S-CHIP. This is that program.

Essentially, Patterson is setting up to kick Bloomberg's ball one step further up the ladder, to the federal government, to the Obama Administration.

See, neither of these draconian budget adjustments will take effect, should they even be passed, until next summer, 2009.

Plenty of time for Obama to write, introduce, and pass his version of national healthcare. Plenty of time for the federal government to pick up the ball.

My suspicion is we'll be seeing this same scenario repeated across the nation, as mayors and governors collaborate to kick their mandated spending programs back up the ladder to the federal government.

For policy wonks like me, these are salad days indeed!

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

I get mail -- worthy causes

By Libby Spencer

Even though I'm just a B-list blogger I get asked all the time to review books and pitch worthy causes. I often don't get around to even reading them before it's too late but this one is a really worthy effort and you still have one day to participate.

The International Medical Corps has been named as a finalist in a contest sponsored by American Express. International Medical Corps has been matched to one of the Top 25 in American Express’ Members Projects, ‘Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children.’

Chosen out of 1,190 projects, “Saving the Lives of Malnourished Children” is now eligible to receive up to $1.5 million in funding. The project with the most votes receives $1.5 million, 2nd receives $500,000, 3rd $300,000, and 4th and 5th $100,000. The funding – made possible by your votes – would bring a vital lifeline to hungry and malnourished children around the world.

We need your help between now and September 29th. Voting is easy and doesn’t cost a thing! In just a click, you can save the lives of thousands of malnourished children. Click here to vote:

For severely malnourished children, we offer a step-by-step treatment program that gives them what they need to recover, including nutrient-dense food supplements like the peanut-based product, Plumpy'Nut. Our comprehensive monitoring system saves more than 90 percent of children being treated in our feeding centers. Being one of the Top 5 would mean our nutrition could reach more children around the world who need our help.

It's a little complicated to vote, you have to join the group first, but I checked out the greater project and it's legit. You won't be charged any money and of the 25 projects, I liked this one the best. So if you have a few minutes, it's good way to spend it to end world hunger.

Another project I've been asked to promote is Ban Cluster Bombs. They don't seem to be involved in any time sensitive project but with the world at perpetual war and seeing our country is also an offender, it's worth a few minutes to check out their site. It's an eye-opener.

Finally, I don't generally pitch books I haven't read, but this request was so polite, you might want to check out Oxford University Press who are promoting a book on the Bush Doctrine that looks interesting based on the review they posted.

(Cross-posted at The Impolitic.)

Off the beaten path of politics

By Carol Gee

Today's post meanders along the path of the unusual, steering away from serious politics. From the ridiculous to the sublime, and points in between, it peers into the murky forest.

"Digital Drugs: New Worry For Parents?* Reports of Sounds With Drug-Like Effects Have Some Parents Spooked" -- OPINION by KIM KOMANDO -- Aug. 9, 2008. Take the time to read some of the comments following this story. They range from utter derision to reports of positive personal experiences by users. This is from ABC News. To quote:

. . . can music create the same effects as illegal drugs?

Some say that certain sounds, when played on headphones, can have a drug-like effect.
(Photodisc)This seems like a ridiculous question. But websites are targeting your children with so-called digital drugs. These are audio files designed to induce drug-like effects. All your child needs is a music player and headphones.

Understanding Binaural Beats -- There are different slang terms for digital drugs. They're often called "idozers" or "idosers." All rely on the concept of binaural beats. It is incorrect to call binaural beats music. They're really ambient sounds designed to affect your brain waves.

. . . Dr. Nicholas Theodore, a brain surgeon at Barrow Neurological Institute in Phoenix, said there is no real evidence that idosers work. But he noted that musical preference is indicative of emotional vulnerability. Trying idosers could indicate a willingness to experiment with drugs and other dangerous behavior.

Theodore added that idosers are another reason to monitor kids' Internet usage. And, he said, kids need frank talks with their parents about correct choices.

"I suspect this 'Pied Piper' phenomenon will pass rapidly and quietly," he said.

These tiny morsels need very little explanation:

"Teach Your Children Well." Blog friend "betmo" who asks, "weeping jesus is nothing sacred?" It's from Media Needle. To quote:

Parker Brothers replaces Monopoly money with Visa brand Debit card systems.

Top 9 best new drugs*: One pill makes you larger, and one pill makes you small. Take one, take them all!" By Mark Morford, SF Gate Columnist, Friday, August 8, 2008

This link is from my friend Jon: "This video made me laugh -- you should watch it: Funny or Die about "a new ad for the Republican party."

The dilemma for the Internet is how to make money, so ISP companies decided to advertise. And then they decided to get together. The idea of media consolidation must extend to the digital world, if it is to be realistic. And consolidation is not usually good news for consumers. It often limits access to information, drives up prices and can threaten privacy. The perfect example follows -: Google, Yahoo partially disclose terms of ad pact"* from The Raw Story/Reuters, Saturday August 9, 2008. To quote:

Google Inc and Yahoo Inc released on Friday excerpts of a pact covering their search advertising partnership that keeps secret financial terms and the extent of other ties between the two.

. . . Critics say the deal threatens competition for advertising that runs alongside Web searches. Congressional leaders have conducted hearings to investigate what impact the partnership could have on the Internet market. The agreement covers the United States and Canada, but not other international markets.

. . . But the contract is heavily redacted in an area that covers "other business opportunities" and is silent about how the sharing of user data between the partners could affect the privacy of Yahoo users.

HT to betmo for all of the *links.

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

A thought on economic incentives for having kids

By LindaBeth

As I sit here finishing up the final edits of my Master’s thesis, I had this thought:

The Right tends to argue that our social welfare system provides incentive for single women (a.k.a. “welfare mothers”) to pop out children left and right. This constitutes an abuse of the system.

I’m not saying that’s at all true (and actually the stats on this “phenomenon” are rather skewed: the number of kids women on welfare have is about the same as the general population), but take their argument and consider this…

Yet there are a slew of tax breaks for families with children. Does this not also constitute an incentive to have kids in order to receive unearned money (one could call it welfare, sure!) for those kids? Yet I don’t hear anyone on the right complaining about those..in fact, they usually want to raise them! Yet why should “we” subsidize “their” children?!

Curious, huh?

I guess so-called “incentives” are OK for the “right” kinds of families…

(Cross-posted to Smart Like Me.)

November's Child

By Carol Gee

The compassionate among us take in the TV images coming from Burma (Michael's preferred word for Myanmar) and feel saddened by the children, in particular. Compassion must be shared, however, with the children in our own hemisphere who sometimes have it very rough. Today's post presents a few of the facts of childhood poverty in the U.S and Canada, currently and in the fairly near past.

Child Poverty in United States -- (November 2007 Report) "Who are America's Poor Children?" To quote NCCP:

. . . How many children in America are officially poor? Rates of official child poverty vary tremendously across the states.

Child poverty rates across the states, 2006:

* Nationwide, 17% of children live in families that are officially considered poor (13 million children).

* Across the states, child poverty rates range from 6% in New Hampshire to 29% in Mississippi.

Nearly 13 million American children live in families with incomes below the federal poverty level, which is $20,650 a year for a family of four. The number of children living in poverty increased by 11 percent between 2000 and 2006. There are 1.2 million more children living in poverty today than in 2000.

Not only are these numbers troubling, the official poverty measure tells only part of the story—it is widely viewed as a flawed metric of economic hardship (see box). Research consistently shows that, on average, families need an income of about twice the federal poverty level to make ends meet. Children living in families with incomes below this level—for 2006, about $41,000 for a family of four—are referred to as low income. Thirty-nine percent of the nation’s children—more than 28 million in 2006—live in low-income families.

Child poverty in Canada -- (November 26, 2007): "Child poverty rates unchanged in nearly 2 decades: report." To quote CBC News:

The rate of child poverty in Canada is the same as it was in 1989, despite numerous attempts by the federal government to tackle the issue, an advocacy group reported Monday.

. . . The report says that, in 1989, the House of Commons unanimously voted to end child poverty. Eighteen years later, despite a 50 per cent increase in the size of the economy, the child poverty rate remains unchanged at 11.7 per cent, according to the report.

One in eight children in Canada — about 788,000 — live in poverty when income is measured after taxes, the report says, citing Statistics Canada data. When income was measured before taxes, the number rose to one in six children.

Child Poverty in United States -- Over Time: (November 1995 Report). To quote the National Research Council, Board on Children and Families:

• Poverty among U.S. children reached its highest level in 30 years in 1993. Cansus data for 1994 shows that 15.7 million children, or 22.7 percent, were classified as poor.


• Children in families continuously on welfare from 1986 to 1990 were 1.6 times more likely to have significant behavioral problems than those never on welfare or poor. Children in families that left the welfare system but remained poor also were likely to have behavioral problems.


• Home environments of children whose families stopped receiving welfare but remained poor did not differ significantly from those families still on welfare.


• Inflexible hours at child care centers frequently caused problems for working parents with low incomes, nonstandard working hours or more than one job.
  

The fallout from the current administration's economic and social policies dusts on the heads of November's Children as well as their parents and grandparents. And this time the debris does not come from a cyclone, but from the blind eyes of greedy or corrupt officials.

From an earlier post I conclude with this beloved nursery rhyme --

Monday's Child

Author: Unknown

Monday's child is fair of face,
Tuesday's child is full of grace,
Wednesday's child is full of woe,
Thursday's child has far to go,
Friday's child is loving and giving,
Saturday's child must work for a living,
But the child that's born on the Sabbath day,
Is fair and wise and good and gay

(Cross-posted at South by Southwest.)

Sign of the Apocalypse #53: Lambeau Leap into child abuse

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's the story of an abusive Cheesehead from whom Favre and the gang may wish to distance themselves:

Upset that his 7-year-old son wouldn't wear a Green Bay Packers jersey during the team's playoff victory Saturday, a man restrained the boy for an hour with tape and taped the jersey onto him.

Mathew Kowald was cited for disorderly conduct in connection with the incident with his son at their home in Pardeeville, Lt. Wayne Smith of the Columbia County Sheriff's Department said. Pardeeville is about 30 miles north of Madison.

The 36-year-old Kowald was arrested Monday after his wife told authorities about the incident. Kowald was taken to the county jail and held until Wednesday, when he pleaded no contest, paid a fine of $186 and was released.

Kowald's wife filed a restraining order Wednesday, so Kowald will not be able to have contact with his family, Smith said. Smith said other domestic issues have surfaced, though he wouldn't elaborate.

The boy refused to wear the jersey Saturday, when the Packers beat the Seattle Seahawks in a playoff game, Smith said. Smith said the incident sounded strange when reported at first, but the mother took pictures with her cell phone and that type of evidence is difficult to dispute.

Indeed, but I'm not sure disorderly conduct is enough. Was this not child abuse?

Every team has its loathsome (and abusive) fans, of course. Even my beloved Steelers, I'm sure, have their share -- although, having been to Pittsburgh, a great city, and having attended a game at Heinz Field, and finding everyone there to have been so nice, as everywhere in the city, it's hard to believe there are any fans quite like this piece of shit.

No, no, I won't let Kowald taint the entire Packers fan base. And though I've often found myself repulsed by the love affair with Brett Favre in the media -- yo, Peter King, enough already, please, either act on your crush or move on -- I'll be rooting for Green Bay against the Giants this weekend. (Sorry, Creature.) And, if they make it, I'll root for them in the Super Bowl, too, whether it's against the Pats or the Bolts (especially against the Pats). I'm already tired of the Favre Show, but I can't deny how impressive a season it's been for him, nor how fun and exciting his team is.

But back to the matter at hand. What a despicable and reprehensible jackass this guy is. He deserves far worse than a restraining order, maybe a bit of time in jail parading around in a fancy costume or something.

War, poverty, and allegations of child witchcraft in Africa

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Another disturbing (and horrifying) development in Africa, as reported by the NYT:

In parts of Angola, Congo and the Congo Republic, a surprising number of children are accused of being witches, and then are beaten, abused or abandoned. Child advocates estimate that thousands of children living in the streets of Kinshasa, Congo’s capital, have been accused of witchcraft and cast out by their families, often as a rationale for not having to feed or care for them.

The officials in one northern Angolan town identified 432 street children who had been abandoned or abused after being called witches. A report last year by the government’s National Institute for the Child and the United Nations Children’s Fund described the number of children said to be witches as “massive.”

The notion of child witches is not new here. It is a common belief in Angola’s dominant Bantu culture that witches can communicate with the world of the dead and usurp or “eat” the life force of others, bringing their victims misfortune, illness and death. Adult witches are said to bewitch children by giving them food, then forcing them to reciprocate by sacrificing a family member.

But officials attribute the surge in persecutions of children to war — 27 years in Angola, ending in 2002, and near constant strife in Congo. The conflicts orphaned many children, while leaving other families intact but too destitute to feed themselves.

“The witches situation started when fathers became unable to care for the children,” said Ana Silva, who is in charge of child protection for the children’s institute. “So they started seeking any justification to expel them from the family.”

To which one can respond... how? Needless to say, it will take putting an end to war and poverty in Africa, or at least to most of the war and most of the poverty, to free these poor children and their demented families from this madness. In the meantime, and it will be a long, long time, one hopes that international aid and the involvement (and perhaps intervention) of international organizations can alleviate some of the suffering.

The deeper problem, however, is that this isn't just about politics and economics. It's about culture and religion as well. And it is far more difficult to change the latter than the former, which means that putting an end to war and poverty would only be the start.

No child's left behind unspanked?

By Carl

Simply Left Behind:

**********

Given the way Michelle Malkin and other Orcs of the Right Wing went after those two kids who made commercials in favor of SCHIP, do you think they'll spend a moment trying to track down the identity of the kid who caused the single most destructive fire in American history?

Minutes after the fire broke out, Conner said, she had raced up a hill toward the source of the flames. At the top, she saw a stunned-looking 10-year-old boy and his parents frantically trying to beat the flames down with towels.

"There's no reason to talk to other people," Conner, a horse trainer at the ranch where the fire started, recalled telling arson investigators. "You need to go straight up the road and talk to that boy."

The 10-year-old quickly admitted he had been playing with matches.

On Thursday, as authorities considered whether to file criminal charges, neighbors gave conflicting accounts of the boy's behavior.

Denise Tomey, who runs the Carousel Ranch where the boy lived in a small trailer with his family, described him as a quiet child who often played outside with his brother and the family's small white and tan dog, Spike.

"From what I know, he's a good kid," said Tomey, executive director of the ranch, which provides riding lessons to developmentally disabled children. The boy's father tends horses there and the boy attends a nearby school.

"He's a child and I certainly believe that he had no malice, and I absolutely believe it was accidental," Tomey said.

The short answer: No.

Can you say "white Republican offspring"? I knew that you could...

Kidnapping in the CAR

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here's a horrific story from a horrific part of the world:

Armed gangs are seizing children for ransom payments in the lawless north of the Central African Republic, human rights body Amnesty International says.

Some parents have paid up to $4,000 for their children to be freed -- other minors have been killed, Amnesty says.

The region is a "free-for-all" for rebels, soldiers and armed bandits, a researcher who has just returned says.

CAR has accused neighbouring Sudan of backing the rebels, with attacks coming from Darfur. Sudan denies the charges.

Says one Amnesty researcher: "News is clearly spreading to criminal elements throughout the region that they can have free rein in northern CAR, as there is an almost total absence of any authority." Meanwhile, CAR civilians are "fleeing 'from the frying pan into the fire" by heading to Chad and Sudan" -- "More than 280,000 people have fled their homes in the past year." Both sides, government forces and rebels alike, seem to be killing civilians, though of course this is being strenuously denied.

Kidnapping and genocide. So much more of the same for a continent rife with problems that are so enormous as to seem insoluble. Which, however, is no excuse for doing nothing.

The future of China?

By Michael J.W. Stickings


From the Globe: "A People's Liberation Army officer helps a boy hold a machine gun during an open day at a military base in Hong Kong."

Charming. I hope there's a kid with a flower nearby.

(And, yes, I know there are children with guns in the U.S. -- and everywhere else. It's not just China. It's just that this is a somewhat disturbing photo. Is it not?)