Upcoming election

I had a lovely conversation with my Mother last night. We were talking about the primaries and potential presidential election. Which candidate is the best? Who should we vote for?  As I have been watching leadership and who I respect or who I want to represent me, I have been seriously wondering about the candidates themselves.  For example, one of my colleagues was serving in the State government as a representative. He invited me to sit with him while they make their votes.  He highlighted to me a vote that was about to come up related to higher education. He said that in his role in higher education he should vote this way, but his own personal feeling was to vote another.

How does he accurately vote to represent his constituents? Do they vote for him because of who he is? Or, do they vote for him to support him in his role in Higher Education? Or, do they vote for him because he represents their interests?

This causes me to think about the arguments around Bill Clinton and his indiscretions with women. He admitted he lied about having intimate relations with Monica Lewinsky. Republicans were mortified!  He had lied under oath! Later Democrats claimed that Bush lied about the Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq.  You may have heard: "Bush lied, people died." What is the role of moral character in the voting process?  Do they have to believe the same way you do on every issue? Are you more interested in their intelligence, or are you more interested in their values?

So, my last question to you is...is it OK for our candidates to be less than honest depending on what they lie about? Are we voting for their stand on the policies? Or, are we voting for the person? When it comes to family policy, what are we voting on?

I look forward to your discussion...

The role of education in government and families

One of the biggest questions we have to ask ourselves when thinking of families and social policy is who should have the responsibility to educate our children?  We can see the need for the public school system. The parents who may be undereducated can have a resource in the teachers to help them, but somewhere in the 60's or 70's, parents began to think of the school as the primary educator rather than the family.

What are your thoughts about educating our children? What about public colleges and universities? If students don't graduate from high school with the necessary skills to be successful in college, do the colleges have a responsibility to do that for them?

Lots of questions and we are just getting started!
Have a great Christmas!

News reporting and validity

I was listening to NPR the other day and they were talking about how the elections are discussed in the media. One thing that surprised me was the discussion from the guest who suggested that Fox News was asking the hard questions, particularly citing Brett Baier and Bill O'Reilly.

In the past, I have had many colleagues claim that Fox News "makes up" the news; however, if you look at the NEWS programs, (not programming like Sean Hannity or even Bill O'Reilly) you will find that the cable networks (CNN, FOX) are more balanced and unbiased in their reporting than the national news networks (NBC, CBS, ABC).

I would argue that it's important to get your news from a variety of sources rather than following one alone. I LOVE to listen to NPR, watch the local news, and follow some of the Cable stations.

My big question is--  Have you considered the role of the news in your participation as citizens?

Studying families

I recently read an article discussing which companies are happiest. The first of the criteria to determine "happy" was the company's work/life balance.

I find this interesting that researchers (and companies) are starting to realize that happy employees are more productive. That means, allowing people flexibility in their work environment to manage family responsibilities. To see the article:  http://finance.yahoo.com/photos/companies-with-the-happiest-employees-1323452888-slideshow/

A GREAT reason to study families!

I'm BAAAACK!!!!

Now that we have lots of discussions between candidates and a new presidential election coming up, it's time to start the blog going again.

I just read that Mitt Romney offered Rick Perry and $10,000 bet during the last debate. The problem with this is NOT the amount of the bet, but the focus on class warfare. Romney has money. Others do not. Should we demonize those who have money? Are they all bad? Why is that the issue rather than the candidate's values on health care? Family values?

I have to confess, I am not for class warfare; however, I do agree that there are institutional problems with how money is managed. Those with money are able to get away with more than those who do not. For example, I know of a realtor who was able to take mortgage payments from a couple who bought a house from him. He was obligated to apply that mortgage payment to their home loan; however, he took the money and put it toward his over-extended lifestyle. The result was the couple lost their home to foreclosure. There were no repercussions for his theft. He is still in business.

This is an injustice that we should be paying attention to. White collar crime goes unpunished most of the time because we either don't pay attention or don't understand how it affects us until it's too late. This is the important aspect of the debate, NOT whether Mitt Romney has lots of money or that corporations pay their CEO's a bonus. If they are employing people and the wage is competitive...what's wrong with that?

Bottom line, I challenge everyone to focus on the real MEAT of the debate and not on superficial issues. We are not a democracy. We are a republic. What does that mean for our choice of candidate?

Best! I look forward to a great semester!
s