We are getting closer all the time to the upcoming election. I am wondering if we can take some time and list some of the issues that are related to family policy that are brought up in the campaigns? Most importantly, how accurate are the claims made by the candidates and who is checking to see if the claims are true? Can you find the truth about some of the issues?
I think this could be an excellent exercise in defining what is family policy and what is not. It's also an excellent exercise related to your media analysis.
One that I heard of today was an attack ad on Jim Mattheson (sp?) The ad claimed that he changed his vote about getting our spending under control, but he voted to lower the debt ceiling. Is that contradictory? Is that family policy?
What have you heard?
Sunday, October 14, 2012
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
Presidential Debate
As we move closer to election day, we will be seeing three debates between presidential candidates and one between potential vice-presidents. (OK, one is already Vice President and the other is already President.)
Since we have been discussing the quality of our information, I am curious about what you saw on the debates and your thoughts about the following story:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/viewart/20121003/NEWS03/310030029/Obama-Romney-clash-first-debate
When I read this story, I immediately wondered what you, as class members, thought about it. I look forward to seeing your thoughts on the quality of reporting here and the content of the debates.
This is getting exciting!
See you on Tuesday. :)
Since we have been discussing the quality of our information, I am curious about what you saw on the debates and your thoughts about the following story:
http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/viewart/20121003/NEWS03/310030029/Obama-Romney-clash-first-debate
When I read this story, I immediately wondered what you, as class members, thought about it. I look forward to seeing your thoughts on the quality of reporting here and the content of the debates.
This is getting exciting!
See you on Tuesday. :)
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Determining which topics are Family Policy
Karen Bogenschneider writes in her Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars:
Family policy, a subfield of social policy, encompasses one of four family functions: (a) family creation (e.g., to marry or divorce, to bear or adopt children, to provide foster care), (b) economic support (e.g., to provide for members’ basic needs, (c) childrearing (e.g., to socialize the next generation), and (d) family caregiving (e.g., to provide assistance for the disabled, ill, frail, and elderly). Family policies address issues such as child care, child support, divorce, family violence, juvenile crime, long-term care, and teenage pregnancy. Tax provisions that create a child care tax credit would be considered family policy. However, a tax reform law that lowers taxes for individuals, many of whom happen to live in families, would not be considered family policy. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would be considered family policy. However a universal health care program would not be considered family policy, because it targets individuals, irrespective of whether or not they live in a family setting.
So many things might be considered family policy, but some are not necessarily considered proper discussions for family policy. Since this field is considered a "sub-topic of social policy," what types of policies have we talked about in class might be considered social policy and what might be considered family policy?
What are the arguments and current topics that are being discussed in this election season that might be considered family policy? (Hint: see the four basic functions of families).
Family policy, a subfield of social policy, encompasses one of four family functions: (a) family creation (e.g., to marry or divorce, to bear or adopt children, to provide foster care), (b) economic support (e.g., to provide for members’ basic needs, (c) childrearing (e.g., to socialize the next generation), and (d) family caregiving (e.g., to provide assistance for the disabled, ill, frail, and elderly). Family policies address issues such as child care, child support, divorce, family violence, juvenile crime, long-term care, and teenage pregnancy. Tax provisions that create a child care tax credit would be considered family policy. However, a tax reform law that lowers taxes for individuals, many of whom happen to live in families, would not be considered family policy. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) would be considered family policy. However a universal health care program would not be considered family policy, because it targets individuals, irrespective of whether or not they live in a family setting.
So many things might be considered family policy, but some are not necessarily considered proper discussions for family policy. Since this field is considered a "sub-topic of social policy," what types of policies have we talked about in class might be considered social policy and what might be considered family policy?
What are the arguments and current topics that are being discussed in this election season that might be considered family policy? (Hint: see the four basic functions of families).
Friday, September 14, 2012
Media Paper
I see so many issues that are coming up related to the election that not all of them are associated with Family. However, when we are in an election season, which of the candidates share your views of family? Family Policy is all about the family values that we share as a country. Part of the problem with the US is that we all come from so many different cultures sharing so few of the same family values that we have a difficult time translating those values into effective public policy.
How would you determine which policies are about family? Does the recent issue of the killing in Libya connect with Family Policy?
More to come...hint: Karen Bogenschneider
How would you determine which policies are about family? Does the recent issue of the killing in Libya connect with Family Policy?
More to come...hint: Karen Bogenschneider
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Timely Ideas
In class last night we talked about possible projects. UPR (USU's NPR network) had an interesting discussion today about Rachel's idea to think about texting and driving as a possible topic. I was fascinated to listen about the tragedy that occurred in Vernal when a driver who was texting hit a young man from the Jr. High and killed him. What a horrific accident! Texting seems to be on the rise, and it's a great problem to address.
NPR had a couple of guests talking about the issue. They had a Dr. Strayer who has been doing research on the quality of thinking as we text, or multitasking, etc. and another guest who can talk about the issues of policing people who are texting. You can read the story or listen to the entire discussion at: http://upr.org/programs/access-utah.
Pay attention to the upcoming membership drive. I'll match your contribution to UPR if you have decided that it's a valuable resource to you!
NPR had a couple of guests talking about the issue. They had a Dr. Strayer who has been doing research on the quality of thinking as we text, or multitasking, etc. and another guest who can talk about the issues of policing people who are texting. You can read the story or listen to the entire discussion at: http://upr.org/programs/access-utah.
Pay attention to the upcoming membership drive. I'll match your contribution to UPR if you have decided that it's a valuable resource to you!
Friday, September 7, 2012
All Politics are Local
You've heard the saying: "All politics are local?" I have often wondered about this issue, but recently, I have been thinking about my taxes burden, my house, where I live, and the laws that are in place here. We get very focused on the national elections when we choose our president, but what really matters is in our local elections and the choices of judges. The judges are the ones who interpret the constitution.
I have been a bit frustrated about how we learn the competence of the judges. I reviewed one of our voting information books, and the review of the judges was based on lawyers interpretation of whether or not the judge came prepared to court, whether or not they were competent, etc. It's not a discussion at all about their values, their judgments, etc. I want to know how the judges rule on certain cases. Are they likely to view the constitution as a "dead" document where we are to follow it by the letter of the law? Or, are we more likely to view it "living, breathing" document that is adjustable by circumstance and by the "zeitgeist?"
There's a very informative discussion on yahoo about the electoral college if you are interested:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-romney-could-tie-electoral-college-just-explain-194537108.html#more-id
I have been a bit frustrated about how we learn the competence of the judges. I reviewed one of our voting information books, and the review of the judges was based on lawyers interpretation of whether or not the judge came prepared to court, whether or not they were competent, etc. It's not a discussion at all about their values, their judgments, etc. I want to know how the judges rule on certain cases. Are they likely to view the constitution as a "dead" document where we are to follow it by the letter of the law? Or, are we more likely to view it "living, breathing" document that is adjustable by circumstance and by the "zeitgeist?"
There's a very informative discussion on yahoo about the electoral college if you are interested:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/obama-romney-could-tie-electoral-college-just-explain-194537108.html#more-id
Thursday, September 6, 2012
Democratic National Convention
Once again, I'm into listening to the DNC this week. It's been a bit harder to catch all of the speeches, but I am able to watch some of the key speakers online. It's amazing how former President Bill Clinton can still inspire so many people. He was quite engaging and an enjoyable speaker. Many pundits were talking about how long his speech was, but it didn't feel that way. I have not been impressed with his sense of self-importance, however.
He did touch on some topics that address the "values" of America. Certainly the issue of whether or not being successful is a shared experience rather than an individual one is an important distinction between Republicans and Democrats. It's a good thing to think about. Do we attribute our success to the fact that America is built on individual's work? Or, do we attribute our success to shared effort? The fable of the Little Red Hen is an important narrative exposing this "american value." Where does the family fit in to this narrative?
Obama speaks tonight. I am looking forward to hearing his speech.
He did touch on some topics that address the "values" of America. Certainly the issue of whether or not being successful is a shared experience rather than an individual one is an important distinction between Republicans and Democrats. It's a good thing to think about. Do we attribute our success to the fact that America is built on individual's work? Or, do we attribute our success to shared effort? The fable of the Little Red Hen is an important narrative exposing this "american value." Where does the family fit in to this narrative?
Obama speaks tonight. I am looking forward to hearing his speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)