Two relatively small things happened this week that strike me as being important, and I am worried that they, and the larger story they tell, might get lost in the midst of this week’s terrible news. So ignore this at will, and I will put down a marker.
At a time when so many businesses are woefully short-staffed, one would think that making childcare more affordable would appeal to Republicans. But we know that’s a pipe dream.
Childcare and parental leave are light years more progressive in other well-off countries. But then again most of those counties have strong central governments that care about improving the lives of their citizens.
According to a segment on pre-K education that I heard on NPR several years ago, Oklahoma Republicans established an extensive government-funded education program starting with three-year-olds. They sold it not on humanitarian grounds but on economic grounds and verified a few years later that their expectations were justified: pre-K education more than paid for itself in reduced expenditures for remedial programs that had previously been necessary in later childhood and for teenagers. It seems likely that affordable, high-quality childcare would pay for itself in the same way. It would, therefore, appeal to rational conservatives if there were any rational conservatives in positions of authority in government.
Rex Thanks for this shard of sunlight from Oklahoma, where every county voted for Trump in 2016 and again in 2020. Personally, I think that anyone who denigrates child care is also a humbug about Santa Claus.
I would not expect a humanitarian rationale for child care from an Oklahoma legislature. Still, I applaud its ‘economic rationale’ for pre-K education that would appeal to conservatives.
Incidentally, in Montgomery Township NJ, my ‘Democratic’ community, last November the voters approved (by less than 50 votes) to fund a pre-K school program.
Perhaps an economic rationale for “Medicare for all” would work as well. Private healthcare insurance costs American companies an arm and a leg - about twice what public healthcare costs in other industrialized nations. American companies bear most of those costs, and those costs cut into profits and make them less competitive globally. “Medicare for all” makes excellent sense as business policy, we could even sell it as a tax cut (portraying private health insurance as taxation).
“ Beyond the Affordable Care Act: A Physicians’ Proposal for Single-Payer Health Care Reform establishes the vision and principles that will empower Americans to replace our expensive, inadequate, and inefficient collection of health care systems with an improved Medicare for All.”
John, Agree completely except, let's begin calling them what they are,... corporate "investors",...Not donors. Investors expect returns, or ROI,...a return on their investment which is why we get the legislation (tax breaks, loopholes, etc) that they paid for to their Rethug puppets.
American healthcare often costs far more than twice as much as in other industrialized countries.
Add to that the completely unnecessary hospital bureaucracy, repeating tests carried out hours or days beforehand, all to maximize profitability.
Such a pity. American medicine is potentially so good, but the medical profession is caught in crossfire between often barely relevant forces... lawyers, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals corporations, administrators... even populist politicians.
Last night, we watched documentary films on Dr. Burzynski in Houston, TX.
Beginning with his own observation and and elegantly simple idea he had in 1967, Dr. B. pioneered a new, holistic, non-toxic way to treat many desperate cancer patients. And for many, his out-of-the-box turn-around worked!
Patients tried his protocol when conventional medicine had failed and given up on them. Many survived deadly, hopeless prognoses given by their own doctors. Some survivors had been living normal, cancer-free lives for years, often for decades.
While it wasn't surprising that Dr. B. and his work were viciously attacked non-stop by conventional medicine for decades, the degree of effort, resources, and extremism invested shocked even us. The lack of care for the evidently needless suffering and deaths of patients by the medical profession, FDA, cancer institutes, etc under a rigid, profit-driven structure stunned us.
THIS is how it works, not just for 'treating' patients in a hugely profitable industry (cancer) or even just for American medicine. This is how and why our economic, political, social, and yes, medical troubles are so incomprehensibly broken and intractable. They don't serve the people. They serve their inhumane corporate masters only. Way beyond crossfire...
I know nothing about this doctor's work... and my default starting point is one of skepticism. That is the way my mind has worked since childhood. In old age -- and over 20 years now since the start of a rare cancer, treated by chemo etc. until seven years ago -- I am more aware now of the limits of skepticism. The only remark I am, then, willing to make in this particular context is to express my understanding that cancer is a highly individual phenomenon; just as no two individuals are identical, the way a cancer will manifest will vary from one person to the next. So, if we use "shoes" as a metaphor for treatment, shoes will help but "one size shoes fits all" cannot.
The metaphor's not quite right, but it does express reasonable skepticism about any and every approach, especially about panaceas. What works for one may harm another.
As for the "rigid, profit-driven structure", that's the best America has been capable of providing. And here, America's best is not good enough. Precisely because of the systematic application of an economic panacea grounded in nothing more substantial than beliefs convenient to powerful corporate and political interests.
Like all things American, this irrelevant profit-driven machine has been applied elsewhere, although nowhere as systematically as in the USA. So that the health of the US population is quite surprisingly poor in relation to the country's wealth... and other countries that apply what right-wing American politicians like to condemn out of hand as "socialism" have easier access, lower prices and better public health.
Money should lubricate machinery, in America it puts sand into it.
And bureaucracy is bureaucracy is an endemic disease, regardless of whether an organization is public or private. Virulent forms affect healthcare-for-profit. Grave problems arise when the primary purpose of a public service is not, say, education or maximizing public health, but maximizing profits paid to shareholders. Healthcare shouldn't be all about making strangers rich.
*
I'm going to add to this an note on bureaucratitis, contemporary version:
The purpose is to maximize profits at everyone else's expense: company employees are screwed -- SYSTEMATICALLY -- customers are screwed -- SYSTEMATICALLY.
And all systems are designed to maximize frustration and rage.
Bad enough in France.
Can be deadly in a country where every other citizen has an armory with the firepower of a platoon, if not a company, of soldiers at the time when the Holy Holy Holy Second Amendment was passed.
I write like this because at this moment I am being messed about by a typical US business called UPS. Quite superlative when it comes to delivering RAGE and FRUSTRATION...
Thanks for nothing, America, when it comes to poisoning the planet with a stinking business model...
Becky The Republican bloviating about ‘death panels’ was nonsense. As already recognized in some states (and countries) individuals with terminal illnesses should have the right to die with dignity. This process requires safeguards, as has already been done in some places.
We’ve just had a friend with terminal cancer who lived in great pain and was down to 45 pounds before she died. I believe that she should have had a more humane choice.
I am glad that even in dark red Oklahoma they, for whatever reason, funded pre-K education. However, my take on this most of the policies of this country including the insane lack of gun control, we do not give a rat's behind about children. Actually we love to complain about everything, but staunchly refuse to realize that it will take both political will and money to solve these problems. As an aside, the news had a story about experimental "casitas" that could be used to help with housing. They are made with mass wood which seems to be thin pieces of wood pressed together and are very strong. Our governor and one of our Senators were there praising the project. They did look like livable space.
Michele NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Arden set an admirable standard by nursing her baby when she attended the United Nations, but the thought of Majorie Taylor Greene as a mother I find revolting.
I find Gangrene revolting in any role....can't imagine her as a mother. Probably one of those who sends Christmas cards with pics of everyone in the family holding locked and loaded.
Its interesting to me that when a program is framed in a humanitarian light, Republicans go all ape-crap at “socialism”, yet when finances get involved, viola’, it works
Dave I like your idea of sprinkling gold dust on such “socialist” programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even ‘child care.” How would this work with ‘fair share’ of taxes?
Here’s how that works; “fair share of taxes” is a concept that requires an out of box belief that “the entirety of American Society” allows for the ultra rich to become richer. Without the multitudes of the unwashed, the elite have no one to suck money from, therefore they “owe” the unwashed their rightful due in the form of a tax structure that nurtures said unwashed in the manner of living conditions to sustain them with clean water, roads, education, and infrastructure to maintain a humane society
Given the vast wealth they pilfer from the rest of society, it is only fair that they sustain that which gives them the life they enjoy, us; the people that buy their stuff. They may feel thats not fair, but thats because they’re still thinking inside the box
Just to be clear, to get all the goodies we on the liberal pro human side of the aisle think society needs, tax rates will have to rise for individuals and companies. There is no shortcut. This means that a huge majority of people will need to accept and support increased taxation.
Living in Texas, I observed that resistance to taxes, especially for programs one disliked, let to resistance to all "gummint" programs.
Yes, tax revenue must be increased, but the Piketty data shows that capitalism is stabilized by steeply progressive taxation on both income and net worth. Wage earners already pay over 14% of income in FICA taxes (as a fraction of compensation, including the part of the FICA tax employers are required to pay), which is already more than the bottom half of them would need to pay in a tax regime consistent with a stable, capitalist economy. So, taxes may need to rise slightly on above-median incomes but not enough to put any serious economic stress on anyone. However, taxes would rise sharply in the top 1% and substantially more sharply on the top 0.1%. There would be a lot of squeeling pigs in the wealthy class, but if Americans were rational in their election choices (they aren’t and probably never will be, but bear with me for a moment), the squeeling could be ignored and eventually turned against the squeelers.
Rex Among the ‘squealers’ would be the providers of private jets. The last time I flew I paid an extra $75 for a little more leg room in economy. As for booze and vittles, I carried on a coffee and a sandwich.
When Germany planned for the reopening their workforce after the pandemic, they put childcare and preschool-12th grade as where to start so workers could get back to work. Golly, logical thinking…
Yes they did. My grandson started first grade in September, and his younger brother, 3, started what they call kindergarten, but is actually preschool. The teachers are great, and very caring. Both boys love school.
Putting what HCR notes as a potential turning point into a larger perspective, it reminded me of an article I recently read on why the US leads wealthy nations in "Deaths of Despair".
Among the key takeaways are: "The U.S. firmly leads other comparable wealthy nations in "deaths of despair," that is, deaths from suicide, drugs, or alcohol. Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania sought to find out why, so they compared the U.S. to a control group of 16 wealthy countries. They place the blame squarely on the lack of communal assistance in the U.S. While other countries offer affordable healthcare, free education, and plentiful paid work leave, the U.S. does not."
As Graham Nash wrote in one of his great lyrics that he sang with the now late David Crosby in Wind On The Water, "It's not that we don't know. It's just that we don't want to care".
HCR's recognition of this is a hopeful sign indeed. The link to the article provides the details.
In 1536 Henry VIII began his Dissolution of the Monasteries. About 12,000 men and women lived and worked in these 900 institutions , who were suddenly turned out of their homes in a country of 500,000. They were also the seats of learning and education, hospitality, and the main source of charity for orphans, the aged, and the infirm. England’s social safety net was torn and the country was overwhelmed with the poor and needy.
:). Very True Anne-Louise. I was referencing all of the current Republican party to Henry. Just throw corporations under the bus as well. For good measure.
BK As Trumpites realize that they have been screwed by the ‘evangelical Christians,’ expect an upswing in their “deaths of despair.” Any chance that they will be going to heaven, as I shout an “up yours!” Farewell?
My guess is that Republicans view the idea of government childcare assistance as a threat to the traditional female role of mother and domestic worker.
It appears to me that it is essential to install a stratified society for authoritarianism to function. First of all, it creates friction between classes, it provides the divides that enable conquering, and establishes a chain of rewards and terrors ultimately controlled from the top. At the bottom are disadvantaged, disenfranchised groups, that even the most exploited party loyalists get to boss around, cementing a critical mass of citizens with a stake in the system, who typically fight like hell for the status quo.
Those who believe in universal empowerment face an entrenched and powerful enemy, with a an invested following. I think the US has always been at war with itself over whether the democratic or despotic model would prevail and the balance has shifted back and fourth, sometimes in several opposing directions at once, depending on which aspect of society we talk about.
If we, the governed are to be, collectively, the ultimate consent for governmental power, why would we not want robust and accessible childcare? Why would we not want equitable protection and justice under law?
J L, Reading your comment I try to imagine myself wanting to hate, or degrade, or control, or oppress others. I just can't see that. It seems so obvious to want to work together, to uphold one another, to celebrate humanity. Thanks for clearly describing this division because for my brain and heart it is really hard to fathom .
Ultimately, JL, many of said "governed" want to be on "top" more than they want anyone else to get anything to which they don't "deserve" based upon their race, gender, sexual/gender identity, and religion. Simple as that. Many of them don't see a problem with anything that keeps us "others" in our place, even as it keeps them from success on their own "merits".
"Merits" can be pretty subjective. Certainly that is relevant to wealth. To some degree, hard work and diligence is a factor, as is total slacking, but I would not call DJT "diligent" or a "workaholic". It some point having money makes more money, and that tends to snowball. Robert Reich claims that Trump would be richer if he had put his huge inheritance into an index fund and walked away. Luck, of circumstances, especially which parents you were born to, has a great deal to do with it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/16/super-rich-family-dynastic-wealth-pandemic . "Human rights are universal.
At some people, being on "top", or at least lording it over others, seems to be "the only thing". You see it in road rage, where a diver make risk their own life and those of others over a real or imagined petty slight. You see it in the war crimes being committed by Russia against Ukraine.
When one is asked how he/she measures their success the usual earmarks are proffered. Job status, money, respect, love, possessions, etc. Never do you hear humility, or kindness, but one does witness it as the greatest gift of the poor.
They emulate the Roman elite. Your only purpose is to serve them. The Roman Empire led by its industrial elite failed. That game plan lost the super bowl especially so after the lions were removed.
It's also an indication of how much they love the "child" in the womb but once that brat gets born, it and it's parents are really on their own. I'll never forget the couple I met in New Zealand. They were from one of the Nordic countries and were using some of each of their state-provided parental leave to travel with their adorable 2 year old son. This country seems more and more barbaric when it comes to the basics: health and well-being across the age span, good education, decent housing, etc.
MisT Are Majorie Taylor Greene and Bubba Boebert examples of ‘good Republican mothers?’ A frightening thought. Who could possibly wish to provide child care, if they ever had kids [identifiable by the AK 15s in their baby hands?]
There is now talk of MTG angling to be Trump's vice-presidential running mate. Better to have her at home taking care of the kids, even though that's a revolting thought.
The "GOP"s plutocratic patrons also see government childcare assistance complicating, and in sometimes directly competing with a profit making opportunity they aspire to own. I have talked to or read more than one Republican who claims to believe that any form of government ownership or service is intolerable, and that literally everything, roads, parks, schools and universities, even police, fire fighters, and soldiers should exclusively be provided by profit making enterprises.
JL Graham: in my SC county:" may I count the dangerous pot holes one by one"...it is dangerous to drive at night if I have not learned where the deepest ones are located....
And what HCR mentions frequently - they promote the trope that this takes money from hard-working people (white men) and gives it to those lazy, slacker folks (minorities).
You can have a strong central government that is proactive, like those other countries, or you can have a strong central government that basically is reacting to the effects of it's not being proactive.
The rhetoric of the GOP/conservative movement is contradictory. They want mom to stay home and take care of the children, but one income stream is woefully inadequate to raise a family. Meanwhile, they oppose and block any measures that would actually help realize this goal. They profess to be “pro life”, but refuse to legislate any acts that would give expectant and new mothers aid. The only consistent interpretation of this stance that I can see is that they want most of us in poverty.
You’d think that this would appeal to Republicans, if they were sincere about their rhetoric. I think this LFAA, along with so many others, makes it clear that they don’t care about American workers. In fact, they seem to prefer a tiny middle class and impoverished working- and under-classes, with the wealth mostly in their donors’ hands and the lower 90% scratching and fighting for whatever they can get. It makes it much harder to organize against them and ensures that the vast majority of the money is theirs.
I strongly believe that before you run for office, you must live for a year on the income of someone who represents the typical struggling American.
I also believe that We the People need to determine whether or not they receive a pension after they serve, and that we also have the same healthcare package that they do.
Hedge Funds have been buying up "Child Care" centers like Americans gobble Big Macs.
So, "affordable" Child Care in our "Capitalist" system is very unlikely to appear because some Latino guys in Congress participate in raising their kids.
1. The people in power in the states are NOT Latino. Nor is any political majority in Congress.
2. Hedge funds will payoff anyone who attempts to lower the cost of "child care".
3. "Business" as usual will continue Making Americans Poor Again.
Private equity has notched decades of high returns for investors by following a well-worn strategy: acquire distressed or undervalued companies or real estate, increase profits and then sell them. Greatest hits include foreclosed homes, highway rest stops and coal mines bought out of bankruptcy.
New York, where I live, just "partnered" with a Private Equity fund to "revamp" their rest stops. McDonald's was removed everywhere.
Not that I am a fan of McDonalds but they have an affordable coffee and an Egg McMuffin. So, you don't have to hand over your entire bank account just to use the restroom, get a coffee and a bit to eat.
So, now? When I travel in NY I will have to load a bag of money in the trunk with the luggage just to, umm, make a "rest stop".
My love and life partner died when our children were five and eight years old. Many people insisted that I should pass the kids off to aunts or other relatives and start my life over again. This struck me as cold hearted and crass, so I raised them alone. It is a touch job in the best of circumstances, but is was my choice to have children, and my gender did not give me a free ticket out of the situation. More and more men are seeing parenthood as a shared responsibility, as it should be. For good reason I see the care of our young to be a sacred duty and have never regretted my decision. The government needs to "man up" for this reality in order to insure the future health of our children and our country.
Parenting is dicey business at best. Bravo to you Craig for shouldering the responsibility. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent, even though most of us are capable biologically of making children. “Parent” has two meanings. One is biological. One is cultural. Culturally we give dad’s a huge pass to -well, pass, on being a “good, attentive, nurturing” parent. Woe be to the woman who falls short in this category, though. I am heartened by the cultural shift this Dads Caucus represents, and for all the new fathers (and all that came before, like yourself, Craig) that step up as an equal in the cultural responsibility to raise, guide, and provide for our children. The greatest amount of people win when children are well cared for, nurtured, educated, and inspired.
I know many adults who as children were passed off to relatives to be raised after a mother’s untimely death. Now these people are deep into their 60’s and 70’s and some were raised with love and integrated as part of the family. Others were kicked out at 16, had to quit school and find a life. The fathers, remarried and unwelcome by the present wife were completely exonerated by society in general as their right to find a new life. Child support was never discussed and many men have just walked away. Same with divorced families. Because the patriarchy got to pick and choose instead of being held financially responsible if they got someone else to do their job for them. It’s not true for all widowed/divorced single parents, and many did wonderful jobs as step parents. But, I can tell you stories told to me first hand by adults who suffered from being a throw away child.
I am watching with interest the newly married young couple next door and their newborn infant. Both parents have taken a leave of absence from work. Mom 5 months and Dad 3 months.
I think back when my Mom had us. Did my father even take a day off of work? My Mom did not have an outside of the home job.
How different times are. I am in my 60's and wonder about the different effects on society these differences will bring in 50 years.
My dad was able to take a little time off work with each of us, I think he took a weeks vacation. Then our great aunts came to take over after that. I’m in my mid 60’s and the second of 4 daughters. My nephew is able to take 6 weeks of family leave with each of his 4 soon to be 5 children. But being there’s no standard maturity/paternity leave at this time, it’s wildly unpredictable. We the people should vote for candidates willing to create a national standard.
Thank you Craig. You sound like a wonderful loving father. Pray your family has thrived despite the loss of your beloved. My grandmother died when my mother was only 18 months old. She was farmed out (literally, Aunt Mary had a farm in Fennville, MI). My grandfather remarried when my mother was 5. When I was an adult, my mother shared with me how she never felt she belonged and everything was temporary. Of course, as a baby, this was hard to articulate. It's bad enough dealing with death and loss, but you avoided adding despair and abandonment to the mix.
Craig, my sons were 9 and 11 when the same thing happened to me. No one I knew made such a suggestion, because I was their mother. Raising them alone was the hardest work I ever did. Hence, my comment downthread in re: Rep. Gomez’s remark. It hit me where I live.
Thing is, there is really no tension between the Bill of Rights contracting the role of government and the expansions of government in the socioeconomic sphere that Professor Richardson describes, because both have the same goal: to ensure the ability of the common citizen to live freely. We are in an ever-evolving process defining what the role of government is is achieving that goal, but the thrust is the same, and the necessity of government to have an active role remains.
You are not free if you have opportunities unavailable to you.
You are not free if you cannot pursue the career you want because of the cost of childcare.
You are not free if you have to spend every useful hour at work just to stay fed, clothed, and housed.
You are not free if you cannot afford treatment for any medical problems you would otherwise have treated, or are continually uncertain as to whether that treatment can continue.
You are not free if you cannot decide when and how to have children, and use every option available to you to make that choice.
You are not free if higher education is unattainable to you. Neither are you free unless your school library has the books you need on the topic you choose. Knowledge is power.
You are not free if you cannot walk outside sure that the air you will breathe because you must breathe will only help you rather than hurt you. Ditto the water you drink, and the food you eat.
You are not free if you live in fear of violence in a public place. Whether from gangs, law enforcement, random shooters, it matters not.
And I assure you, the grand high almighty business sector will not grant you these freedoms, when they profit off of the absence of all of them.
"You are not free if you cannot decide [ IF ], when and how to have children, and use every option available to you to make that choice."
That is going to become the reality of the future - the planet cannot stand 8 billion+ humans - that's the unpleasant reality we face. The word IF is missing. Sadly most of these freedoms will evaporate in the next 20 years.
Hugh, my friends in Europe and Asia as well as many in the US, think the citizens of the US are completely clueless. We here know that is not true, but the fact that so many harmful laws exist and so many politicians now in the House and Senate are election deniers and Jan 6 supporters, shocks them. How can so many millions of Americans think this way?
I agree there is no real answer. The U.S. has a long history of entertaining extremists and extremism as well as flipping back and forth between conservatism and progressivism. We have always been a divided country.
We are individuals with a rich experience of individual sentience and we are interdependent with others. The Bill of Rights compliments the broader provisions of the constitution. We enjoy certain freedoms to and freedoms from, enabled by our collective responsibilities to promote and defend those freedoms for all.
Well said. Carried to its next level, you are not free if you are held in the grip of a capitalist oligarchy intent on keeping its "machinery" down,. If you are not free, then you are a slave to the oligarchy and no matter how much you wish for it, there are no "bootstraps" that can lift you out of said slavery.
Money is a form of power. You can find people who will do almost anything for money, even murder or commit treason. Excessive money that has become "essential" to our political process is killing democracy in plain sight and fueling epic corruption, yet only smolders as an urgent issue becomes it now seems just "normal". But any sort of societal power is antidemocratic when excessively concentrated in the hands of the few. The essence of democracy is in the wide distribution of political power. The boundaries of law are supposed to apply to anyone, and every person supposed to cast an equal, deciding vote (at least in theory).
There were good reasons why progressive taxes were retained, environmental, workplace, and consumer protection laws put in place, state colleges subsidized, dominating media ownership regulated, campaign finance reformed, aid and education for the poor advanced, banks more prudently regulated, "Truth in Advertising" pursued, Anti-trust enforced, etc., etc., and then a carpet bombing media propaganda campaign conned the public into letting it all go, after which the percentage of the assets, and politicians, of the entire country owned by the 1% skyrocketed., the middle class contracted, the poor suffered, and life for most became less secure. The state of the "general welfare" broadly declined over a period of 40 years, as did the basis for optimism about our future.
I am OK with capitalism to a point, and find it useful, even helpful to liberty, but unregulated capitalism make no more sense than unregulated streets and highways. Not every law or policy is wise or effective, but deregulated accumulation of power and resultant impunity is ultimately evil. It is what has bedeviled humanity for eons.
Very positive news. Related to this I would also really like to see some action , hear voices, around the national discussion of abortion and male responsibility for birth control. It seems totally absent.
While visiting Taragona Spain, walking on a plaza I saw a vending machine where I got a Kit Kat snack. There were other Spanish unhealthy snacks in the machine, as well as condoms. :)
The battlefield of reproductive rights is always fought on the field of women’s bodies. Especially disturbing are rape and incest and the galling christian right’s ideas about the burden to be carried solely by the impregnated be they women or girls. We need to have a comprehensive national conversation that includes all issues around pregnancy, sex education, birth control and the fact that it usually involves both a woman and a man to get pregnant. With dna testing can we hold the male responsible too? Maybe the new Dad’s Caucus can elevate our national discourse around sex ed and how we view pregnancy and moral (dare I use that word)? responsibility? For men convicted of rape should we consider sterilization? Vasectomies? I know this is complicated but I am never hearing any discussion in the public realm about the male. It’s time. Sure, condoms in vending machines is a societal minimum but hardly cuts it for so many reasons. It also addresses the spread of STDs and is peripheral but also important.you can’t force someone to put it on.
I am really proud of the members of this caucus - all of whom I am really proud of for the other things they do in Congress. Most of them are young enough to be my sons, and they are the exact same as my nephew (the son I never had) putting their families first and foremost. I talk to my nephew every week, and the majority of the conversation is about how he manages to do what he does to support them (which is hard nowadays), but more important how being the Dad he didn't have is more important. And he's doing a damn good job. There is hope for we men.
We are individuals, we are families (and many of us parents) and we are a society and societies. So yes, all those other things they do in congress that supports all responsible individuals and families, including generations yet to come, is part and parcel of the constellation of care we share with our closest others.
There is so much more sanity, love, care, and joy available FOR ALL, when guys step up to be equals. Being burdened with being superior, dominating, unemotional, entitled, and uncompromising just sucks for everyone - especially guys!
Much like healthcare that is independent of your employment allows freedom to be an entrepreneur, affordable childcare and elder care allows people to provide better for their children and parents. We have good role models all around us: countries that have more stable and innovative workforces because their basic needs are met. We can, and must, do better.
The amended constitution states the government could not force people to practice a certain religion. Don't the MAGA right use religion as their excuse to eliminate abortion? So by banning it, isn't that forcing others to practice a religion?
Not just that. There is another mainstream religion that has as its fundamental belief that a child is not a person until it is born. To rule otherwise is promoting one religion over another, thereby violating the First Amendment.
It's an amazingly huge gap in the conversation. I have a cousin - former nurse - who switched exclusively to being the primary caregiver in her family for her two girls, both that will need intensive life-long services. Anything they've received as kids just shuts off when they 'age out'. My cousin has worked at the state level to advocate for continued support for disabled young adults as the transition out of programs based on their age, but the stories of families basically falling off a support cliff is heartbreaking.
Not unlike the aging out requirement in foster parenting, after which (age 18 I believe), the young person is on their own whether or not they have received support and education to prepare them to support themselves. I'd like to think that there are foster parents who continue relationships with their foster kids but there are many who are in it for the money. No money, sayonara.
I'm beyond delighted to hear about the formation of the Dads Caucus. I truly hope you are right about it being a turning point in how we view the place of government in supporting parents and families. We have needed men advocating for children and families for so long!
Hoping not to be a broken record, the Marshall Plan was, in fact, a social safety net for decimated Germany. As for childcare, parents have the right to up to 3 years each to be with their children without losing their job. There is also financial help "Parent money" in certain amounts, depending on the situation. That said, there is also child care pre-kindergarten. None of it is perfect, but it is far and away more humane than the offerings of the US. Germany lacks personnel and so is making it easier for people to immigrate. The Kita/Kindergarten at the church I belong to has children from 15 different nations.
Affordable, reliable, and attentive childcare has consistently proven to be cost effective. In the few corporations that provide on site childcare, absenteeism is reduced, employees are loyal and stay with the company reducing such costs of worker turnover as recruitment and retraining, and employees are more productive because they worry less about the well-being of their children. Why US corporations keep finding excuses to NOT provide such a perq is a mystery to me. Maybe having a men's caucus to address caregiving and childcare can finally begin to effect some overdue change.
In 1940 there were some truly Neanderthal Republicans in Congress. FDR sought to highlight this by repeating in his campaign speeches MARTIN, BARTON, AND FISH (to the cadence of Wynkyn, Blinken, & Nod).
The audiences loved it and would repeat with FDR—-MARTIN, BARTON, AND FISH.
President Biden and others, in highlighting the venality and absurdity of the 2023 Republican Animal House, could continually focus on MCCARTHY, GREENE, AND SANTOS and get audiences to chant this with them. (In 1948, Truman had the same impact with his ‘do nothing Congress’ mantra.)
McCarthy has sold his soul to become House speaker and will be hoisted on his own petard with his commitments to 20 renegade Republicans on raising the national debt limit and the forthcoming budget.
Majorie Taylor Greene, who had outstunk Boebert as the most dreadful, gun-toting Republican Congresswoman, has suddenly bonded with McCarthy, had her ban on committee spots lifted, and has been appointed by McCarthy to key House committees.
George Santos is the poster boy of the Republican House for his fraudulency. Late night shows and Saturday Night Live feed on his ongoing torrent of falsities. That McCarthy, spastic over his razor-thin House majority, welcomed Santos to the House and anointed him with two committee spots highlights the rottenness of the Republican House.
Please repeat after me: MCCARTHY, GREENE, AND SANTOS.
But what about all the other F-ups who are left out? I expect we will be seeing and hearing Jordan, Stefanik, Boebert, desantis ad nauseam this year. Watching live hearings, I had to leave the room when repubs spoke. Now they are committee majorities. 🤮🤢
🤢. Of course! I’m not criticizing. It’s just so hard to pick only 3. Even an alphabetical by Hakeem Jeffries would not be enough. But you’re right that the 3 word chant is important. Lock Them Up! Traitors and liars should not be walking around free never mind in our legislature. And now with guns.
This is the tactic I've used when I'm forced to defend the Democrats: I say that "there are crazies on both sides, but there are just so, so many more on the right."
It's not that I feel there are crazies on the left, but at least it gets people to start to listen to me.
We’re human. None perfect. But some of us have been given more graceful humanity to share. And historically that has been more Democrats than Republicans. Graceful tactic, Michelle.
Thank you for highlighting this true need for healthy children, stability and assurance for care at both ends of the age spectrum, and support for all configurations of family structure. Realizing that nothing will happen overnight as you said, it is at least encouraging that the desperate situation so many families find themselves in has at last bee noticed.
At a time when so many businesses are woefully short-staffed, one would think that making childcare more affordable would appeal to Republicans. But we know that’s a pipe dream.
Childcare and parental leave are light years more progressive in other well-off countries. But then again most of those counties have strong central governments that care about improving the lives of their citizens.
According to a segment on pre-K education that I heard on NPR several years ago, Oklahoma Republicans established an extensive government-funded education program starting with three-year-olds. They sold it not on humanitarian grounds but on economic grounds and verified a few years later that their expectations were justified: pre-K education more than paid for itself in reduced expenditures for remedial programs that had previously been necessary in later childhood and for teenagers. It seems likely that affordable, high-quality childcare would pay for itself in the same way. It would, therefore, appeal to rational conservatives if there were any rational conservatives in positions of authority in government.
Rex Thanks for this shard of sunlight from Oklahoma, where every county voted for Trump in 2016 and again in 2020. Personally, I think that anyone who denigrates child care is also a humbug about Santa Claus.
I would not expect a humanitarian rationale for child care from an Oklahoma legislature. Still, I applaud its ‘economic rationale’ for pre-K education that would appeal to conservatives.
Incidentally, in Montgomery Township NJ, my ‘Democratic’ community, last November the voters approved (by less than 50 votes) to fund a pre-K school program.
Perhaps an economic rationale for “Medicare for all” would work as well. Private healthcare insurance costs American companies an arm and a leg - about twice what public healthcare costs in other industrialized nations. American companies bear most of those costs, and those costs cut into profits and make them less competitive globally. “Medicare for all” makes excellent sense as business policy, we could even sell it as a tax cut (portraying private health insurance as taxation).
“ Beyond the Affordable Care Act: A Physicians’ Proposal for Single-Payer Health Care Reform establishes the vision and principles that will empower Americans to replace our expensive, inadequate, and inefficient collection of health care systems with an improved Medicare for All.”
https://pnhp.org/
John There you go being ‘rationale’ again. Wouldn’t get through to the Fox News audience.
No, but it might get through to the corporate donors to the GOP.
John, Agree completely except, let's begin calling them what they are,... corporate "investors",...Not donors. Investors expect returns, or ROI,...a return on their investment which is why we get the legislation (tax breaks, loopholes, etc) that they paid for to their Rethug puppets.
And to the fence-sitters that typically sit out every election.
How is Faux News going to spin C/2023 E3 coming on Feb1 & 2. Apparently the Comet will appear to be green in color not orange. OK to Look Up.
C/2022 E3 (discovered in 2022). Here's a link to details on where to look and when, probably more detail than many of us need but it's an interesting article. https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/new-comet-might-get-bright-enough-for-binoculars/
American healthcare often costs far more than twice as much as in other industrialized countries.
Add to that the completely unnecessary hospital bureaucracy, repeating tests carried out hours or days beforehand, all to maximize profitability.
Such a pity. American medicine is potentially so good, but the medical profession is caught in crossfire between often barely relevant forces... lawyers, insurance companies, pharmaceuticals corporations, administrators... even populist politicians.
Last night, we watched documentary films on Dr. Burzynski in Houston, TX.
Beginning with his own observation and and elegantly simple idea he had in 1967, Dr. B. pioneered a new, holistic, non-toxic way to treat many desperate cancer patients. And for many, his out-of-the-box turn-around worked!
Patients tried his protocol when conventional medicine had failed and given up on them. Many survived deadly, hopeless prognoses given by their own doctors. Some survivors had been living normal, cancer-free lives for years, often for decades.
While it wasn't surprising that Dr. B. and his work were viciously attacked non-stop by conventional medicine for decades, the degree of effort, resources, and extremism invested shocked even us. The lack of care for the evidently needless suffering and deaths of patients by the medical profession, FDA, cancer institutes, etc under a rigid, profit-driven structure stunned us.
THIS is how it works, not just for 'treating' patients in a hugely profitable industry (cancer) or even just for American medicine. This is how and why our economic, political, social, and yes, medical troubles are so incomprehensibly broken and intractable. They don't serve the people. They serve their inhumane corporate masters only. Way beyond crossfire...
We still have our jaws on the floor.
I know nothing about this doctor's work... and my default starting point is one of skepticism. That is the way my mind has worked since childhood. In old age -- and over 20 years now since the start of a rare cancer, treated by chemo etc. until seven years ago -- I am more aware now of the limits of skepticism. The only remark I am, then, willing to make in this particular context is to express my understanding that cancer is a highly individual phenomenon; just as no two individuals are identical, the way a cancer will manifest will vary from one person to the next. So, if we use "shoes" as a metaphor for treatment, shoes will help but "one size shoes fits all" cannot.
The metaphor's not quite right, but it does express reasonable skepticism about any and every approach, especially about panaceas. What works for one may harm another.
As for the "rigid, profit-driven structure", that's the best America has been capable of providing. And here, America's best is not good enough. Precisely because of the systematic application of an economic panacea grounded in nothing more substantial than beliefs convenient to powerful corporate and political interests.
Like all things American, this irrelevant profit-driven machine has been applied elsewhere, although nowhere as systematically as in the USA. So that the health of the US population is quite surprisingly poor in relation to the country's wealth... and other countries that apply what right-wing American politicians like to condemn out of hand as "socialism" have easier access, lower prices and better public health.
Money should lubricate machinery, in America it puts sand into it.
And bureaucracy is bureaucracy is an endemic disease, regardless of whether an organization is public or private. Virulent forms affect healthcare-for-profit. Grave problems arise when the primary purpose of a public service is not, say, education or maximizing public health, but maximizing profits paid to shareholders. Healthcare shouldn't be all about making strangers rich.
*
I'm going to add to this an note on bureaucratitis, contemporary version:
The purpose is to maximize profits at everyone else's expense: company employees are screwed -- SYSTEMATICALLY -- customers are screwed -- SYSTEMATICALLY.
And all systems are designed to maximize frustration and rage.
Bad enough in France.
Can be deadly in a country where every other citizen has an armory with the firepower of a platoon, if not a company, of soldiers at the time when the Holy Holy Holy Second Amendment was passed.
I write like this because at this moment I am being messed about by a typical US business called UPS. Quite superlative when it comes to delivering RAGE and FRUSTRATION...
Thanks for nothing, America, when it comes to poisoning the planet with a stinking business model...
I’ve been saying this for years. Cut out the middleman like other great countries have done. We’d pay less!!!!!
Maybe so, but "Death panels!". Best to let people die without health care.
Becky The Republican bloviating about ‘death panels’ was nonsense. As already recognized in some states (and countries) individuals with terminal illnesses should have the right to die with dignity. This process requires safeguards, as has already been done in some places.
We’ve just had a friend with terminal cancer who lived in great pain and was down to 45 pounds before she died. I believe that she should have had a more humane choice.
(Sorry, I should have used my sarcasm font).
Don't look back to "Death Panels," we're going forward, not back!
LOVE THIS APPROACH!
Good morning, Keith,
I am glad that even in dark red Oklahoma they, for whatever reason, funded pre-K education. However, my take on this most of the policies of this country including the insane lack of gun control, we do not give a rat's behind about children. Actually we love to complain about everything, but staunchly refuse to realize that it will take both political will and money to solve these problems. As an aside, the news had a story about experimental "casitas" that could be used to help with housing. They are made with mass wood which seems to be thin pieces of wood pressed together and are very strong. Our governor and one of our Senators were there praising the project. They did look like livable space.
Michele NZ Prime Minister Jacinda Arden set an admirable standard by nursing her baby when she attended the United Nations, but the thought of Majorie Taylor Greene as a mother I find revolting.
I find Gangrene revolting in any role....can't imagine her as a mother. Probably one of those who sends Christmas cards with pics of everyone in the family holding locked and loaded.
Michele Gangrene Greene! I’m envious at your brilliance. Her puss is oozing through the Republican Animal House.
It's all about the almighty $$ for most repuglitans
Its interesting to me that when a program is framed in a humanitarian light, Republicans go all ape-crap at “socialism”, yet when finances get involved, viola’, it works
Frame it like they like it, huh?
They’ll never know
Ironically the way to get it to catch the attention of gop is to make it sound as “unchristian” as possible.
Ml Jesus, you are right!
Dave I like your idea of sprinkling gold dust on such “socialist” programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and even ‘child care.” How would this work with ‘fair share’ of taxes?
Here’s how that works; “fair share of taxes” is a concept that requires an out of box belief that “the entirety of American Society” allows for the ultra rich to become richer. Without the multitudes of the unwashed, the elite have no one to suck money from, therefore they “owe” the unwashed their rightful due in the form of a tax structure that nurtures said unwashed in the manner of living conditions to sustain them with clean water, roads, education, and infrastructure to maintain a humane society
Given the vast wealth they pilfer from the rest of society, it is only fair that they sustain that which gives them the life they enjoy, us; the people that buy their stuff. They may feel thats not fair, but thats because they’re still thinking inside the box
Just to be clear, to get all the goodies we on the liberal pro human side of the aisle think society needs, tax rates will have to rise for individuals and companies. There is no shortcut. This means that a huge majority of people will need to accept and support increased taxation.
Living in Texas, I observed that resistance to taxes, especially for programs one disliked, let to resistance to all "gummint" programs.
Yes, tax revenue must be increased, but the Piketty data shows that capitalism is stabilized by steeply progressive taxation on both income and net worth. Wage earners already pay over 14% of income in FICA taxes (as a fraction of compensation, including the part of the FICA tax employers are required to pay), which is already more than the bottom half of them would need to pay in a tax regime consistent with a stable, capitalist economy. So, taxes may need to rise slightly on above-median incomes but not enough to put any serious economic stress on anyone. However, taxes would rise sharply in the top 1% and substantially more sharply on the top 0.1%. There would be a lot of squeeling pigs in the wealthy class, but if Americans were rational in their election choices (they aren’t and probably never will be, but bear with me for a moment), the squeeling could be ignored and eventually turned against the squeelers.
Rex Among the ‘squealers’ would be the providers of private jets. The last time I flew I paid an extra $75 for a little more leg room in economy. As for booze and vittles, I carried on a coffee and a sandwich.
Dave D. - You mean 'voila', not 'viola'. A viola is something that sounds good, unlike Republican ape-crap.
😁. When I was in school we used to say “viola” in order to sound faux sophisticated
When Germany planned for the reopening their workforce after the pandemic, they put childcare and preschool-12th grade as where to start so workers could get back to work. Golly, logical thinking…
Germans and logic. Seems normal.
Maybe so, but, "Indoctrination"! "Grooming"! so best to keep them ignorant.
Did they keep it?
Yes they did. My grandson started first grade in September, and his younger brother, 3, started what they call kindergarten, but is actually preschool. The teachers are great, and very caring. Both boys love school.
That was my question too..in today’s climate in OK I would doubt it; but if already in place and is actually saving money, maybe?
Putting what HCR notes as a potential turning point into a larger perspective, it reminded me of an article I recently read on why the US leads wealthy nations in "Deaths of Despair".
Among the key takeaways are: "The U.S. firmly leads other comparable wealthy nations in "deaths of despair," that is, deaths from suicide, drugs, or alcohol. Researchers from the University of Pennsylvania sought to find out why, so they compared the U.S. to a control group of 16 wealthy countries. They place the blame squarely on the lack of communal assistance in the U.S. While other countries offer affordable healthcare, free education, and plentiful paid work leave, the U.S. does not."
As Graham Nash wrote in one of his great lyrics that he sang with the now late David Crosby in Wind On The Water, "It's not that we don't know. It's just that we don't want to care".
HCR's recognition of this is a hopeful sign indeed. The link to the article provides the details.
https://bigthink.com/health/deaths-of-despair/
In 1536 Henry VIII began his Dissolution of the Monasteries. About 12,000 men and women lived and worked in these 900 institutions , who were suddenly turned out of their homes in a country of 500,000. They were also the seats of learning and education, hospitality, and the main source of charity for orphans, the aged, and the infirm. England’s social safety net was torn and the country was overwhelmed with the poor and needy.
Sound familiar?
Well done. In 2024 I hope we outvote the Henry Vlll party.
Similar build, but he had twice the number of wives...
:). Very True Anne-Louise. I was referencing all of the current Republican party to Henry. Just throw corporations under the bus as well. For good measure.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thank you!
This deserves a great deal more attention.
Absolutely!!!!!
Thank you BK
BK As Trumpites realize that they have been screwed by the ‘evangelical Christians,’ expect an upswing in their “deaths of despair.” Any chance that they will be going to heaven, as I shout an “up yours!” Farewell?
Graham hit that note hard
Thank you for providing the link!
Addiction is one of the tragic consequences of our failed imperial wars
My guess is that Republicans view the idea of government childcare assistance as a threat to the traditional female role of mother and domestic worker.
Bingo! The only thing that they love more than money is people knowing their place.
It appears to me that it is essential to install a stratified society for authoritarianism to function. First of all, it creates friction between classes, it provides the divides that enable conquering, and establishes a chain of rewards and terrors ultimately controlled from the top. At the bottom are disadvantaged, disenfranchised groups, that even the most exploited party loyalists get to boss around, cementing a critical mass of citizens with a stake in the system, who typically fight like hell for the status quo.
Those who believe in universal empowerment face an entrenched and powerful enemy, with a an invested following. I think the US has always been at war with itself over whether the democratic or despotic model would prevail and the balance has shifted back and fourth, sometimes in several opposing directions at once, depending on which aspect of society we talk about.
If we, the governed are to be, collectively, the ultimate consent for governmental power, why would we not want robust and accessible childcare? Why would we not want equitable protection and justice under law?
J L, Reading your comment I try to imagine myself wanting to hate, or degrade, or control, or oppress others. I just can't see that. It seems so obvious to want to work together, to uphold one another, to celebrate humanity. Thanks for clearly describing this division because for my brain and heart it is really hard to fathom .
Ultimately, JL, many of said "governed" want to be on "top" more than they want anyone else to get anything to which they don't "deserve" based upon their race, gender, sexual/gender identity, and religion. Simple as that. Many of them don't see a problem with anything that keeps us "others" in our place, even as it keeps them from success on their own "merits".
"Merits" can be pretty subjective. Certainly that is relevant to wealth. To some degree, hard work and diligence is a factor, as is total slacking, but I would not call DJT "diligent" or a "workaholic". It some point having money makes more money, and that tends to snowball. Robert Reich claims that Trump would be richer if he had put his huge inheritance into an index fund and walked away. Luck, of circumstances, especially which parents you were born to, has a great deal to do with it. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/16/super-rich-family-dynastic-wealth-pandemic . "Human rights are universal.
At some people, being on "top", or at least lording it over others, seems to be "the only thing". You see it in road rage, where a diver make risk their own life and those of others over a real or imagined petty slight. You see it in the war crimes being committed by Russia against Ukraine.
When one is asked how he/she measures their success the usual earmarks are proffered. Job status, money, respect, love, possessions, etc. Never do you hear humility, or kindness, but one does witness it as the greatest gift of the poor.
They emulate the Roman elite. Your only purpose is to serve them. The Roman Empire led by its industrial elite failed. That game plan lost the super bowl especially so after the lions were removed.
And the Pharaohs, and anyone else who lives to bully.
Will, REALLY….it’s one of their “commandments”: Woman, know thy place!
It's also an indication of how much they love the "child" in the womb but once that brat gets born, it and it's parents are really on their own. I'll never forget the couple I met in New Zealand. They were from one of the Nordic countries and were using some of each of their state-provided parental leave to travel with their adorable 2 year old son. This country seems more and more barbaric when it comes to the basics: health and well-being across the age span, good education, decent housing, etc.
MisT Are Majorie Taylor Greene and Bubba Boebert examples of ‘good Republican mothers?’ A frightening thought. Who could possibly wish to provide child care, if they ever had kids [identifiable by the AK 15s in their baby hands?]
Whether anyone is a good parent is not for us to say. As many bad adults were raised by good parents as good adults were raised by bad ones.
I love Nora Ephron's definition of a good parent: one who raises a child that can pay for their own therapy. 😇
There is now talk of MTG angling to be Trump's vice-presidential running mate. Better to have her at home taking care of the kids, even though that's a revolting thought.
She was a stay-at-home mom for many years. All of her children are now adults.
Hard to believe they are adults having grown up under her tutelage.
The "GOP"s plutocratic patrons also see government childcare assistance complicating, and in sometimes directly competing with a profit making opportunity they aspire to own. I have talked to or read more than one Republican who claims to believe that any form of government ownership or service is intolerable, and that literally everything, roads, parks, schools and universities, even police, fire fighters, and soldiers should exclusively be provided by profit making enterprises.
JL Graham: in my SC county:" may I count the dangerous pot holes one by one"...it is dangerous to drive at night if I have not learned where the deepest ones are located....
Puke
And what HCR mentions frequently - they promote the trope that this takes money from hard-working people (white men) and gives it to those lazy, slacker folks (minorities).
The worker to slacker part is true if you think about 1% slacker, DJT. No wonder he tired to hide is tax returns.
Yes, just like Lauren and Marjorie. 🤡
You can have a strong central government that is proactive, like those other countries, or you can have a strong central government that basically is reacting to the effects of it's not being proactive.
The rhetoric of the GOP/conservative movement is contradictory. They want mom to stay home and take care of the children, but one income stream is woefully inadequate to raise a family. Meanwhile, they oppose and block any measures that would actually help realize this goal. They profess to be “pro life”, but refuse to legislate any acts that would give expectant and new mothers aid. The only consistent interpretation of this stance that I can see is that they want most of us in poverty.
You’d think that this would appeal to Republicans, if they were sincere about their rhetoric. I think this LFAA, along with so many others, makes it clear that they don’t care about American workers. In fact, they seem to prefer a tiny middle class and impoverished working- and under-classes, with the wealth mostly in their donors’ hands and the lower 90% scratching and fighting for whatever they can get. It makes it much harder to organize against them and ensures that the vast majority of the money is theirs.
Good summary that captures the cruelty of our plight.
I strongly believe that before you run for office, you must live for a year on the income of someone who represents the typical struggling American.
I also believe that We the People need to determine whether or not they receive a pension after they serve, and that we also have the same healthcare package that they do.
Michael, it is not only that Republicans will not support reduced Child Care. Our entire system will buck against it because:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/16/us/child-care-centers-private-equity.html
Hedge Funds have been buying up "Child Care" centers like Americans gobble Big Macs.
So, "affordable" Child Care in our "Capitalist" system is very unlikely to appear because some Latino guys in Congress participate in raising their kids.
1. The people in power in the states are NOT Latino. Nor is any political majority in Congress.
2. Hedge funds will payoff anyone who attempts to lower the cost of "child care".
3. "Business" as usual will continue Making Americans Poor Again.
I just read that article...
Private equity has notched decades of high returns for investors by following a well-worn strategy: acquire distressed or undervalued companies or real estate, increase profits and then sell them. Greatest hits include foreclosed homes, highway rest stops and coal mines bought out of bankruptcy.
Interesting you mention rest stops.
New York, where I live, just "partnered" with a Private Equity fund to "revamp" their rest stops. McDonald's was removed everywhere.
Not that I am a fan of McDonalds but they have an affordable coffee and an Egg McMuffin. So, you don't have to hand over your entire bank account just to use the restroom, get a coffee and a bit to eat.
So, now? When I travel in NY I will have to load a bag of money in the trunk with the luggage just to, umm, make a "rest stop".
Exactly.
And many of those have strong capitalistic economies as well.
They work in a different way than the U.S..
I am so taken with this thread. Thank you everyone.
Bingo! Thanks, Michael.
YES!
My love and life partner died when our children were five and eight years old. Many people insisted that I should pass the kids off to aunts or other relatives and start my life over again. This struck me as cold hearted and crass, so I raised them alone. It is a touch job in the best of circumstances, but is was my choice to have children, and my gender did not give me a free ticket out of the situation. More and more men are seeing parenthood as a shared responsibility, as it should be. For good reason I see the care of our young to be a sacred duty and have never regretted my decision. The government needs to "man up" for this reality in order to insure the future health of our children and our country.
Lovely comment, Craig. High fives all around to you and your children.
Parenting is dicey business at best. Bravo to you Craig for shouldering the responsibility. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent, even though most of us are capable biologically of making children. “Parent” has two meanings. One is biological. One is cultural. Culturally we give dad’s a huge pass to -well, pass, on being a “good, attentive, nurturing” parent. Woe be to the woman who falls short in this category, though. I am heartened by the cultural shift this Dads Caucus represents, and for all the new fathers (and all that came before, like yourself, Craig) that step up as an equal in the cultural responsibility to raise, guide, and provide for our children. The greatest amount of people win when children are well cared for, nurtured, educated, and inspired.
Brave and beyond argument
Why would anyone suggest such a thing? Discard your children like unwanted pets (also not acceptable btw).
I know many adults who as children were passed off to relatives to be raised after a mother’s untimely death. Now these people are deep into their 60’s and 70’s and some were raised with love and integrated as part of the family. Others were kicked out at 16, had to quit school and find a life. The fathers, remarried and unwelcome by the present wife were completely exonerated by society in general as their right to find a new life. Child support was never discussed and many men have just walked away. Same with divorced families. Because the patriarchy got to pick and choose instead of being held financially responsible if they got someone else to do their job for them. It’s not true for all widowed/divorced single parents, and many did wonderful jobs as step parents. But, I can tell you stories told to me first hand by adults who suffered from being a throw away child.
I am watching with interest the newly married young couple next door and their newborn infant. Both parents have taken a leave of absence from work. Mom 5 months and Dad 3 months.
I think back when my Mom had us. Did my father even take a day off of work? My Mom did not have an outside of the home job.
How different times are. I am in my 60's and wonder about the different effects on society these differences will bring in 50 years.
My dad was able to take a little time off work with each of us, I think he took a weeks vacation. Then our great aunts came to take over after that. I’m in my mid 60’s and the second of 4 daughters. My nephew is able to take 6 weeks of family leave with each of his 4 soon to be 5 children. But being there’s no standard maturity/paternity leave at this time, it’s wildly unpredictable. We the people should vote for candidates willing to create a national standard.
Thank you Craig. You sound like a wonderful loving father. Pray your family has thrived despite the loss of your beloved. My grandmother died when my mother was only 18 months old. She was farmed out (literally, Aunt Mary had a farm in Fennville, MI). My grandfather remarried when my mother was 5. When I was an adult, my mother shared with me how she never felt she belonged and everything was temporary. Of course, as a baby, this was hard to articulate. It's bad enough dealing with death and loss, but you avoided adding despair and abandonment to the mix.
Craig, my sons were 9 and 11 when the same thing happened to me. No one I knew made such a suggestion, because I was their mother. Raising them alone was the hardest work I ever did. Hence, my comment downthread in re: Rep. Gomez’s remark. It hit me where I live.
Bravo, Craig...and I am sure the love and care for your children was not predicated on thanks from others.
Craig,
Well done. My congratulations for a "job" well done.
Thing is, there is really no tension between the Bill of Rights contracting the role of government and the expansions of government in the socioeconomic sphere that Professor Richardson describes, because both have the same goal: to ensure the ability of the common citizen to live freely. We are in an ever-evolving process defining what the role of government is is achieving that goal, but the thrust is the same, and the necessity of government to have an active role remains.
You are not free if you have opportunities unavailable to you.
You are not free if you cannot pursue the career you want because of the cost of childcare.
You are not free if you have to spend every useful hour at work just to stay fed, clothed, and housed.
You are not free if you cannot afford treatment for any medical problems you would otherwise have treated, or are continually uncertain as to whether that treatment can continue.
You are not free if you cannot decide when and how to have children, and use every option available to you to make that choice.
You are not free if higher education is unattainable to you. Neither are you free unless your school library has the books you need on the topic you choose. Knowledge is power.
You are not free if you cannot walk outside sure that the air you will breathe because you must breathe will only help you rather than hurt you. Ditto the water you drink, and the food you eat.
You are not free if you live in fear of violence in a public place. Whether from gangs, law enforcement, random shooters, it matters not.
And I assure you, the grand high almighty business sector will not grant you these freedoms, when they profit off of the absence of all of them.
"You are not free if you cannot decide [ IF ], when and how to have children, and use every option available to you to make that choice."
That is going to become the reality of the future - the planet cannot stand 8 billion+ humans - that's the unpleasant reality we face. The word IF is missing. Sadly most of these freedoms will evaporate in the next 20 years.
Hugh, my friends in Europe and Asia as well as many in the US, think the citizens of the US are completely clueless. We here know that is not true, but the fact that so many harmful laws exist and so many politicians now in the House and Senate are election deniers and Jan 6 supporters, shocks them. How can so many millions of Americans think this way?
Propaganda works, who doesn’t know???
The Devil's bargain.
How do we combat it, Jeri? It is SO pernicious…
That is the seemingly unanswerable question right now.
I agree there is no real answer. The U.S. has a long history of entertaining extremists and extremism as well as flipping back and forth between conservatism and progressivism. We have always been a divided country.
We are individuals with a rich experience of individual sentience and we are interdependent with others. The Bill of Rights compliments the broader provisions of the constitution. We enjoy certain freedoms to and freedoms from, enabled by our collective responsibilities to promote and defend those freedoms for all.
Beautifully put. The acceptance of collective responsibilities is a bit of a sticking point at present...
Another amazing post! Thank you for the frequent inspiration.
Five stars.
Well said. Carried to its next level, you are not free if you are held in the grip of a capitalist oligarchy intent on keeping its "machinery" down,. If you are not free, then you are a slave to the oligarchy and no matter how much you wish for it, there are no "bootstraps" that can lift you out of said slavery.
Money is a form of power. You can find people who will do almost anything for money, even murder or commit treason. Excessive money that has become "essential" to our political process is killing democracy in plain sight and fueling epic corruption, yet only smolders as an urgent issue becomes it now seems just "normal". But any sort of societal power is antidemocratic when excessively concentrated in the hands of the few. The essence of democracy is in the wide distribution of political power. The boundaries of law are supposed to apply to anyone, and every person supposed to cast an equal, deciding vote (at least in theory).
There were good reasons why progressive taxes were retained, environmental, workplace, and consumer protection laws put in place, state colleges subsidized, dominating media ownership regulated, campaign finance reformed, aid and education for the poor advanced, banks more prudently regulated, "Truth in Advertising" pursued, Anti-trust enforced, etc., etc., and then a carpet bombing media propaganda campaign conned the public into letting it all go, after which the percentage of the assets, and politicians, of the entire country owned by the 1% skyrocketed., the middle class contracted, the poor suffered, and life for most became less secure. The state of the "general welfare" broadly declined over a period of 40 years, as did the basis for optimism about our future.
I am OK with capitalism to a point, and find it useful, even helpful to liberty, but unregulated capitalism make no more sense than unregulated streets and highways. Not every law or policy is wise or effective, but deregulated accumulation of power and resultant impunity is ultimately evil. It is what has bedeviled humanity for eons.
Last sentence makes by blood run cold.
Responsibility needs to be part of this
Wow! Just wow!!! Talk about truth and so beautifully and succinctly stated. I’m holding onto your words.
nailed it Will.
Very positive news. Related to this I would also really like to see some action , hear voices, around the national discussion of abortion and male responsibility for birth control. It seems totally absent.
If men could get pregnant, Plan B would be in vending machines, right in between the Doritos and the Cliff Bars.
There would also be a LOT of loud bragging about milk production. Guaranteed.
Expert source: Me, a male who knows other males.
Or, putting it another way, if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament.
While visiting Taragona Spain, walking on a plaza I saw a vending machine where I got a Kit Kat snack. There were other Spanish unhealthy snacks in the machine, as well as condoms. :)
I like your source and your truth💙😊
*to Will, from CA:)
Raise your voice. Pregnancy usually involves more than one person.
It is absent, when it’s the main driver, male responsibility cannot continue to be ignored, like it has been since God was a baby…
The battlefield of reproductive rights is always fought on the field of women’s bodies. Especially disturbing are rape and incest and the galling christian right’s ideas about the burden to be carried solely by the impregnated be they women or girls. We need to have a comprehensive national conversation that includes all issues around pregnancy, sex education, birth control and the fact that it usually involves both a woman and a man to get pregnant. With dna testing can we hold the male responsible too? Maybe the new Dad’s Caucus can elevate our national discourse around sex ed and how we view pregnancy and moral (dare I use that word)? responsibility? For men convicted of rape should we consider sterilization? Vasectomies? I know this is complicated but I am never hearing any discussion in the public realm about the male. It’s time. Sure, condoms in vending machines is a societal minimum but hardly cuts it for so many reasons. It also addresses the spread of STDs and is peripheral but also important.you can’t force someone to put it on.
Yes, it would be great to hear a town hall about “responsible ejaculation” from this caucus.
I am really proud of the members of this caucus - all of whom I am really proud of for the other things they do in Congress. Most of them are young enough to be my sons, and they are the exact same as my nephew (the son I never had) putting their families first and foremost. I talk to my nephew every week, and the majority of the conversation is about how he manages to do what he does to support them (which is hard nowadays), but more important how being the Dad he didn't have is more important. And he's doing a damn good job. There is hope for we men.
Indeed, in Texas, it is good to remember a time before cretins masqueraded as men
We are individuals, we are families (and many of us parents) and we are a society and societies. So yes, all those other things they do in congress that supports all responsible individuals and families, including generations yet to come, is part and parcel of the constellation of care we share with our closest others.
And a breath of relief for we women.
Salud to your nephew TC, and the likes of him.
🗽💜
There is so much more sanity, love, care, and joy available FOR ALL, when guys step up to be equals. Being burdened with being superior, dominating, unemotional, entitled, and uncompromising just sucks for everyone - especially guys!
I agree. It reinforces a beneficial (as opposed to vicious) cycle, no? And is the flower of justice.
Much like healthcare that is independent of your employment allows freedom to be an entrepreneur, affordable childcare and elder care allows people to provide better for their children and parents. We have good role models all around us: countries that have more stable and innovative workforces because their basic needs are met. We can, and must, do better.
But repubs hamstring every one of us, every single day…
Indeed they do.
The amended constitution states the government could not force people to practice a certain religion. Don't the MAGA right use religion as their excuse to eliminate abortion? So by banning it, isn't that forcing others to practice a religion?
Not just that. There is another mainstream religion that has as its fundamental belief that a child is not a person until it is born. To rule otherwise is promoting one religion over another, thereby violating the First Amendment.
Yep, exactly
Exactly, Elaine!
I’m ready for someone somewhere to give real attention to those who are caring for their severely disabled adult children.
It's an amazingly huge gap in the conversation. I have a cousin - former nurse - who switched exclusively to being the primary caregiver in her family for her two girls, both that will need intensive life-long services. Anything they've received as kids just shuts off when they 'age out'. My cousin has worked at the state level to advocate for continued support for disabled young adults as the transition out of programs based on their age, but the stories of families basically falling off a support cliff is heartbreaking.
Not unlike the aging out requirement in foster parenting, after which (age 18 I believe), the young person is on their own whether or not they have received support and education to prepare them to support themselves. I'd like to think that there are foster parents who continue relationships with their foster kids but there are many who are in it for the money. No money, sayonara.
I hear you Elizabeth. I have several friends who are dealing with this very situation and it breaks my heart.
I am encouraged that these people are in Congress offering counterbalance to the selfish idiocy on the right
I am, too, and am wondering if any GOP dad would be brave enough to step up--or would be ostracized by McCarthy and his ilk.
Interesting thought. McCarthy and Ilk would look even more ridiculous than they do at present.
I was looking for evidence of Repub presence in the Dads group. Apparently, none are yet brave enough to step up.
Risk of paternity suits?
Didn’t think of it at the time, but we’re all those CongressMEN with their children present during that week-long travesty all Democrats?
A GOP dad would probably be denounced by the ilk as 'woke",
And I hope, to showcase the contrast.
Without grandstanding. Just doing it.
With an adult relevance and grace. By adult, I mean no nonsense, to the pointness, and emotional maturity, like Greta.
I'm beyond delighted to hear about the formation of the Dads Caucus. I truly hope you are right about it being a turning point in how we view the place of government in supporting parents and families. We have needed men advocating for children and families for so long!
The men should also step up and talk about male responsibility in birth control. Especially as even that in certain states is in legal jeopardy.
Hoping not to be a broken record, the Marshall Plan was, in fact, a social safety net for decimated Germany. As for childcare, parents have the right to up to 3 years each to be with their children without losing their job. There is also financial help "Parent money" in certain amounts, depending on the situation. That said, there is also child care pre-kindergarten. None of it is perfect, but it is far and away more humane than the offerings of the US. Germany lacks personnel and so is making it easier for people to immigrate. The Kita/Kindergarten at the church I belong to has children from 15 different nations.
Smart and effective
Affordable, reliable, and attentive childcare has consistently proven to be cost effective. In the few corporations that provide on site childcare, absenteeism is reduced, employees are loyal and stay with the company reducing such costs of worker turnover as recruitment and retraining, and employees are more productive because they worry less about the well-being of their children. Why US corporations keep finding excuses to NOT provide such a perq is a mystery to me. Maybe having a men's caucus to address caregiving and childcare can finally begin to effect some overdue change.
MCCARTHY, GREENE, AND SANTOS
In 1940 there were some truly Neanderthal Republicans in Congress. FDR sought to highlight this by repeating in his campaign speeches MARTIN, BARTON, AND FISH (to the cadence of Wynkyn, Blinken, & Nod).
The audiences loved it and would repeat with FDR—-MARTIN, BARTON, AND FISH.
President Biden and others, in highlighting the venality and absurdity of the 2023 Republican Animal House, could continually focus on MCCARTHY, GREENE, AND SANTOS and get audiences to chant this with them. (In 1948, Truman had the same impact with his ‘do nothing Congress’ mantra.)
McCarthy has sold his soul to become House speaker and will be hoisted on his own petard with his commitments to 20 renegade Republicans on raising the national debt limit and the forthcoming budget.
Majorie Taylor Greene, who had outstunk Boebert as the most dreadful, gun-toting Republican Congresswoman, has suddenly bonded with McCarthy, had her ban on committee spots lifted, and has been appointed by McCarthy to key House committees.
George Santos is the poster boy of the Republican House for his fraudulency. Late night shows and Saturday Night Live feed on his ongoing torrent of falsities. That McCarthy, spastic over his razor-thin House majority, welcomed Santos to the House and anointed him with two committee spots highlights the rottenness of the Republican House.
Please repeat after me: MCCARTHY, GREENE, AND SANTOS.
But what about all the other F-ups who are left out? I expect we will be seeing and hearing Jordan, Stefanik, Boebert, desantis ad nauseam this year. Watching live hearings, I had to leave the room when repubs spoke. Now they are committee majorities. 🤮🤢
Gigi I’m only highlighting some of the big chunks in the Republican sewer.
🤢. Of course! I’m not criticizing. It’s just so hard to pick only 3. Even an alphabetical by Hakeem Jeffries would not be enough. But you’re right that the 3 word chant is important. Lock Them Up! Traitors and liars should not be walking around free never mind in our legislature. And now with guns.
Gigi I can appreciate hunting these buggers with an AK 15. I CHOOSE TO USE AN M-1.
(Or, perhaps, a varmint gun?)
This is the tactic I've used when I'm forced to defend the Democrats: I say that "there are crazies on both sides, but there are just so, so many more on the right."
It's not that I feel there are crazies on the left, but at least it gets people to start to listen to me.
We’re human. None perfect. But some of us have been given more graceful humanity to share. And historically that has been more Democrats than Republicans. Graceful tactic, Michelle.
A friend suggested that MCCARTHY, SANTOS, AND GREENE has better resonance as evidenced by LIONS, TIGERS, AND BEARS OH MY from the Wizard of Oz.
GO DAD'S!!! ... P. S. You're welcome,
Love,
Moms
xoxox
Thank you for highlighting this true need for healthy children, stability and assurance for care at both ends of the age spectrum, and support for all configurations of family structure. Realizing that nothing will happen overnight as you said, it is at least encouraging that the desperate situation so many families find themselves in has at last bee noticed.
In Joe Biden’s White House, a portrait of FDR hangs behind the Resolute desk. 😎