Categories
culture

Use the Proper Tool

I have written before about our national propensity to use government when it is not the proper tool for the job. Scott summed my point up very succinctly in a recent post:

There is a proper tool for every job. Use of the wrong tool often produces substandard results. Sometimes it is necessary to make do with what you have. That’s called innovation. But regularly using the wrong tool when the right tool is available is just plain stupid.

One of the basic tenets of classical liberalism is to regard government as a tool to be used only where it is most appropriate; the chief role of government being to safeguard and expand liberty. Many people (from all over the political spectrum) view government as a big stick to be employed in forcing others to conform to their particular view of good.

Government is not the only tool that we often use inappropriately, and sometimes the wrong tool is employed not because it is the tool of choice, but because we refuse to use the proper tool. Such is the often the case with regard to schools disciplining children.

A large number of schools use potentially dangerous methods to discipline children, particularly those with disabilities in special education classes, a report from Congress’ investigative arm finds.

In some cases, the Government Accountability Office report notes, children have died or been injured when they have been tied, taped, handcuffed or pinned down by adults or locked in secluded rooms, often to be left for hours at a time.

Some people would be quick to blame the authoritarian, impersonal schools for their outrageous methods of discipline and while I am far from a believer in the infallibility of schools I think that such blame is misplaced in the vast majority of cases.

The real blame lies in the fact that many parents fail to enforce discipline in their homes and even among those who do enforce discipline in their homes all too many make themselves unavailable to take on that responsibility when their children require more discipline than can reasonably be applied by a teacher in charge of more than a dozen students. What’s worse, is that we cannot even safely place the blame fully on the shoulders of the individual parents. Too many of them are forced into situations where they cannot devote themselves to parenting full-time. (Sometimes they just feel forced into those situations.)

As a society we have set too low a value on the role of parenting – placing it completely secondary to economic productivity. We have set expectations too high for our material and economic standard of living – where the luxuries of yesterday must necessarily be necessities today. Consider cell phones for every family member over the age of 10, cars for everyone over 16, cable TV, computers, game consoles, television sets in every room, dance-lessons, sports, and hobbies for each day of the week.

None of these things is intrinsically bad, but together they form unreasonable and unsustainable expectations and they destroy the possibility for most stable families to keep at least one parent available to take care of their children when needs arise.

Not only that, but we expect the schools to provide many of those hobbies through requiring gym, art, and music classes as well as extracurricular sports. The result is that even where there are parents at home and available the children often spend too many hours under the care of their teachers and not enough under the influence of their parents. This serves to lessen the parental influence and offers incentive for parents who would otherwise be available to commit themselves to other activities lest they feel they are wasting their time.

The problems are complex and interwoven so that any hope of identifying the solutions is dependent on our recognition of how and when any given tool can be used and insisting on using each tool in its proper place rather than finding favorite tools and trying to make this reduced tool set suitable for all our needs.

Categories
culture State

Who Should Adopt?

The debate over who should be allowed to adopt a child is a sensitive one. We have a system which tries to provide the best situation to children in need of good families, but there are more children than available families under the current definition. I think it is natural to be skeptical of the idea that we should let unwed partners adopt because that opens a door for some very unstable situations which are not beneficial to the children involved. The gay community (those that are interested in this particular issue) consider this to be discrimination because in this state all gay couples are unwed by definition. Of Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck’s "Forever Homes for Every Child" bill Senate President-elect Michael Waddoups accurately identifies the major objection/hurdle by saying:

That sounds like they’re trying to set up a family relationship that under [Utah’s same-sex marriage ban] isn’t allowed. … If we’re going to change the definition of a family, we should do it constitutionally — not through end runs.

Even if this is not intended as an end run around our Constitutional ban on gay marriage it will easily be perceived as such. The proposed bill gives adoption preference for married couples – which respects our value favoring a traditional family structure – but it opens the door for adoption by unwed couples with the consent of the biological parent(s) or if the child is in state custody. I believe that one minor modification the bill would support our value of granting primacy to the institution of family in this state. Simply put – I do not trust the state to make the decision to allow unwed couples to adopt children. If this proposal were changed to allow an unwed person or couple to adopt a child only "with the consent of the biological parent(s) and any legal guardian" I would fully support it.

The couple cited in the article is a biological mother (using a sperm donation) and her partner who are the only family their child has ever known. It makes perfect sense that the partner would be allowed to adopt and naturally the biological mother would grant the necessary consent. This change in the proposal would allow the biological parent(s) to specify one unmarried person or both members of an unwed couple as potential adoptive parents. It would allow the state or an established legal guardian to block such an adoption where the biological parent(s) choice of adoptive parents may be undesirable. Most importantly it would prevent the state from selecting unwed couples or individuals as adoptive parents for children who’s biological parent(s) objects or who do not have biological parents to speak in their defense or grant the necessary consent.

Categories
culture

Cultural Vacuum

I got thinking after Carl asked why I don’t talk about how the government should be focused on supporting the family. Carl is absolutely right that the no-such-thing-as-standard modern family is at the root of all of our social problems. What I have been realizing as I have thought about how we can support the family as the social unit where values that lead to good citizenship and productive adulthood can be fostered is that we have created a Catch-22 for ourselves.

Carl wants to know how government can be used to support the family structure while I contend that only family can support and improve the family structure. As I tried to consider how we might go about removing government from meddling in family matters I realized that doing so would create a vacuum in our social structure because of how much we have come to depend on the government to lend any value to the family concept. Couples get married often for little other reason than to procure the legal or material benefits of marriage conferred by the government. Among the fundamental purposes of families is to provide an environment where children can be taught those skills which are necessary to make them into healthy and productive adults. (Productive being defined as having something to contribute to society.) We have turned over the responsibility for educating our children to the government on an almost universal scale. At the elementary level of education we have developed an opt-out model that is compulsory (you can’t simply opt-out, you must opt out on terms that the educational establishment has agreed to). In higher education the majority of institutions are state funded and state run. Even at private institutions, the largest individual source of funding for students is provided by the government in the form of grants and loans.

The more we receive from the government the more we begin to expect and demand from the government. The more we rely on the government the less we feel inclined to support and be supported by our families. As the government has come to provide all the necessities of health and retirement benefits for the elderly there has been less incentive for children to take any responsibility to care for their aging parents. On the other end, since the government is fully integrated in the family structure and responsible to provide the education, and fill the time of the children through school in place of parents, it becomes more and more common for children to abandon their families, through emancipation or by simply running away, before they are ready and able to take full responsibility for their own care.

As I write I realize that the solution is simple, though difficult. The solution is for families to shoulder the burden of responsibility for educating their children. This does not mean that they cannot have their children in public schools (although to a degree that adds some inherent difficulty to the process) but it does mean that they accept that they are the final authority on what should be taught and they must be willing to fill in the inevitable gaps in any education received outside the home. Besides taking back the responsibility for educating their children, families must also teach their children to demand less from their government – this is one gap that will always be present in a public school education. As each generation takes more of the responsibilities back from the government which naturally devolve to the family the government will have to shrink and the family will once again regain its rightful place in society.

If this practice of families bringing family responsibilities back inside the home were widespread for two generations we would once again have a limited government that provided the protections, structure, and services that had been outlined in the Constitution and we would have a healthy society that would be less prone to the excesses and instability that we see in our nation today.

Categories
culture

Right, Left, or Straight

I think that Lyall is right in suggesting that we are asking the wrong question in the education debate. He identifies the current question as “How can we reform, improve our system of education today?” He believes that the correct question if we are to come to the answers we need is “What is the purpose of education?”

I think the critical distinction between those questions is that the one we are asking publicly is equivalent to a game we used to play in the car as kids called "Right, Left, or Straight." (RLS for short.) In that game we would drive until we got to an intersection and then Mom would call out "Right, left, or straight?" We would then vote (by who yelled the loudest generally) to determine which available path we would take. There was no right answer to the question, but there was also no knowing where we would end up before it was time to return home. The question we should be asking is like sitting down in a family council and asking where we want to vacation this year. Again there is no single right answer, but there are plenty of places you would not want to go where you might find yourself if you just hopped in the car and played RLS for your summer vacation.

The first option can be fun, but not very productive. It is useful in changing course, but not in determining the desirable outcome. Once you have determined the desired destination then there is an innate game of RLS to arrive there (the difference being that there is now a correct answer to the question when you come to an intersection).

My answer to Lyall’s new and improved question was that the purpose of education should be to provide the foundation of basic skills like the three R’s and to teach students how to face challenges and find answers to questions. Lyall contends that there is another part to education that involves (as I interpret it) education regarding right and wrong, fair play, and other generic moral issues.

Who is right? Join the discussion by commenting here or there.

Categories
culture State

Bureaucracy in Action

This is what happens when we expect government bureaucracy to manage something rather than leaving things in the hands of individuals.

Loving couple. Loving home. Steady jobs. No criminal history. Kids like them and the birth mother wants it.

Despite all that, Michael Valez and Michael Oberg are wading upriver through the state child protection system to be able to take care of four kids belonging to Valez’s niece. . .

To the state, it’s a simple matter of the law, which says that to adopt or be a foster parent, you must be legally married or single and not cohabitating. Officials asked for clarification of a judge’s directive that Valez have custody of the children, requesting that the court take custody or grant custody to the state’s Division of Child and Family Services.

The rules governing DCFS are quite reasonable – I don’t think that they should be running around placing kids in unstable situations such as with a couple that has decided that they should move in together to save rent. On the other hand we are faced with the question – who is responsible for raising these kids? Is it the state (DCFS) or the mother? I would argue that too often the state is given precedence over the parents and it is only rarely justified. I think that cases like this, where DCFS is actively trying to help the mother to prepare herself to resume raising the children (as they ought to), should make it that much easier to admit that primary responsibility lies with the mother and therefore her wishes, not to mention the wishes of the children, should take precedence over "the rules." (Maybe if there was a criminal history to consider I would change my mind.)

Luckily reason has prevailed (so far) –

On Friday, the courts took custody, then turned around and granted Valez temporary custody of the children.

"The judge said, ‘I see absolutely no reason why the kids can’t stay where they’re at,’" Valez said.

If only this were the case all the time.

Categories
culture life

Fireworks and Personal Responsibility

It doesn’t take much thought to realize that a hot, dry summer does not mix well with fireworks. Governor Hunstman called on cities to ban personal fireworks because of our conditions this year. The Deseret News Editorial on the idea notes that legal fireworks seldom create problems. The fact that we make laws which we don’t enforce encourages unlawful behavior. We should not be waiting for the government to tell us what is smart.

This situation, and my personal feelings leave me in a bind. Tomorrow all the cousins are getting together to celebrate and the families decided that we would purchase fireworks jointly instead of individually. None of us take the time to purchase illegal fireworks (which are expensive and pale in comparison to the professional displays anyway) but with the extreme fire season we are having this year I believe that it is irresponsible to act as if personal fireworks are some inalienable right. If it were not for the fact that our family has already agreed to do fireworks together I would choose not to do any personal fireworks this year – I’d just stick to the professional displays.

Categories
culture life

Non-Binding Resolutions

While listening to NPR today I heard a senator talking about many agreements we have made with the Iraqi government where the Iraqi’s failed to do what they promised. He attributed that failure to the fact that "the agreements [had] no teeth." That got me thinking. We don’t have to look outside our country to see ineffective government posturing related to agreements without teeth. Just look at any non-binding resolution ever passed by a legislative body. For that matter we can look at any legislation that gets passed without funds to carry it out. In case anyone is wondering – legal teeth start like this "$" and end like this ".00" and each digit that comes between that beginning and that end constitutes a tooth. For private citizens three teeth is generally enough to encourage compliance, but once we start dealing with governments and corporations it takes a lot more teeth to be convincing.

I think that wherever government passes any measure to redistribute wealth there must be teeth to ensure compliance with the law, and great care that the law be written to discourage abuse of any such program. I believe that government should generally avoid such laws because bureaucratic programs tend to be magnets for abuse, especially where money can be gained, but when they do legislate those things they need to put teeth into the law.

That lead my train of though onto a new track – we have our share of non-binding resolutions at home with the kids. As I think about it there are times (at least times in the home) when laws without teeth are a good thing. The children should learn to obey because it is the right thing, or because they trust us, not merely because they will lose some privilege.

So my question is, when do you think teeth are necessary? When do you think that they are unnecessary? I ask this not just with regard to government, but also to home and community situations.

Categories
culture life

Are Children Dumber Today Than They Used To Be?

Lest I get in hot water with all the parents out there, my short answer is “no.” Now let me explain the question.

I recently learned of a bill coming before the Utah Senate which would fund all day kindergarten throughout the state. Perhaps I am thinking of my own kids only, but I am convinced that all day kindergarten is not helpful to most students. For those who would point out that it is optional and not required I will say two things: first, when will that change, because our trend is towards adding requirements such as these to combat falling achievement results; and second, This post is not just about all day kindergarten. (Now on to what it is about.)

Forty years ago we had fewer after school programs, less technology in schools, and less emphasis on standardized testing. We also had higher literacy rates, better scores on math and science tests, and probably higher graduation rates (I could be wrong there – I have no data). If we add those two things together we should come to the conclusion that after school programs, more technology and emphasis on standardized tests are not the solution to the problem facing our education system. (They are great for the bottom line of some technology companies and some education companies who specialize in testing or after school programs.)

I don’t mean to imply that having computers and other technology in schools is bad, or that tests make kids dumber (I know some people who make either of those arguments) but we should see that they do not solve the underlying problem.

Another trend that I think has a greater impact on our education system than the technology, tests, and extra programs is this – the vast majority of students today come from one of two kinds of homes: single parent homes or two income homes. This was not the case forty years ago. The real problem confronting our society and manifesting itself in our education system is that children are not getting the care from involved parents that they used to get. They are getting more activities and government sponsored daycare solutions and less of mom or dad sitting down to help with homework, attending parent-teacher conferences, being aware of what’s happening in their lives, or even playing with them in the back yard. Our problem is homes which are nothing more than places to sleep and families which are all about blood relations with no thought about relationships.

Programs like all day kindergarten make it that much easier for parents to decide that they can both work and let the government raise their children. I admit that some people are in a position where they need outside help, but in most cases it is a matter of convenience rather than need. Society should not be burdened by the financial and social cost of funding a convenience. For those who have needs, we should be looking for ways to help their needs without making it convenient for others to go joyriding at our expense.

Categories
life meta

Holidays

I’m guessing that it will be normal for me to post less often during the holidays. Hopefully 10 day breaks will not be normal.

Besides the obvious Christmas festivities and work, I have been doing very good with my running until this week. Sometime on Christmas day my right ankle began to hurt. I went running on the 26th and, although running was fine, I noticed that my ankle got worse. My Achilles tendon began to swell some so I have been staying off it for the last few days. I don’t know how it happened, but I have to assume that it is related to the running. Hopefully resting it this week will allow me to get back to training sooner than if I pushed harder. I’m going to give it a try with a short run tomorrow.

I’m still trying to find the balance of what I write about here. I was doing lots of candidate endorsements before the break, but I want a better balance. I have found that there are two new candidates who have filed with the FEC since I last wrote. I guess I had better get caught up again because it looks like we are likely to have even more in the coming weeks.

Last night I got a call from my Grandpa and we got to catch up. I had not talked to him for a few months as he has been busy with his new wife trying to keep up with their combined 48 grandchildren. I don’t know about her grandchildren, but I realized that of his 24 grandchildren half of them were married so we’re all getting spread out a bit.

I can only imagine how busy it would get trying to keep up with 48 grandchildren. Anyway, it was nice to catch up with him, that’s why I decided to do a little catching up here.

Categories
General

Well Stated

I stumbled onto Peonicus’ View of Politics the same day I started my new blog and I thought it would be a good excuse to post a reaction and test out my blog a little more.

I was amazed to hear criticism for both the left and the right so early in the post. Right off I was saying to myself “my thoughts exactly.”

When I read:

What we need is for the existing society to behave with the primary goal of the
good of the whole. This means that we focus less on our personal fortunes, and
more on using our influence to do good. We must start at the most fundamental
unit of society: our families. First, we need to respect and honor our spouses
even more than ourselves. Then we must be loving parents, and teach our children
to love and respect others despite inevitable differences.

I recognized some positively primitive thinking – like my own. The answer does not lie in making new laws to govern campaign finance – although those might be helpful. The answer lies in returning to who we are – people who want better lives for ourselves and our children. If that is our primary focus, and if we can remember to “forgive and ask for forgiveness,” we may be able to get past our mudslinging and divisiveness and start to find actual solutions. That makes me begin to wonder, is Peonicus right in suggesting:

What would happen in the Middle East if everybody there, Jews and Muslims alike
taught their children that there is no us and them, there is simply us. I think
the fighting would end tomorrow, and the poverty of the region could be ended by
2007.

It would be nice if he was, but we’ll never know unless more people think like this.