|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On March 27 2018 21:40 A3th3r wrote:I've read a little about Id Software & I guess it's pretty good in terms of employee relations & such. I know EA Software has a bit of a "computer game farm" mindset there where they put out a version of NFL 2k every year & yet another Need For Speed game every year. So maybe those aren't the "greatest examples" of companies to follow. Maybe think about Cargill. Yes, small / minimal trade tariffs can be used to change things slightly in terms of the national economy. Interest rates at the Federal Reserve are another thing that can be changed, and are changed, from year to year. It is not well understood what levers to push in what direction to make things better rather than worse. It is true that the US can also get supplies & raw materials from India, Vietnam, Brazil, or (most likely) even more from Mexico as they do quite a bit already. That being said, there is already plenty of trade that is already going on with China right now so there is no reason to rock the boat except maybe to make sure that "all of their eggs are not in only one basket." That's a fairly sensible way to think. The US doesn't buy all that many cars from China but Chinese do buy a lot of American cars, so that is a pretty big market there too. Clearly they are going to want to make sure they get a reasonable deal in terms of equality, & they are going to want to push their own carmakers first, I'd think. That seems sensible. Maybe the US should diversify a little bit to reduce their reliance on China, and that would reduce the trade deficit a bit. That's a good plan. The US is the biggest entity in terms of trade of any kind in the world right now so it makes sense that they might want to change things to some degree, & they are able to do that if they so choose. It's a bit of a hassle & takes a lot of effort to push these things through the legislature & get things signed off & so on, so this could take a long while. The question is: in what way makes sense? What's the best way?
Completely change corporate mentality to not put profits first and invest in expensive in-nation production facilities instead of taking the much cheaper options available in China et al.
That way makes sense and is the best way.
But nobody wants to do that because Corporations are untouchable gods who can't ever be interfered with, no matter how much they fuck over literally everyone else in your country for their own benefit.
See: Carrier; Trump gave them how many milions in tax breaks to save jobs? They've already deleted half of those 'saved' jobs AND pocketed the extra cash. Or did they get rid of all of those 'saved' jobs Trump essentially paid them not to dispose of?
|
Good to see some attempt at internal accountability against the Trump family's abuses of power. Have a feeling that Jared and Ivanka are on their way out.
The acting director of the Office of Government Ethics said in a letter to a Democratic member of Congress that the White House Counsel's office is looking into whether Jared Kushner violated any laws when he met with business entities which later loaned more than $500 million to his company.
In the letter dated March 22, OGE director David Apol said, "The White House informed me that they had already begun this process. I have asked the White House to inform me of the results of that process."
CNN has reached out to the White House Counsel's office and Kushner for comment.
www.cnn.com
|
On March 27 2018 22:58 Doodsmack wrote:Good to see some attempt at internal accountability against the Trump family's abuses of power. Have a feeling that Jared and Ivanka are on their way out. Show nested quote +
The acting director of the Office of Government Ethics said in a letter to a Democratic member of Congress that the White House Counsel's office is looking into whether Jared Kushner violated any laws when he met with business entities which later loaned more than $500 million to his company.
In the letter dated March 22, OGE director David Apol said, "The White House informed me that they had already begun this process. I have asked the White House to inform me of the results of that process."
CNN has reached out to the White House Counsel's office and Kushner for comment.
www.cnn.com
Call me when they actually do something.
Words as cheap.
|
|
|
Germany was, until very recently the biggest exporter in the world, until China beat them due to sheer size. Too cheap (for Germany) € does wonders for an export economy...
|
I think people dramatically underestimate just how bad selling into China really is, in comparison with the majority of the rest of the world.
A company I worked at recently had to choose between not selling into China, or providing them with the raw materials, where to buy those raw materials, and then how to take those raw materials and step by step reproduce the product. They are the second largest economy in the world, they rely on cheap labor to a large degree, they outright steal I.P.
You can't buy a house in China, buying any investment at all is effectively pointless as businesses are nationalized etc etc.
Ignoring all the heinous human rights violations going on in China, and the not so peaceful overtures they make around the Asia Pacific region in general, there is still no reason for the world to look the other way.
That nation is hypocritical in the extreme. It is not a give and take relationship, it's a take and take and take relationship, for the vast majority of the nations around the world. The U.S and the Eu are realistically the only ones that can stop them, and for all intents and purposes they are complicit to avoid the horrendous short term hurt that would follow necessary actions.
|
Utah passes 'free-range parenting' law, allowing kids to do some things without parental supervision
A new law legalizing free-range parenting will soon take effect in Utah allowing children to do things alone like travelling to school.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed the bill on March 15, which takes effect in May.
The bill redefines "neglect" in Utah law so that kids can participate in some unsupervised activities without their parents being charged, a representative from the state confirmed to ABC News Monday.
“Kids need to wonder about the world, explore and play in it, and by doing so learn the skills of self-reliance and problem-solving they’ll need as adults," Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, a sponsor of the bill, said in a statement to ABC News. "As a society, we’ve become too hyper about ‘protecting’ kids and then end up sheltering them from the experiences that we took for granted as we were kids. I sponsored SB65 so that parents wouldn’t be punished for letting their kids experience childhood.”
Fillmore added that there were no organized groups against the bill, and it passed unanimously out of both houses of the state's legislature.
Lenore Skenazy, author of "Free Range Kids" and president of letgrow.org, coined and trademarked the term free-range kids. Skenazy wrote in her book about allowing her 9-year-old to ride the New York City subway alone.
Skenazy told ABC News that the law is the first in the country and that Fillmore contacted her about the bill's proposal.
"My law is the way that our kids have the right to some unsupervised time, and we have the right to give it to them without getting arrested," Skenazy said. "That's my law and Sen. Fillmore made it into legislative language."
She explained that the new bill states that it won't be considered negligent by authorities, who cannot start an investigation, if a parent lets their child walk outside alone, play without supervision or allows them to wait in the car without an adult.
Skenazy said that many will likely disagree on what age a parent should allow their child to do things without adult supervision.
"I would definitely not let a 3-year-old play in the park alone, but I definitely would let their 10-year-old sister play in the park for an hour and come home," she said. "I definitely would let my 7-year-old walk to school, but maybe you won't let your 7-year-old walk to school."
Skenazy added, "There's no right way to parent. You have to give the parent leeway because they know best, and they love them the most."
Dr. Dave Anderson is a clinical psychologist at the Child Mind Institute. Anderson explained that those who are considering free-range parenting should take everything on a "case by case basis."
"Parents want their kids to be independent, want to give opportunities to explore, but for any parent that's going to be a personal decision," Anderson said today on "Good Morning America." "If your 12-year-old is capable of walking home from the bus stop by themselves, that's something that you might make a decision about where another 12-year-old may be too impulsive."
He went on, "It's kind of a reaction in comparison to states like Maryland where kids under 14 may not be able to be out unsupervised. So, when you talk about self-reliance or independence, it's about a parent practicing with their kid [on] how they might be independent in particular situations."
Anderson said the risks associated with free-range parenting should come from "common sense."
"Kids might get into things impulsively that parents weren't anticipating so it's something where we want to know the situation well," he added. "We want to be clear of the guidelines that keep our kids safe and we want to practice. The old phrase that we use is the 'I do, we do, you do' model.”
Anderson advises parents who are considering free-range parenting to practice doing things like trailing their kids while they walk home from school before allowing them to do it themselves.
He also recommends practicing in areas of the community that are well-known to you and your family.
Gov. Herbert released the following statement to ABC News: "We believe that parents know and love their kids better than anybody. Absent evidence of clear danger, abuse or neglect, we believe that parents have the best sense of how to teach responsibility to their children."
Utah Sen. Mike Lee added an amendment to the 2015 federal education bill supporting the concept of free-range parenting, according to the Associated Press.
"It said kids shouldn’t be stopped from biking or walking to school alone with a parent’s permission," the AP reports, "and parents shouldn’t face charges for letting them." http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/utah-passes-free-range-parenting-law-allowing-kids/story?id=54020213
I feel like 50 years ago the idea of "free-range parenting" was just called "parenting". I'd imagine that most older parents or grandparents think it's absurd that such a law would even need to be passed in the first place, to permit such a lax philosophy that lets kids run around and play outside and explore and... well, just be kids!
On the other hand, many of those parents also prescribed to some of our country's greatest hits of the mid and late 20th century, such as:
-"Vaccinations are for wusses, not babies."
-"Slapping kids blue is whatcha do!"
-"No one wants to steal or kill our shitty kids anyway."
-"It's not racism; it's just having a favorite color [and all the other colors are morally inferior]."
-"Women: If you're not cooking, then you're cleaning."
-"All of our technology is wired to the wall."
-"Our houses and education are basically free."
-"Whoops! We destroyed the planet."
So maybe times have changed a bit. Regardless, I hope these kids get to explore the outdoors *and* remain safe.
|
That law seems like a recipe for giving parents who leave their kids to sizzle in a hot car an excuse. I also seem to remember a lot of child labor cases coming out of Utah, though I'll have to look that up when off work.
|
On March 28 2018 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +Utah passes 'free-range parenting' law, allowing kids to do some things without parental supervision
A new law legalizing free-range parenting will soon take effect in Utah allowing children to do things alone like travelling to school.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed the bill on March 15, which takes effect in May.
The bill redefines "neglect" in Utah law so that kids can participate in some unsupervised activities without their parents being charged, a representative from the state confirmed to ABC News Monday.
“Kids need to wonder about the world, explore and play in it, and by doing so learn the skills of self-reliance and problem-solving they’ll need as adults," Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, a sponsor of the bill, said in a statement to ABC News. "As a society, we’ve become too hyper about ‘protecting’ kids and then end up sheltering them from the experiences that we took for granted as we were kids. I sponsored SB65 so that parents wouldn’t be punished for letting their kids experience childhood.”
Fillmore added that there were no organized groups against the bill, and it passed unanimously out of both houses of the state's legislature.
Lenore Skenazy, author of "Free Range Kids" and president of letgrow.org, coined and trademarked the term free-range kids. Skenazy wrote in her book about allowing her 9-year-old to ride the New York City subway alone.
Skenazy told ABC News that the law is the first in the country and that Fillmore contacted her about the bill's proposal.
"My law is the way that our kids have the right to some unsupervised time, and we have the right to give it to them without getting arrested," Skenazy said. "That's my law and Sen. Fillmore made it into legislative language."
She explained that the new bill states that it won't be considered negligent by authorities, who cannot start an investigation, if a parent lets their child walk outside alone, play without supervision or allows them to wait in the car without an adult.
Skenazy said that many will likely disagree on what age a parent should allow their child to do things without adult supervision.
"I would definitely not let a 3-year-old play in the park alone, but I definitely would let their 10-year-old sister play in the park for an hour and come home," she said. "I definitely would let my 7-year-old walk to school, but maybe you won't let your 7-year-old walk to school."
Skenazy added, "There's no right way to parent. You have to give the parent leeway because they know best, and they love them the most."
Dr. Dave Anderson is a clinical psychologist at the Child Mind Institute. Anderson explained that those who are considering free-range parenting should take everything on a "case by case basis."
"Parents want their kids to be independent, want to give opportunities to explore, but for any parent that's going to be a personal decision," Anderson said today on "Good Morning America." "If your 12-year-old is capable of walking home from the bus stop by themselves, that's something that you might make a decision about where another 12-year-old may be too impulsive."
He went on, "It's kind of a reaction in comparison to states like Maryland where kids under 14 may not be able to be out unsupervised. So, when you talk about self-reliance or independence, it's about a parent practicing with their kid [on] how they might be independent in particular situations."
Anderson said the risks associated with free-range parenting should come from "common sense."
"Kids might get into things impulsively that parents weren't anticipating so it's something where we want to know the situation well," he added. "We want to be clear of the guidelines that keep our kids safe and we want to practice. The old phrase that we use is the 'I do, we do, you do' model.”
Anderson advises parents who are considering free-range parenting to practice doing things like trailing their kids while they walk home from school before allowing them to do it themselves.
He also recommends practicing in areas of the community that are well-known to you and your family.
Gov. Herbert released the following statement to ABC News: "We believe that parents know and love their kids better than anybody. Absent evidence of clear danger, abuse or neglect, we believe that parents have the best sense of how to teach responsibility to their children."
Utah Sen. Mike Lee added an amendment to the 2015 federal education bill supporting the concept of free-range parenting, according to the Associated Press.
"It said kids shouldn’t be stopped from biking or walking to school alone with a parent’s permission," the AP reports, "and parents shouldn’t face charges for letting them." http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/utah-passes-free-range-parenting-law-allowing-kids/story?id=54020213 I feel like 50 years ago the idea of "free-range parenting" was just called "parenting". I'd imagine that most older parents or grandparents think it's absurd that such a law would even need to be passed in the first place, to permit such a lax philosophy that lets kids run around and play outside and explore and... well, just be kids! On the other hand, many of those parents also prescribed to some of our country's greatest hits of the mid and late 20th century, such as: -"Vaccinations are for wusses, not babies." -"Slapping kids blue is whatcha do!" -"No one wants to steal or kill our shitty kids anyway." -"It's not racism; it's just having a favorite color [and all the other colors are morally inferior]." -"Women: If you're not cooking, then you're cleaning." -"All of our technology is wired to the wall." -"Our houses and education are basically free." -"Whoops! We destroyed the planet." So maybe times have changed a bit. Regardless, I hope these kids get to explore the outdoors *and* remain safe. Yeah, the fact that this law is even needed is mind boggling to me.
You currently can't let a 10y old play in the park unsupervised without risking arrest for neglect?
Teh fuck.
|
On March 28 2018 02:24 farvacola wrote:
That law seems like a recipe for giving parents who leave their kids to sizzle in a hot car an excuse. I also seem to remember a lot of child labor cases coming out of Utah, though I'll have to look that up when off work.
Yeah, I can't help but be skeptical with this coming out of Utah. This must somehow empower child marriages and labor somehow.
|
On March 28 2018 02:24 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2018 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Utah passes 'free-range parenting' law, allowing kids to do some things without parental supervision
A new law legalizing free-range parenting will soon take effect in Utah allowing children to do things alone like travelling to school.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed the bill on March 15, which takes effect in May.
The bill redefines "neglect" in Utah law so that kids can participate in some unsupervised activities without their parents being charged, a representative from the state confirmed to ABC News Monday.
“Kids need to wonder about the world, explore and play in it, and by doing so learn the skills of self-reliance and problem-solving they’ll need as adults," Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, a sponsor of the bill, said in a statement to ABC News. "As a society, we’ve become too hyper about ‘protecting’ kids and then end up sheltering them from the experiences that we took for granted as we were kids. I sponsored SB65 so that parents wouldn’t be punished for letting their kids experience childhood.”
Fillmore added that there were no organized groups against the bill, and it passed unanimously out of both houses of the state's legislature.
Lenore Skenazy, author of "Free Range Kids" and president of letgrow.org, coined and trademarked the term free-range kids. Skenazy wrote in her book about allowing her 9-year-old to ride the New York City subway alone.
Skenazy told ABC News that the law is the first in the country and that Fillmore contacted her about the bill's proposal.
"My law is the way that our kids have the right to some unsupervised time, and we have the right to give it to them without getting arrested," Skenazy said. "That's my law and Sen. Fillmore made it into legislative language."
She explained that the new bill states that it won't be considered negligent by authorities, who cannot start an investigation, if a parent lets their child walk outside alone, play without supervision or allows them to wait in the car without an adult.
Skenazy said that many will likely disagree on what age a parent should allow their child to do things without adult supervision.
"I would definitely not let a 3-year-old play in the park alone, but I definitely would let their 10-year-old sister play in the park for an hour and come home," she said. "I definitely would let my 7-year-old walk to school, but maybe you won't let your 7-year-old walk to school."
Skenazy added, "There's no right way to parent. You have to give the parent leeway because they know best, and they love them the most."
Dr. Dave Anderson is a clinical psychologist at the Child Mind Institute. Anderson explained that those who are considering free-range parenting should take everything on a "case by case basis."
"Parents want their kids to be independent, want to give opportunities to explore, but for any parent that's going to be a personal decision," Anderson said today on "Good Morning America." "If your 12-year-old is capable of walking home from the bus stop by themselves, that's something that you might make a decision about where another 12-year-old may be too impulsive."
He went on, "It's kind of a reaction in comparison to states like Maryland where kids under 14 may not be able to be out unsupervised. So, when you talk about self-reliance or independence, it's about a parent practicing with their kid [on] how they might be independent in particular situations."
Anderson said the risks associated with free-range parenting should come from "common sense."
"Kids might get into things impulsively that parents weren't anticipating so it's something where we want to know the situation well," he added. "We want to be clear of the guidelines that keep our kids safe and we want to practice. The old phrase that we use is the 'I do, we do, you do' model.”
Anderson advises parents who are considering free-range parenting to practice doing things like trailing their kids while they walk home from school before allowing them to do it themselves.
He also recommends practicing in areas of the community that are well-known to you and your family.
Gov. Herbert released the following statement to ABC News: "We believe that parents know and love their kids better than anybody. Absent evidence of clear danger, abuse or neglect, we believe that parents have the best sense of how to teach responsibility to their children."
Utah Sen. Mike Lee added an amendment to the 2015 federal education bill supporting the concept of free-range parenting, according to the Associated Press.
"It said kids shouldn’t be stopped from biking or walking to school alone with a parent’s permission," the AP reports, "and parents shouldn’t face charges for letting them." http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/utah-passes-free-range-parenting-law-allowing-kids/story?id=54020213 I feel like 50 years ago the idea of "free-range parenting" was just called "parenting". I'd imagine that most older parents or grandparents think it's absurd that such a law would even need to be passed in the first place, to permit such a lax philosophy that lets kids run around and play outside and explore and... well, just be kids! On the other hand, many of those parents also prescribed to some of our country's greatest hits of the mid and late 20th century, such as: -"Vaccinations are for wusses, not babies." -"Slapping kids blue is whatcha do!" -"No one wants to steal or kill our shitty kids anyway." -"It's not racism; it's just having a favorite color [and all the other colors are morally inferior]." -"Women: If you're not cooking, then you're cleaning." -"All of our technology is wired to the wall." -"Our houses and education are basically free." -"Whoops! We destroyed the planet." So maybe times have changed a bit. Regardless, I hope these kids get to explore the outdoors *and* remain safe. Yeah, the fact that this law is even needed is mind boggling to me. You currently can't let a 10y old play in the park unsupervised without risking arrest for neglect? Teh fuck.
I bet if you could get ahold of the actual numbers of citations issued for that kind of thing, it'd be clear that this law responds to a non-existent problem that companions nicely with stuff like being anti-vaccine and pro-homeschooling without any oversight.
|
My town brought up the subject of calling the police when you see an unsupervised child and have concerns. The chief of police was pretty firm that people should talk to the child first, rather than calling the police and move on with your day. Apparently it is something that is happening often enough where it was a topic in my community. That said, I don't think the law is a good idea.
|
On March 28 2018 02:39 Plansix wrote:
My town brought up the subject of calling the police when you see an unsupervised child and have concerns. The chief of police was pretty firm that people should talk to the child first, rather than calling the police and move on with your day. Apparently it is something that is happening often enough where it was a topic in my community. That said, I don't think the law is a good idea.
Does that contrast with the whole "stranger danger" philosophy of telling students to ignore/ run away from strangers just to be safe?
|
|
|
On March 28 2018 02:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2018 02:39 Plansix wrote:
My town brought up the subject of calling the police when you see an unsupervised child and have concerns. The chief of police was pretty firm that people should talk to the child first, rather than calling the police and move on with your day. Apparently it is something that is happening often enough where it was a topic in my community. That said, I don't think the law is a good idea. Does that contrast with the whole "stranger danger" philosophy of telling students to ignore/ run away from strangers just to be safe?
Yeah, when I was in school, I was told to basically scream as soon as someone speaks to me, lol.
|
On March 28 2018 02:34 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2018 02:24 Gorsameth wrote:On March 28 2018 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Utah passes 'free-range parenting' law, allowing kids to do some things without parental supervision
A new law legalizing free-range parenting will soon take effect in Utah allowing children to do things alone like travelling to school.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed the bill on March 15, which takes effect in May.
The bill redefines "neglect" in Utah law so that kids can participate in some unsupervised activities without their parents being charged, a representative from the state confirmed to ABC News Monday.
“Kids need to wonder about the world, explore and play in it, and by doing so learn the skills of self-reliance and problem-solving they’ll need as adults," Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, a sponsor of the bill, said in a statement to ABC News. "As a society, we’ve become too hyper about ‘protecting’ kids and then end up sheltering them from the experiences that we took for granted as we were kids. I sponsored SB65 so that parents wouldn’t be punished for letting their kids experience childhood.”
Fillmore added that there were no organized groups against the bill, and it passed unanimously out of both houses of the state's legislature.
Lenore Skenazy, author of "Free Range Kids" and president of letgrow.org, coined and trademarked the term free-range kids. Skenazy wrote in her book about allowing her 9-year-old to ride the New York City subway alone.
Skenazy told ABC News that the law is the first in the country and that Fillmore contacted her about the bill's proposal.
"My law is the way that our kids have the right to some unsupervised time, and we have the right to give it to them without getting arrested," Skenazy said. "That's my law and Sen. Fillmore made it into legislative language."
She explained that the new bill states that it won't be considered negligent by authorities, who cannot start an investigation, if a parent lets their child walk outside alone, play without supervision or allows them to wait in the car without an adult.
Skenazy said that many will likely disagree on what age a parent should allow their child to do things without adult supervision.
"I would definitely not let a 3-year-old play in the park alone, but I definitely would let their 10-year-old sister play in the park for an hour and come home," she said. "I definitely would let my 7-year-old walk to school, but maybe you won't let your 7-year-old walk to school."
Skenazy added, "There's no right way to parent. You have to give the parent leeway because they know best, and they love them the most."
Dr. Dave Anderson is a clinical psychologist at the Child Mind Institute. Anderson explained that those who are considering free-range parenting should take everything on a "case by case basis."
"Parents want their kids to be independent, want to give opportunities to explore, but for any parent that's going to be a personal decision," Anderson said today on "Good Morning America." "If your 12-year-old is capable of walking home from the bus stop by themselves, that's something that you might make a decision about where another 12-year-old may be too impulsive."
He went on, "It's kind of a reaction in comparison to states like Maryland where kids under 14 may not be able to be out unsupervised. So, when you talk about self-reliance or independence, it's about a parent practicing with their kid [on] how they might be independent in particular situations."
Anderson said the risks associated with free-range parenting should come from "common sense."
"Kids might get into things impulsively that parents weren't anticipating so it's something where we want to know the situation well," he added. "We want to be clear of the guidelines that keep our kids safe and we want to practice. The old phrase that we use is the 'I do, we do, you do' model.”
Anderson advises parents who are considering free-range parenting to practice doing things like trailing their kids while they walk home from school before allowing them to do it themselves.
He also recommends practicing in areas of the community that are well-known to you and your family.
Gov. Herbert released the following statement to ABC News: "We believe that parents know and love their kids better than anybody. Absent evidence of clear danger, abuse or neglect, we believe that parents have the best sense of how to teach responsibility to their children."
Utah Sen. Mike Lee added an amendment to the 2015 federal education bill supporting the concept of free-range parenting, according to the Associated Press.
"It said kids shouldn’t be stopped from biking or walking to school alone with a parent’s permission," the AP reports, "and parents shouldn’t face charges for letting them." http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/utah-passes-free-range-parenting-law-allowing-kids/story?id=54020213 I feel like 50 years ago the idea of "free-range parenting" was just called "parenting". I'd imagine that most older parents or grandparents think it's absurd that such a law would even need to be passed in the first place, to permit such a lax philosophy that lets kids run around and play outside and explore and... well, just be kids! On the other hand, many of those parents also prescribed to some of our country's greatest hits of the mid and late 20th century, such as: -"Vaccinations are for wusses, not babies." -"Slapping kids blue is whatcha do!" -"No one wants to steal or kill our shitty kids anyway." -"It's not racism; it's just having a favorite color [and all the other colors are morally inferior]." -"Women: If you're not cooking, then you're cleaning." -"All of our technology is wired to the wall." -"Our houses and education are basically free." -"Whoops! We destroyed the planet." So maybe times have changed a bit. Regardless, I hope these kids get to explore the outdoors *and* remain safe. Yeah, the fact that this law is even needed is mind boggling to me. You currently can't let a 10y old play in the park unsupervised without risking arrest for neglect? Teh fuck. I bet if you could get ahold of the actual numbers of citations issued for that kind of thing, it'd be clear that this law responds to a non-existent problem that companions nicely with stuff like being anti-vaccine and pro-homeschooling without any oversight. I'm sure there are ways of preventing anti-vac or homeschooling situations of child abuse without making it illegal for a 9y to be alone outside.
|
On March 28 2018 02:43 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2018 02:34 farvacola wrote:On March 28 2018 02:24 Gorsameth wrote:On March 28 2018 02:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Utah passes 'free-range parenting' law, allowing kids to do some things without parental supervision
A new law legalizing free-range parenting will soon take effect in Utah allowing children to do things alone like travelling to school.
Utah Gov. Gary Herbert signed the bill on March 15, which takes effect in May.
The bill redefines "neglect" in Utah law so that kids can participate in some unsupervised activities without their parents being charged, a representative from the state confirmed to ABC News Monday.
“Kids need to wonder about the world, explore and play in it, and by doing so learn the skills of self-reliance and problem-solving they’ll need as adults," Sen. Lincoln Fillmore, a sponsor of the bill, said in a statement to ABC News. "As a society, we’ve become too hyper about ‘protecting’ kids and then end up sheltering them from the experiences that we took for granted as we were kids. I sponsored SB65 so that parents wouldn’t be punished for letting their kids experience childhood.”
Fillmore added that there were no organized groups against the bill, and it passed unanimously out of both houses of the state's legislature.
Lenore Skenazy, author of "Free Range Kids" and president of letgrow.org, coined and trademarked the term free-range kids. Skenazy wrote in her book about allowing her 9-year-old to ride the New York City subway alone.
Skenazy told ABC News that the law is the first in the country and that Fillmore contacted her about the bill's proposal.
"My law is the way that our kids have the right to some unsupervised time, and we have the right to give it to them without getting arrested," Skenazy said. "That's my law and Sen. Fillmore made it into legislative language."
She explained that the new bill states that it won't be considered negligent by authorities, who cannot start an investigation, if a parent lets their child walk outside alone, play without supervision or allows them to wait in the car without an adult.
Skenazy said that many will likely disagree on what age a parent should allow their child to do things without adult supervision.
"I would definitely not let a 3-year-old play in the park alone, but I definitely would let their 10-year-old sister play in the park for an hour and come home," she said. "I definitely would let my 7-year-old walk to school, but maybe you won't let your 7-year-old walk to school."
Skenazy added, "There's no right way to parent. You have to give the parent leeway because they know best, and they love them the most."
Dr. Dave Anderson is a clinical psychologist at the Child Mind Institute. Anderson explained that those who are considering free-range parenting should take everything on a "case by case basis."
"Parents want their kids to be independent, want to give opportunities to explore, but for any parent that's going to be a personal decision," Anderson said today on "Good Morning America." "If your 12-year-old is capable of walking home from the bus stop by themselves, that's something that you might make a decision about where another 12-year-old may be too impulsive."
He went on, "It's kind of a reaction in comparison to states like Maryland where kids under 14 may not be able to be out unsupervised. So, when you talk about self-reliance or independence, it's about a parent practicing with their kid [on] how they might be independent in particular situations."
Anderson said the risks associated with free-range parenting should come from "common sense."
"Kids might get into things impulsively that parents weren't anticipating so it's something where we want to know the situation well," he added. "We want to be clear of the guidelines that keep our kids safe and we want to practice. The old phrase that we use is the 'I do, we do, you do' model.”
Anderson advises parents who are considering free-range parenting to practice doing things like trailing their kids while they walk home from school before allowing them to do it themselves.
He also recommends practicing in areas of the community that are well-known to you and your family.
Gov. Herbert released the following statement to ABC News: "We believe that parents know and love their kids better than anybody. Absent evidence of clear danger, abuse or neglect, we believe that parents have the best sense of how to teach responsibility to their children."
Utah Sen. Mike Lee added an amendment to the 2015 federal education bill supporting the concept of free-range parenting, according to the Associated Press.
"It said kids shouldn’t be stopped from biking or walking to school alone with a parent’s permission," the AP reports, "and parents shouldn’t face charges for letting them." http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Family/utah-passes-free-range-parenting-law-allowing-kids/story?id=54020213 I feel like 50 years ago the idea of "free-range parenting" was just called "parenting". I'd imagine that most older parents or grandparents think it's absurd that such a law would even need to be passed in the first place, to permit such a lax philosophy that lets kids run around and play outside and explore and... well, just be kids! On the other hand, many of those parents also prescribed to some of our country's greatest hits of the mid and late 20th century, such as: -"Vaccinations are for wusses, not babies." -"Slapping kids blue is whatcha do!" -"No one wants to steal or kill our shitty kids anyway." -"It's not racism; it's just having a favorite color [and all the other colors are morally inferior]." -"Women: If you're not cooking, then you're cleaning." -"All of our technology is wired to the wall." -"Our houses and education are basically free." -"Whoops! We destroyed the planet." So maybe times have changed a bit. Regardless, I hope these kids get to explore the outdoors *and* remain safe. Yeah, the fact that this law is even needed is mind boggling to me. You currently can't let a 10y old play in the park unsupervised without risking arrest for neglect? Teh fuck. I bet if you could get ahold of the actual numbers of citations issued for that kind of thing, it'd be clear that this law responds to a non-existent problem that companions nicely with stuff like being anti-vaccine and pro-homeschooling without any oversight. I'm sure there are ways of preventing anti-vac or homeschooling situations of child abuse without making it illegal for a 9y to be alone outside.
The problem here is not one of explicit legality, it's part and parcel with according child protective services and police discretion when it comes to findings of neglect. It's absolutely not "illegal" to let your 9 year old go off on his own to a nearby park or something, but in terms of discretionary enforcement, cps workers and police should be able to draw inferences from having observed children being routinely found alone somewhere in public (alongside other badges of abuse, ideally, like hunger, hygiene, and wherewithal). As logo points out, there are problems with overzealous enforcement, but having worked personally with child abuse cases prosecuted by a state attorney general, I can tell you that laws like the Utah one are going to make it harder to call a spade a spade in the name of freedom that is likely not being denied to all that many who deserve it.
|
Why adding a citizenship question to the census launched a political firestorm
...The decennial census is intended to count the number of people living in the United States (regardless of immigration status or citizenship) and then to use that data to inform key decisions like government spending and allocation of House seats and electoral votes. If undocumented immigrants are less likely to respond to the census, the population figures in places that they live will be significantly lower than they might otherwise be.
Pew Research estimated where those immigrants lived in a report released in February 2017. Of the 11 million or so immigrants living in the country without legal status, most live in cities.
t’s those cities that would see the most dramatic undercounts in the survey.
They already see undercounts. In the 2010 Census, the bureau estimated a 1.5 percent undercount of Hispanics and a 2.1 percent undercount among black Americans. The concern is that the first figure in particular would rise substantially if a citizenship question were added.
In his letter, Ross writes that he has seen little evidence that it would.
“[N]either the Census Bureau nor the concerned stakeholders could document that the response rate would in fact decline materially,” he writes. “In discussing the question with the national survey agency Nielsen, it stated that it had added questions from the [American Community Survey] on sensitive topics such as place of birth and immigration status to certain short survey forms without any appreciable decrease in response rates.”
A 2014 study seems to reinforce that idea, looking at response rates from surveys that include citizenship questions and finding that, for one survey, “the introduction of legal status questions does not appear to have an appreciable ‘chilling effect’ on the subsequent survey participation of unauthorized immigrant respondents.”
The Census Bureau asked about citizenship in all interviews in 1950. Between 1950 and 1960, the number of nonwhite residents identified in California, Iowa and Texas didn’t increase dramatically — but the varying definitions of racial and ethnic groups over that period make it tricky to assess any effect.
There are many other caveats worth mentioning.
The most significant is that the researchers in that 2014 study found a difference between privately operated surveys and government-run ones like the census. It compared two surveys, one private and one government-run, determining that “the rate of missing data between the two surveys appears to be consistent” with concerns expressed in a 2006 Government Accountability Office report determining that private-sector-operated surveys — like Nielsen’s — would see a better response. (Among other reasons, the GAO suggested that “[s]ome foreign-born persons are from countries with repressive regimes and thus have more fear of (less trust in) government than the typical U.S.-born person.”)
Source
I was waiting for a good article on this. The Justice Department is adding citizenship question on the census, which is a big play by the anti-immigration groups in the US. The article breaks down why, the census is used to calculate the population of a state, which dictates services and funding. Chilling effect the question could have on illegal immigrant and relative legal populations is a debated issue. Of course there are studies out there that claim it will have little impact, but those are all studies that don't involve handing over the information to the federal government who is actively deporting people. To be clear, it has always been a struggle to get citizens to respond to the census as it is. It is a huge undertaking and the population does not often cooperate.
This is another big get for the anti-immigration groups who want to limit legal immigration as well as deport all illegal immigrants. They have wanted this for a long time. The question is not specifically useful for the federal government, since states already have a lot of the voter information. I am firmly in the corner that the question is pointless and reflects preformative ideology over accuracy of the census.
|
On March 28 2018 03:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +Why adding a citizenship question to the census launched a political firestorm
...The decennial census is intended to count the number of people living in the United States (regardless of immigration status or citizenship) and then to use that data to inform key decisions like government spending and allocation of House seats and electoral votes. If undocumented immigrants are less likely to respond to the census, the population figures in places that they live will be significantly lower than they might otherwise be.
Pew Research estimated where those immigrants lived in a report released in February 2017. Of the 11 million or so immigrants living in the country without legal status, most live in cities.
t’s those cities that would see the most dramatic undercounts in the survey.
They already see undercounts. In the 2010 Census, the bureau estimated a 1.5 percent undercount of Hispanics and a 2.1 percent undercount among black Americans. The concern is that the first figure in particular would rise substantially if a citizenship question were added.
In his letter, Ross writes that he has seen little evidence that it would.
“[N]either the Census Bureau nor the concerned stakeholders could document that the response rate would in fact decline materially,” he writes. “In discussing the question with the national survey agency Nielsen, it stated that it had added questions from the [American Community Survey] on sensitive topics such as place of birth and immigration status to certain short survey forms without any appreciable decrease in response rates.”
A 2014 study seems to reinforce that idea, looking at response rates from surveys that include citizenship questions and finding that, for one survey, “the introduction of legal status questions does not appear to have an appreciable ‘chilling effect’ on the subsequent survey participation of unauthorized immigrant respondents.”
The Census Bureau asked about citizenship in all interviews in 1950. Between 1950 and 1960, the number of nonwhite residents identified in California, Iowa and Texas didn’t increase dramatically — but the varying definitions of racial and ethnic groups over that period make it tricky to assess any effect.
There are many other caveats worth mentioning.
The most significant is that the researchers in that 2014 study found a difference between privately operated surveys and government-run ones like the census. It compared two surveys, one private and one government-run, determining that “the rate of missing data between the two surveys appears to be consistent” with concerns expressed in a 2006 Government Accountability Office report determining that private-sector-operated surveys — like Nielsen’s — would see a better response. (Among other reasons, the GAO suggested that “[s]ome foreign-born persons are from countries with repressive regimes and thus have more fear of (less trust in) government than the typical U.S.-born person.”) SourceChilling effect the question could have on illegal immigrant and relative legal populations is a debated issue. Of course there are studies out there that claim it will have little impact, but those are all studies that don't involve handing over the information to the federal government who is actively deporting people.
The difference between the control group and the treatment group needs to be, well, the treatment. In this case, treatment being not handing information to the federal government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
