Troubling Trend

2 Replies

In 2006 more women under the age of 30 who had babies did so out of wedlock.  I won’t delve into the moral arguments here, rather I’ll focus on the practical.  First and foremost, I can’t imagine being a single parent at any age.  Being a parent is exhausting and when you don’t have someone to share the burden it is doubly so.  Second, as a single parent you’re fighting an uphill battle financially.  Even if you get child support you still have to find a way to make ends meet and that means either working, living on public support, living on family support or some combination of the three.  Third, you’re not going to have a lot of spare time to spend with your kids.  Where do they turn for the attention that you can’t give them?

This trend is troubling because in the end it will impact all of us.  As the person who conducted the study cited in the article said:

The inequality of incomes in these families is unbelievable,” said
Sum, who has written numerous books and articles about the job market,
young families and poverty. “Forty percent are poor, or near-poor. A
large fraction is dependent on public assistance. Unless the mother is
very well-educated and has a bachelor’s degree or above, there’s a huge
fiscal cost to the rest of us.

Hat tip to Ed Cone for the link to the article.

Foxx Hunt

3 Replies

I’m no fan of my Congresswoman Virginia Foxx, but I’ve pretty much resigned myself to the fact that I live in a Congressional district that would probably throw a parade for Vladimir Putin before it would elect a Democrat.  Well, I might be wrong.  Here’s an interesting post at BlueNC by Frank Eaton in which he points to a poll that shows Foxx leading Democratic opponent Roy Carter by a mere 48-46 in a Public Policy Polling (PPP) poll. He writes the following:

The PPP’s own poll showed a ten point spread (51-41) back in July.
But now, at the start of the true fall campaign, with multiple daily
events across the district, introductory ads on TV and an increasingly
attentive media, people are beginning to understand that there’s
somebody running against Virginia Foxx in the 5th district. His name is
Roy Carter, a fiery mountain populist with a long record of service to
5th district families and their children. This guy could win!

Sometimes it takes the word a while to get to Washington, especially
when it’s coming from a largely rural, inaccurately studied district
like NC-05, which the party structure has habitually forsaken since
redistricting. But listen up: ROY CARTER IS WINNING THIS RACE DOWN
HERE. And he’ll continue to win this race until Virginia Foxx opens up
her war chest and starts running those crappy $150,000 TV ads in steady
rotation on Fox News here in the district.

SHE CAN BE STOPPED FOR VERY LITTLE MONEY. All that’s standing
between North Carolina and an easy Democratic pick-up in the Congress
is this continued reticence on the part of the Democratic
leadership–at both the state and national levels–to look at the true
dynamics of the race:

-Soft support for Virginia Foxx among republican and unaffiliated
voters indicated by low approval ratings for her and the current
administration.

-increased consciousness of the economic realities in the district and a desire for change.

-A compelling Democratic challenger who is overseeing an energized, creative, dynamic campaign.

Even though Eaton is not an objective source I think he makes some pretty good points.  Foxx is closely aligned with Bush and hence vulnerable to negative association.  I’m sure she has a stranglehold on the hard core Republicans in her district, but Carter presents a problem for her with centrists because he’s not perceived as some sort of "intellectual elite" or "tree hugger" Democrat.  He has a lot of qualities that residents of this meat and potatoes district are attracted to, and he won’t be easily dismissed with the usual "liberal elite" smear campaigns.

On the other hand Eaton’s also right that Foxx has a deep war chest and when she starts opening up the media campaigns Carter could be thumped if he doesn’t get similar air time, which means he needs a financial boost from somewhere. 

Hat tip to Ed Cone for the lead.

NCAA Clueless

Leave a reply

It seems the NCAA has a policy on journalists blogging from the body’s sanctioned events.  In some instances journalists have been booted from the press box for violating the policy:

This isn’t the first time the NCAA has cracked down on blogging. In
June 2007, Brian Bennett of the Louisville Courier-Journal was thrown
out of the press box for posting live updates on a Louisville-Oklahoma
State baseball game. The NCAA said in a memo to reporters that "no blog
entries are permitted between the first pitch and the final out of each
game." Scott Bearby, an associate general counsel for the NCAA, told the New York Times
that the governing body had a right to protect the contracts it
establishes with television networks and its own Internet providers.

According to the article the policy "allows for only five blog entries per half, one at halftime and two in an overtime period of football and basketball games."  This is incredibly stupid on so many levels, but to start with let’s state the obvious:

  • People are going to live blog an event, whether or not its from the press box.  The NCAA apparently missed the whole "citizen journalism" memo.
  • The way traditional media are bleeding jobs the NCAA should be grateful for any coverage they’re getting.
  • I don’t care how good the blogger is, reading about the action won’t hold a candle to actually watching the game or listening to it on the radio. We don’t watch the games merely to get the scores, we watch to see how the scores come about.
  • How is a blogger interfering with the official "internet providers"?  If a blogger can replicate what an "internet provider" is providing then the NCAA has some seriously crappy contracts.

The NCAA is exhibiting the same kind of behavior I’ve seen with some companies. They have this whole concept of image control and traditional media management that is being completely blown out of the water by the developments of the last 5-10 years.  They don’t seem to realize that in today’s media environment it is impossible to control the message and that rather than trying to micro-manage the messengers they should concentrate on creating an environment that prompts the messengers to speak positively of them in their own way.

To use the NCAA case as an example I’d say they’d be better served if they embraced the bloggers.  Some ideas:

  • Have a box on the official "internet providers" streaming video that shows RSS feeds of all the bloggers covering the event.  So if it’s a football game the viewer could see what the bloggers are writing next to the window that’s showing the streaming video feed (if that’s what it is).  This would allow the fans at home to see what others are saying and compare it to what they’re seeing with their own eyes.
  • Have the producers of the broadcasts monitor the feeds and react to interesting items on the air.  They already do that with emailed questions that the on air analysts answer, so why not use the feeds for on air fodder?  Think about it for a second and you realize that the "official" media would be getting extra content for nothing.  Why would they not want that?
  • Easy objection to the above: What if the bloggers are saying something negative about the commentators or the player?  Well, it’s going to be said/written anyway and you might as well give your official providers a chance to respond in their own defense.  And hey, nothing jacks ratings like a little controversy.

Hat tip to John Robinson for the link to the story.

links for 2008-09-04

Leave a reply

Rights vs. Privileges

1 Reply

There’s an interesting article in the Peoria, IL newspaper about a school district that is considering banning from after school activities any student who is failing a core class.  So if a student is failing a core class they can’t attend a football game or go to the prom.  Seems reasonable to me.

Of course they asked some students their opinion, and as you’d expect some weren’t happy about it.  That’s fine, since it’s a teenager’s prerogative, neh, genetic destiny to feel oppressed by the man.  Unfortunately some teenagers don’t understand the difference between rights and privileges.  Here’s a quote from the article:

"I think it’s ridiculous," said Breon Woods, 17, a senior at Peoria
High School, "simply for the fact the school would lose money without
kids at the games – they’re the main spectators – you won’t have as
much school spirit. And prom is a right of passage."

Before going on to make my point I should point out that someone at the paper might need to go back to school.  "Right of passage" in this context should be "rite of passage."  Anyway, the kid makes a somewhat salient point about the money, although I’d argue that games don’t come close to actually making money even with the students, and yes a prom is a rite of passage.  But his assumption seems to be that by being a student you have the right to participate, no matter what.  That’s a false assumption.

As members of the community students have the right to have the same opportunity to an education as everyone else.  Other than that it is their privilege to participate in school activities, to utilize the school facilities, to occupy space with the other students.  It is the community’s expectation that the students use those privileges for their intended purpose, i.e. learning, and it is the community’s right to withdraw those privileges if the students don’t hold up their end of the bargain.  In other words prom might be a rite of passage, but it is no student’s absolute right to attend.

Like most parents we spend a lot of time explaining to our kids the difference between need and want.  As they get older we’re also beginning to deal more with rights and privileges.  I think that will really come to the forefront when licenses start to appear in the kids’ wallets in the next two years.  Like most middle class American teenagers they somehow feel that driving a car is an inalienable right akin to life and liberty.  How quickly they’ll learn that driving a car is a privilege expressly granted by the United States of Mom, Dad and State Farm.

Can States Copyright Laws and Regulations?

Leave a reply

I came across this post today on Boing Boing about a guy who is scanning all kinds of government regulations, laws, etc. and posting the images online for all to see.  Apparently some state and local governments copyright their laws and regs and he’s hoping one of them sues so that they can hash out the issue in court. 

How the hell does a government copyright what is ostensibly public information?  Now, if you read the article that the Boing Boing post points to you can understand why a government would copyright its regs, but that doesn’t explain how it’s able to do it.  Here’s the why:

To purchase a digital copy of the California code costs $1,556, or
$2,315 for a printed version. The state generates about $880,000
annually by selling its laws, according to the California Office of
Administrative Law.

That’s just horses–t.

links for 2008-09-03

Leave a reply

Don’t Know What RSS Is? Here’s a Primer

Leave a reply

The video below is the best explanation I’ve seen of RSS.  It’s important to know because RSS really is the backbone of the "new" web, or Web 2.0, or whatever you want to call it.  You may be using RSS and not know it, but if you’re not you should watch this and learn how you can greatly expand your online horizons and save time in the process.