![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/23/opinion/biden-romney-child-poverty.html
Probably behind a paywall. Definitely an opinion piece. Largely advocating for federal measures to reduce child poverty by giving money to the parents of said children in poverty. A laudable goal with broad support; the details, however, are obviously always up for debate.
Romney is (according to this article) proposing to cut a bunch of current programs to fund a Social Security benefit for families with children in poverty. The editorial board is advocating for this. So, irritation number one: somehow, we can only spend money on poor kids if we take away things from other poor people. When we stop taking money from rich people, we don’t have to compensate for that missing money. Standard.
But there are sentences in this article that are absolutely astonishing.
“The new benefit could also help adults realize their dreams. American women have fewer children than they say they want, a gap that does not exist in Europe. One obvious explanation is that Americans, unlike Europeans, can’t afford to have as many children as they want.”
I was _going to_ point out that, well, that is an obvious explanation, but the _actual_ explanation is that people in Europe have been so unable to afford children for so long that they have given up wanting to have children — a fraction continue to have the urge for La Biologique, but even that is shrinking and has been for a while. It is an amazing paragraph, however! There are so many reasons it is astonishing, not least of which is that it references women in Europe without any examination of the wide variety of experiences of family life across “Europe” (or, really, even defining what “Europe” might mean in this context). And it does not really further reference European programs to avert child poverty in the balance of the piece. It is a free-floating bit of nonsense!
So, there is a link in that paragraph. I know you want me to follow it and explain What the Hell is Going On Here Anyway, so I will. It links for more nonsense at the Institute for Family Studies.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies
Which is funded by the Koch Brothers. And which has numerous other connections, but if you are thinking, this smells like that crowd that in the W. era wanted to encourage marriage and as a throughline has been attacking same-sex marriage you are Not Wrong! And they have consistently Made Shit Up in that endeavor. Yet here they are, in a random paragraph in an NYT opinion piece — signed by the Editorial Board! — advocating that we cut social programs to do what these people want.
Why.
ETA:
I can’t do it any more. I have unsubscribed. I was nine months and a few days short of ten years subscribed, and I just cannot any more.
I walked with M.
I did the long walk by myself! Huge puddles, but warmed up enough I did not need to worry about slipping, so that’s something.
R. made really nice sourdough rolls.
Imperfect Foods arrived and I cooked mushrooms. Yay! I was otherwise out of mushrooms, which is always depressing.
I had a long zoom with I. That was very pleasant.
I took the black lamp that T. used to have, got sick of, and wound up in my office and took the shade off and measured things. I ordered a ring and harp and replacement shade. We’ll see if I did that right when everything arrives. I also ordered a Portal+, the 15ish inch one. If the camera and sound is good enough, hopefully that can replace using my iPad for piano zoom and similar.
Probably behind a paywall. Definitely an opinion piece. Largely advocating for federal measures to reduce child poverty by giving money to the parents of said children in poverty. A laudable goal with broad support; the details, however, are obviously always up for debate.
Romney is (according to this article) proposing to cut a bunch of current programs to fund a Social Security benefit for families with children in poverty. The editorial board is advocating for this. So, irritation number one: somehow, we can only spend money on poor kids if we take away things from other poor people. When we stop taking money from rich people, we don’t have to compensate for that missing money. Standard.
But there are sentences in this article that are absolutely astonishing.
“The new benefit could also help adults realize their dreams. American women have fewer children than they say they want, a gap that does not exist in Europe. One obvious explanation is that Americans, unlike Europeans, can’t afford to have as many children as they want.”
I was _going to_ point out that, well, that is an obvious explanation, but the _actual_ explanation is that people in Europe have been so unable to afford children for so long that they have given up wanting to have children — a fraction continue to have the urge for La Biologique, but even that is shrinking and has been for a while. It is an amazing paragraph, however! There are so many reasons it is astonishing, not least of which is that it references women in Europe without any examination of the wide variety of experiences of family life across “Europe” (or, really, even defining what “Europe” might mean in this context). And it does not really further reference European programs to avert child poverty in the balance of the piece. It is a free-floating bit of nonsense!
So, there is a link in that paragraph. I know you want me to follow it and explain What the Hell is Going On Here Anyway, so I will. It links for more nonsense at the Institute for Family Studies.
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies
Which is funded by the Koch Brothers. And which has numerous other connections, but if you are thinking, this smells like that crowd that in the W. era wanted to encourage marriage and as a throughline has been attacking same-sex marriage you are Not Wrong! And they have consistently Made Shit Up in that endeavor. Yet here they are, in a random paragraph in an NYT opinion piece — signed by the Editorial Board! — advocating that we cut social programs to do what these people want.
Why.
ETA:
I can’t do it any more. I have unsubscribed. I was nine months and a few days short of ten years subscribed, and I just cannot any more.
I walked with M.
I did the long walk by myself! Huge puddles, but warmed up enough I did not need to worry about slipping, so that’s something.
R. made really nice sourdough rolls.
Imperfect Foods arrived and I cooked mushrooms. Yay! I was otherwise out of mushrooms, which is always depressing.
I had a long zoom with I. That was very pleasant.
I took the black lamp that T. used to have, got sick of, and wound up in my office and took the shade off and measured things. I ordered a ring and harp and replacement shade. We’ll see if I did that right when everything arrives. I also ordered a Portal+, the 15ish inch one. If the camera and sound is good enough, hopefully that can replace using my iPad for piano zoom and similar.