Milwaukee Social Worker BLOG

911..... the past 7yrs from a Muslim American's perspective

2008-09-11T13:32:00.000-07:00

This is an incredible article by a Muslim American Pacifist, Arsalan Iftikhar. He makes some great points and really epitomizes the view that I wish our society would embrace:
"Within the current ungodly global mix of perpetual war, everlasting human poverty, extremist terrorism and global racism; our human race has completely and utterly lost its collective mind....Alas, everyone on all sides should now lay down their bombs and/or water-boards for one moment and contemplate whether we collectively wish to take a path towards perpetual war or coexistent peace and align ourselves with devilish racist warmongers or choose to be on the side of loving warrior angels."

Some other good quotes he references:
Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once said that, “Peace is not merely a distant goal that we seek, but a means by which we arrive at that goal.”

In explaining the utter human simplicity of my global pacifism, we should be reminded of the sage words of Albert Einstein: “My pacifism is an instinctive feeling; a feeling that possesses me because the murder of men is disgusting…My attitude is not derived from any intellectual theory but is based on my deepest antipathy to every kind of cruelty and hatred…”

I second his sentiments and feel for the fate of our fellow man, Muslim or not. We spend so much time hating and killing that we lose sight of the commonalities we all share. Killing does not garner peace. War does not create peace. It creates more war, more conflict, and ultimately, cultural and social oppression. After such a long war, what have we accomplished? Democratizing Iraq? Imposing our will over their political and economic system? Destroying religious and cultural norms for the sake of "peace"? I only hope that the next 7 years post 9/11 will be more productive in terms of building towards peace.

Glasses of a wanna be feminist?

2008-09-11T06:29:00.000-07:00

Is Sarah Palin really a fashion eyewear icon now? According to the JS today women across the county are scrambling to get some Kawasaki 704 ($375.00) titanuim glasses/ frames. I could really care less about the style of the glasses etc. The funny part of the story is this quote for a Palin supporter:

“It’s always been, ‘Men don’t make passes at girls that wear glasses,’ ” says Quinn, who wore glasses from age 3 through high school, then ditched them for contact lenses. “In seeing her, I think that’s all changed now... It just makes you feel like, gosh, if our maybe-vice president is feeling confident about wearing glasses, maybe so can I.”

That's amazing. It took a woman VP candidate wearing some "sophisticated with an edge" glasses to give women confidence to wear glasses again? Palin isn't trying to pick up guys, at least I don't think she is :) So what is her intention? Women in politics have to be very careful of the image they portray (ie: the Clinton pants suit). So what is her image? Here are some suggestions:
Suburban house wife with a sassy side?
Little girl in a big boy's world?
Mommy of 5 but independent?
Male mouthpiece with a cute face?
Rugged yet glam?

Feel free to add your suggestions! I am a little concerned that she will make other "statements," fashion or otherwise, that will easily sway weak insecure women. I can see it now... feathered hair, leg warmers and male domination!

Can a relationship bridge the aisle?

2008-09-04T19:59:00.000-07:00

So..... can two individuals with very different political, ethical, moral, and social views and values have a healthy functional relationship full of respect, understanding, and support for one another? I argue that the answer is no. Each of us have a complex network of social constructs that have formed who we are and condition our responses to situations and others. No matter how unbiased one may claim to be, your conditioned response will reflect your personal and political views in a way that may hinder your interpersonal relationships, especially with those whose construct in very different. Two individuals may have a strong physical attraction, perhaps common interests such as movies, or music, or the outdoors. However these elements will not sustain the relationship for three reasons: the couple's ability to converse, differing life goals and motivation, and contradictory social contracts.

First, what will they talk about? Every discussion is bound to have a tinge of political or ethical overtones. Even the most sensitive and respectful individual will have difficulty just listening to an opposing view for long periods. Eventually it will devolve into debates and attempts to change the other's view. Generally, arguing or debating with your significant other does not create unity or strengthen a relationship. And eventually one person will say something that truly offends the other. This will result in additional ongoing re-examination of the value of the relationship compared to one's personal moral and social values.

Secondly, while individuals may have similar life goals, at some point the goal or the motivation for the goal will be in contradiction within the relationship. This can cause huge rifts in relationships where couples feel as if they are pulling in two different directions (ie: a socially conscious collectivist lifestyle compared to a personal gain libertarian approach). Child rearing can be a direct indicator of this conflict as each parent communicates different values/ life philosophies to the child.

Finally, two individuals with very different political, ethical, moral views will have inherently different social contracts. Their understanding of their obligations to their fellow man and role in society will be in stark contrast. This can lead to a lot of resentment and ongoing turmoil as activities and plans support each individuals values. One individual serving the poor while another attempts to eliminate funding of programs for the poor. This may be overlooked for a while but at some point the differences will escalate until both parties experience alienation and ongoing strife. How can one feel respected, supported, and valued in a relationship if the elements that are intrinsic to who they are mean nothing to their significant other?

Now there are some who say they are not political and do not really care much about what's occurring on the national level. However, they still have personal values and beliefs that direct their life and conscience. These elements, similar to where one falls on the political spectrum, can also serve as indicators of the success of a relationship due to their ability to cause a divide. There are always exceptions to these rules but I think drastically different political and personal views will ultimately degrade a relationship.

17 Reasons why I hate Sarah Palin

2008-08-30T14:17:00.000-07:00

Well McCain's new running mate, Sarah Palin, will definitely serve a purpose. She will confuse and distract female voters while pushing a male agenda.
So here are a few reasons I don't like her:

lifetime member of the NRA (and supposedly hunts regularly)
anti-abortion, yet still calls herself a feminist?
pro-death penalty
former beauty pageant queen...... because there has to be something pretty to look at while discussing the issues?
nominated miss congeniality... do you think she includes this on her resume?
anti-environment, for drilling in Alaska and removing tho polar bears protected status
little political experience (4yrs on city council, 6 yrs as mayor of a small town, and almost 2 yrs as Governor of Alaska)
prior work experience includes sports reporter and commercial fishing
uncertain religious affiliation: Pentecostal, non-denominational and Lutheran?
She is seen as ideal because her son is being deployed to Iraq.....how does that speak to her credibility as a candidate?
children with crazy names: Track, Trig, Bristol, Willow, and Piper.... i feel sorry for them!
married to high school boyfriend.... come on how about some exploration!
husband works for BP oil.... hmm she is neutral right?
Palin stated: "It was rightly noted in Denver this week that Hillary left 18 million cracks in the highest, hardest glass ceiling in America," she told the crowd. "But it turns out the women of America aren't finished yet, and we can shatter that glass ceiling once and for all." How is electing a woman who is against most women's issues shattering the glass ceiling? We might as well elect a mannequin.
She was only selected to take away votes from the democrats, not based on her credentials or skills
Sarah was chosen over many other more qualified and experienced women such as Senator Hutchison or Snowe
John McCain, who has previously called his wife a cunt, probably has one intention in choosing Sarah: she will be a pretty face to campaign with and deceive the consciences of women but if elected, will be asked to keep her mouth shut and submit to his paternalistic, male dominated world view (which she seemingly already has)

Michelle Obama: hero or doormat?

2008-08-25T17:41:00.000-07:00

Well we didn't get a female candidate for president. And I am perhaps happy about that due to who the potential candidate was :) Beyond Hilary it seemed that Nancy Pelosi was the only other progressive woman recieving attention. Now Michelle Obama has become the democratic woman in the limelight. In this day of so many strong women, I wonder if she will prove to be an inspiration for women. Will she stand up for the issues women are concerned about? Will she be an example of continued humanitarian and social efficacy? And, perhaps most importantly, will she disagree with her husband if necessary! I am still undecided about this point. A few articles today have focused on Ms. Obama and highlighted some of the important qualities she brings as a potential first lady.

TIME praises her for sacrificing her career as a potentially prominent attorney to marry and focus on public service. Supposedly when Barack quit his job at Sidley Austin Law, the same firm Michelle worked in, he also quit for her in order to marry and begin his political career: "Most women might not appreciate their boyfriend's effectively giving notice on their behalf. Michelle, though, didn't seem to mind." Leaving the law firm, she became an assistant to the mayor in order to get a foot in the door of the political circles of Chicago. This supposedly played a large role in supporting her husband's political climb. Michelle went on to lead a non-profit and multiple other roles including leadership within a university and other non-profits.

I laughed when the article states that she didn't seem to mind. While she did many good things as her career advanced, it seems that many decisions she made were in deference to her husband and his political ambition. She mentions in the interview being upset with the need to raise her children alone while Barack was traveling and working. I generally like the Obama family and will likely vote for him. Yet I can't help but wonder what sort of a first lady, and example to women, Michelle will be. I fear another Laura Bush.... a woman who had many great qualities but did not stand up for women, did not speak out for issues pertinent to her and her daughters, and furthered the image of the mousy, submissive wife who served no purpose beyond serving George. I have no problem with women who choose that role. However women in roles of influence should take advantage of it and make change! I can only imagine the level of influence Michelle can have on issues like abortion, family planning, sexuality, pay equity, gender relations etc.

The article ends with the statement: " The country wouldn't get a two-for-one Bill and Hillary presidency if she were to become First Lady..." I hope that is incorrect and that Michelle will be just as influential as a spouse as Bill would have been!

Social Work Boundaries and limitations?

2008-08-15T17:27:00.000-07:00

Recently I was challenged with the question: are there areas of client need that I can deal with emotionally and/or can not provide support in an effective manner?
This week I found myself watching a news production related to domestic violence. In the piece a women retells her story including graphic details of the emotional, verbal and physical abuse sustained at the hand of her husband. A home video, recorded by the women's young child, depicted the abuse which spanned more than 90 minutes. Incidents similar to this supposedly occured on a regular basis over the course of her almost 17 year marriage. During the video I had an incredibly strong psychosomatic response where I was sweating, shaking, heart racing, and felt the need to leave the room. Even as I recount this I am reliving this response. I was incredibly surprised by this. After all the years I have worked with distraught, chaotic, and extremely dysfunctional families, I have rarely had this sort of a reaction.

Does this mean that I could not effectively work within a population of domestic violence victims? I have worked with some in the past however my role comes into play days or months after the abuse and many minimize the true intensity. Perhaps elements of my own relationships and those I witnessed within my family were represented within this woman's story. Does personal experience with trauma make on a better helping proffessional? Or does it interfere with one's ability to be neutral and professionally distant? Some therapy advocates for a certain level of personal disclosure in order to make a client comfortable, facilitate oppenness, and join with a client related to an issue. How do I determine what my limitations are and/or should be? So this is my dilemma for the week.

I don't expect to find an answer to this question today... but I would appreciate any feedback!

Women in Politics

2008-08-07T17:12:00.000-07:00

For all my fellow feminist activists this is a great article. Do you believe that researchers have actually deduced that less women enter politics because of an "internal glass ceiling" !! Rediculous :) We will have to prove them wrong!

h/t to folkbum

Individual ethical Dilemmas Translates into Persecutory Policy

2008-08-05T06:11:00.000-07:00

In every field there are ethical challenges encountered on a daily basis. That is the cost that must be assessed prior to entering a specific field. Those in the medical field take a Hippocratic oath to do no harm and also agree to provide necessary, legal services.

According to a recent Washington Post Article, "The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive. "

This is astounding. Is our government really considering regulating funds to medical care facilities based on their willingness to excuse medical professionals from doing their job? If an individual chooses not to participate in certain types of treatment, they should move to a role where they would not be expected to perform that act or face the administrative consequences. There should be no allowance for this within facilities that receive any sort of public funding.

Beyond that, if the opportunity to "opt out" of procedures is available for all personnel, we may be get to the point where legal, necessary health care is not available. Should a woman have to change doctors, hospitals, or even nurses because of her current need? Should I woman have to
face potentially ostracizing treatment for her health care professional? Another aspect of the proposed law includes a definition of Abortion:

"There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would -- apparently for the first time -- define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg,"

I would hope that some common sense will prevail to prevent legislation like this. Every individual must make ethical decisions in their lives and in their jobs. Suck it up or work somewhere else.

h/t to Mal Contends

Research on Milwaukee Criminal Justice System

2008-07-29T17:41:00.001-07:00

This article cites some interesting research done by the Public Policy Forum for the newly formed Milwaukee Community Justice Council. Hopefully the council will move in a positive direction as it makes budget recommendations for the criminal justice system. In particular, it seems that GPS monitoring may be a positive approach to budget concerns as well as lessening the punitive nature of our response to victimless crimes in exchange for treatment and support.

h/t to Milwaukeetalkie

War: A social construct

2008-07-27T22:45:00.000-07:00

Our government, and others for that matter, have a long history of shaping public opinion to fit an agenda. Three primary examples which stand out could be the red scare, the war on drugs, and the current Iraq war. While I am not usually a consipracy theorist, the U. S. Government has a lot of direct and/or indirect influence over how we percieve events and what our ultimate response will be. Technological advancement and the creation of many of our current types of media make information readily available. However the extent to which that information is accurate will always be questionable.

A recent New York Times article demonstrates yet again the U. S. government's attempt to filter the information we are recieving about the Iraq war. Appealing to safety and strategic concerns, the U. S. Military is allegedly restricting what types of photos are taken and distributed. At first military personnel deny this claim ,however recently photographer Zoriah Miller underwent scrutiny and eventual censorship for posting pictures of deceased troops on a website. This is a sight that many don't want to see, and can choose not to see. But to prevent any distribution of photos of wounded or deceased troops plays a huge role in our view of the war in general. We see many pictures of dead "terrorists" and the damage to property and citizens done by "terrorists." But the impact of the war on the lives of troops and the damage done by U. S. forces is not portrayed. I can only deduce that this is an intential practice which aims to garner support for the war, depict the U. S. as the victorious savior, and limit true understanding of the cost of the war. I only hope that bloggers and other unrestricted media sources can continue to discuss these issues and expose the war for what it is: a futile attempt to obtain control of oil, dominate a key area of the world, and demonstrate our prowess as an ethnocentric superpower. Hopefully our words can be as powerful as a picture would have been.

h/t to mal contend

Torture Memo released

2008-07-24T15:54:00.000-07:00

According to CNN a previously secret memo has been released, albeit with much of the content redacted. The conclusion: torture is permissible unless the individuals "have the specific intent to inflict severe pain or suffering," on the detainees. Waterboarding specifically is referenced and supposedly does "not violate the Torture Statute."

I am amazed by these sorts of semantics. We can torture someone as long as our intent is not to severely harm them. What? The ability to judge "intent" is a slippery slope and would ultimately result little blame cast. Instead of spending time working towards justice, peace, and ending war... our nation has tortured individuals and sought every possible method of justification. Torture is never justified, the intent is always to cause harm. We take this stance when our citizens are POW's or for some reason detained in another country. Is our value for human life limited solely to our citizens?

While I would not give detainees a free ride, if they are going to be punished by our justice system, they deserve the same right to due process as a citizen. I fear that military tribunals and other types of "justice" processes for detainees are heavily biased and seek to obtain information from individuals over expediting justice.

Free Speech for Political Trash

2008-07-07T13:50:00.000-07:00

Free speech is a continuous debate.... but this is the first time I've heard of a right wing business organization claiming "oppression" of their right to free speech. Since when is expresssing a different view and speaking out against a political adversary suppression of free speech? If anything, I would hope that more individuals would speak out against the actions of the WMC. The tumultuous supreme court race was a perfect example of this organization attempting to buy voting power within the state supreme court.

See these other posts on WMC.
Waxing America and More

Riot or Right?

2008-07-07T12:25:00.000-07:00

This is a little late but I appreciated this post on the public policy forum related to the "riot" at the Coggs Center. Rob Henken outlines some of the key problems evident after this incident namely:

the state and county government has a dysfunctional relationship
applying for and recieving necessary services is a huge battle for citizens on a daily basis
there is constantly a battle between quality, timely, service provision and preventing fraud
our city and state is in no way prepared for a major disaster

I can personally speak to many of these points. I have spent so much time waiting in lines, on the phone etc. to support my clients who are desperately in need for medical care, child care assistance, food stamps etc. The Milwaukee county system specifically has so many bureaucratic hoops to jump through that many clients go without services as a result. Even as a professional in the field I have been explicitly told that I may not call a county employee directly, may not receive their e-mail addresses, and could not have access to a supervisor. The incident at the Coggs center should be an example of the inefficiency and inadequacy of our system: A social service system is created to meet the needs of citizens, support change, and fill in the gaps where employers or families have failed. Instead, many bloggers and talk radio folks have turned this incident into another example of so called fraudulent individuals trying to milk the system and getting violent when opposed. That is an incredibly short sighted view of the issue and does not address the real problem- how is our city working to identify those in need and implement programs and plans that meet the needs? Bureaucracy, arbitrary criteria, and more forms does not meet the need...... it causes "riots" where people are confused and ultimately remain hungry.

Where to start: The Lunacy of Kevin Fischer

2008-06-23T18:14:00.000-07:00

As many of my fellow bloggers have noted on many occasions, Mr. Fischer is a disgrace to bloggers, Republicans, and humans everywhere. See his recent post supposedly about the primary function of the Federal Government. As you read this, I am sure you will observe that he is really not trying to discuss the function of the Federal government. His primary intent is to bash liberal bloggers, demonstrate his ignorance related to social programs and intervention, and defend the current Bush Administration without merit. While the blogosphere is open to all walks of life (and opinions), he claims to be credentialed, supported be Legislator Mary Lazich, and worthy of broadcast television. I am shocked that anyone would pay him for these opinions. At least Ann Coulter is somewhat more logical and introspective. Fischer only demonstrates his huge ego and his belief in his own opinions over respect and concern for others.

First, he did not provide an in-depth analysis related to the key function of the federal government. All I could deduce was that he believed securing our borders is the primary function. I won't even bother asking him, because I am sure he will turn the response into a personal attack. If I were to provide some analysis of the functions of the federal government, the discussion would include a few things:
· The historical framework for the functions of a federal system
· The separation of powers between the federal government and the states
· Discrepancy between the original intent of our federal government and its current functions
· Research based, data driven analysis of government agencies and programs
· And finally, recommendations related to changes to make within this structure to increase efficiency, serve more citizens, and/or address the problem in a different fashion

Mr. Fischer seems to think that Liberals believe the function of the federal government is:
1) “To provide health insurance for everyone in the country, including jailed felons and illegal immigrants.
2) To provide cash payments from cradle to death for any number of reasons including inability to see the blackboard in the 4th grade and simply because my mother, her mother, and her mother’s mother also received welfare checks.
3) To attempt to solve every problem known to mankind rather than allow human beings to work hard to pull themselves up by the proverbial bootstraps and gain economic independence.”

This characterization, while perhaps tongue in cheek, demonstrates a vast misrepresentation of the progressive position on the Federal government and its role in citizen’s lives. I really appreciate the analogy of the social contract which we enter into as members of a functional democratic society. Each member of our society has inherent value and the right to a certain quality of life protected by our government. It would be nice if churches and non-profit organizations would have the resources, desire, and ability to meet the needs of every person. But obviously over time the level of community cohesion and informal social support has deteriorated. We have a responsibility as fellow citizens to pay taxes and support social programs for those in need (ie: abused/ neglected children, the elderly, the disabled, the poor etc). Supporting programs for these populations serves many functions for an advanced society: crime reduction, creating a proficient workforce, maintaining the quality of our social settings, and advancing our nations sustainability. I would love to see a libertarian model which actually serves these functions without social programs. If Mr. Fischer disagrees, he can move to a remote island where he is not bothered with the needs of others.

h/t to Grumps

Sexual Violence and Sexual Progress

2008-06-22T15:38:00.000-07:00

Recent articles have reminded me of the proliferation of sexual violence against women in America as well as abroad (ie: Africa). I am really impressed with the U.N.'s recent decision to include rape and sexual assault as a war crime. Sex is used as "a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instil fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group". I fear that our society has been slow to recognize this fact because our own military have been involved in similar acts. Another recent article names peace keepers/ and volunteers are perpetrators of sexual violence. If we can't trust our military or our peace keepers, who can those in need turn to?

At base, this is the result of a larger issue related to the social constructs of gender, sexuality, and power. Sexual violence is not seen as "as bad" as other crimes which cause physical or monetary harm. But the effects of sexual assualt and rape are life long and irreversible.

Practically, I have little say over military action and foreign aid provided. But I hope that the new attention given to the issue by the U. N. will at least garner a bigger response internationally. Locally, I think sex education courses should include more information related to sexual violence, power, and healthy interpersonal boundaries. So many young girls are given the wrong idea about sex from the media, peers, and churches. I would rather be honest, provide too much information, and have to field difficult questions than see a young girl victimized. Additionally, I think the religious community (and republicans for that matter) needs to renegotiate its position in the current state of sexuality and health. I will have future posts on this subject but basically I think if safety, healthy relationship building, and sexual exploration (as opposed to an abstinence only model) are taught within the church setting more children/ teens will be able to develop those skills/ knowledge early on. As a result, they may be saved from sexual violence and/or controlling, unhappy, relationships.

This is a great book on the subject for any of you interested in reproductive health and theology.

White House, Dirty Politics

2008-06-22T15:19:00.000-07:00

Well the Republican party has reached another low. Supposedly there were some individuals selling these buttons at the Republican Texas Convention. While I am sure republican party officials would not directly support this sort of propoganda- they may agree with it. I actually heard some concern as of late with the high potential for his assasination if Obama is elected. I was shocked by this- we are a society that has come so far since emancipation, the civil rights movement, Jim crow laws, and years of discrimination. But it seems that some still can not respect the inherent value of others. Obama's race has nothing to do with his fitness as a leader. If anything, it gives him an advantage in terms of his ability to relate to other world leaders, a diverse cultural background to build from, and provides a way to engage many disenfranchised members of our society. I am personally a little sick of all of our leaders being old white men :)

Some of my black friends thought this button was pretty funny.... they liked the idea of painting the white house black :)

h/t to warmmidwest

"The court has brought the Constitution home from exile"

2008-06-16T13:03:00.000-07:00

I commend our Judiciary for restoring the balance of power between the executive and judicial branches of government, defending the basic human rights of all, and demonstrating that there is hope for democracy long term. I am referring to the recent supreme court ruling which has restored some of the legal rights of detainees held in Guantanamo. Basically, those Guantánamo prisoners facing charges now, or in the future, will have the right to file their own habeas corpus petitions in U.S. courts, challenging the basis of their detention. They could still undergo military trials at the same time but at least some recourse is now available. In the ruling, Supreme Court Justice Kennedy stated: "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times." Herein, an act of terrorism or a state of war does not empower a president, a military, or any other party to disregard the basic human rights of others.

"The court has brought the Constitution home from exile," said Professor Eric M. Freedman, Maurice Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at Hofstra and a longtime adviser to lawyers representing prisoners at Guantánamo. "Everyone who believes that America is a country devoted to the rule of law should celebrate because this ruling says that the Executive needs to be accountable to a neutral judicial forum in its decisions to imprison people — and that is the basic restraint on tyranny that animated the American Revolution."

President Bush's response: "We'll abide by the court's decision. That doesn't mean I have to agree with it."

John McCain's response: “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country....it obviously concerns me ... These are unlawful combatants; they're not American citizens."

I am amused by both of these responses. The president has never been shy about his desire to have executive power over every area of this country in the name of "freedom." I would think that John McCain would be a little less direct in his opposition of separation of powers or the judicial branch. I would think his history as a POW would inspire him to make decisions based on the humane treatment of others, not political posturing and a desire to look tough.

I only hope that Obama can win this election and continue down the road of progress, ethical democracy, and intelligent foreign policy.

Let the Gang Members Play Golf!

2008-06-12T16:12:00.000-07:00

I am astounded by this story which outlines the government funding project to deal with juvenile justice issues. The brilliant plan for dealing with crime and delinquency among youths includes golf programs in inner cities.

"We need something really attractive to engage the gangs and the street kids, golf is the hook," said J. Robert Flores, the administrator of the Justice Department's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

I never thought I would hear gangs and golf in the same sentence. I have worked with a few gang members in my day but I have a hard time seeing them "saved" through golf. This shows yet another short sighted programatic decision which does not look at the cause of juvenile crime and misconduct but instead puts a band aid on it. I would like to see increased funding to truancy abatement, mental health and trauma intervention for young children, community based after school programs, and parenting support. It is rare that a gang banger or teen who is committing crimes comes from a healthy, supportive, involved family unit and community.

The article notes that the real reason the funding was diverted in this way was a result of cronyism etc. That seems more logical than actual programatic evidence supporting this plan.

h/t to warmmidwest for this story.

Can People Change?

2008-06-09T17:14:00.001-07:00

Ok..... I know what you are thinking, this is a pretty esoteric question. But I am sincerely interested in feedback on this issue. I have done quite a bit of research and there does not seem to be a conclusive result. But we all have various opinions on the subject :) First, there seems to be a few key influences on a person's ability to change. These include: genetics, parental interaction, life experiences, social/ emotional support system, social skills/ level of concern for others, and personal/ spiritual values.

A few common beliefs: you can take the horse to the water but you can't make it drink. “People can change if there is enough motivation,” says Michelle Gottlieb, a psychotherapist.
It is easier to change a habit than a personality characteristic, as these are often laid down at the age of 18. Though it is possible to modify behavioural traits after that, it is a more difficult path and usually involves psychotherapy in one form or another. In other words – it is easier to stop smoking than to stop abusive patterns in a relationship.
Some therapy techniques have proven useful for seeing change: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy and Dialectical Behavioral Therapy
Medication can result in change but the quality and long term efficacy of the change may be questionable

According to Arlene Harder MA MFT, there are three forces that can result in change: pain, pull, or push forces. Without one of these forces, little change will occur. However, according to new research in Blade Science, the human personality is not genetically programmed to "set like plaster" by age 30, and remain fixed for life, according to a scientific report issued here yesterday. Core traits that define a person can change throughout life, the study found. And like fine wine, they often do mellow and improve with age. "We found a general lack of support for the plaster hypothesis, and considerable evidence that directly contradicted it," said Drs. Sanjay Srivastava and Oliver P. John, of the University of California at Berkeley. The five traits studied and potentially changed are conscientiousness, agreeableness, neuroticism, openness, and extroversion. Another question to consider is what is being changed. A change threshold can be useful in exploring this. What is the intensity, frequency, duration, and time line of the behavior/ entity to change? And within the scope of this threshold, how much do individual characteristics effect a persons desire and/or ability to change. Even with a strong motivation (push, pull, or pain force) an individual may not have the ability (ie: knowledge, skill, social support) to actually act upon the desire.

Ultimately- the jury is still out in my opinion. However, with the right motivation, knowledge of the problem (entity to change), and support with the change- it is possible. In some cases though, change may occur to late to make a difference on the current trajectory of a problem.

Am I a feminist?

2008-06-08T20:07:00.001-07:00

The question of the month, (along with many of my other issues), is Am I a feminist? This post will be slightly different from my usual in light of interesting life circumstances. This is primarily a personal soap box so feel free to comment or disagree.

According to some sources: "Feminism has altered aspects of Western society, ranging from culture to law. Feminist activists have campaigned for women's legal rights (rights of contract, property rights, voting rights); for rights to bodily integrity and autonomy, for abortion rights, and for reproductive rights (including access to contraception and quality prenatal care); for protection from domestic violence, sexual harassment and rape; for workplace rights, including maternity leave and equal pay; and against other forms of discrimination"

In terms of this description of some of the key issues- I pretty much agree with feminism. It is easy to see and be passionate about these issues at a larger level. But in the home, within daily relationships and interactions the practicality of feminism is a little blurry. Is feminism selfish in nature? I would argue that a feminist gives respect where it is due and expects the same in return. I would never attempt to belittle, question, or obscure the role or values of another party. Each individual has unique strengths and gifts which add value to a relationship. However, when these strengths and gifts are put into a box (ie: stay at home wife cooking, cleaning, and keeping her mouth shut) and therein forced onto someone a vast injustice occurs. A dichotomy is created where neither party is ever good enough.

In light of this analysis and years of thought on the subject, I think that in social justice terms, I am a feminist. I agree in a qualified women's right to equal treatment, equal opportunity, and comparable pay. Additionally, I agree in a women's right to choose what happens to her body and in her relationships. But at an individual level, I don't need control over everything. I don't need to prove that I am better than any man. I don't feel slighted by men in leadership. On the contrary, I find myself able to work better with a male supervisor/ CEO.

Relationships however create an interesting challenge. If a significant other has substantial preconceptions about what a wife/ girlfriend should be without flexibility or balance, my feminist ego reacts. Whatever the nature of a relationship- both parties should feel some balance; a sense of respect for the others' interests, values, and strengths. I wonder how many relationships could have been salvaged or made happier by destroying the codified gender roles and assumptions about what a wife/ girlfriend or husband/ boyfriend should be. The religious influence on these assumptions can not be ignored. Whether an individual is currently practicing or not, the hard and fast gender concepts identified in the bible have remained as a model for dysfunctional relationships internationally. I would hope that as our society advances technologically, environmentally, and socially..... we would also advance in our ethical treatment of one another.

"The supreme happiness of life is the conviction that one is loved; loved for oneself, or better yet, loved despite oneself." -- Victor Hugo

Constrained Choice model for the Evaluation of Social Policy

2008-05-11T10:43:00.000-07:00

The Public Policy Forum had an interesting post recently about a new research method which looks at the way that policy makers, and social actions limit constrains the choice of individuals and may lower their quality of life/ ability to succeed in certain areas. However, I can already hear the right complaining about the way that this study limits personal responsibility.

http://milwaukeetalkie.blogspot.com/2008/04/lens-of-constrained-choice-can-foster.html

Common Ground Breaking Ground

2008-04-14T10:00:00.000-07:00

Yesterday I attended the founding convention for the Southeastern Wisconsin Common Ground. I was really impressed with the organization and it's approach. It's not very often that you find real grass roots advocacy and organization. The group was made up of more than 2000 incredibly diverse people from every socioeconomic, political, racial, and geographic background. Amazingly, all were willing to make a commitment to improve our community.

"Common Ground exists to build and support an organization to address Greater Milwaukee’s critical social issues in an effective, non-partisan way. We spent our first year listening to over 1,400 people discuss their concerns including health care, education, jobs and economic development, crime, mental health, youth activities, immigration and housing. We have prioritized these areas of concern for research, which is now underway. We’ve also been conducting Leadership Institutes to teach volunteers the basics of organizing. "

If you have any interest in engaging in discussion and action related to these issues consider joining this group made up of your fellow citizens, your church members, and your neighbors. I look forward to seeing what is possible when the community decides to put aside partisanship and prejudice in order to work for the common good of others.

Re-entry bill signed by Bush will hopefully reduce Recidivism

2008-04-12T13:04:00.000-07:00

Amazingly, the Bush administration and Congress have passed the Second Chance Act originally presented in 2004 in order to help facilitate the rehabilitation of offenders while in custody and a smoother transition back into the community once released. This is huge for the city of Milwaukee and nationally. Finally, our leaders are weighing the expense of incarceration versus that of treatment. According to the net effect of treatment is, on average, a positive reduction of overall recidivism (reoffending) rates of between 10% and 12%. Additionally, “inmates who had earned college degrees (while in custody)…had a 4% recidivism rate versus the customary rate of 33% for non-degreed inmates. The treatment programs vary in degrees of effectiveness. Some of the best include cognitive-behavioral programs, pro-social modeling programs, and some sex-offender treatment programs.

The services to be funded under the Second Chance Act include:
· mentoring programs for adults and juveniles leaving prison
· drug treatment during and after incarceration, including family-based treatment for incarcerated parents
· education and job training in prison
· alternatives to incarceration for parents convicted of non-violent drug offenses
· supportive programming for children of incarcerated parents
· early release for certain elderly prisoners convicted of non-violent offenses.

See this article for more info
See also a good article outlining the benefits of rehabilitation over incarceration.

UPDATE: Public Policy Forum highlights a great study looking at the cost of incarceration.

Wisconsin is a pioneer state seeking quality healthcare for All

2008-03-30T10:21:00.000-07:00

According to the associated press, WI has the second highest quality rating for its healthcare programs. While conservatives fight attempts at universal healthcare coverage, it seems that we are heading in that direction here in WI. Badger Care Plus has recently expanded its coverage to include:

All children (regardless of parental income)
Pregnant women (up to 300% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL), which is $51,510 for a family of three)
Parents and caretakers at higher income levels (up to 200% of the FPL, which is $34,340 for a family of three)
Young adults who are leaving foster care when they turn 18 (regardless of income)
Parents with incomes up to 200% FPL who have kids in foster care
More farm families and self-employed families.

And in 2009 coverage will also expand to include adults without dependent children . This program will offer tremendous support for children and families who had previously fallen through the cracks.

2008-03-24T14:21:00.000-07:00

According to the New York Times, which cited government research, the gap in the life expectancy of the rich and poor continues to widen. "Dr. Singh ( of the DHHS) said last week that federal officials had found “widening socioeconomic inequalities in life expectancy” at birth and at every age level.....In 1980-82, Dr. Singh said, people in the most affluent group could expect to live 2.8 years longer than people in the most deprived group (75.8 versus 73 years). By 1998-2000, the difference in life expectancy had increased to 4.5 years (79.2 versus 74.7 years), and it continues to grow, he said."

Possible reasons for the gap include:
- lower level of health care or longer response time for care
- living in unsafe neighborhoods and/or engaging in dangerous behavior
- higher level of cigarette smoking
-level of education may be linked to the type of care one seeks/ provides for self

I've heard from some conservatives lately that perhaps we should go back to "survival of the fittest" policies in terms of our care for the poor, needy, and abused (ie: let them fend for themselves). Could you imagine a world with even less support for those in need?