The real problem; single parent families and stepfamilies, or stigmatisation of them?

UNICEF published a comprehensive report on children's welfare in developed countries last week. It was widely reported as it contained an explicit ranking of 21 countries that arouses competitive spirit among nations. For some countries who gloriously topped the ranking, it is time to celebrate; congratulations the Netherlands and Sweden. But for countries that are lagging behind, it is time for some homework, discussions and blame-game. The UK narrowly beat the US for the worst place this year; therefore, not surprisingly, the British media is providing a great amount of stories of the plight of British kids and how to improve children's well-being.

However, the Daily Telegraph's article reporting the 'scathing' UNICEF report exploited this opportunity by stigmatising certain families as the source of the problem. I don't know if the report was 'scathing' to the UK, it just complied the set statistics and Britain happened to come last; there is always a country that comes last (Thatcherites might not notice, but competition always creates losers). But the real problem with the article is the second sentence of it; "The nation's high number of single parents and step-families has contributed to the ranking", the Telegraph claims, as if it were the main reason of the country's place in the ranking.

To single them out as a problem is a blatant disregard for their rights and dignity. But is it even true? Even if it were true, is it the focus they should devote half the article on?

I should point out that a part of the responsibility rests with UNICEF that included the 'percentage of children living in single parent families/stepfamilies' as the negative factor. In the page 23 of the report, it notes a legitimate concern that it 'may seem' 'unfair and insensitive'. (Well, it doesn't only seem, it IS.) Then it goes on to claim that 'at the statistical level' 'there is evidence to associate growing up in single-parent families and stepfamilies with greater risk to well-being'; obviously, correlation doesn't imply causation! It provides no evidence that proves the causation. It included the single-parents/stepfamilies data only because of that weak allegation of correlation. (It admits that the correlation was mainly researched in the UK and the US, not in other 20 or more OECD countries). Furthermore, even if they had shown the causation, there are already separate categories for problems that they claim are related to single parents/stepfamilies, such as 'a greater risk of dropping out of school', or 'poor health'. It doesn't make sense to include factors that are correlated to negative factors, not only negative factors themselves, unless they don't consider single parents/stepfamilies in themselves as evil.

Despite its so many grave flaws, the Telegraph chose to highlight the weak 'statistical evidence' part in the beginning of the article, instead of so many other valid points in the UNICEF report. And though Britain's relatively high percentage of single parents/stepfamilies indeed has 'contributed' to its bottom ranking as they are listed as criteria, its impact is minimal; even if Britain had none of single parents/stepfamilies in the country whatsoever, Britain would still be the second-worst in the ranking after the US.

It then goes on to claim that 'The nation has far more single-parent families than any other EU nation'. According to the UNICEF, it is simply untrue. Latvia has 18.6% and 17.7% of Estonian kids live with a single parent. The Iron Curtain no longer exists; the Baltic states are also a part of Europe! And indeed the UK had the highest percentage of single-parent families in the EU countries that are included in the ranking, it was far from 'far more'; the UK has 16.9%, while Sweden has 16.8%! How can a 0.1% difference (the smallest difference possible in the data) be described 'far more'? Then, according to the Telegraph, what is narrow margin? Denmark and Norway has 16.5% and 16.2% respectively; intriguingly and ironically, Sweden and Denmark, the second and third highest in the percentage of single-parent families, came second and third best in the overall ranking!!! If you look outside the Europe, the US has 20.8% of kids living with single parent families, making it nearly 4% higher than the UK figure.

Instead of attaching stigma to single parents and stepfamilies, it is time to learn from the countries in which children are well and happy (not only for the UK, but for New Zealand, and other countries that didn't do well too). The Independent articles reporting the successful examples of the Netherlands and Sweden illustrate that they didn't come to the top of the ranking by blame-game and alienation. In the Netherlands 'from a tender age, their opinions are valued, their wishes respected', and Sweden is the first country in the world to ban violence against children, called corporal punishment, in 1979. 5 out of top 7 countries ban corporal punishment, including all top 4. Only 2 out of the bottom 7 do. Here I'm only showing statistical correlation, not causation; but it is still worth examining, as corporal punishment is in itself evil while single parent families/stepfamilies are not.

Hillary 'dogged' or 'breezed through'?

I'm a believer in Hillary. I believe that her election to the world's most powerful job would transform, not only the US, but the world we live in. I can't wait till the day she wins the election. Not only I believe in her truly liberal beliefs and extraordinary ability, I believe in her victory as well.

I know that she is a polarising figure. I know right-wingers in TV and radio, her decades-old enemy, continue to attack Hillary, fearing the prospect of her presidency. But what I'm concerned is that recently a lot of liberals seem to be reluctant to support Hillary; because of her Iraq War vote.

When Hillary Clinton visited New Hampshire to campaign for the next year's U.S. presidential election last weekend, the main story that most news media reported from her weekend campaign trail through the Granite State was the negative one that her position on the Iraq War was unpopular. The AP article in the CNN website; titled 'N.H. voters want clarity on Clinton's Iraq Views'; says "defending her vote means she'll continue to be dogged by skeptical questions about it". This 'dog' imagery seems to be the favourite among journalists, left and right alike, to describe the Hillary's weekend campaign in NH. The conservative Chicago Tribune believes "Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) was dogged with questions about the war as she campaigned in New Hampshire over the weekend" while the headline of the Independent article is 'Clinton is dogged by criticism of war stance'.

But it is too prepossessed to judge that Hillary was always hounded by noisy anti-war protesters for the whole weekend. New Hampshire Union Leader, a Manchester paper with the largest circulation in New Hampshire, sheds the different light on Hillary in NH with a more detailed report of her campaign. According to the Union Leader, Hillary 'breezed through' New Hampshire. Though 'attendees grilled the senator on a wide range of subjects', she handled them with great understanding of the issues and compassion for people; 'audience members said they were particularly impressed with Clinton's command of the issues'. The AP article refers to her 'command of the issues', about which the UL article tells in depth, in just one paragraph; "she deftly fielded questions on a range of subjects, from education to health care to the genocide in Darfur." It devotes more than half of the article to the Iraq issue with negative connotation; ending it with the response of Claire Helfman, a voter unsatisfied with Hillary's position on the Iraq War. If you read the UL article as well, you get a different impression; you will understand that 'by and large, they seemed as interested in domestic matters as in the war in Iraq'. Even for the Iraq, you get an impression that voters understood Hillary's position; and it finishes with the positive, confident comment of the event organiser, Debora Pignatelli.

Both articles can be true; obviously, some voters can be 'converted' by Hillary while others can remain unconvinced. It's only the difference of focus, but readers will have a completely different idea about her weekend campaign. Two realities, two biased media.

The Independent asserts that 'her vote in 2002 to authorise the Iraq war will be the biggest obstacle to her winning the Democratic presidential nomination'. I think it is too early to determine that, but my question here is; should liberals stop supporting her because of the vote she cast five years ago, and she hasn't said 'it was a mistake'?

I oppose the Iraq War, so I support it if she clearly says the 'yes' vote she cast in 2002 was a mistake. But is that an important issue for liberals, as the Independent claims? She has been a staunch critic of the Iraq War for a year or two years; and her speech is a clear proof for that. It is just my total speculation, but it is possible that she doesn't 'admit a mistake' just to avoid being 'swiftboated' by the right-wing noise machine. It doesn't necessarily mean she doesn't believe it was a mistake, though we never know what she actually believes. And what really matters is what she really believes.

She is a supporter of the universal health care. She has been working for the children's rights for nearly forty years. She has consistently supported women's right to choose, civil union, gun control, and stem-cell research. She is, unequivocally, a feminist. It is a good time to read her awe-inspiring 'women's rights are human rights' speech for the Beijing Conference on Women in 1995. Did we ever have such a passionate women's rights defender as a leader of the big, powerful, Group of Eight countries; in fact, the Superpower of the world? (Only three women have ever been a leader of G8 countries; all three are from a conservative party.) It would be almost impossible to imagine that such a historic change wouldn't improve lives of millions of women in the US and all over the world.

She has the intellect, experience and ability to achieve these goals. 'Calculating' is not necessarily a bad trait, if she is calculating for the sake of the higher good. She knows how to win; so she declared 'I'm in and I'm in to win'.

What else can we desire from the presidential candidate?

The U.S. and the world need her integrity and trust and respect. John Edwards is a passionate supporter of health care and poverty reduction. Barack Obama is a brilliant star. But I believe, as she spoke 38 years ago, 'Earth could be fair. And you and I must be free'. That is why I believe in Hillary.

Welcome!

Welcome everyone to the Liberal Latte's new blog, Between the Lines and Realities!

This is a place for me to share my thoughts and views on a myriad of issues, primarily political, social and philosophical. However, more importantly, this is a place for you to make a comment and debate the issues. As the title suggests, the blog puts emphasis on how and what the media tell us and their lens sometimes can distort reality (if such thing as reality exists). But, not only this blog examines the media-related issues, the blog itself is new media; the Internet has a potential to become a real 'public sphere', where people can discuss their views freely, and get their opinions heard, without economic or political constraints. The Blogsphere has been gradually diminishing the power of corporate-owned media; without YouTube the word 'macaca' wouldn't have entered the political dictionary and the Democrats might not have regained the control of the Senate last year. I see a light of hope in the strength and potential of this new media technology, even in the world dominated by George W. Bush and Rupert Murdoch.

Reality is, for us humans, (mostly, if not always) perception. Each individual perceives matters differently. Therefore, there are multiple realities, and mutual communication and interaction with people with different backgrounds and realities can enrich the way we think. I hope this blog grows to be a public sphere where we can read between the lines, and go on a journey to find ways to make the world a better place to live in together, through lively and creative discussions between realities. My views have been incredibly widened by brilliant blogs and discussions in the blogs; it is my dream to make this place provide an opportunity for you to broaden your world, and my world. And I can never, absolutely never accomplish this goal without your support and comment!

Lastly, if you want to contact me, please leave a comment on this post. (Or if you know me just email me!)