Showing posts with label family. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family. Show all posts

Saturday, March 17, 2012

Obama Gets it Both Ways

If the media are asked to leave children out of the pursuit of a political candidate, and candidates and elected officials ask for privacy - then it is incumbent upon that person to maintain the privacy of the children.  If you mention them in conversation it is one thing, but to invoke them to explain your thinking - YOU are thrusting them into the spotlight at which time they can be examined in the media.



Mar 17, 9:35 AM EDT





 
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Barack Obama likes to talk about his kids. What parent doesn't?

But Obama isn't just another dad shooting the breeze about his kids' antics in last night's soccer game. He's the president, and he brings up his daughters to explain his thinking on all sorts of combustible national issues.

He's cited Sasha and Malia, now 10 and 13, in discussing everything from the rescue of an American aid worker from Somali pirates to the touchy subject of public access to emergency contraception. His daughters also are prominent in a family photo being used by his re-election campaign.

Most recently, Obama brought up his daughters when asked about conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh's reference to college student Sandra Fluke as a "slut" after she testified that birth control should be covered by insurance.

Obama said at a news conference that he'd called Fluke after Limbaugh made his comments "because I thought about Malia and Sasha, and one of the things I want them to do as they get older is to engage in issues they care about, even ones I may not agree with them on. I want them to be able to speak their mind in a civil and thoughtful way, and I don't want them attacked or called horrible names because they're good citizens."

Invoking his daughters is a way for Obama to bring big issues down to human scale, in a disarming way. It also is a reminder to Americans of the president's photogenic family, a priceless political asset in an election year.

The Obamas can be fiercely protective of their daughters' privacy in some ways, complaining if the girls are photographed while out on their own, for example. But they've been more than willing to keep bringing them up in the national conversation and to keep them in the minds of voters as the general election approaches.

A few months ago, Obama brought up the girls in talking about the government's decision to keep the Plan B morning-after pill available only to those 17 or older, rather than allowing it to be openly sold on drugstore shelves.

"As the father of two daughters, I think it is important for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-counter medicine," Obama said. He went on to say the drug shouldn't be available for sale to young girls, "and I think most parents would probably feel the same way."

In January, when an American aid worker was rescued from Somali pirates by Navy SEALs, Obama thought aloud about what her father had gone through, and about his own daughters.

"I cannot imagine what he went through - given Malia and Sasha - and for him to be able to stay strong," the president said.

First lady Michelle Obama frequently brings up her daughters while talking about her campaign against childhood obesity. She often tells about how the girls were starting to get off-track before the family's pediatrician gave her a wake-up call.

On a recent four-state tour to promote her "Let's Move" campaign, Mrs. Obama blended stories about her own family with policy pronouncements, offering tips on how she gets her girls to eat healthy snacks and use good manners at the dinner table.

She probably got a lot of knowing nods from parents after she related that her daughters aren't all that interested in the White House garden "because anything I do they're not interested in."

Douglas Wead, a former aide to President George H.W. Bush who has written a book about presidential families, said it's no surprise, and no coincidence, that the Obamas want to showcase "a marriage that functions well and a relationship with children that functions well."

"Everything is calculated at that level," he said, adding that he doesn't blame the Obamas for "showing off a little."

But Wead said it can be risky for a president to invoke his children when debating weighty policy matters.

"Jimmy Carter got his hand slapped when he did that," Wead reminded.
In his 1980 re-election campaign, Carter brought up his 13-year-old daughter, Amy, during a presidential debate.

"I had a discussion with my daughter, Amy, the other day, before I came here, to ask her what the most important issue was," Carter said. "She said she thought nuclear weaponry - and the control of nuclear arms. This is a formidable force."

Carter's rival, Republican Ronald Reagan, mocked the answer at a later campaign rally, saying: "I remember when Patty and Ron were little kids, we used to talk about nuclear power."

Obama's on safer footing when he jokes about his daughters to puncture the formality of an event and put people at ease.

When the president visited a Master Lock factory in Milwaukee last month to discuss American manufacturing, he got a laugh from the workers when he told them: "As I was looking at some of the really industrial-size locks, I was thinking about the fact that I am a father of two girls who are soon going to be in high school and that it might come in handy to have these super locks. For now, I'm just counting on the fact that when they go to school there are men with guns with them."

In a similar vein, he told a National Prayer Breakfast last year that he has prayed, "Lord, give me patience as I watch Malia go to her first dance, where there will be boys. Lord, let her skirt get longer as she travels to that place."

The crowd loved it.

But you can imagine Malia groaning, and saying "Oh, Dad."









obama

Saturday, January 14, 2012

Marriage is Best ?

She offers a unique perspective.




By Carey Goldberg , Special to CNN
2011-12-21
 

Editor's note: Carey Goldberg is the co-host of WBUR's CommonHealth blog. With Beth Jones and Pamela Ferdinand, she is the co-author of "Three Wishes: A True Story of Good Friends, Crushing Heartbreak and Astonishing Luck on our Way to Love and Motherhood," which comes out in paperback next month from Little, Brown.

(CNN) -- A couple of years ago, my daughter and I were playing the classic board game "Life," and her little car reached the roadblock at which everybody -- absolutely everybody -- gets married.

Needless to say, given a new set of striking statistics last week that showed a record low of 51% of American adults are married, "Life" was designed many decades ago. The study by the Pew Research Center further found that 40% of births these days are to unmarried mothers, and a similar percentage of Americans say marriage is becoming obsolete.

My daughter Liliana, who was 8 when we were playing the board game, tossed off this remark as she stuck the tiny blue husband pin into her car: "When I grow up, I don't think I'll get married. I think I'll just get some sperm."

How we reap what we sow! Liliana was old enough to know the story of her own origins, and it goes like this: When I turned 39, still single, I resolved to become a mother on my own and bought eight vials of donor sperm. But then I met her father, Sprax, and he agreed to help me have a baby the old-fashioned way. We went through many ups and downs, even splitting up for a couple of years, but finally realized that we loved each other, got back together and went on to have her baby brother. When Liliana was almost 4, we got married.

So there I was -- the former single mother by choice, the typical Massachusetts type who deeply believes that there are a hundred great ways to make a family and that life can also be wonderful without one -- and I found myself responding to my daughter: "That would be fine if you just get some sperm, sweetheart, but you know, being married is actually really nice, too."

What happened to me? What happened to the independent woman who, by the time she married for the first time at age 44, felt no particular need for a piece of paper from City Hall?

It is this. Day in and out, through lunch-packing and play date-making and bath-running, I am struck by a surprising truth: Though the raising of our children constitutes the central activity of our family, it is the love between Sprax and me that constitutes its ineffable core.

That sounds like a traditional religious point of view, but we are not religious. I've come to this understanding simply as an observer of my own heart and the family dance. It is, apparently, just an emotional fact of life -- at least, of our life.

What baffles me is that I was perfectly able to have Liliana without being in a committed, loving relationship with Sprax, and our semi-family life was really quite happy in that formation. We all got along; Sprax would visit two or three times a week; Liliana got plenty of love and structure.

But since he and I reunited, our bond has become the family's invisible center, the axis of its spokes. I did not need a husband. But I need him.

LZ Granderson: Love and marriage are not the same thing

So fine, but what difference do the formal "bonds of matrimony" make? Usually you hear people talk about commitment, but I can't imagine any greater commitment than sharing children who are still going to need raising for quite a few years.

No, what marriage means to me is acceptance, an "absolute yes" that makes it bearable to be seen at your worst -- exhausted or flu-ridden or carried away by an ugly bout of selfishness. That "yes" launches the creation of an entity, a union, that exists apart from the daily ebb and flow of difficulties and joys. It is nothing but an abstraction, but, to my amazement, it is the most beautiful thing in our lives.

So this is my marital equivalent of "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus":

"Yes, Liliana, you can definitely stay single and you'll have loads of company. You by no means have to get married. You can definitely have a fabulous life without marriage, and it would certainly be a huge mistake to rush into anything.

"But I cannot lie: I wish you all that is best in life, and marriage, when it's good, can be one of those things. And if you do get married, at your wedding I'll cry tears of joy -- because I'll know that you're about to enter the gates of one of the most magical places in the world."









marriage

Thursday, February 18, 2010

Family and Marriage

Married parents 'ten times more likely to stay together'



By Sarah Harris
19th February 2010
The Daily Mail



Married parents are ten times more likely to stay together than cohabiting couples with children, according to research.


The study also showed cohabiting has become a less stable form of relationship compared with 18 years ago, with couples more likely to separate.

Figures show that in 1992, 70 per cent of couples who had children after they were married stayed together until their child's 16th birthday.

This increased to 75 per cent in 2006, showing that marriage has become a more stable family background for youngsters.

However, only 36 per cent of cohabiting parents stayed together until their son or daughter reached 16 in 1992. By 2006, just 7 per cent of couples who were unmarried when their child was born were still cohabiting by their 16th birthday.

This figure excludes those couples who were just living together when their child was born and later got married.

Around three in five couples who stop cohabiting decide to marry. Of these just 17 per cent are still together by the time their child is 16, the report says.

The study, Cohabitation in the 21st Century, from Christian thinktank the Jubilee Centre also shows that the cost of family breakdown is £41.7billion - equivalent to £1,350 for every taxpayer each year.

It claims these costs will rise 'significantly' over the next 25 years. Its analysis was based on almost 30,000 family cases drawn from a nationwide survey.

It shows that fewer than one in 19 of all couples who live together (5.3 per cent) have been together for ten years or more.

The study also suggests cohabitation does not serve as a trial marriage or reduce the odds of divorce.

Never-married couples who live together before tying the knot are 60 per cent more likely to divorce than those who do not. Dr John Hayward, director of the Jubilee

Centre, said: 'All the evidence suggests that families headed by married, biological parents who have not previously lived together provide the best environment for both the individuals involved and their children.

'This has huge personal, social, economic and political consequences for us all.'

Fellow researcher Dr Guy Brandon added: 'The cost of family breakdown to society, whether parents have cohabited or married, is enormous.

'Besides the emotional cost, which inevitably has an impact on mental health and economic productivity, the direct costs are estimated at £41.7billion each year - the equivalent of £1,350 per taxpayer per year.

'Given the projected rise in cohabiting couples in England and Wales from 2.25million to 3.7million in the next 20 years, and the clear link between cohabitation and family breakdown, it is fair to expect these costs to rise significantly in coming years.'

In July 2007, the Law Commission published a report highlighting the financial implications for couples who cohabit and then separate.

It suggested rights on separation or death for couples without children who have lived together for at least two years.

The Government has yet to publish its final response to the report.

However, the Lords introduced the Cohabitation Bill in December 2008. It was designed to ensure basic legal rights for cohabiting couples in the event of separation or death.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
marriage

Make Mine Freedom - 1948


American Form of Government

Who's on First? Certainly isn't the Euro.