Stupid policies and elections go hand in hand

Given that this is an election year politicians across the country are looking for simple talking points that voters can latch onto without doing any of the requisite thinking typically required for crafting public policy. In Michigan US Representative Kerry Bentivolio has offered up an excellent example of how politicians pander to low information voters.

In an editorial piece in the Detroit News Representative Bentivolio advocates for the repeal of the 16th amendment which provides congress with the ability to levy taxes. According to the representative the 16th amendment has "outlived its usefulness, and, as the investigation into the targeting of conservative groups has shown, the IRS has become an intrusive bureaucracy that too many of our fellow citizens fear."

The logic here is embarrassingly simplistic and ignorant. Perhaps there are valid reasons to replace the 16th amendment but the representative’s opinion on an amendment's usefulness is not one of them. Nor is the representative’s perceived fear level of the US citizenry. If that is all it takes to repeal an amendment to the constitution it would be considerably easier to argue that the second amendment generates far more fear among US citizens as well as outliving its usefulness. After all what gun toting militia stands a chance against the most powerful military in the history of the world?

Beyond that in the 225 year history of the constitution there has been a total of one successful repeal. Making this repeal a key component of his legislative goals shows just how serious Representative Bentivolio really is about the job he was elected to do. He would be better off promising to get the moon base, that Newt Gingrich made part of his presidential campaign, built and operational than he will of getting this amendment repealed.

Of course if Representative Bentivolio is just looking to appease US citizens and assuage fears he could offer to hold banks and their decision makers accountable for plunging the economy into a devastating recession, that affected far more people than the few political action committees that were forced to prove they weren't breaking the law.

Perhaps more concerning than the insincerity the representative exposes with his trite rationale is the complete lack of ideas the legislation he supports represents. What would H. J. Res. 104 do to make the "tax code fairer and easier to understand"? Nothing.

Instead Representative Bentivolio says "This repeal will eliminate the personal and corporate income tax, the estate and gift taxes, and taxes on investment earnings at the federal level. After ratification, Congress and the states will have two years to decide on an alternative plan to raise revenue for the federal government. If no agreement can be reached within the two-year time frame, the current system would continue as if nothing had changed."

One imagines that the voters of Michigan's 11th district had hoped their representative would go to Washington and solve any number of available problems. Instead Representative Bentivolio seems content to let others do the heavy lifting while he sits and the sidelines hurling insults like the grumpy old white guys in the balcony of a Muppets show.

In the end that fact that Representative Bentivolio believes a full frontal assault on the 16th amendment exemplifies a valuable use of tax payer’s time and money suggests perhaps his time in the House is what has truly outlived its usefulness.

Abusive government practices and deceptive minimum wage rhetoric won't help working poor

Over the past year there have been a lot of discussions surrounding the minimum wage. Fast food workers went on strike in an attempt shine a light on this issue and increase their pay. The president has also made it a key element of his fight against income inequality.

In Michigan a group called Raise Michigan started a petition drive to put the question of increasing the minimum wage before voters. Concern over this ballot measure forced the Republican controlled legislature to provide a work around that cuts voters out of the democratic process similar to their work that dissolved the voters will on Michigan's emergency manager law, their efforts to remove local control over schools, and their continued use of minor budgetary considerations that prevent residents from voting on referendum to controversial or unpopular legislation.

Not surprisingly, for some conservatives, this government overreach went too far. To them if the government was going to screw the people of Michigan out of the democratic process the least they could do was stick to true Republican ideology.

For the Detroit News editorial board the concern is that raising the minimum wage will hurt teens and business stating "With teen unemployment at near historic highs, this proposal will dim their prospects even further" and "by artificially increasing the annual cost of labor, without corresponding raises in productivity or prices, the impact of this legislation could crush small- and mid-sized businesses"

It should be noted that the teen employment rate has fallen precipitously since 2001. It should also be noted that changes in the minimum wage occurred in 1997 and 2007. It is a massive leap to insinuate that a full four years after being enacted an increased minimum wage resulting in a sudden drop of teen jobs. It took less than six months for Republicans to saddle the president with the economic woes created by his predecessor yet minimum wage has a four year gestation? This conclusion appears to be completely disingenuous conjecture on the part of the editorial board given that they provide no supporting evidence and that history shows no such definitive correlation. If they were being honest they would point out that the biggest change to occur in 2001 was the party in charge of the White House. Perhaps the real culprit for the considerable loss of teen jobs was Republican policies.

Having said that, these numbers have been falling for over a decade. If conservatives were really so concerned about the teen employment rate why did they stand ideally by while the number of teens finding jobs reached 30 year lows on their watch. Wasn't six years of controlling the executive and legislative branches of government enough time to offer even one solution to what we are now supposed to believe is the catastrophic result of an increase in minimum wage?

Of course it is also true that for years we have had a different set of rules for teen employees than other employees including a lower minimum wage. If the biggest concern with an increase in minimum wage was the number of job opportunities for teens, shouldn't Republicans just extend the reduced minimum wage rate for teens that is already on the books?

The reality is the pseudo outrage over teen employment shows just how tenuous the Republican opposition to minimum wage really is.

As far as businesses are concerned, it is certainly possible that some people may lose their job with an increase in the minimum wage however there would also be a considerably larger number of people who benefit from the increased wages. With that said, the idea that the minimum wage is some artificial increase implies that companies have no ability to artificially restrict wages. Let's say that we did as the editorial board suggests and we had tied higher wages to increased productivity. If that were the case, then American workers would have already seen an increase in pay much larger than the proposed $10.10 since data shows that while productivity has risen steadily since the mid 1970's the real hourly compensation for employees has not. Essentially for nearly 40 years now businesses have artificially kept wages low.

It is also curious that many conservatives believe an increase in the minimum wage will crush businesses however they hardly bat and eye at the millions upon millions that many CEO's make. If employee wages affect product pricing, then that is true at all levels of a company not just those at the bottom rung of the corporate ladder. Instead of firing employees how about these companies just cut top management wages by a few million dollars.

While the Detroit News editorial board had their thoughts on the topic there are other Republicans, like my colleague Dan Calabrese, who believe we should just let the free market take care of itself. This has been the thought process in many European countries where there is no minimum wage. The reason these countries can operate without a minimum wage is because they have some of the highest rates of union membership in the world. Instead of the government providing a baseline for wages, workers organize and work with companies to establish wages that allow everyone to prosper. This system also lowers the income inequality that has become an ever increasing issue in the US.

The Republican position on unions represents one of the greatest hypocrisies for their free market argument. Supporters of a truly free market wouldn't simultaneously argue against government intervention in the case of minimum wage but for government intervention to restrict workers rights. Like it or not, free market principles apply to corporations and individuals equally. Anything less is an example of government picking the winners and losers.

In the end the fact that the best talking points Republicans have to offer are so dubious says an awful lot about their motives. They want to use the power of government to protect the profits of corporations while Democrats hope to use the power of government to force companies to provide employees with a greater share of the spoils. Either way some people win and some people lose. Perhaps rather than manipulating the democratic process and using various groups as pawns in a rhetorical battle it would be best to just let the people decide for themselves.

Conservatives odd obsession with commencement speakers

Over the past few years the conservative media has focused a lot of attention on the political affiliation of commencement speakers at various higher learning institutions across the country. The reason for this attention stems from protests by students who don't want the culmination of years of hard work to be attenuated by orators whose ideology they find offensive.

In a recent piece my colleague Maria Servold puts voice to the conservative argument in this debate, stating rightfully so that "American universities are where ideas of all kinds are encouraged and explored". It should be noted that typically these speakers choose not to speak instead of being told that they can no longer speak. These students are simply expressing their displeasure with the ideas that the speaker represents. They have no power to prevent the speaker from attending unless there is such universal outrage that the school is left no other choice.

The reality is that these protests represent the exact exchange of ideas that should be encouraged.

Maria then ends her piece with the following line: "A truly open-minded person can listen to a speech by someone they disagree with, without throwing a fit first." While "throwing a fit" is probably a poor designation for a group of students organizing to advocate for a position it is certainly true that open minded people should be able to listen to those they disagree with.

Of course it is also true that these students made a choice to attend a specific collage because they felt it represented them so if these same students find the words of a student organization, a professor, or an administrator to be offensive and in clear opposition to their ideology they are well within their rights to protest.

As a proud graduate of Hillsdale College one imagines that years ago Maria made a similar choice and selected a school that represented her conservative ideology. Otherwise she might have picked a liberal leaning school where she could have experienced a greater breadth and depth of ideas that she obviously values for her more liberal brethren.

One also imagines that she found very little to dislike in the past decade of commencement speakers for her alma mater which includes the following:

2014 - Eric Metaxas
2013 - Ted Cruz
2012 - Roger Scruton
2011 - Mark Helprin
2010 - Edwin Meese
2009 - Hadley Arkes
2008 - Louis J Freeh
2007 - Mitt Romney
2006 - Harvey Mansfield
2005 - Ken Starr

It would seem that Hillsdale College doesn't share Maria's passion for challenging graduates with opposing voices at their commencement.

In the end most liberals would probably agree with Maria's assertion that who a school chooses to talk at their graduation ceremony really isn't that important. But to imply that the conservative media or jilted speakers are within their rights to whine about who is chosen to talk while students somehow are not doesn't suggest that conservatives concerns on this topic are really about open mindedness.

Ineffective legislation hampers teacher effectiveness

Republican legislators pay a lot of lip service to cutting wasteful spending. Unfortunately their actions aren't always in line with their rhetoric.

Recent examples of this include the Florida welfare drug testing program, the US Defense budget and the support for lower capital gains tax rates which all have Republicans unnecessarily wasting tax payer money.

Of course no Republican hypocrisy is complete if it doesn't include an attack on public education. Luckily Michigan's legislature has managed to offer up such a bill. Using the fallacy that our education system is broken and that public educators are squarely to blame the legislature has passed two bills that look to make teachers accountable for their students outcomes.

If the capitalist model is the basis for these changes, it is important to recognize that, in the private sector, when an individual is judged on the performance of others that individual typically has the authority to remove any underperforming team members and chose a staff that they work well with. Educators have no such option. They must teach and improve every student that walks through the door.

It should also be noted that the education profession already has both a high turnover rate and a shortage of qualified replacements. This suggests that the provisions of these bills making it easier to get rid of teachers are very unlikely to be the magic bullet towards improving education that many believe.

The one thing these bills manager to do very well is spend tax payer dollars. According to the House Fiscal Agency the financial impact of these "teacher accountability" bills is as much as $42 million initially with ongoing costs "likely to decrease slightly".

Yes, the Michigan legislature is willing to spend up to $42 million per year to have a statewide evaluation system that meets the standards of the 148 apparent education experts currently residing in the Michigan House and Senate.

So what sort of return should Michigan residents expect on this investment? According to TeachersUnionsExposed.com it costs as much as $219,504 to remove "bad teachers". This means the state would need to identify and remove over 190 bad teachers per year just to break even. If school districts are hiring and giving tenure to that many bad teacher per year shouldn't this legislation focus more on fixing the hiring process than burdening tens of thousands of effective teachers with additional metrics?

Of course given that 52% of educators have a masters degree or higher and have been on the job for, in many cases, at least 4 years before they get tenure protections, one might expect a significant separation cost. After all most of these same people are willing to accept the nearly $30 in golden parachutes the average CEO gets regardless of how well they did their job. They also don't seem to mind the legal costs and the hundreds of thousands in severance packages many private sector employees often receive.

Unfortunately for students the benefits of these proposed changes are still very much in question. While many studies find little to no improvement, one of the few studies to show a positive correlation uses different measures than the prospective Michigan program. Ironically, these legislators seem to have done very little to evaluate the effectiveness of their own program aimed at evaluating teacher effectiveness. Perhaps the makeup of the Michigan plan will improve educator performance or perhaps it will errantly fire good teachers.

Ask anyone of these legislators to stake their jobs on the effectiveness of this legislation and watch them offer up a multitude of reasons why they shouldn't be held accountable for the actions of others even thought that is exactly what they expect teachers to happily accept.

Some day Republicans will have eliminated all of the public school boogiemen (bad teachers, tenure, Unions...) and spent billions of dollars with their McCarthy style witch hunts that completely gut the best education system in the world for nominal gains. Perhaps then they will finally admit that they are not experts in education and what we really needed to do to improve educational outcomes had way more do with problems that fall outside of a teacher’s control.

Educators are more than happy to take personal responsibility for their actions. What they aren't willing to do is take the fall for the failure of legislators and parents which is exactly what this legislation makes them do.

Are Democratic policies racist?

Late last month the US experienced a couple of high profile racist statements - one from then NBA owner Donald Sterling and the other from conservative hero, rancher, lawbreaker and "taker" Cliven Bundy. If nothing else, these comments proved that we are not in a post racial era as many would have you believe. Obviously given the status of both of these men their comments garnered national media attention and started a number of conversations.

As you might expect these conversations revealed just how far we have to go but one of the unexpected comments I received when discussing the issue of race in America was "you bloggers and opinion writers need to let the race thing rest for a while. It's getting old and tiring."

Gee, you mean to tell me old white conservatives don't want to talk about how the statements of other old white conservatives could be seen as racist? Back when "black on black crime" was all the rage in the conservative media; talking heads like Bill O'Reilly were out in front calling on black leaders to address this issue. After all it was their community - shouldn't they do something? Now that the shoe is on the other foot conservatives no longer sees any value in a community policing their own?

Of course for a group that has attempted to repeal the ACA dozens of times, is still obsessed with Benghazi even after multiple reports have revealed no smoking gun, and continues to insist the president was born outside of the US, this call to end debate seems exceedingly hypocritical and self serving.

In actuality the conservative community has performed very poorly when it comes to reprimanding other conservatives who make inappropriate, racially charged statements. When it comes to racism what they have excelled at is clever word games.

They use terms like "playing the race card" to dismiss and belittle legitimate concerns. They claim "reverse racism" is a bigger problem than good old white racism. They use code words like "inner city" and "thugs" when referencing the perceived problems of the African American community. They talk about things like reducing food stamps and stopping "Welfare Queens" and "Welfare dependency".

But one of their favorite sleight of hand tricks is to latch on to the few black Americans that agree with them and pretend that this somehow justifies their stance. Ironically, this tactic is only a one way street for them. When noted rich guy Warren Buffet came out and advocated for raising taxes on rich guys, conservatives weren't swayed by this insider. To conservatives the opinions about racial inequality from African Americans like Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton who despite having the deck stack against them created a better life for themselves mean very little however if Thomas Sowell, Allen West or Dr. Ben Carson say Democratic policies hurt black people, suddenly those voices are worth listening to.

Conservatives then use these opinions to pretend the discriminatory policies they support are an altruistic olive branch to the African American community while the assistance programs Democrat's support enslave people. The book 'The Help' offers an excellent example of this mindset when a maid asks to borrow money to send her children to college her employer responds with "a true Christian don't give in charity to those who is well and able. Say it's kinder to let them learn to work things out themselves". Because while giving out billions in subsides to companies removes some unfair burden on American companies doing the same for citizens is nothing short of slavery.

This meme has been offered up by conservatives for years. Unfortunately the bulk of the data used to support such a claim is often anecdotal. Thomas Sowell for example thinks the income gap under Reagan compared to the gap under Obama proves that liberal policies hurt African Americans. Sowell provides no additional data because he knows conjecture is evidence enough for his audience. One could just as easily speculate that the mortgage crisis under George W. Bush caused the increase in the income gap since African Americans suffered greater losses than whites.

Additionally if we are to accept that such a casual correlation somehow represents proof then it should be noted that 8 of the 10 biggest "taker" states are Red states while the 10 biggest "maker" states are all Blue states. Using Thomas Sowell's own logic this proves that Republican policies must be hurting blacks.

Allen West takes a similar convoluted path to blaming liberal policies for the inequality in school punishment. West suggests that black students act out more and are subsequently punished at a higher rate because of the number of black children born out of wedlock - a statistic he says is a "problem (liberals) created". What liberal policies? West never says. Perhaps the "decimation of the black family" is more closely tied to the rise in private prisons and the corresponding increase in the number of black inmates. If that were the case it would again be Republican policies that are to blame.

Of course my personal favorite comes from Townhall.com writer John Hawkins who, in discussing the reasons black Americans should give up on Democrats, suggests that African Americans "vote monolithically for the Democratic Party" even though "The only thing any Democrat has to do is claim that his opponent is a racist and he's got 90 percent of the black vote locked up". The ego and ignorance it takes to make this claim is awesome. Hawkins is so infatuated with his own talking point that he can't fathom that African Americans choose Democratic candidates because they believe Democratic policies help not hurt their community. He seems to believe blacks are "monolithically" stupid and incapable of having independent thought. For him only those who see the world through his narrow prism demonstrate the intellect required to choose Republican policies.

In the end this meme that liberal policies hurt African Americans is just another poll tested myth that allows conservatives to support racist voter ID laws, drug laws, zero tolerance laws, stand your ground laws, and stop and frisk laws with a clear conscience. Because they certainly never come out and suggest these policies will fix any of the systemic inequality they claim Democratic policies are creating.

The reality is so much goes into defining ones station in life that it is impossible and ignorant to boil it down to one policy or set of policies. Perhaps some Democratic policies keep poor people poor or perhaps some Republican policies make it more difficult to rise up from the bottom. There is one thing we do know for certain, anyone who tells you definitively that one side or the other is to blame, has absolutely no clue how to or interest in fixing institutional inequality.

Conservatives don't really care about improving education

Given that it is an election year and polls show people support a greater commitment to education conservative media outlets have devoted more time than usual to discussing how to improve educational achievement.

A good example of this is a recent Detroit News editorial piece that focuses on data from the National Center for Education Statistics. The report indicates that Michigan ranks in the bottom third of all states when it comes to graduation rates. While graduation rates are an easy to understand number it is a very blunt instrument if you are attempting to advocate for significant change. It also offers little in the way of analysis for how prepared these students are to participate in the work force.

Having said that if Detroit News editors believe graduation rates provide an important window into our educational system then it should be noted that the 80% graduation rate the US hit in the 2011-2012 school year was a record number. Never before in the history of this country have we graduated this many students.

The problem is that the editorial never acknowledges this reality. Rather than recognizing that the system as it was constructed over the past few years represents the pinnacle of educational achievement as far as graduation rate is concerned, the piece suggests these consistently improving numbers prove that there should be an "urgency to rapidly reform Michigan’s education system".

The disconnect between reality and this errant conservative talking point that the article attempts to pass off as feasible is astounding. But even that pales in comparison to how the editors choose to end the piece. Having already set up the false meme that Michigan's education is broken and failing despite the fact that their own data suggests otherwise the authors go on to offer a solution to this manufactured crisis.

"Lawmakers are currently weighing a series of reforms aimed at improving school and teacher accountability and quality. Other states that have implemented similar measures, including Florida and Tennessee, are pushing ahead of Michigan in student performance."

Teacher accountability has been a very important buzz word over the past few years even making it into President Obama's "Race to the top" initiative. The data on the success of these measures is spotty at best. But that doesn't stop advocates from pretending they are the panacea of student achievement. While it is true that states like Florida and Tennessee have implemented teacher accountability and have seen some improvement their "pushing ahead of Michigan" is questionable as is the insinuation that of the litany of changes RTTT requires - teacher accountability is responsible for any portion of these minor improvements.

Again, given that graduation rate, according to the authors of this editorial, represents the impetus for "a series of reforms", then it should be noted that Tennessee saw less growth over the past year than Michigan while Florida still lags behind Michigan on overall graduation rate. Also, if anecdotal evidence is all that is required it should be pointed out that Alaska, a state that did not participate in RTTT or implement any teacher accountability measures, increased their graduation rate by more than double that of Florida and nine times as much as Tennessee.

The problem here seems to be that the authors had an opinion and decided to look for data to support their opinion. While that may be great for the editorial pages it is an awful way to make policy. Instead of talking about middling states and their modest gains Michigan would be far better off examining the states that are already successful and model their behavior. To put it another way, NFL teams don't adopt the strategy of the teams that didn't make the playoffs, they mimic the Super Bowl champion. Maybe this will show that the best states incorporate teacher accountability standards or maybe it won't, but believing something works and having data prove that something works are two very different things.

Of course as a conservative news source it is a weird position to argue that what our education system needs is more government rules and regulations. Doesn't this stifle creativity? Do people really think that Lansing politicians have a better understanding of how to educate your children than you and your locally elected school board do?

Beyond that, most teachers spend years learning, being tested and getting on the job training before they ever get a job. They also already get observed, reviewed and participate in continuous learning programs. Their skills have confirmed numerous times. Ironically the teachers who are least likely to go through this rigorous training process, which conservatives seem to believe is paramount to "fixing" education, teach at charter schools.

The controversial EAA, championed by Governor Rick Snyder, relies on Teach for America teachers which according many education professionals and participants leaves educators woefully unprepared. Asking current teachers to meet new ridged standards while simultaneously advocating for educators who have no chance of meeting these standards is astoundingly hypocritical.

Additionally where is the personal responsibility that conservatives often demand? Shouldn't students and parents be held accountable for their actions? Unlike the data on teacher accountability there are reports that show making students responsible for their own progress and increased parent involvement actually impact student achievement.

No one is suggesting that we can't improve educational outcomes but pretending that a severely biased reading of an immaterial report somehow confirms the need for highly suspect partisan solutions could be the best example of where our school systems really do need to improve.

Racism is having a great year

Many had hoped that when the United States elected a black man as president it meant America was becoming a less racist nation. Unfortunately the election of Barack Obama six years ago actually seems to have had the opposite effect. The tables have turned so completely that 49% of Republicans believe that blacks are racist but only 11% feel that whites are racist.

This past year has given the country many opportunities to address this trend.

Around this time last year George Zimmerman was on trial for killing Trayvon Martin. The US justice system has a long a inglorious history of treating black Americans differently than their white counterparts and were it not for the failure of the system in this case most Americans would never have heard the names George Zimmerman or Trayvon Martin. Instead the police let a man who admitted to shooting a teenager to death walk free. This failure led to national media attention from various groups looking to shine a light on racial inequality while conservatives took to the airwaves to paint African Americans as inherently criminal, using terms like "black on black crime", despite all of the data to the contrary.

Shortly after the George Zimmerman trial started, Chef Paula Deen testified as part of a racial discrimination lawsuit claiming she made racially charged remarks to her employees.

Fast forward a few months and texts and phone messages from NFL lineman Richie Incognito to a teammate expose the racism that many professional athletes endure on a daily basis.

A few weeks later and we find out that Duck Dynasty patriarch Phil Robertson made comments stating that racism didn't exist back when he was younger while suggesting today's African American communities are mainly freeloading entitlement communities.

Then just this past week NBA owner Donald Sterling and conservative hero Cliven Bundy both made remarks that are hard to see as anything other than overtly racist.

The good news for all of these folks is that American's are a very forgiving group. All we need to hear is an apology and that you are seeking help. The only problem is that these people don't think they did anything wrong. Their publicist tells them to issue an apology but they blame the liberal media or political correctness for people being too sensitive. They tend to think that no one was really offended by their words and that this is all manufactured outrage.

To make matters worse the conservative media always finds a way to throw their support behind these racists. Instead of calling a spade a spade and distancing themselves they make excuses. The conservative racist protection program inoculates these individuals from any real consequences and allows them to look into the camera and state lines like "anyone who knows me knows I'm not a racist".

But in the grand scheme of conservative lies the "I'm not a racist" lie might be the most detrimental of all lies. When a celebrity get busted for driving drunk with an ounce of cocaine they at least admit to having a problem and check into a clinic. When a politician gets caught having an affair they at least suggest they have let people down and get counseling. When a professional athlete is arrested for beating his wife he at least cops to having anger issues and seeks help.

But for some reason being racist is the only sin that provides political cover. For some reason being racist is always someone else's problem. For some reason racism is the only abuse the media minimizes with phrases like "playing the race card". For some reason being racist apparently doesn't require professional help.

Instead they cover their racism behind beliefs like having a black friend somehow equates to not being racist. That is a mind numbingly ignorant understanding a racism. If the equation was that simple then couldn’t you also say that having a relationship with God magically prevents you from sinning? If you know a women are somehow immune from sexism? If you have an overweight friend does that mean the fat jokes you make aren’t insulting?

Ironically while these people fail to see how anyone can take offense their to racist comments there is one thing that does get conservatives upset when it comes to racism - when anyone accuses them of being racist.

The fix to this problem is simple and has the added bonus of fitting conservative ideals. Many big businesses ask their employees to train from the ground up because they believe you have to understand how the entire company functions to be a good employee. The same is true of race relations. If you think you aren't racist go live in the inner city for a while and see if you come out with a different view. Take an African American studies class and see if you aren't equal parts frustrated and enlightened. Ask your black friend if they ever experience racism. And recognize that your outrage over being labeled racist is "playing the race card" for whites.

When it comes to racism conservatives are the alcoholic that 15 drinks in still insists he is fine to drive home and conservative media is the enabler that continues to make excuses for this bad behavior. You have to admit you have a problem to fix it.

If you find that analogy offensive - good. You should. Because that's the kind of insulting garbage you have been letting people like Paula Deen, Richie Incognito, Phil Robertson, Donald Sterling, and Cliven Bundy get away with for the past year.

Rick Snyder: One misleading flip flopper

Four years ago Rick Snyder talked a lot about how things would run if elected governor. Unfortunately for his re-election campaign in most cases the governor failed to keep his word.

For example during the gubernatorial debates when asked about taxing pensions and Rick Snyder's response was "That's not how you address tax reform" yet that is precisely what he did to pay for his 83% tax cut for Michigan businesses.

On the campaign trail when asked about government incentives for business the governor stated “As a practical matter, my view is government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers because those incentives aren’t free”. “Basically, they come on the backs of other people having to make up those tax differentials" yet in one of his many press releases touting his work he mentions 14 different companies he awarded taxpayer funded incentives to, also known as hand picked winners.

In a later portion of the debate the governor spoke about his opinion on increasing the tax on gas. His answer to the question was "I don't support an increase in the gas tax" yet that is exactly what he proposed to improve Michigan roads.

When discussing education Rick Snyder said "It's too much about spending money when you go to Lansing. All they talk about in Lansing is this funding level or that funding level" yet now that he is back on the campaign trail he stated "I'm proud to say, in the last three years we've increased educational spending at the state level for K-12 each and every year to the point where we've invested $660 more per student than there was previously before I took office." Of course even his gasconade turned out to be more political deception.

While trying to convince Michigan residents that his controversial flip flop on right to work legislation was good Rick Snyder said people should have the "freedom to choose" yet when voters repealed the Emergency Manger law he worked with the legislature to circumnavigate the peoples choice.

The governor has shown over and over again that his word is worth very little so it comes as no surprise that when it comes to job creation, the one thing Rick Snyder hung his hat on four years ago and is making a core aspect of his re-election campaign, the numbers show his results don't match his rhetoric.

Before the 2010 elections the Snyder campaign stated that "He's the only businessman running so he's the only one that even knows what he's doing." To temper any expectations Rick Snyder also made a point to say "Government doesn't create jobs. Government creates an environment where jobs can flourish." but the question is what is the result of the environment that the governor created.

There are more jobs now in Michigan then when Rick Snyder took office however there are more jobs everywhere. All Michigan has done is kept pace with the rest of the nation. After all of his work Forbes still ranks Michigan as the 47th best state to do business. One doubts that Rick Snyder's definition of success for Michigan was being below average.

Even though data shows a questionable impact the Governor stated that his tax cuts would create jobs. How many jobs? "Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it's going to happen."

Well when you actually do quantify the numbers their faith in tax cuts seems to be misplaced. Before he was elected the Michigan was in the top 3 states for job growth. Nearly three years later and Michigan has slipped to 15th in job growth.

Of course most of the jobs that have been created in Michigan over the past few years are a result of increased automotive sales. These jobs have little to nothing to do with Rick Snyder's environment. As a matter of fact when Ford executive Bill Ford Jr. was asked about his companies resurgence he credited labor unions for saving the company but gave no mention of Rick Snyder.

And while the Republicans and Rick Snyder made unions out to be the reason for poor jobs numbers other reports show seven of the nine states with zero or negative growth rates are right-to-work states, while three of the top five highest growth states are pro-union states.

The governor also stated "Michigan cannot be a great state until Detroit is on the path to being a great city" yet of the 10 major cities that were worst hit by the recession the recovery of Detroit under Rick Snyder's watch has only outpaced that of two other cities. If Detroit is supposed to be the corner stone if Michigan's resurgence the fact that so few jobs have been created has to be considered a failure of the Snyder administration.

Data also shows former governor Jim Blanchard oversaw a quicker recovery from a worse recession than Rick Snyder yet that hasn't stopped the governor from boastfully calling himself the "comeback kid".

So far in this election cycle Rick Snyder and his team of experts have proven to be very good at creating catchy nicknames and misrepresenting data to make it appear the governor has had a positive impact. His own words also show that the governor is very accomplished at completely contradicting himself. Unfortunately for Michigan residents the real data shows that the position Rick Snyder eventually settles on has routinely been the wrong one.

Easter: Another chance to screw up religious freedom

It's Easter weekend which in political terms means there is going to be some government body that attempts to put up religious symbols on public property and some outside group that says those symbols are unconstitutional. This year those roles will be played by Stratton, Ohio Mayor John Abdalla and Madison, Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation.

The US has a long and glorious legal history when it comes to religious displays on public property. Regardless of the argument, it has been determined that such displays are unconstitutional and this is likely the outcome in the Stratton, Ohio case as well. This happens because no matter what you believe the founding fathers wanted everyone to have the right to practice whatever religion they want without being influenced by the state. When the government uses a symbol from one faction without corresponding symbols from other religions, it has the look of the state choosing one religion over the others.

Regardless of this reality many Christians still believe that this somehow infringes upon their religion freedom.

If an atheist politician hung a "There's probably no God" sign in the capitol building would Christian groups be OK with such a display? Probably not. If a local government spent money supporting abortion would anti-abortion groups sit idly by and let it happen? Probably not. If a state placed rainbow stickers on all state vehicles would the family values crowd not fight tooth and nail to have them removed? Probably not. If the President used the public school system to push the Affordable Care Act would Republicans not scream foul? Probably not.

When it comes to religion there have been plenty of debate already. Warren Michigan Christian Mayor, Jim Fouts, refused to allow an atheist group to set up a "Reason Station" in an area typically reserved for nativity scenes and other religious symbols. A Satanist group designed a Satanic statue that they have requested be placed outside of the Oklahoma capitol building. Connecticut politician and Protestant, Lee Whitnum, sued to stop a Bar Mitzvah from taking place at a local town hall. The Florida capitol building has among other religious symbols, a "Flying Spaghetti Monster" on display.

The problem is that either you demand that religious symbols are allowed on public property and accept that all religious groups no matter how far fetched or obscure be allowed space to exhibit their symbols or you accept that the state and religion should not be mixed.

Of course since this topic was decided constitutionally long ago the question becomes why do people continue forcing religion and religious symbols on the general public. What purpose does this serve? You are free to dress yourself from head to toe in religious paraphernalia. Is that not enough religious freedom? You can talk in public to anyone you want about your beliefs. Is that not enough free speech? You can design every structure on your property with a religious motif. Do you really need to usurp public buildings too?

Property owners are free to express nearly any opinion on their land. In the case of public property it is not that no one owns these entities but rather that everyone owns these entities. So either everyone is free to plaster government buildings with their symbols or no one is. Anything less would be a slap in the face to the fundamental ideas that this country was founded on.

Republicans struggling in fight against Obamacare

Conservative organizations and Republican candidates are convinced that attacking Democrats for their support of the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) is the ticket to winning this fall.

The Senate race in Michigan for example has a group called American's for Prosperity dropping millions of dollars on Ads attacking Democratic candidate Gary Peters for his support of the ACA. So far this has been done using two anecdotal cases to suggest that the ACA is not affordable. In one case the family in question, who not coincidentally were once delegates for the Republican Party, could have saved money using the ACA but instead chose to pay more. The second case of a Dexter, Michigan woman has been widely debated for its accuracy as well.

The question that voters should be asking is if the ACA is so awful and unaffordable then why is a conservative organization, that spent over $36 million in the 2012 election cycle, having so much trouble finding one person in the state of Michigan that, without question, has been negatively impacted by the ACA?

Perhaps the problem is that the ACA just isn't as bad as these groups made it out to be. After all these are the same people who said the ACA would never enroll 7 million people by the deadline. The same people that claimed the ACA contained death panels. The same people who said "I don’t think it’s ever going to work" due to the initial website issues. The same people that predicted a massive shift to part time employment as companies attempted to avoid the impact of the ACA. The same people that forecast a big win for Republicans in 2012 based on belief that people hate the ACA. And the same people who are now claiming the worst is yet to come despite news to the contrary.

When it comes to the ACA, these groups have been very good at fear mongering but very bad at accurately projecting the results.

Of course that isn't the only thing they have been very bad at when it comes to the ACA.

While many of these organizations and candidates have spent a lot of time on errant prognostications and spreading the sky is falling rhetoric they have spent almost no time coming up with a solution. Sure you can find a two page outline here or there from a couple a Republicans but you aren't going to replace 2,700 pages of legislation with a two page outline.

The problem is this legislation already contains a lot of Republican ideas. Market competition, the individual mandate, a payment advisory board, and Medicare cuts were all Republican ideas that eventually ended up in the ACA. Then there are the things that Republicans act like the ACA doesn't include but it actually does like fraud reduction, wellness programs, IT solutions to help eliminate errors, pooling risk, and rewarding quality.

Of course there are also a bunch of things in the ACA that people really like that Republicans would need to include in any alternative plan such as tax credits for small business, preventing people from losing insurance from pre-existing conditions, allowing children to stay on their parents insurance till age 26, closing the donut hole, the expansion of Medicaid, and health care exchanges.

Most of these groups and candidates are well aware of how little ammo they really have against the ACA and they are trying to obfuscate this reality from voters. This means they are stuck discussing fringe rhetoric and pretending a couple handpicked individuals, represent millions of Americans.

While this tactic works well for television commercials, at some point these candidates are going to have to debate their opponent. These debates will expose the void of ideas Republican candidates have to offer so top Republicans have decided to coalesce around some very basic ideas that boil down to trusting the private sector instead of the public sector.

Republicans had four years to craft an answer to the "worst thing since slavery" and the best they could come up with is "private sector good - public sector bad"? That meme has been the Republican calling card for decades. If "privatize it" represents "new ideas" it’s no wonder Republicans have been forced to resort to half truths to fight this legislation.

Unfortunately even this idea has been proven to be more wishful thinking than fact. Outside of the colossal failures of privatized prisons, and school services a study by the Project on Government Oversight found that in 33 of 35 occupations tax payers spend more, not less to use private companies.

In the end voters should demand that we do better when it comes to providing all Americans with high quality, affordable health care but at this point only one party seems concerned with this objective. Ironically it’s not the party that has made the ACA the basis of their campaigns.

Terri Lynn Land campaign is a "silly sideshow"

Earlier this month my colleague Josh Pugh wrote a piece which talked about a questionable political Ad aimed at Democratic Senate hopeful Gary Peters. Josh believes that Gary Peters' opponent Terri Lynn Land should denounce the Ad given that it included an attack on Peters' daughters.

Anytime the media is going to give a politician a platform you can expect to see some poll tested talking points. For Terri Lynn Land that meant suggesting "This campaign is going to be about the issues that matter most in Michigan - creating jobs, providing workers and struggling students with a fair shot, and making sure that our elected officials don’t make promises that they can’t keep, such as ‘if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.’"

Yes, number three on the list of most important things that Terri Lynn Land wants to accomplish if elected to the most powerful legislative body in the United States of America is to make sure elected officials don't make promises they can't keep.

You have to wonder if Terri gets irony of this statement. If you follow Terri on Facebook or Twitter you would see that repealing the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) has been a goal for hers for many years. It turns out this has also been a goal of many other Republicans as well. They have tried and failed numerous times to repeal this legislation. No political promise has been broken more often than this one yet it appears to be the basis for her campaign.

If elected Terri Lynn Land would end up reneging on this promise because unlike the House, the Senate is more than a dog and pony show so a vote like this requires way more thought then 'giving new members a chance to put their vote on record'. While repeal may be an easy applause line among low information voters, the ACA contains a lot of good things that people like. This means Terri needs more than just a talking point to address the problems with the ACA and unfortunately, four years in, Republicans have put far less time into fixing the law then they have in opposing it.

Having said that if the Terri Lynn Land for Senate campaign believes that a line like "if you like your doctor" represents "issues that matter" then they should be prepared to explain why Terri supported shutting down the government as a way to address government spending. A move that cost tax payers $24 billion.

It would also be interesting to find out why Michigan was one of the easiest places to get a fraudulent ID under Terri Lynn Land.

Perhaps they would rather talk about how their candidate went from wanting a full repeal of the ACA to later stating "we're past that". Seems like that could be seen as someone making a promise they realize they can't keep.

Maybe the campaign would like to discuss their literature and others suggesting Terri is a small businesswoman. Clearly they believe this plays well with their base but if you read Terri's own words you will see that the business was a family thing and that her passion was for public service. She even touts that "she was one of the youngest attendees at the Republican State Convention in Michigan." She began running for office just after college at age 23, choosing to focus on education instead of business. In fact her business roots are apparently so important to her that they don't even appear on her LinkedIn page.

And what would her campaign think if the opposition made an Ad using Terri's words from 2005 when discussing a possible run for Senate or Governor saying at the time "I have to do what's best for the party". Does Terri actually believe that the desires of her party are more important than the wishes of her constituents? If not shouldn't the statement be "I have to do what's best for the people of Michigan"?

Of course, Gary Peters never said you could keep your doctor. He voted for the law but those are not his words. So if Terri Lynn Land is being honest when she says "Michigan families deserve a spirited campaign focused on the issues....not these silly sideshows" then what is her plan to address the problem of people losing their doctor? Does she have a plan to help the 5 million Americans that have no health insurance because Republican governors refuse to expand Medicare? Do the people who lost their health insurance at the whim of the insurance companies under the old system matter less than the people who are left to find new insurance now? Does she have a plan that cuts into the 131 percent increase in the cost of health care that we experienced the decade before the ACA?

If Terri Lynn Land wants to rise above the "silly sideshows" she can start by eliminating "if you like your doctor", "we have to pass the bill", and "the bill is 2,700 pages" from all future arguments because as a legislator she's going to have to do a lot more than just complain about what doesn't work and fringe rhetoric. She'll have to work with individuals who have different opinions to create policies.

Josh Pugh asked Terri Lynn Land if she would disavow any peripheral hyperbole and focus on what makes her the best candidate for the job. Her response suggests the answer is no.

Education reform is dumb

Over the past few years government officials from the President down to local school boards have been discussing ways to improve education. The focus of these discussions typically starts with the belief that American schools are failing. Reformers use this belief to argue for any number of changes.

Even though unions represent only 38% of America's teachers many say unions are ruining education. Even though they are not necessarily cheaper to run and don't have better outcomes some argue for more charter schools. Even though there is no data to suggest the Common Core standards are better than the current standards most states are making the change.

But perhaps the most peculiar talking point that reformers discuss is money in education. You would be hard pressed to find data that shows less money in education leads to better results but you can easily find people who complain that we spend too much on education. Of course if you believe we spend too much on education then you are either willing to accept worse outcomes to fix our financial issues or you believe that spending less can somehow have a positive result.

Typically this argument manifests itself with something like "Detroit spends more per pupil yet gets some of the worst results". While both of these things may be true this is a complete perversion of what people are discussing when they talk about money for education. For example if we really spent too much on education then why would any charter school ever spend more than a public school?

Also does anyone believe that the amount of money a school spends on administrators has greater correlation to student achievement than the amount spent on teachers? Because by comparison charter schools spend more on administrative staff and less on educators than public schools.

Of course beyond this if the education spending by cities like Detroit was meant as a serious discussion piece in determining the value of money in education it would require way more in depth analysis than simply "spending high + outcomes bad = more money doesn't work". If these armchair experts looked at where the money goes they would see that while Detroit Public Schools have 32nd highest per pupil rate in Michigan they are at the bottom of the list when it comes to "Average Teacher Salary" and spending on "Basic Programs". Unfortunately DPS spends around $4,500 per student or nearly 1/3 of their budget on "Added Needs" and another $2,100 on "Adult Education".

Given that a good teacher can have a lifelong impact on a student and that data shows higher teacher salaries correlate to better educational outcomes the fact that DPS teacher salaries rank at the bottom of all Michigan schools probably explains why the student achievement level is lower than other school districts. The reality is that per pupil spending represents hundreds of different smaller budgetary decisions for each school district so suggesting this data alone represents anything more than a surface level talking point is a massively uninformed position.

While cherry picking a few schools across the nation and ignoring the budgetary details is one popular method people offer as proof that more money doesn't lead to better outcomes another tactic often used is to suggest that we spend more on education now than ever before. The data shows that this trend has reversed itself recently but overall it is certainly true that the amount spent on education has been steadily increasing. The question then becomes what is too much?

The data shows that over the past 20 years spending on education has risen by 25% over inflation.

Defense spending over that same time frame increased by 83% over inflation.

The price of gasoline has risen by around 105% over inflation the past two decades.

Health Care costs have jumped by 79% over inflation during this 20 year period.

The cost of a college education has gone up by around 66% over inflation over the past 20 years.

CEO pay has increased by as much as 725% over inflation the last 30 years by some estimates.

To some extent those who argue for cuts to education have largely ignored or argued against cuts to these ever increasing numbers. Why then is education spending so different, especially since it has increased at a much lower rate than these other entities.

Unfortunately to the diehard reformer none of this makes any difference. They believe in their hearts that education is broken and needs to be fixed. The good news for these people is that data shows there is a simple solution that has the potential to make the US number 1 in the world in education. All the government needs to do is reduce the poverty rate in America because if you equalize results based on poverty rates the US is already the world leader in education.

Ironically the fact that so many people insist on improving education using methods that don't actually improve education suggests there is a problem. It's just not with the public school system.

Do religious people really have better morals?

Last week I wrote a piece discussing Christianity and morality based on some comments God's Not Dead actor Kevin Sorbo made about Bill Maher. Not surprisingly Mr. Sorbo did not agree with my thoughts on the topic and took to twitter to tell me why.



Clearly calling God a "psychotic mass murder" could offend people and I have no doubt that Kevin Sorbo was indeed offended by this characterization. Having said that what Bill Maher was referring to was the Biblical story of Noah in which God floods the earth killing nearly every man, woman and child. Rather than discussing how this should not be considered murder Mr. Sorbo decided to call Bill Maher a "very angry, lonely man".

It seems that this was not an instance where Kevin Sorbo felt he could turn the other cheek. Bill Maher's passionate non-belief has no bearing on Kevin Sorbo's passion for this faith. They are both free to have their opinion without their being one side that is good and one side that is evil.

Having said that, the statement that I found more interesting was when Kevin Sorbo said that “morals are declining, the country is going under.” I found statistics that show crime rates, abortions, teen pregnancy and divorce rates have all fallen over the past few decades. So my question for Mr. Sorbo was what metric is he using when he comes to this conclusion?

Perhaps given this belief Kevin Sorbo feels that slight drop in church attendance over the past decade is proof of declining morals. Perhaps the increase in those who describe themselves as Atheist and Agnostic suggests that moral values are being lost. Or perhaps the possible bible defying sin of marriage equality suggests the US has lost its moral compass.

Unfortunately instead of offering some examples Mr. Sorbo chose to take a shot at Detroit.



It seems that Kevin Sorbo feels Detroit could have avoided a financial disaster had there just been greater religiosity in the city. This sort of fixing society through religion is common among believers. Many feel that if more people were religious, or Christian the world would be a better place. Obviously this makes sense for these people. If you are going to invest this much time and effort into something that you can't prove exists there should be a payoff for this devotion. There are also those who believe that being religious makes them a better person so if it works for them it should work for others as well.

Of course it would still be nice to have some hard data to support such a conclusion. A quick look at the number of religious people in a city and the crime rate in that city shows no real correlation as some very religious cities were near the top of the list for assault, rape and property crime. State teen pregnancy rates actually seem to increase for states with higher religious participation. The same is true of divorce rates.

Supporters of this meme could point to a study that found that communities with higher rates of religion had less violent crime. The study concludes that this occurs because these communities are "creating a moral climate that fosters respect among neighbors and by helping to form individual consciences of young adults."

Of course you don't have to worship God to foster respect and form an individual conscience, since non-believers are also capable of creating this sort of environment. Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet and George Soros have managed to donate billions of dollars over the years to non-religious charities that attempt to make the world a better place to live without using religion as the catalyst. The same is true of some US Presidents.

The problem is that "morality" is a very subjective measure. What is moral at one point in time or for one culture would be considered immoral elsewhere. If Kevin Sorbo believes being a Christian makes him a better person I imagine even Bill Maher would be happy for him. But belittling Bill Maher or Detroiters for having a different world view, certainly doesn't suggest Kevin Sorbo occupies the moral high ground he believes his faith creates. Luke 6:37

Great teachers have a great impact

Since the start of the Great Recession public employees have been the target of much disdain and many cuts. One of the sectors hardest hit from these cuts is public education where some 300,000 education jobs have been lost since 2008. These job losses have hurt economic activity far more than some of the other pet projects that politicians claim are jobs worth fighting for. But perhaps worse than the current economic activity is the affect these cuts will have on the future of this country.

A Harvard study shows that one good teacher has the ability to increase a child's lifetime earnings. With less money and stability in education fewer students will be compelled to pursue education as a profession. If the goal is to improve education then this study would suggest making schools the target of massive budget cuts is probably the wrong way to go about it.

The reality is that thanks to the realization from many politicians that attracting top talent to the education field requires a certain commitment from the government and local communities, school districts across the nation are filled with exceptional teachers that inspire students to achieve greatness. Don't believe me? Ask anyone who their favorite teacher was and you are likely to get a quick and passionate response.

Unfortunately for many teachers, students often don't recognize and appreciate how important a particular teacher was in their lives until they are much older. So while we are more than happy to talk with anyone who asks about the things that made a teacher our favorite, those teachers are often unaware of how influential they were.

But if you really want to see the value of a good teacher you need look no further than two Southeastern Michigan communities that lost extraordinary educators over the past few weeks. Linden, Michigan teacher Andy Kargel and Saline, Michigan educator Jim Letcher both passed away in March of this year. The outpouring from the students and parents in their school districts shows just how special both of these men were.

Friends of the Kargel family set up a website that people allows anyone to donate to the college fund for Andy's two young children. The goal of $50,000 was passed in under a week. While this shows how important Andy Kargel was to so many people, the comments attached to many of these donations are a true testament to the teacher that Andy was.

"Both of our kids were lucky enough to have Andy for years. Our youngest talked about him every day when I picked her up from school. He was a very special person, and none of us will ever forget him!"

"Thank you Mr. Kargel, for being the best teacher ever."

"3 of my 5 sons have had the pleasure of Mr. Kargel inspiring them through his teachings."

"Mr. Kargel left a lasting impression on our family, he was such an amazing teacher and person!"

The students and colleagues of Jim Letcher also took time to share stories about the profound impact Jim had on students and how he made each school he worked for a better place.

"He was by far the best teacher Gabby ever had. She grew so much this year because of him."

"Wonderful teacher! Rest in peace Mr. Letcher, you will be missed!"

"He was the charismatic soul of the building"

These words show that while both of these men were outstanding teachers they were even better people. Of course if you asked either of them if they were a great teacher they would humbly point to host of colleagues, educators and mentors that inspired them on a daily basis as those deserving of such a distinction. Because their goal was never to compete with other teachers for greater monetary rewards but instead to be part of the team that provided their students with the best possible education.

We never know when it will be our last chance to tell our favorite teachers how they made us a better person. How they inspired us. How they gave us the confidence to reach for our dreams. If you had a teacher that made a difference in your life like Andy and Jim did for thousands of Michigan students, today is as good a day as any to let them know you appreciate all their hard work and special attention. Just don't be surprised when they feel undeserving of these accolades because most great teachers do the job for the love of it.

Kevin Sorbo has no faith in Bill Maher

Last week Bill Maher made some statements on his HBO show Real Time that had the "War on Christianity" crowd up in arms. While most of these people will find any statement regarding religion from Bill Maher to be offensive, when he stated that God was a “psychotic mass murderer” for creating humans and subsequently flooding the world - killing nearly every man, woman, and child on the planet, in an attempt to start over - to many, this crossed a line.

Never wanting to let a possible controversy go to waste, the good folks in the conservative media found a way to turn this criticism into a full blown attack. While the opinions of celebrities are typically frowned upon by conservatives, noted Christian actor Kevin Sorbo happened to be out to promote his new film called "God's Not Dead". When asked about the comments made by Bill Maher, Sorbo described him as a "very angry and lonely man”.

This follows a religious meme that has been building for years where Christians in the US are being persecuted for their beliefs. Given that nearly 80% of the US population identifies themselves as Christian it seems this oppression is probably more myth than fact but the problem is, for most of these people, this is the first time they've experienced any systemic form of discrimination. Many of them have never experienced the inequality of the justice system. They are not stopped on the street and asked to prove they are US citizens. They've never been denied service for being who they are.

The biggest affront they often face is walking into a store in December and being greeted with "Happy Holidays". For them racism is fiction but religious intolerance is rampant plague ruining the country.

Of course if you actually watched the piece by Bill Maher you would see that his beef is not with religion per se but with the denial of science and adherence to the impossible for religious purposes. Asking someone to recognize that the Bible is not meant to be taken literally and used as a science book is a far cry from the "hate" that some have ascribed to it.

Having said that, if a Christian uses the Bible in an attempt to convert non-believes it's often referred to as spreading the word of God and thought of as holy mission. Bill Maher is simply using the Bible in an attempt to convert believers. Being passionate about this endeavor and putting his faith in science instead of religion doesn't make him angry or hateful.

While Bill Maher is being demonized for his attempts to change viewers minds no one seems at all concerned that after Kevin Sorbo's condemnation of Bill he continued to proselytize for Christianity.

Unfortunately rather than discuss the virtues of Christianity Sorbo took the low road of fear mongering to convince viewers of the need for more Christianity in the US, stating "Morals are declining, the country is going under". Like the denial of science this conclusion, that the US has lost its moral compass, almost never includes any empirical evidence.

What data is Kevin Sorbo looking at to make such a bold declaration? What time period was the peak of morality? When slavery ended? When interracial marriage was deemed legal? After releasing Japanese Americans from Internment Camps?

Are crime rates a proxy for morals? If so the rates of violent crime, simple assault, aggravated assault, rape, property crime and robbery have all dropped steadily for the past two decades.

Does the abortion rate correlate to morality? If so the number of abortions recently hit a 30 year low.

Is teen pregnancy and indicator of the country’s moral standing? If so teen pregnancy is down 42% since 1990.

How about the number of marriages that end in divorce each year? Does more divorce mean lower morals? If so in 2009 we hit a 40 year low in the divorce rate.

Perhaps Kevin Sorbo is referring to is the Biblical sin of gluttony when talking about declining morals. If that is the case the share of income going to the top 1% is at or near record highs.

The reality is that religious convictions and how people choose to observe them is a deeply personal matter that even most atheist respect the sanctity of. The validity of Bible based hyperbole used to counter science and data however is fair game for debate.

If you don't like what Bill Maher has to say about the Bible, the answer is simple - shut him up by using science to prove him wrong. Otherwise accept that his "intolerance" of your views is only matched by your intolerance of his.

Abortion: Murder or medical procedure?

Even among those who are not political junkies, discussing a women's right to have an abortion elicits a strong response. I recently penned an article discussing the Republican hypocrisy regarding keeping government out of people's private lives. In the article I talked about the threats from the Tennessee's Republican led legislature towards Volkswagen employees considering unionizing, the Republican push to use the power of government to ban same sex couples from the benefits of marriage, as well as the insistence by many Republicans to include creationism in public school science classes even though there is no science in this belief.

There was certainly more than enough red meat for conservatives to chew on but the line that received the biggest response by far was the line where I suggested that women, not Republican legislatures, should be allowed to decide what collection of cells to remove from their body. My colleague, blogging pioneer and fellow patriot Jason Vines said this "was perhaps the vilest thing that has ever appeared on this site".

Luckily unlike Jason's thoughts on the topic a women's right to an abortion is not subjective - it is constitutionally guaranteed.

Hyperbole aside, the dividing line when it comes to abortion is your view of the zygote, embryo, and fetus. We all start as a collection of cells which divide repeatedly to form skin, limbs, organs and a brain.

The question then becomes when does this collection of cells obtain rights? The pro-life camp tends to believe life begins at conception so ever abortion is murder. The pro-choice camp tends to think personhood isn't achieved till much later so an abortion is a medical procedure to remove unwanted cells. Neither side is willing to back down from their stance, but the highest court in the land has thus far sided with those in the pro-choice camp.

There are of course many people who fall somewhere in between. Some are against abortion but OK in the case or rape or incest. Some feel an abortion is justified if the life of the mother is in danger. Others believe an abortion is justified if the fetus has defects that would affect the quality of life.

Then there are also those that feel that the legality of an abortion corresponds to a certain time frame - once there's a heartbeat, once there are brain waves, or no later than 20 weeks. If you take all of these variations into account only 20% of the population believes an abortion is murder starting at conception. It should also be noted that if 20 weeks is an acceptable cut off only 1% of all abortions occur after 20 weeks.

Regardless, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, no one wants more abortions to occur each year. Unfortunately the methods each side supports for how we achieve that goal are dramatically different. Pro-life organizations have worked diligently to make getting an abortion more and more difficult hoping to eventually make all abortions illegal. Given the results of government crack downs in other areas such as prohibition and the war on drugs it seems unlikely that making abortion illegal will actually reduce the number of abortions per year. Instead it will just make abortions more dangerous and turn otherwise law abiding citizens into criminals.

Pro-Choice groups on the other hand would prefer to use the power of education to reduce the number of abortions with information. Instead of attempting and failing to rewire the brains of teenagers with abstinence only education pro-choice groups would prefer to explain what happens during sex, how to prevent pregnancy, and give people all the information necessary to help them make better choices.

Unfortunately to many, the effectiveness of the methods isn’t important. If having sex results in a pregnancy, then you must see that pregnancy through. Purposely removing those cells is murder even though the law says otherwise.

Of course if all human life was as sacrosanct to conservatives as a zygote, an embryo, and a fetus you might expect them to act differently in other situations.

For instance Republicans are twice as likely as a Democrat to support the death penalty.

Over 30,000 Americans die every year from guns yet Republicans overwhelming oppose restricting or reducing gun rights.

Republicans support drone strikes at significantly greater levels than Democrats even though these drone kill hundreds of civilians each year.

Republican legislators oppose many of the efforts of the EPA aimed at reducing air pollution even though some 200,000 Americans die every year from poor air quality.

Heart disease kills some 600,000 Americans per year yet attempts to curb the availability of foods that lead to heart disease are often rebuffed as government overreach.

Just like abortion statistics these numbers don't prove one side right or the other side wrong. What they do show is that one person's "murder" is another person’s "choice". So the opinion of my colleague or the one he assumes I must have, given that we have never had the opportunity to discuss this topic, are completely irrelevant. In the end these decisions rest with solely with nine judges in Washington DC. But don't let that reality get in the way of a good take down piece.

"Choice": Another Republican lie

Republican lead legislatures across the nation are making controversial changes to many laws under the guise of "choice". Charter schools give families a "choice" of where to send their children. Right to work gives workers a "choice" to join a union. Repealing the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) gives individuals a "choice" of health care.

The truth is "choice" is a red herring in these political discussions.

In 2013 only 11.3% of workers belonged to a union. This means that around 90% of jobs don't require employees to be a union member. Additionally there are some 4 million jobs that are currently unfilled. Are there really no choices available for anti-union workers? Are they somehow being forced to accept union jobs because no other jobs exist?

Additionally, the formation of a union is a constitutional protected right that requires a majority vote. In the public sector this is often referred to as the democratic process or part of what makes America the greatest country on earth. Right to work allows individuals to opt out of this democratic process.

If allowing individuals to vacate their union membership is the Republican's idea of "choice" and true choice actually matters to Republicans then they should also allow any number of individuals to organize a union instead of requiring a majority vote. If right to work represented a genuine choice the Volkswagen plant in Tennessee would have a union of 626 employees right now. But when Republicans say they want "choice" they only mean a choice to ignore things they oppose.

The same is true of charter schools. When Republicans discuss having a choice among schools they are talking about turning children into a commodity that their donors can profit from. Because the majority of charter schools are in locations that serve families that nearly every other Republican policy harms. "Choice" is just a catch phrase Republicans use to make this money grab politically palatable.

If choice were really a concern then the board of trustees would be elected by and answer to the parents of the students instead of the charter school owner. After all shouldn't parents get a choice in how the school is run? Some schools require a certain level of parent involvement. Parent involvement is clearly a good thing for students but think of the outrage from Republicans if their local public school required parents to pledge 5 hours a week of their time to the school. Republicans built and entire political party on fighting the ACA's individual mandate - just imagine the response to being forced to spend time with their kids.

To advertise their product one charter school said "A charter school is an independently run public school granted greater flexibility in its operations". This loosely translates to "no one tells us what to do". This "flexibility" exists because charter schools don't have to meet many of the same standards or teacher the same ridged curriculum that states have imposed on public schools.

If choice is the impetus for changing education in the US why wouldn't Republicans just follow their own talking point and get government out of the education process. Instead of coming up with a whole new system, just allow schools to choose for themselves the best method of teaching children. If parents didn't like the direction the school was taking they could always choose different school board members.

Of course these changes all revolve around the belief that somehow the free market offers choice where government doesn't. In their mind choosing to give their business to a company is choice, but participating in democracy is not.

So if you don't like big oil the Republican answer is simple - don't use oil. On the surface this is a completely reasonable idea. But if you think about it at all you realize just how little choice you really have. Sure you can buy a hybrid car, walk to work, or take a bike but the hybrid car still has plastic and rubber components that are made from oil. The same is true of the bike and shoes.

Beyond that, imagine trying to eliminate all oil products from your house. Carpets, appliances, technology, and food packing all contain oil. Even the every day products you buy from the store required oil to produce and ship to market.

Could you choose to not have any of your money go to big oil? It's possible, but it would also take such a ridiculous level of commitment that even the most ardent conservative would have to admit this hardly qualifies as a choice.

This free market choice also assumes all of the information you need to make these decisions is readily available. Thanks to Republicans, corporations can donate nearly unlimited amounts money to causes you may or may not support and this can all be done in a completely anonymous way. Maybe they spend money to support gun rights, abortion rights, or the ACA. Under the current rules consumers won't even know if the companies they frequent have an agenda that they agree with. The companies have a choice but the public does not.

The reality is that when Republicans say they support "choice" they really only mean choices that benefit big business. If it happens to help someone else that's fine, but a choice that hurts a company is something Republicans will ironically use every government power at their disposal to stop.

How a black president made racism acceptable

Earlier this year the Civil Rights divisions of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Education (DOE) put out a letter to help public schools navigate the complicated issue of racial inequality in public school discipline.

Of course the Obama administration can't do anything without conservatives claiming the sky is falling so it should come as no surprise that the government's attempt to help schools abide by the 1964 Civil Rights Act would turn into cries of "quotas" and "manifestos".

While the actual letter is far from a manifestos the bias from the right is clear. Detroit News Editorial writer Ingrid Jacques stated "What the letter overlooks is the possibility that the numbers are higher for these (black) students because they actually misbehave more."

If you recall this was a popular meme not too long ago with gun violence when "black on black crime" became a common talking point for Fox News and other conservative echo chambers. Rather than addressing how racism affects the country and having a serious conversation about how to address it many conservatives have adopted the Ann Coulter line of thinking that racism doesn't exist anymore. In this world being ignorant clearly trumps accepting one's own flaws and attempting to become a better person.

It should be noted that Civil Rights include more than the rights of African Americans. They are there to prevent the government and private organizations from discriminating against anyone, be it for the color of their skin, their religious beliefs, their sex, or their sexual orientation.

In this instance the DOJ and DOE present data that suggests there is a systemic problem with discrimination in the education system. Conservatives look at these stats and believe they prove that black students are inherently more disruptive and need to be censured more often. In the past these sorts of beliefs would quickly be identified as racist however hypersensitivity from the right over putting a label on their bigotry prevents people from calling a spade a spade anymore.

But imagine if instead of black students it was discovered that devoutly religious students were twice as likely to be disciplined as their non religious counterparts. Would those in the religious community not seek a change in how punishment was doled out? Would they be comfortable with an atheist writer suggesting that religious students are inherently more disruptive? Would they not cry that these students Civil Rights were being ignored?

While it may be a great comfort for some white folks to believe that African Americans are just more violent and unruly than their white peers, the data tells a different story.

Even though black and white kids use marijuana at similar rates, black youth were four times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession.

While the media would have you believe black on black crime is a problem it occurs at an almost identical rate as white on white crime. The same is also true of violent crime rates where socioeconomic status not skin color determined the likelihood of being a victim.

In New York 83% of the people who were stopped and frisked were black or Hispanic yet they only represent around half of the population.

The National Longitudinal Survey of Youth shows the US is a deeply racist country with African Americans being perceived as the most lawless.

The reality is that for many whites this bias is a self fulfilling prophecy. They only accept the information that matches their prejudice and never consider how their views and actions exacerbate the problem. Perhaps nothing proves that more than this belief that a black president asking public schools to consider the Civil Rights of all students is somehow a socialist affront to whites yet when the white president says "Strong civil rights enforcement will be a cornerstone of my administration" it is an applause line.

Unfortunately having a black president didn't end racism. Instead racists pretend things have changed and use political debate as cover to rationalize their bigoted talking points.