Adding to an already impressive list of legislative "solutions" that don't actually solve any problems, Rick Snyder and the Michigan legislature have decided to consider "merit pay" for public educators.
Like many of their previous legislative priorities including corporate tax cuts, charter schools and right to work, Republicans seem more interested in placating their corporate sugar daddies than analyzing data. Because if Republicans took the time to review the many studies on the topic they would see that the type of merit pay they support doesn't actually improve educational outcomes.
The merit pay solution fails in part because it assumes all teachers are slackers and that their primary motivation is money. Contrary to what many Republican believe most teachers already give maximum effort because they have a passion for teaching and anything less than their best would negatively affect their students. Imagine using monetary incentives to motive a pastor or a charity worker to do good deeds and you can start to understand why this corporate strategy isn't applicable across all occupations. But even beyond this, this solution also presumes schools provide all the resources necessary to make significant strides, that the teachers have been given the proper tools and training to implement meaningful improvements and that the leadership will support innovative changes.
Maybe the Governor should listen to his own rhetoric which contradicts the very merit pay system he currently supports. When running for office Rick Snyder said "Government doesn’t create jobs, we create an environment where jobs can flourish." Well the same is true in education - teachers don't create good test scores, they create an environment where good test score can flourish.
Similarly when asked to estimate the number of jobs his new environment would create the Governor said "Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it’s going to happen." So Rick Snyder sees no value in setting expectations for the changes that have occurred on his watch yet exceeding an arbitrary goal set by technocrats is a core aspect of how the governor plans on improving educational outcomes. Such hypocrisy represents a massive double standard.
Of course if Republican politicians truly believe that merit pay gets the best results then why have they never considered making a significant portion of their own pay merit based. They could earn extra pay for things like low unemployment numbers, budget surpluses, improved crime rates, greater energy independence, better health care outcomes, and of course student test scores.
But the reality is that using metrics to define success is something politicians reserve for others since their true goal of raising money and winning elections doesn't require tangible results. It only requires an illusion of success and when your voting bloc already disavows science, considers Benghazi the biggest scandal in US history, and believes disagreeing with a media source proves liberal bias, convincing them that hard data and peer reviewed studies are propaganda from liberal elites isn't much of a stretch.
Thursday, May 30, 2013
Friday, May 24, 2013
Partisanship is unconstitutional
A lot of talk from conservatives especially those on this blog in recent days revolves around the belief that Republicans value the Constitution more than Democrats.
Such a belief requires an extraordinary combination of ignorance and hubris since the real difference here is perception not patriotism. Assuming that there is only one right interpretation of the constitution and it is the one you or your party subscribes to, is a mind numbingly ethnocentric view of such a complex document.
While such a simplistic view may be a good way to motivate the knuckle draggers it represents a very unpatriotic position since the right to freely disagree and debate our government is at the core of the very constitution these people claim to be building a bulwark to protect.
The reality is that Americans on nearly every side of any constitutional argument are ardent supports of the constitution. Whether you are a gun rights supporter or a gun control advocate, whether you are for prayer in school or separation of church and state, or whether you believe that corporations are people or just corporations - none of these positions embraces the constitution any more than any other.
But regardless of how insipid the debate over who loves the constitution more may be, the vapid arguments conservatives use to support these claims are worse.
Suggesting Democrats oppose the 4th amendment because of the AP scandal ignores when Republicans thumbed their nose at the 4th amendment with warrantless wiretaps.
Implying that the IRS scandal proves Democrats are against the 1st amendment ignores the profiling Republicans have been supporting for years.
Acting like Lois Lerner's use of the of the 5th amendment is an indictment on the Obama administration ignores that both Oliver North and John M. Poindexter pleaded the fifth during the Iran Contra hearings until they were given sweetheart deals.
And even beyond the hypocrisy Republicans exhibit regarding the constitution they often support an agenda that the courts have decided are unconstitutional. For example the courts have ruled multiple times that terminating a pregnancy is legal, yet Republicans continue that introduce unconstitutional legislation attempting to limit this right. In an overreaction to immigration, Republicans in Arizona passed a number of laws the courts deemed unconstitutional. And even after it was ruled unconstitutional, states like Michigan press forward with mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients.
In the end nothing is a more scathing indictment of the voting populace than this public chest thumping over who's adulation for the constitution is bigger. Such posturing solves no issues and exposes how little many Americans really understand their opposition. So next time you are inclined to proclaim constitutional superiority just realize this doesn't make you look like a virtuous patriot, it makes you self absorbed dolt.
Such a belief requires an extraordinary combination of ignorance and hubris since the real difference here is perception not patriotism. Assuming that there is only one right interpretation of the constitution and it is the one you or your party subscribes to, is a mind numbingly ethnocentric view of such a complex document.
While such a simplistic view may be a good way to motivate the knuckle draggers it represents a very unpatriotic position since the right to freely disagree and debate our government is at the core of the very constitution these people claim to be building a bulwark to protect.
The reality is that Americans on nearly every side of any constitutional argument are ardent supports of the constitution. Whether you are a gun rights supporter or a gun control advocate, whether you are for prayer in school or separation of church and state, or whether you believe that corporations are people or just corporations - none of these positions embraces the constitution any more than any other.
But regardless of how insipid the debate over who loves the constitution more may be, the vapid arguments conservatives use to support these claims are worse.
Suggesting Democrats oppose the 4th amendment because of the AP scandal ignores when Republicans thumbed their nose at the 4th amendment with warrantless wiretaps.
Implying that the IRS scandal proves Democrats are against the 1st amendment ignores the profiling Republicans have been supporting for years.
Acting like Lois Lerner's use of the of the 5th amendment is an indictment on the Obama administration ignores that both Oliver North and John M. Poindexter pleaded the fifth during the Iran Contra hearings until they were given sweetheart deals.
And even beyond the hypocrisy Republicans exhibit regarding the constitution they often support an agenda that the courts have decided are unconstitutional. For example the courts have ruled multiple times that terminating a pregnancy is legal, yet Republicans continue that introduce unconstitutional legislation attempting to limit this right. In an overreaction to immigration, Republicans in Arizona passed a number of laws the courts deemed unconstitutional. And even after it was ruled unconstitutional, states like Michigan press forward with mandatory drug testing of welfare recipients.
In the end nothing is a more scathing indictment of the voting populace than this public chest thumping over who's adulation for the constitution is bigger. Such posturing solves no issues and exposes how little many Americans really understand their opposition. So next time you are inclined to proclaim constitutional superiority just realize this doesn't make you look like a virtuous patriot, it makes you self absorbed dolt.
Wednesday, May 22, 2013
More ammunition for the conspiracy theorist
Last month, around the same time the Senate was debating the immensely popular background check bill, Republicans took their "fear government" conspiracy theory to a new level. This conspiracy now has some believing that the government is buying large quantities of ammunition to keep it out of the hands of gun owners.
First it should be noted that the NRA estimates that 10 to 12 billion rounds of ammunition are produced and sold in the US each year with billions more being imported. Conversely the government request is for a mere 1.6 billion rounds over the next few years. This means, assuming the government was buying zero rounds previously, this new request only represents a 5% increase which seems unlikely to have much effect on the overall supply.
Second the amount of money spent on ammunition by gun owners has nearly tripled since the turn of the century. Given the massive amounts of rounds purchased by individuals perhaps the perceived shortage that gun advocates are concerned about is really just a self inflicted wound.
With that being said the idea that the government can choke the market seems like an ironic argument from Republicans given their blind faith in the free market. The reality is the free market should naturally respond to an increased demand with higher prices (which is not happening) or expanded production (which is happening and creating jobs).
Of course regardless of how irrational this arbitrary limit on ammunition purchases by the government may be and regardless of how this might negatively affect the government entity set up by Republicans to combat terrorism in the US that's not even the worst part of this new gun paranoia. No, the most disturbing meme at work here is the idea that people need to fear our democratically elected officials and arm the rebels. Because you can guarantee the guys holding the largest weapons cache are not the one's you want leading this country on the off change the conspiracy theorists are right.
First it should be noted that the NRA estimates that 10 to 12 billion rounds of ammunition are produced and sold in the US each year with billions more being imported. Conversely the government request is for a mere 1.6 billion rounds over the next few years. This means, assuming the government was buying zero rounds previously, this new request only represents a 5% increase which seems unlikely to have much effect on the overall supply.
Second the amount of money spent on ammunition by gun owners has nearly tripled since the turn of the century. Given the massive amounts of rounds purchased by individuals perhaps the perceived shortage that gun advocates are concerned about is really just a self inflicted wound.
With that being said the idea that the government can choke the market seems like an ironic argument from Republicans given their blind faith in the free market. The reality is the free market should naturally respond to an increased demand with higher prices (which is not happening) or expanded production (which is happening and creating jobs).
Of course regardless of how irrational this arbitrary limit on ammunition purchases by the government may be and regardless of how this might negatively affect the government entity set up by Republicans to combat terrorism in the US that's not even the worst part of this new gun paranoia. No, the most disturbing meme at work here is the idea that people need to fear our democratically elected officials and arm the rebels. Because you can guarantee the guys holding the largest weapons cache are not the one's you want leading this country on the off change the conspiracy theorists are right.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Benghazi, IRS and AP Oh My!
This week Republicans are frothing at the mouth over a number of government "scandals". Well, welcome to the party. Democrats have been outraged over these very same issues for years.
First there was Benghazi where four US citizens were killed as a result of a terrorist attack. While most would consider the lapse in security and loss of life the biggest concern Republican's seem more focused on how much the Obama administration knew about the circumstances of the attack. Yet it was found that Bush aides made 935 false statements following the worst terrorist attack against American citizens. Additionally there were seven attacks on US embassies on George W. Bush's watch.
Next came the revelation that the IRS targeted certain groups for extra scrutiny. Yet when it was discovered that Latinos, African-Americans and other minorities were being unfairly targeted by TSA agents there were no outcries from Tea Party members about the injustice being perpetrated against US citizens. Nor were their complaints from Republicans when it was revealed that minorities were more likely to get extra scrutiny from police during a traffic stop. Not to mention the photo ID voting laws that also disproportionately affect minorities.
And the final straw was the exposure of the Justice Departments phone record gathering activities. Yet when President Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping Republican Congressmen were there to cheer him on in the name of security. Republicans also lead the charge to pass the Patriot act which expanded the government's power to gather information on you from third party sources as well as search private property without notifying the owner.
Unfortunately today's political party's value power over patriotism so the ideologues defend these abuses when they are in control and lament the loss of civil liberties when they are in the minority. The reality is that this type of political corruption has been around for decades and pretending that these issues will somehow lead to the removal of Barack Obama as president exposes the selective memory syndrome associated with US politics.
Should we expect more from our government? Absolutely. But a government is a reflection of its voters so until the populous confronts its own hypocrisy and places a higher value on constitutional rights than partisanship this is the government we will get.
First there was Benghazi where four US citizens were killed as a result of a terrorist attack. While most would consider the lapse in security and loss of life the biggest concern Republican's seem more focused on how much the Obama administration knew about the circumstances of the attack. Yet it was found that Bush aides made 935 false statements following the worst terrorist attack against American citizens. Additionally there were seven attacks on US embassies on George W. Bush's watch.
Next came the revelation that the IRS targeted certain groups for extra scrutiny. Yet when it was discovered that Latinos, African-Americans and other minorities were being unfairly targeted by TSA agents there were no outcries from Tea Party members about the injustice being perpetrated against US citizens. Nor were their complaints from Republicans when it was revealed that minorities were more likely to get extra scrutiny from police during a traffic stop. Not to mention the photo ID voting laws that also disproportionately affect minorities.
And the final straw was the exposure of the Justice Departments phone record gathering activities. Yet when President Bush authorized warrantless wiretapping Republican Congressmen were there to cheer him on in the name of security. Republicans also lead the charge to pass the Patriot act which expanded the government's power to gather information on you from third party sources as well as search private property without notifying the owner.
Unfortunately today's political party's value power over patriotism so the ideologues defend these abuses when they are in control and lament the loss of civil liberties when they are in the minority. The reality is that this type of political corruption has been around for decades and pretending that these issues will somehow lead to the removal of Barack Obama as president exposes the selective memory syndrome associated with US politics.
Should we expect more from our government? Absolutely. But a government is a reflection of its voters so until the populous confronts its own hypocrisy and places a higher value on constitutional rights than partisanship this is the government we will get.
Friday, May 10, 2013
Republican's dying to kill abortion
Last year Mississippi passed new restrictions on institutions that preform abortions meant to shutter the only remaining abortion clinic in the state. The law requires that these clinics be required to get admitting privileges to a local hospital to keep their state certification.
The justification for such a requirement was explained by the bill's sponsor state representative Sam Mims:
"If something goes wrong, which it might -- we hope it doesn't, but it could -- that physician could follow the patient to a local hospital."
So Representative Mims isn't trying to restrict abortions he just wants to make sure that people, who he would consider murders, get the proper care.
Of course it should be noted that in the most recent data only 12 women died from complications from an abortion. It should also be noted that legislation the representative has previously sponsored indicates his concern for Mississippi's abortion patients is incongruous with his concern for the rest of Mississippi's citizens.
For example the representative sponsored legislation that repealed a law requiring weapon dealers to keep records of weapons sold even though US citizens are 1,000 times more likely to die from an illegal gun as they are from an abortion.
Representative Mims also seems comfortable giving government money to support the education of dentists in the state of Mississippi yet in 2011 eight children died from complications from a dentist visit. If protecting Mississippi citizens was truly important to Representative Mims why not require dentists to have admitting privileges since one is nearly is likely to die at their local dentist office as they are an abortion clinic?
Also as a gun rights supporter it can be assumed that Representative Mims is firmly against further gun restrictions since regardless of regulations bad guys will get guns yet the exact same logic applies to abortions. Prohibition will not eliminate abortions. It will just push them unground and contrary to the Representatives stated wishes, will actually make abortion patients less safe.
It should also be noted that the longer a woman waits to have this procedure the more likely there are to have complications so the extended wait times many Republicans are pushing for will be detrimental to the health of the very women they claim to be protecting.
Representative Mims in a nutshell symbolizes why American's are so disillusioned with politicians. He claims to be pro life yet his legislation is decidedly detrimental to human life. He claims to support the constitution yet his legislation is meant to undercut a constitutionally guaranteed right. He claims to want smaller government and less regulations yet his legislation adds government regulations and red tape to a private business.
It would be nice if politicians like Representative Mims would just admit that they think removing a collection of cells from a woman's uterus is murder even though the highest court in the land says they are wrong. At least then we could have an honest policy debate that doesn't make the politicians look like complete hypocrites.
The justification for such a requirement was explained by the bill's sponsor state representative Sam Mims:
"If something goes wrong, which it might -- we hope it doesn't, but it could -- that physician could follow the patient to a local hospital."
So Representative Mims isn't trying to restrict abortions he just wants to make sure that people, who he would consider murders, get the proper care.
Of course it should be noted that in the most recent data only 12 women died from complications from an abortion. It should also be noted that legislation the representative has previously sponsored indicates his concern for Mississippi's abortion patients is incongruous with his concern for the rest of Mississippi's citizens.
For example the representative sponsored legislation that repealed a law requiring weapon dealers to keep records of weapons sold even though US citizens are 1,000 times more likely to die from an illegal gun as they are from an abortion.
Representative Mims also seems comfortable giving government money to support the education of dentists in the state of Mississippi yet in 2011 eight children died from complications from a dentist visit. If protecting Mississippi citizens was truly important to Representative Mims why not require dentists to have admitting privileges since one is nearly is likely to die at their local dentist office as they are an abortion clinic?
Also as a gun rights supporter it can be assumed that Representative Mims is firmly against further gun restrictions since regardless of regulations bad guys will get guns yet the exact same logic applies to abortions. Prohibition will not eliminate abortions. It will just push them unground and contrary to the Representatives stated wishes, will actually make abortion patients less safe.
It should also be noted that the longer a woman waits to have this procedure the more likely there are to have complications so the extended wait times many Republicans are pushing for will be detrimental to the health of the very women they claim to be protecting.
Representative Mims in a nutshell symbolizes why American's are so disillusioned with politicians. He claims to be pro life yet his legislation is decidedly detrimental to human life. He claims to support the constitution yet his legislation is meant to undercut a constitutionally guaranteed right. He claims to want smaller government and less regulations yet his legislation adds government regulations and red tape to a private business.
It would be nice if politicians like Representative Mims would just admit that they think removing a collection of cells from a woman's uterus is murder even though the highest court in the land says they are wrong. At least then we could have an honest policy debate that doesn't make the politicians look like complete hypocrites.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
