If you have watched any of Rick Snyder's election ads you will see that the governor fancies himself a leader, however, since being a leader isn't a title one can just bestow upon one's self the question should be what does the governor's record tell us about his leadership skills.
The governor has been blessed with a Republican controlled House and Senate yet he has routinely taken a back seat on important issues and struggles to rally support for the few ideas he supports.
The governor believes a second international crossing in Detroit is a key economic component to alleviating Michigan's slow recovery, however this idea was roundly rejected by Michigan Republicans. After stating "right to work" wasn't on his agenda the governor quickly changed his position using petulant "they started it" logic unbefitting of a top state official. Rick Snyder vetoed a voter ID law despite the broad support the bill had among his Republicans colleagues and constituents. The governor also rejected a flawed abortion restriction bill only to see the legislature cut him out of the process and pass it in spite of his objections.
Beyond that even those that support the governor still question his abilities as a leader. For example the Lansing State Journal editorial endorsing Rick Snyder said he "needs to show more direct leadership on a road funding plan", and "Michiganders need to see Snyder leading the Legislature to do the right thing, not hanging on the sidelines."
Some conservatives call President Obama the "dictator in chief" because they believe has ignored the constitution while also undermining the democratic process. Obviously few Americans view dictator and leader as being synonymous. With this in mind it should be noted Rick Snyder's actions could similarly be considered un-American. Appointing a Emergency Manager to take over Detroit from democratically elected officials is hardly upholding the ideals of democracy. Replacing an Emergency Manager law that the voters repealed just months prior certainly doesn't suggest the governor is up for sharing power. Making many laws referendum proof, eliminating the voter's best method of directly impacting bad laws, is the exact opposite of giving citizens a voice in their government. Establishing a furtive slush fund, financed by anonymous donors, that was used to pay for an "independent board" that influences public policy while being accountable to no one, is not a democratic principle.
Of course the democratic process isn't the only thing Rick Snyder has trampled. A Michigan judge said the governor's initial bankruptcy filing was unconstitutional. While other Rick Snyder supported ideas deemed unconstitutional include a "law requiring state employees to pay 4% of their income in order to remain in the state’s defined benefit pension plan", the state ban on same sex marriages, and a law banning PLA's.
Additionally the Snyder administration held secret talks, comprised of mainly far right corporate donors and education advocates, looking for ways to bypass the voter approved constitutional ban on school vouchers. The governor claimed he was unaware of the meetings however he defended the gathering by saying "I don't want people to discourage people from being innovative and creative,". The question then becomes is it more disturbing that the governor was unaware of the potentially illegal actions of his staff or that he terms these attempts at breaking the law as innovation?
He has also stumbled in his leadership on other education reform ideas where the early results suggest the governor is finding it difficult to garner support for his policies. For example the governor believes the state should adopt Common Core Standards however the legislature rebuffed the governor and have cut all funding for implementing these new standards. This means over a three year span students will be taking three different standardized tests - tests that the governor believes should be used to determine the quality of teachers. The continued rejections from Republican elected officials makes this goal nearly impossible.
Rick Snyder has been an advocate for expanding charter schools in Michigan even though the data shows they don't outperform their public school counterparts. A recent exposé revealing a litany of issues with Michigan's Charter schools, including the misuse of public funds, forced the governor to propose greater transparency. Given that Michigan has more for profit charter schools than any other state in the nation the lack of oversight from the governor's office starts to looks like a tail wagging the dog situation. If not, it demonstrates a troubling level of naivete regarding the goals of for profit entities in the public education realm. Is Rick Snyder leading the charter school movement or is the charter school movement leading Rick Snyder?
The reality is the only efforts Rick Snyder has been able to successfully lead on were ones where the Republican legislature was already on board. The question for voter on Tuesday is do they want a governor who is just a lap dog for the Republican legislators and corporate interests because at this point Michigan Republicans clearly don't respect Rick Snyder's authority and if Democrats swing just five seats in the House the next governor will need to be more than just a figurehead.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Is Rick Snyder a liar or just untruthful?
With less than a week remaining before the 2014 elections the airwaves have been inundated with political advertisements. For Michigan residents this has meant a heavy does of ads for the debating the qualifications of Rick Snyder and Mark Schauer.
Unfortunately these ads are often full of manipulated information that, at best, offer a clear distortion of the facts. A good example of this is the recent ad by the "Rick for Michigan" campaign titled 'Everyone'.
The ad starts by stating "Governor Rick Snyder has reversed Michigan's decline". With the general economic improvement that the US has experienced that past few years taking credit for Michigan's economic gains seems questionable.
University of Michigan economist Don Grimes says that of the 300,000 or so jobs the governor attributes to his leadership only around 15,000 of these jobs are not explained by the resurgence of the auto industry and the national economic recovery. It's possible Rick Snyder's policies contributed to these 15,000 jobs but the governor has presented no data to connect his actions to these jobs.
Given his business background, the fact that Rick Snyder hasn't presented a correlation between Michigan's job growth and his job creation strategies suggests the governor is well aware of the infinitesimal impact he has actually had because no titan of industry offers up a $1.8 billion loss of revenue without a definitive cause and effect on any potential return on investment.
The ad then continues "the press reports are remarkable" followed by a number of quotes from various new sources which include the following:
"deliver what he promised" - Lansing State Journal - 10/17/14
"gutsy, pragmatic leader" - Crain's Detroit Business - 10/5/14
"Michigan is better off today" - Detroit News - 10/16/14
"K-12 spending has increased" - Lansing State Journal - 10/17/14
Then the ad finishes by stating "Mark Schauer's claim the governor cut education has been repeatedly..."
"Discredited" - Off the Record - 6/20/14
"False" - Detroit News - 10/16/14
"Big and persistent lie" - Lansing State Journal - 9/30/14
While this may appear to be an impressive collection of support for the governor there is more than meets the eye with these quotes. First it should be noted that many of these citation are editorials from conservative sources. Crain's for example is one of the few major publications to endorse Terri Lynn Land, while the Lansing State Journal supports Republicans for all three of the top state positions. The Detroit News - long considered the most conservative newspaper in Michigan - recently stated that their instinct is to "side always with the conservative candidate". The only surprise here would be if these sources didn't find nice things to say about Rick Snyder.
Having said that some of these quotes are taken out of context to seem more effusive than they really are. The article that the "deliver what he promised" quote was pulled from also contains the quotes "Snyder's overhaul has not yet prompted as much job growth", "Snyder needs to show more direct leadership", "his tax overhaul being hard on working families and seniors", and "Snyder disappointed some voters".
The Crain's quote while powerful is specifically referring to Rick Snyder "orchestrating Detroit's bankruptcy" instead of his entire leadership. Leaving this information out helps Snyder because many do not think this was a gutsy or pragmatic move. In fact in a Reuter's article from 2/21/13 experts warned that "bankruptcy could taint other struggling municipalities, worsening the problem." and "Chapter 9 is time-consuming, uncertain, expensive and unpredictable."
But perhaps the worst part of this television spot is the defense of Rick Snyder's education spending. First it should be noted that three of the four quotes all come from one writer. It can hardly be said that Mark Schauer's claims have been "repeatedly" anything when you use the same person for 75% of your quotes.
Second the Lansing State Journal article referenced for the "Big and persistent lie" quote was amended shortly after publication to "Big and persistent untruth" because there is a set of data from the non partisan Senate Financial Agency that does in fact show the $1 billion cut. The Snyder campaign asked local television stations to remove these ads because of this supposed lie yet all stations refused because of the reality that there is data that proves this correct. The claim may be disingenuous but it is absolutely not a lie.
Ironically by insisting on using language that the newspaper itself refuses to stand by it could be said that Rick Snyder is lying. It's also important to remember that back when Rick Snyder said he would be "happy to go fishing, go teach or do something else." and leave the 2015 governor seat to "better, smarter people" he also admitted that "we cut K through 12" spending.
This is a reality that a number of fact checkers agree with. Mlive determined that the governor's claim that he increased per pupil funding by $660 is an inaccurate portrayal of the data. Michigan Radio reports that the governor cut between $235 million and $393 million from the education budget his first year. Bridge Magazine the per pupil foundation allowance has fallen by $661 under the governors watch. Representative Jeff Irwin has presented data showing that schools are missing out on as much as $1 billion of funding because of Rick Snyder.
While most of the statements in this ad are insincere distortions, the most important question Michigan voters should be asking is not what about Rick Snyder did but what Rick Snyder is going to do. The governor has spent an awful lot of money on "victory lap" ads that purport a remarkable level of success but what you haven't heard is what Rick Snyder plans to do with the next four years.
In 2011 Rick Snyder said if he accomplished what he set out to accomplish he wouldn't run for a second term. Given that he is obviously running for re-election it would seem that the governor agrees that his first term was a failure because if it was a successful as his commercials suggest, he should be out fishing right now. Of course it's also possible that the Rick Snyder did in fact accomplish all of his goals and that his previous statement was a lie, or rather, an untruth. Either way Michigan residents shouldn't be surprise since a 4/23/14 Detroit News article said "the governor failed to keep his word" - which is likely something that 'Everyone' already knows.
Unfortunately these ads are often full of manipulated information that, at best, offer a clear distortion of the facts. A good example of this is the recent ad by the "Rick for Michigan" campaign titled 'Everyone'.
The ad starts by stating "Governor Rick Snyder has reversed Michigan's decline". With the general economic improvement that the US has experienced that past few years taking credit for Michigan's economic gains seems questionable.
University of Michigan economist Don Grimes says that of the 300,000 or so jobs the governor attributes to his leadership only around 15,000 of these jobs are not explained by the resurgence of the auto industry and the national economic recovery. It's possible Rick Snyder's policies contributed to these 15,000 jobs but the governor has presented no data to connect his actions to these jobs.
Given his business background, the fact that Rick Snyder hasn't presented a correlation between Michigan's job growth and his job creation strategies suggests the governor is well aware of the infinitesimal impact he has actually had because no titan of industry offers up a $1.8 billion loss of revenue without a definitive cause and effect on any potential return on investment.
The ad then continues "the press reports are remarkable" followed by a number of quotes from various new sources which include the following:
"deliver what he promised" - Lansing State Journal - 10/17/14
"gutsy, pragmatic leader" - Crain's Detroit Business - 10/5/14
"Michigan is better off today" - Detroit News - 10/16/14
"K-12 spending has increased" - Lansing State Journal - 10/17/14
Then the ad finishes by stating "Mark Schauer's claim the governor cut education has been repeatedly..."
"Discredited" - Off the Record - 6/20/14
"False" - Detroit News - 10/16/14
"Big and persistent lie" - Lansing State Journal - 9/30/14
While this may appear to be an impressive collection of support for the governor there is more than meets the eye with these quotes. First it should be noted that many of these citation are editorials from conservative sources. Crain's for example is one of the few major publications to endorse Terri Lynn Land, while the Lansing State Journal supports Republicans for all three of the top state positions. The Detroit News - long considered the most conservative newspaper in Michigan - recently stated that their instinct is to "side always with the conservative candidate". The only surprise here would be if these sources didn't find nice things to say about Rick Snyder.
Having said that some of these quotes are taken out of context to seem more effusive than they really are. The article that the "deliver what he promised" quote was pulled from also contains the quotes "Snyder's overhaul has not yet prompted as much job growth", "Snyder needs to show more direct leadership", "his tax overhaul being hard on working families and seniors", and "Snyder disappointed some voters".
The Crain's quote while powerful is specifically referring to Rick Snyder "orchestrating Detroit's bankruptcy" instead of his entire leadership. Leaving this information out helps Snyder because many do not think this was a gutsy or pragmatic move. In fact in a Reuter's article from 2/21/13 experts warned that "bankruptcy could taint other struggling municipalities, worsening the problem." and "Chapter 9 is time-consuming, uncertain, expensive and unpredictable."
But perhaps the worst part of this television spot is the defense of Rick Snyder's education spending. First it should be noted that three of the four quotes all come from one writer. It can hardly be said that Mark Schauer's claims have been "repeatedly" anything when you use the same person for 75% of your quotes.
Second the Lansing State Journal article referenced for the "Big and persistent lie" quote was amended shortly after publication to "Big and persistent untruth" because there is a set of data from the non partisan Senate Financial Agency that does in fact show the $1 billion cut. The Snyder campaign asked local television stations to remove these ads because of this supposed lie yet all stations refused because of the reality that there is data that proves this correct. The claim may be disingenuous but it is absolutely not a lie.
Ironically by insisting on using language that the newspaper itself refuses to stand by it could be said that Rick Snyder is lying. It's also important to remember that back when Rick Snyder said he would be "happy to go fishing, go teach or do something else." and leave the 2015 governor seat to "better, smarter people" he also admitted that "we cut K through 12" spending.
This is a reality that a number of fact checkers agree with. Mlive determined that the governor's claim that he increased per pupil funding by $660 is an inaccurate portrayal of the data. Michigan Radio reports that the governor cut between $235 million and $393 million from the education budget his first year. Bridge Magazine the per pupil foundation allowance has fallen by $661 under the governors watch. Representative Jeff Irwin has presented data showing that schools are missing out on as much as $1 billion of funding because of Rick Snyder.
While most of the statements in this ad are insincere distortions, the most important question Michigan voters should be asking is not what about Rick Snyder did but what Rick Snyder is going to do. The governor has spent an awful lot of money on "victory lap" ads that purport a remarkable level of success but what you haven't heard is what Rick Snyder plans to do with the next four years.
In 2011 Rick Snyder said if he accomplished what he set out to accomplish he wouldn't run for a second term. Given that he is obviously running for re-election it would seem that the governor agrees that his first term was a failure because if it was a successful as his commercials suggest, he should be out fishing right now. Of course it's also possible that the Rick Snyder did in fact accomplish all of his goals and that his previous statement was a lie, or rather, an untruth. Either way Michigan residents shouldn't be surprise since a 4/23/14 Detroit News article said "the governor failed to keep his word" - which is likely something that 'Everyone' already knows.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Rick Snyder's record on education is dismal
Perhaps the hottest debated topic in the Michigan Governor's race is school funding. The Schauer campaign claims Rick Snyder has cut $1 billion from education since he chose to give a $1.8 billion tax cut to business while also deciding to set aside hundreds of millions of dollars for a rainy day fund instead of replacing stimulus funding resulting in a $235 million drop in funding from the final Granholm budget to Rick Snyder's first budget.
The Snyder campaign claims they increased funding by $660 over his four years in office and has put out two separate ads asserting this position. Unfortunately for Michigan voters the two teachers involved in these commercials both retired before Rick Snyder took office which suggests their understanding of the current situation is questionable at best. It should also be noted that one of these teachers happens to be Rick Snyder's neighbor while the other is the vice chair of the Oakland County Republican Party. These former educators are hardly impartial.
Of course the purported increase doesn't actually mean more money for the classroom. A large portion of the additional funding is going directly to cover teacher pensions (MPSERS). While this may be a necessity it is also a bit of a self inflicted wound. Since being elected, the governor has supported a number of policies that actually exacerbated the pension problems. The initial funding cut saw many school systems reduce staff which means fewer members contributing. The governor also oversaw an early retirement buyout program that not only removed contributors but also increased those drawing from the system. Additionally, by creating more charter schools, which are not required to participate in the MPSERS program, the governor again took away contributing members.
Essentially the governor created a problem that he was forced to solve and is pretending that his solution somehow shows an increased commitment to education. But even that claim is sketchy since a portion of the funds that the governor is taking credit for actual come from educators since those still working have been forced to increase their per check contributions.
It's also important to remember that the average school district has seen less funds ending up in the classroom. The average per-pupil foundation allowance dropped from $7,146 in the 2010/2011 school year to $7,126 in the 2014/2015 school year. When adjusted for inflation schools have lost over $648 per pupil worth of buying power under Rick Snyder. The National Center for Education Statistics shows Michigan has seen a real drop of 9.0 % since 2008. Only 15 states have cut more out of the education budget over that time.
But regardless of whether you believe Rick Snyder increased or decreased spending, the measure that most Michigan parents really care about when it comes to education is outcomes. The fact that all of Rick Snyder’s re-election ads focus on the money tells you all you need to know about how well his policies are working for Michigan's kids.
If the change the governor had championed resulted in better test scores the cuts to education would be something to promote not refute. Unfortunately for students, Rick Snyder and the Republican controlled legislature have little to show for all of the changes they have enacted of the past few years that were supposed to turn Michigan into a leader in education.
Edweek’s annual Quality Counts report shows Michigan falling compared to other states under the governors watch on measures like Chance of Success, School Finance, and Standards, Assessments, and Accountability while only marginally improving from 43 in the nation to 42 in the nation on K-12 Achievement.
ACT test scores show little to no change under the governor’s watch as Michigan students have the 10th worst aggregate scores compared to the other states and the District of Columbia. Michigan children have also seen a slight loss or no gain in the majority of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores.
Additionally the Educational Achievement Authority, which was one of Rick Snyder’s avant garde education reform ideas, is on seriously shaky ground. The EAA claims they are seeing extraordinary results yet data shows that only 4 of the schools saw an improvement in their state rankings while 5 actually saw their rankings fall. Reports also show a decline in performance for 36.1% of EAA students in math and 35.6% of EAA students in reading.
But perhaps worst of all is the fact that the EAA experienced a 25% drop in enrollment. Given Rick Snyder's insistence on corporatizing Michigan's children seeing a quarter of the students who experienced an EAA school chose to go elsewhere the following year represents the pinnacle of failure. Free market principles dictate that if the EAA were providing a better experience more not less students would chose to attend. In this case the mass exodus speaks volumes about one of the governor’s signature reform ideas.
At this point Rick Snyder would rather discuss education funding because those numbers can be manipulated in a way that makes him appear devoted to education. The reality is that the governor has wasted an awful lot of tax payer money and legislative time focusing on changes that appease conservative ideologues and corporate donors but don't get results.
Michigan children deserve to be more than just a tag line in empty campaign rhetoric because the value of a good education is something you can't put a price on.
The Snyder campaign claims they increased funding by $660 over his four years in office and has put out two separate ads asserting this position. Unfortunately for Michigan voters the two teachers involved in these commercials both retired before Rick Snyder took office which suggests their understanding of the current situation is questionable at best. It should also be noted that one of these teachers happens to be Rick Snyder's neighbor while the other is the vice chair of the Oakland County Republican Party. These former educators are hardly impartial.
Of course the purported increase doesn't actually mean more money for the classroom. A large portion of the additional funding is going directly to cover teacher pensions (MPSERS). While this may be a necessity it is also a bit of a self inflicted wound. Since being elected, the governor has supported a number of policies that actually exacerbated the pension problems. The initial funding cut saw many school systems reduce staff which means fewer members contributing. The governor also oversaw an early retirement buyout program that not only removed contributors but also increased those drawing from the system. Additionally, by creating more charter schools, which are not required to participate in the MPSERS program, the governor again took away contributing members.
Essentially the governor created a problem that he was forced to solve and is pretending that his solution somehow shows an increased commitment to education. But even that claim is sketchy since a portion of the funds that the governor is taking credit for actual come from educators since those still working have been forced to increase their per check contributions.
It's also important to remember that the average school district has seen less funds ending up in the classroom. The average per-pupil foundation allowance dropped from $7,146 in the 2010/2011 school year to $7,126 in the 2014/2015 school year. When adjusted for inflation schools have lost over $648 per pupil worth of buying power under Rick Snyder. The National Center for Education Statistics shows Michigan has seen a real drop of 9.0 % since 2008. Only 15 states have cut more out of the education budget over that time.
But regardless of whether you believe Rick Snyder increased or decreased spending, the measure that most Michigan parents really care about when it comes to education is outcomes. The fact that all of Rick Snyder’s re-election ads focus on the money tells you all you need to know about how well his policies are working for Michigan's kids.
If the change the governor had championed resulted in better test scores the cuts to education would be something to promote not refute. Unfortunately for students, Rick Snyder and the Republican controlled legislature have little to show for all of the changes they have enacted of the past few years that were supposed to turn Michigan into a leader in education.
Edweek’s annual Quality Counts report shows Michigan falling compared to other states under the governors watch on measures like Chance of Success, School Finance, and Standards, Assessments, and Accountability while only marginally improving from 43 in the nation to 42 in the nation on K-12 Achievement.
ACT test scores show little to no change under the governor’s watch as Michigan students have the 10th worst aggregate scores compared to the other states and the District of Columbia. Michigan children have also seen a slight loss or no gain in the majority of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores.
Additionally the Educational Achievement Authority, which was one of Rick Snyder’s avant garde education reform ideas, is on seriously shaky ground. The EAA claims they are seeing extraordinary results yet data shows that only 4 of the schools saw an improvement in their state rankings while 5 actually saw their rankings fall. Reports also show a decline in performance for 36.1% of EAA students in math and 35.6% of EAA students in reading.
But perhaps worst of all is the fact that the EAA experienced a 25% drop in enrollment. Given Rick Snyder's insistence on corporatizing Michigan's children seeing a quarter of the students who experienced an EAA school chose to go elsewhere the following year represents the pinnacle of failure. Free market principles dictate that if the EAA were providing a better experience more not less students would chose to attend. In this case the mass exodus speaks volumes about one of the governor’s signature reform ideas.
At this point Rick Snyder would rather discuss education funding because those numbers can be manipulated in a way that makes him appear devoted to education. The reality is that the governor has wasted an awful lot of tax payer money and legislative time focusing on changes that appease conservative ideologues and corporate donors but don't get results.
Michigan children deserve to be more than just a tag line in empty campaign rhetoric because the value of a good education is something you can't put a price on.
Tuesday, October 14, 2014
Death with dignity is a matter of personal freedom
If you have visited a news oriented website recently you have likely heard the story of 29 year old Brittany Maynard who has an inoperable brain tumor. Rather than let the tumor dictate the terms of her death she proactively sought an option that would allow her to end her life in a dignified and humane fashion. Unfortunately this meant uprooting her life and spending part of her limited time left on earth moving to Oregon where the Death with Dignity Act that residents passed in 1994 made receiving a physician's aid to achieve a civilized passing legal.
Her story and her efforts have brought a lot of attention to a very contentious but important debate. Given that 46 states consider physician involvement in when and how a person chooses to move on illegal, the position of those running for office this November on this topic make this election cycle a crucial tipping point in the fight over individual rights versus over reaching government regulations.
The recent court decisions regarding marriage equality suggest that antiquated religious based moral platitudes are not protected by the constitution. This means that those that argue against one's personal freedom under the guise of their ecclesiastical beliefs of what is right and wrong will quickly find themselves on the wrong side of history. Just as the government has no right to force religious entities to act against their beliefs, the government also has no right to use one person's religious doctrine as justification for violating another person religious freedom.
Of course if a religious book is the pretext for these laws it should be noted that the Bible and other theological text are full of archaic ideas that we readily ignore.
Given the precarious nature of such religious rationale the standard talking point, used by those opposed to US citizens exercising their freedom of choice, suggests that the system is imperfect and some people who do not wish to die are being euthanized. While this is obviously a problem in need of a solution it is hardly a valid reason to deny countless others, who do want a dignified end of life, this option.
If every system needs to be infallible then perhaps we should end a capital punishment system where as many as 4% of death row inmates are innocent. We also may want to reconsider the second amendment that results in over 600 accidental deaths per years while also ironically being responsible for 51% of suicides.
If unintended consequences are an issue then we should enact laws that prevent carbon dioxide emissions since 700 to 800 people each year die from this pollution. We could also push for a universal health care system that would cover all Americans because our system of partial coverage leads to as many as 45,000 deaths per year.
Insisting that terminally ill Americans be required to suffer though the final and most painful days of their life because we haven't perfected the system for a humane death in the short time that the few laws on the books have been in place is an extraordinarily selfish act.
Brittany Maynard chose to share her story because she feels everyone should have the choice to a dignified death. The question is, do you believe that individuals or elected officials should have a greater say in this deeply personal decision because thanks to Brittany the fight over physician aided end of life care is likely to be a hot topic over the next few years and the state representatives, governors, and secretaries of state that win office this November will play a very large role which states pick liberty and which pick government sponsored oppression.
Her story and her efforts have brought a lot of attention to a very contentious but important debate. Given that 46 states consider physician involvement in when and how a person chooses to move on illegal, the position of those running for office this November on this topic make this election cycle a crucial tipping point in the fight over individual rights versus over reaching government regulations.
The recent court decisions regarding marriage equality suggest that antiquated religious based moral platitudes are not protected by the constitution. This means that those that argue against one's personal freedom under the guise of their ecclesiastical beliefs of what is right and wrong will quickly find themselves on the wrong side of history. Just as the government has no right to force religious entities to act against their beliefs, the government also has no right to use one person's religious doctrine as justification for violating another person religious freedom.
Of course if a religious book is the pretext for these laws it should be noted that the Bible and other theological text are full of archaic ideas that we readily ignore.
Given the precarious nature of such religious rationale the standard talking point, used by those opposed to US citizens exercising their freedom of choice, suggests that the system is imperfect and some people who do not wish to die are being euthanized. While this is obviously a problem in need of a solution it is hardly a valid reason to deny countless others, who do want a dignified end of life, this option.
If every system needs to be infallible then perhaps we should end a capital punishment system where as many as 4% of death row inmates are innocent. We also may want to reconsider the second amendment that results in over 600 accidental deaths per years while also ironically being responsible for 51% of suicides.
If unintended consequences are an issue then we should enact laws that prevent carbon dioxide emissions since 700 to 800 people each year die from this pollution. We could also push for a universal health care system that would cover all Americans because our system of partial coverage leads to as many as 45,000 deaths per year.
Insisting that terminally ill Americans be required to suffer though the final and most painful days of their life because we haven't perfected the system for a humane death in the short time that the few laws on the books have been in place is an extraordinarily selfish act.
Brittany Maynard chose to share her story because she feels everyone should have the choice to a dignified death. The question is, do you believe that individuals or elected officials should have a greater say in this deeply personal decision because thanks to Brittany the fight over physician aided end of life care is likely to be a hot topic over the next few years and the state representatives, governors, and secretaries of state that win office this November will play a very large role which states pick liberty and which pick government sponsored oppression.
Turning out the vote should be the focus of Ferguson October
For eight weeks there have been protests in Ferguson, Missouri related to the shooting death of Michael Brown by the Ferguson police department. This weekend these protesters have organized a series of marches they are calling "Weekend of Resistance" where they are asking for, among other things, the resignation of St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch.
While much of the media attention has faded the continued efforts of these citizens attempting to shine a light on the racial injustice present in their community is still a very important endeavor. The reality is that there are countless government policies that either unfairly target or negatively impact the ability of the African American community to achieve the American Dream.
Regardless of how successful protests like the one in Ferguson are at changing public opinion the best way to combat the systemic inequality that plagues all levels of government to vote.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said during the civil rights movement "So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact — I can only submit to the edict of others."
If the residents of Ferguson want to end the abuse by the police department that results in black residents comprising 93% of arrests they need to turn out for local elections at higher rates than their conservative counterparts. This disparity has left a community that is 67% black with a white mayor, an all white school board, 5 white council members out of 6 and only 3 black police officers in a force of 53.
Of course Ferguson is hardly the only place in the US with discriminatory government policies.
In Ohio, Republican Governor John Kasich, the Republican Secretary of State, and a Republican controlled legislature passed numerous voting restrictions that have been shown to negatively affect minorities’ ability to vote.
In New York, despite the fact that whites make up over 57% of the population they only account for around 10% of those stopped and frisked.
In Michigan, Republican Governor Rick Snyder and the Republican controlled legislature handed corporations a large tax even though the business savvy governor couldn't prove it would add jobs. To pay for this tax cut Republicans increased taxes on almost 50% of Michigan residents including cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit that even Republican economists say is an efficient way to reduce poverty.
The US is one of the only countries in the world that spends less on schools serving poor students than on those serving well off students.
In Florida, Republican Governor Rick Scott started treating welfare recipients like criminals by forcing them to take a drug test to receive benefits. A policy that seems hypocritical for a man who oversaw one of the largest Medicare frauds in US history.
Across the country, white youth are more likely to use drugs yet black youth are twice as likely to be arrested for drug use.
In Pennsylvania, Republican Governor Tom Corbett cut education funding while making a voucher system and an expansion of charter schools core aspects of his education policy in spite of the fact that neither has been shown to improve educational outcomes. They do however benefit rich corporate donors who back Corbett.
In L.A, when stopped on the street or ordered out of their car blacks were arrested 166 percent more than whites.
In Texas, Republican Governor Rick Perry refused the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicare even though the state already ranks number one in the country with the most uninsured residents.
Unfortunately this information only represents a small fraction of the inequality of our political system. Speaking out about bad policies and demanding change is only effective if you show up to the polls and hold politicians responsible for their actions. With the 2014 elections less than a month away it is time for those who routinely get the short end of the stick to come out in force and add some diversity to every level of government.
While much of the media attention has faded the continued efforts of these citizens attempting to shine a light on the racial injustice present in their community is still a very important endeavor. The reality is that there are countless government policies that either unfairly target or negatively impact the ability of the African American community to achieve the American Dream.
Regardless of how successful protests like the one in Ferguson are at changing public opinion the best way to combat the systemic inequality that plagues all levels of government to vote.
As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said during the civil rights movement "So long as I do not firmly and irrevocably possess the right to vote I do not possess myself. I cannot make up my mind — it is made up for me. I cannot live as a democratic citizen, observing the laws I have helped to enact — I can only submit to the edict of others."
If the residents of Ferguson want to end the abuse by the police department that results in black residents comprising 93% of arrests they need to turn out for local elections at higher rates than their conservative counterparts. This disparity has left a community that is 67% black with a white mayor, an all white school board, 5 white council members out of 6 and only 3 black police officers in a force of 53.
Of course Ferguson is hardly the only place in the US with discriminatory government policies.
In Ohio, Republican Governor John Kasich, the Republican Secretary of State, and a Republican controlled legislature passed numerous voting restrictions that have been shown to negatively affect minorities’ ability to vote.
In New York, despite the fact that whites make up over 57% of the population they only account for around 10% of those stopped and frisked.
In Michigan, Republican Governor Rick Snyder and the Republican controlled legislature handed corporations a large tax even though the business savvy governor couldn't prove it would add jobs. To pay for this tax cut Republicans increased taxes on almost 50% of Michigan residents including cutting the Earned Income Tax Credit that even Republican economists say is an efficient way to reduce poverty.
The US is one of the only countries in the world that spends less on schools serving poor students than on those serving well off students.
In Florida, Republican Governor Rick Scott started treating welfare recipients like criminals by forcing them to take a drug test to receive benefits. A policy that seems hypocritical for a man who oversaw one of the largest Medicare frauds in US history.
Across the country, white youth are more likely to use drugs yet black youth are twice as likely to be arrested for drug use.
In Pennsylvania, Republican Governor Tom Corbett cut education funding while making a voucher system and an expansion of charter schools core aspects of his education policy in spite of the fact that neither has been shown to improve educational outcomes. They do however benefit rich corporate donors who back Corbett.
In L.A, when stopped on the street or ordered out of their car blacks were arrested 166 percent more than whites.
In Texas, Republican Governor Rick Perry refused the Affordable Care Act's expansion of Medicare even though the state already ranks number one in the country with the most uninsured residents.
Unfortunately this information only represents a small fraction of the inequality of our political system. Speaking out about bad policies and demanding change is only effective if you show up to the polls and hold politicians responsible for their actions. With the 2014 elections less than a month away it is time for those who routinely get the short end of the stick to come out in force and add some diversity to every level of government.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
Bill Maher is unusually conservative on Islam
For all of the great work Bill Maher does by adding an unapologetically liberal voice to sensitive topics his recent heated debate with actor Ben Affleck and author Sam Harris has put Bill at odds with many liberals. The discussion, which can be seen here, covers how censorious liberals should be of the Muslim faith.
As a vocal critic of religion it comes as no surprise that Bill finds fault with Islam. Yet to many, Bill's vociferous support of Sam Harris statement that "Islam is the mother lode of all bad ideas" is deeply troubling.
Few would argue that the number of people committing acts of violence in the name of Islam is comparable with that of extremists in other religions, but the insistence that the faith not the people are to blame for this is where the divide really begins.
Bill for example has stated on multiple occasions that Muslims believe anyone who leaves the religion should be killed however that view is only really prevalent in a small number of countries. This perspective is almost non-existent in countries like Kazakhstan, Albania, Kosovo, Turkey and Bosnia. They also only represent a minor fraction of the views of Muslims in countries like Indonesia, Lebanon, and Tunisia. Ironically some countries like Pakistan can actually trace their severe religious laws back to British Christianity while six US states still have blasphemy laws on the books.
Of course it should be noted that even if a large portion of the believers of Islam support death for those who denounce their religion that doesn't prove that Islam as a religion is the mother lode of bad ideas. It simply means that a certain group of followers takes the Quran far too literally.
This was also the case for Christianity at one point in time. Deuteronomy 13:6-9 states " “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife [a]you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’... you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
To some extent the US still operate under this Christian doctrine. We pretend any acceptance of Islam will result in Sharia law taking over the country and attempt to limit the rights and reach of Muslims in America to stop this "threat". We are also still waging what amount to holy wars under the guise of spreading democracy, defending freedom, or fighting terrorism.
We use all of these politically acceptable terms to illegally fly drones over sovereign airspace. These drones indiscriminately murder Muslims who may or may not be enemy combatants. And we do this all while claiming to be a Christian nation. Maybe we don't call it a religious war but we are no doubt creating an air of terror almost exclusively in Muslim countries. Is killing in the name of democracy somehow more acceptable than killing in the name of Allah?
But the biggest problem with Bill's stance is that he seems content to shout into the wind. On issues like gun rights, climate change, and marriage equality Bill advocates for change and represents a position that can achieve this goal. His opposition to Islam has no direction. He just wants it known that of all the religions he feels Islam is the worst, even though few are arguing against that belief.
The reality is that if the US focused all of the money and energy we currently direct at fighting and controlling Muslims and used it to promote education and a more inclusive view of women, extremist Muslim interpretations of their holy book would soon be replaced with a far less strident reading - similar to the transformation Christianity has experienced over the years.
In his Real Time broadcast on February 8th of 2013 Bill made a small step in this direction by recognizing the work of Muslim teenager Malala Yousafzai who has championed education for girls because she recognized that knowledge is power and the power created from an educated female Muslim population can be harnessed to ostracize the fundamentalist fringe into irrelevance. By continuing to put Islam on trial Bill is missing out on the opportunity to help Islam in the Middle East evolve like it has in many countries across the world.
In the end as long as we continue to use bombs in place of humanitarian efforts we will continue to create an environment where radical Islam is a logical response to unfounded aggression from "Christian nations".
As a vocal critic of religion it comes as no surprise that Bill finds fault with Islam. Yet to many, Bill's vociferous support of Sam Harris statement that "Islam is the mother lode of all bad ideas" is deeply troubling.
Few would argue that the number of people committing acts of violence in the name of Islam is comparable with that of extremists in other religions, but the insistence that the faith not the people are to blame for this is where the divide really begins.
Bill for example has stated on multiple occasions that Muslims believe anyone who leaves the religion should be killed however that view is only really prevalent in a small number of countries. This perspective is almost non-existent in countries like Kazakhstan, Albania, Kosovo, Turkey and Bosnia. They also only represent a minor fraction of the views of Muslims in countries like Indonesia, Lebanon, and Tunisia. Ironically some countries like Pakistan can actually trace their severe religious laws back to British Christianity while six US states still have blasphemy laws on the books.
Of course it should be noted that even if a large portion of the believers of Islam support death for those who denounce their religion that doesn't prove that Islam as a religion is the mother lode of bad ideas. It simply means that a certain group of followers takes the Quran far too literally.
This was also the case for Christianity at one point in time. Deuteronomy 13:6-9 states " “If your brother, your mother’s son, or your son or daughter, or the wife [a]you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul, entice you secretly, saying, ‘Let us go and serve other gods’... you shall not yield to him or listen to him; and your eye shall not pity him, nor shall you spare or conceal him. But you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
To some extent the US still operate under this Christian doctrine. We pretend any acceptance of Islam will result in Sharia law taking over the country and attempt to limit the rights and reach of Muslims in America to stop this "threat". We are also still waging what amount to holy wars under the guise of spreading democracy, defending freedom, or fighting terrorism.
We use all of these politically acceptable terms to illegally fly drones over sovereign airspace. These drones indiscriminately murder Muslims who may or may not be enemy combatants. And we do this all while claiming to be a Christian nation. Maybe we don't call it a religious war but we are no doubt creating an air of terror almost exclusively in Muslim countries. Is killing in the name of democracy somehow more acceptable than killing in the name of Allah?
But the biggest problem with Bill's stance is that he seems content to shout into the wind. On issues like gun rights, climate change, and marriage equality Bill advocates for change and represents a position that can achieve this goal. His opposition to Islam has no direction. He just wants it known that of all the religions he feels Islam is the worst, even though few are arguing against that belief.
The reality is that if the US focused all of the money and energy we currently direct at fighting and controlling Muslims and used it to promote education and a more inclusive view of women, extremist Muslim interpretations of their holy book would soon be replaced with a far less strident reading - similar to the transformation Christianity has experienced over the years.
In his Real Time broadcast on February 8th of 2013 Bill made a small step in this direction by recognizing the work of Muslim teenager Malala Yousafzai who has championed education for girls because she recognized that knowledge is power and the power created from an educated female Muslim population can be harnessed to ostracize the fundamentalist fringe into irrelevance. By continuing to put Islam on trial Bill is missing out on the opportunity to help Islam in the Middle East evolve like it has in many countries across the world.
In the end as long as we continue to use bombs in place of humanitarian efforts we will continue to create an environment where radical Islam is a logical response to unfounded aggression from "Christian nations".
Friday, October 3, 2014
Atlanta cheating scandal and the failure of standardized testing
This week saw the start of a trial for a number of teachers and administrators in the Atlanta area who are accused of altering student tests to improve scores. While this is clearly a disturbing accusation the most troubling aspect of this case is the government regulations that precipitated the cheating.
Given the importance of a good education it comes as no surprise that there is always of push for improving the nation’s educational system. Unfortunately all too often the politicians in charge of these improvements have championed ideas that may meet the needs of the free market ideology but do nothing to actually improve education. This can be seen in the results of the charter school movement. It can be seen in the many attempts to remove tenure protections. And it can be seen in the efforts to make vouchers a key tenant of reform.
But perhaps the single biggest failure of the education reform movement is the obsession with high stakes testing that determines how much money a school gets, which teachers get to keep their increasingly vitiated jobs, and what colleges children can attend.
This infatuation with boiling years worth of an education down to one winner take all test costs schools $1.7 billion per year or as much as $1,000 per pupil in the test heavy grades. These same students also lose 20 to 40 minutes of instruction time per day practicing and taking standardized tests. In addition to the in school testing parents also spend over $2.5 billion per year attempting to improve their children's ACT and SAT scores.
Given all of the time and money being poured into testing it should come as no surprise that new NEA president, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, has made standardized testing a core part of her agenda.
The problem is that for many educators this over emphasis on testing has a number of unintended consequences above and beyond the ever increasing costs and intrusion on instruction time. For example some teachers find that teaching to the test stifles the creativity that many feel is important to improving the education process. Instead of using tests to measure what students understand and what they need further work on to increase outcomes for all students, top politicians pushing these test-centric reform efforts like George W. Bush and Barack Obama have turned them into tools to determine school funding and teacher effectiveness.
While many corporations in the US are looking for ways to expand creativity and give their employees greater flexibility to excel at their jobs, politicians have taken the opposite approach and micromanaged educators jobs to the point of becoming automatons. This neutering has lead to a 20 year low in morale and a record high in the attrition rate. Obviously neither of these is good for educational outcomes.
Beyond that the tests themselves have been found to be discriminatory, they haven't been shown to improve student achievement, and they aren't a part of Finland's education system that routinely ranks as one of the world’s best.
It should also be noted that a student’s GPA is a better predictor of college success than SAT scores. This suggests that when some of the government regulations and corporate intrusions are removed, teachers are more than capable of providing an education that prepares students for the next step. Perhaps being able to tailor the learning process to fit a select group of students is a better method than the top down, one size fits all testing oligarchy.
Given the obvious deficiencies in the current system and the magnitude of the outcomes is anyone surprised that teachers across the country have turned to nefarious methods to improve the test scores for their district? Good teachers have been shown to be an important cog in the education process however more important is a child's socio-economic status. For many educators, the proposition of their school closing because the students they teach have an inherent disadvantage is a dire situation. Cheating, however undesirable, becomes a rational solution to an imperfect system.
Of course public school teachers are hardly the only ones to resort to such tactics. Charter schools have seen their fair share of cheating scandals as well. Professional athletes across a multitude of sports have cheated to improve their chances of success. Politicians have certainly operated outside of the law with a number of quid pro quo agreements. Corporate heads have cooked the books to artificially increase profits. Bankers helped cause the great recession by essentially cheating the system to enrich themselves.
The reality is the higher the stakes the more likely humans are to look for ways to enhance their odds of success. While assessing students acuity in math, reading, writing, and science has value, turning this teaching tool into a free market competition among the adults clearly isn't achieving the desired results. What should be abundantly clear at this point is when put to the test high stakes standardized testing has failed.
Given the importance of a good education it comes as no surprise that there is always of push for improving the nation’s educational system. Unfortunately all too often the politicians in charge of these improvements have championed ideas that may meet the needs of the free market ideology but do nothing to actually improve education. This can be seen in the results of the charter school movement. It can be seen in the many attempts to remove tenure protections. And it can be seen in the efforts to make vouchers a key tenant of reform.
But perhaps the single biggest failure of the education reform movement is the obsession with high stakes testing that determines how much money a school gets, which teachers get to keep their increasingly vitiated jobs, and what colleges children can attend.
This infatuation with boiling years worth of an education down to one winner take all test costs schools $1.7 billion per year or as much as $1,000 per pupil in the test heavy grades. These same students also lose 20 to 40 minutes of instruction time per day practicing and taking standardized tests. In addition to the in school testing parents also spend over $2.5 billion per year attempting to improve their children's ACT and SAT scores.
Given all of the time and money being poured into testing it should come as no surprise that new NEA president, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, has made standardized testing a core part of her agenda.
The problem is that for many educators this over emphasis on testing has a number of unintended consequences above and beyond the ever increasing costs and intrusion on instruction time. For example some teachers find that teaching to the test stifles the creativity that many feel is important to improving the education process. Instead of using tests to measure what students understand and what they need further work on to increase outcomes for all students, top politicians pushing these test-centric reform efforts like George W. Bush and Barack Obama have turned them into tools to determine school funding and teacher effectiveness.
While many corporations in the US are looking for ways to expand creativity and give their employees greater flexibility to excel at their jobs, politicians have taken the opposite approach and micromanaged educators jobs to the point of becoming automatons. This neutering has lead to a 20 year low in morale and a record high in the attrition rate. Obviously neither of these is good for educational outcomes.
Beyond that the tests themselves have been found to be discriminatory, they haven't been shown to improve student achievement, and they aren't a part of Finland's education system that routinely ranks as one of the world’s best.
It should also be noted that a student’s GPA is a better predictor of college success than SAT scores. This suggests that when some of the government regulations and corporate intrusions are removed, teachers are more than capable of providing an education that prepares students for the next step. Perhaps being able to tailor the learning process to fit a select group of students is a better method than the top down, one size fits all testing oligarchy.
Given the obvious deficiencies in the current system and the magnitude of the outcomes is anyone surprised that teachers across the country have turned to nefarious methods to improve the test scores for their district? Good teachers have been shown to be an important cog in the education process however more important is a child's socio-economic status. For many educators, the proposition of their school closing because the students they teach have an inherent disadvantage is a dire situation. Cheating, however undesirable, becomes a rational solution to an imperfect system.
Of course public school teachers are hardly the only ones to resort to such tactics. Charter schools have seen their fair share of cheating scandals as well. Professional athletes across a multitude of sports have cheated to improve their chances of success. Politicians have certainly operated outside of the law with a number of quid pro quo agreements. Corporate heads have cooked the books to artificially increase profits. Bankers helped cause the great recession by essentially cheating the system to enrich themselves.
The reality is the higher the stakes the more likely humans are to look for ways to enhance their odds of success. While assessing students acuity in math, reading, writing, and science has value, turning this teaching tool into a free market competition among the adults clearly isn't achieving the desired results. What should be abundantly clear at this point is when put to the test high stakes standardized testing has failed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
