Americans don't support the Republican agenda

Since the elections last week a number of conservative politicians and political pundits have suggested that the Republican wins were a mandate. The question is; a mandate for what?

Republican's didn't have a national issue that they rode to victory. Some Republican ran on the belief that the economy was broken and need to be fixed while others suggested the economy was flourishing under their tutelage. Many Republicans resorted to fear mongering over the faint threats of ISIS and Ebola. Essentially the only issue that Republican candidates agreed on was making this election about President Obama. While effective, this is hardly and endorsement of standard Republican policy.

The reality is that the congressional Republican agenda stands in stark contrast to the interests of the general public. For example while Republican legislators have voted over 50 times on some form of repeal of the Affordable Care Act (affectionately known as Obamacare) only 39% of Americans support a repeal. Instead 57% want to keep the law in place.

Of course Republican legislators’ views on the ACA are just one of many topics where their opinion diverges from voters.

For years Republican politicians have been looking for ways to eliminate a women's right to choose however only 22% of the public agrees with this stance. Even in deeply red states so called "personhood" measures have been soundly defeated.

Many Republican lawmakers have fought tooth and nail to keep same sex couples from enjoying the benefits of marriage in spite of the fact that such bigotry has been deemed unconstitutional by a number of courts. All told just 42% of Americans currently agree with the Republican position. But perhaps worst yet for these Republicans is the data that shows nearly 8 out of 10 adults between the age of 18 and 29 support marriage equality.

President Obama made income inequality a top concern for his administration however Republican legislators have so far stood in the way of any meaningful legislation to address what many economists see as a serious concern for economic growth. This despite the reality that 67% of Americans are dissatisfied with the current wealth distribution. In fact a minimum wage increase which is thought to be a solution to the income inequality issue not only is their strong support for an increase of the minimum wage to $10.10 but four red states voted in favor of raising their states minimum wage.

The power of the NRA to manipulate politician's, especially Republican politician's, resulted in the death of a bill that would have approved universal background checks despite the fact that 92% of voters and 92% of gun owners support such a measure.

When discussing climate change many Republican have resorted to the party approved talking point of "I'm not a scientist". Apparently they believe their lack of knowledge is a valid excuse to act in opposition to what 84% of those who are scientist agree upon. Of course being completely devoid of qualifications doesn't seem to matter to these same Republican politicians on issues like abortion, the economy or poverty. Having said that, regardless of whether people believe in the science behind climate change 74% of Americans support regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

A full 81% of Americans believe we should have net neutrality instead of offering the Republican backed position of "fast lanes".

More than 8 in 10 Americans supported a Senate bill that would have given illegal immigrants a pathway to citizenship. Unfortunately this bill was shelved by the Republican controlled House.

Republican politicians stand in opposition to legalizing pot despite the increasing number of states that have voted in favor of decriminalization.

Public education and teachers in particular have come under attacks by Republican politicians across the country even though 75% of parents are satisfied with their child's education. So while Republican continue to sell the idea of a crisis in education that can only be fixed by eliminating teachers unions, paying teacher less, and corporatizing students Americans believe that lack of funding is the biggest problem currently facing education. Additionally two thirds of American's say they would pay more taxes to help struggling cash strapped urban schools.

Americans also disagree with Republican politicians on the use of vouchers in public education with 56% of responding against using public funds for private schools.

This is also true of vouchers for Medicare where only 34% of Americans support such a change.

Of course these only represent a small portion of the divide that exists between Republican politicians and the general public. 80% of Americans are against the Citizen's United ruling, only 28% of Americans agree with the Republican assertion that we spend too little on the military, 83% of Americans are against an increase in student loan rates, 55% of Americans believe Capital Gains should be taxed at the same rate as other income not at a lower rate or at zero like many Republican legislators believe, just 40% of Americans support the Republican position of cutting food stamps, and 60% of Americans favor raising taxes on the rich.

In the end the best thing Republicans had going for them in this election was the fact that they weren't in the same party as President Obama. It would be a huge mistake for them to act as though this was an endorsement of their policies - a mistake they seem likely to make. A mistake that seems destined to be part of the 2016 Republican autopsy.

Rick Snyder is not a good political leader

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".

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.

Colorado conservative sanitizing history in the name of patriotism

Conservative politicians across the country have spent much of the past few years attempting to remake public education in their image. It can be seen in policies that turn teachers into free market independent contractors competing with their colleagues and counterparts at other schools because conservatives believe competition is better than collaboration in every situation. It can be seen in the multitude of efforts to integrate creationism in science classes even though this theological doctrine has zero scientific content. But most recently it can be seen in the work of Jefferson Country Colorado school board member Julie Williams.

Williams has offered a proposal that aims to sanitize the districts US History materials to "promote citizenship, patriotism, essentials and benefits of the free enterprise system, respect for authority and respect for individual rights. Materials should not encourage or condone civil disorder, social strife or disregard of the law. Instructional materials should present positive aspects of the United States and its heritage."

This idea of presenting the US as infallible has long been a conservative talking point but the reality is that patriotism is just conservative code for political correctness.

For instance, if you look at Julie Williams Facebook page you will see that she is an aggressive opponent of Colorado using the Common Core Standards. Given that these standards have been approved of at the state level, her resistance and subsequent social media activism could certainly been seen as a general disregard for the law. Her Facebook posts also reveal that she believes vaccines are responsible for some cases of autism despite the CDC reports indicating the multiple studies find no such link. Is sharing this misinformation not a form of social strife?

Our history is also full of events that are held up as glorious victories for the country even though they would clearly be classified as civil disorder. The Boston Tea party, the Revolutionary War, ending Women's Suffrage, and the Civil Rights movement are all events that a revered even though they also represent a citizenry struggling against government.

What Williams is really advocating for here is the power to manipulate public education to fit her naive idealized vision of America. There is no question that American's have accomplished many great things and those achievements should certainly be part of every students education however as the iconic saying goes "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Slavery is a shameful part of American history but glossing over slavery means ignoring the core cause of the Civil War. It means skipping over the Civil Rights movement. And it insults the memory of all the men and women that were abducted from their homes and sold like animals.

Removing Japanese American's from the homes and holding them in internment camps during WWII and the actions of Joe McCarthy during the Second Red Scare were both disgraceful actions by our government but understanding how fear can lead to terrible decisions is clearly a topic worth discussing as we face new enemies like the Islamic State and the Ebola virus.

The Great Depression is obviously a time in our history that many would prefer to forget but the massive wealth gap coupled with a severe lack of government regulations that precipitated this sudden economic crisis are lessons that if learned may have prevented the Great Recession of 2008.

The irony is that while many events in US history represent a less than perfect country taking personal responsibility is a conservative meme. Brushing all of our undesirable actions under the rug represents to polar opposite of this moral imperative.

Beyond this the idea that US History is some sort of marketable product to be promoted really misses the point of education. This is the type of narrow minded tripe commonly associated with Communist, Theocratic, and Dictatorial governments. Using the education system to indoctrinate the public with propaganda is far from our Democratic ideals.

Countless American success stories prove that the knowledge gained from failing is often paramount in achieving success. Instead of seeing every poor decision as a black eye we should view them as an opportunity to learn and grow because if education is supposed to prepare children for the real world seeing history through rose colored glasses does these kids a great disservice.

In the end the question that Julie Williams and her supporters need to ask themselves is would they still advocate for a special committee to review and sensor US history materials if that committee was appointed by liberals? If the answer to that question is no then it tells you all you need to know about the goals of this proposal.

Why are fast food workers being vilified?

The efforts of fast food workers around the country to bring attention to their low wages earlier this month have generated a lot of media attention. While having a conversation about getting a greater share of profits distributed to the average employee is a good thing there have also been quite a few arguments against this idea.

For example conservative writer Deborah Simmons puts voice to a common complaint among advocates of keeping wages low in her article titled "Fast-food jobs a good start, not a career". It should be noted that a few years ago, due to an exceedingly high turnover rate, McDonald's started a campaign trying to convince employees to turn their job into a career. Obviously not every employee can become a manager, but McDonald's certainly wouldn't be the first company to dangle the carrot of promotion to retain good staff at lower rates. Additionally, the fact that only 30% of McDonald's staff are teenagers suggests there is a need for fast food companies to have a certain percentage of their staff that makes "flipping burgers" at the very least a short term career, because as a pure cost consideration hiring teenagers who can work for as little as $4.25 makes far more sense.

The next question that Simmons asks is do these employees deserve $15 per hour for "slinging burgers or plopping a basket of fries into a deep fryer"? Unfortunately this flippant question completely misses the value of the average McDonald's employee. Imagine if someone did the same analysis of Mrs. Simmons job. She gets paid to have an opinion and write about it. Anyone can do that, so does she really "deserve" the wages she makes? The question isn't how many people can do the job but rather how many people can do the job well.

Yes, most anyone can take an order but how many people can take your order quickly, correctly, and provide a positive customer interaction? Do you have to have a degree from an Ivy League college to work the front of a McDonald's? Nope. But you can bet that nearly everyone currently working a McDonald's cash register can do it better than Deborah Simmons, despite her obvious educational advantage.

Having said that, neither what a McDonald's job is meant to be or how much someone deserves to sling burgers is the reason these employees are asking for a raise. They want a raise because they have helped McDonald's achieve staggering profits and they would like their fair share.

Another common concern regarding an increase in wages for fast food employees is that it would increase prices and put stores out of business. While this is certainly possible, McDonald's currently operates with a 20% profit margin. Perhaps rather than raise the cost of the Big Mac they can just cut into the nearly $1 per unit profit they make and share that with employees. It is also true that even with higher wages and only small price increases McDonald's manages to make more profit at their European locations.

Still others complain that increasing wages will result in fewer employees because these companies will automate. The reality is that companies are looking for ways to cut costs and almost none of them get panned by supporters of free market capitalism. Their sudden concern for the employment levels of low wage workers seems completely disingenuous. Farmers have eliminated vast numbers of jobs over the years due to advancements in equipment. Are there people clamoring for a return to using an ox to till the fields because it would create jobs? Think of all of increase in employment we could create if we just paid people to move products from the manufacturer to the seller using bicycles instead of those job killing semi-trucks. But even when automation does occur it doesn't necessarily lead to massive layoffs. For instance data shows the invention of ATM has not lead to the demise of bank tellers.

Rather than feigning concern about the number of people employed in the fast food industry, we should be outraged that these low wages cost taxpayers some $7 billion per year since 52% of families of fast food workers get at least one form of government assistance. The fight for $15 isn't about retaining a certain number of jobs. It is about providing a wage that a person can live on. If your starter job barely covers your basic needs how are you supposed to get that elusive college degree that proves you want to do something better with your life? If you have to work two jobs just to make ends meet when are you supposed to spend time with your family and make sure your kids have a better life? If you get low pay and little to no benefits how are you supposed to prevent an injury or illness from bankrupting you?

But perhaps the favorite talking point for those in support of low wages is the idea that raising wages would hurt the franchisees (small business owners) not the corporation. Apparently the corporation can't spare a dime of its $8.5 billion in profit to assist each store with possible wage hikes. Apparently increasing dividend payments for shareholders to $3.5 billion is better for business than rewarding employees with increased pay. Apparently McDonald's executive team feels no responsibility for a five year downward sales trend as they still managed to take home as much as $67 million in compensation.

Of course the irony is that employees aren't the only ones at McDonald's that feel they deserve a greater share of the profits. The very franchisees that talking heads claim to be so concerned about are upset with corporate for cutting into their margins with recent increases in franchise fees. Fees that are aimed at making McDonald's bottom line look better to investors at the expense of employees and franchisees. And while employees organizing to negotiate a better deal represents the worst of capitalism to some, it should be noted that franchisees are attempting to do the very same thing. Don't these franchise owners know that in the free market it is each man for himself? Don't they know that by getting together and demanding more money it will ultimately destroy McDonald's? Don't they get that McDonald's needs $8.5 billion in profit to survive? How can these small business owners be so naïve, and selfish?

In the end McDonald's, their franchisees, and their employees all want the same thing - more money. The problem is that unless they all work together to find a way to increase earnings the current model only provides so much profit and for one party to make more it means another party has to accept less. History shows that Henry Ford doubled wages and still managed to increase profits. Are we really supposed to believe McDonald's can't spend a single penny more on workers without going bankrupt or ruining the US economy?

What's wrong with fast food workers earning a living wage?

Last week fast food employees across the nation took to the streets to protest low wages. As one of the largest fast food chains in the world McDonalds is often the target of these protests. Of course given that the average McDonald's employee receives some of the lowest wages in the industry at around $7.73 per hour it should as no surprise that McDonalds often takes center stage in the “fight for 15” campaign.

As with any good protest the idea is to bring attention to issue and sway public opinion. If the protesters can generate enough bad press and consumer pressure the corporations may be compelled to change their habits.

The goal of $15 per hour is likely a pipedream but with around $8.5 billion in income, $3.5 billion in dividend payments, and another $67 million in executive compensation it seems McDonald’s can afford to increase wages some. Asking for more than you expect to receive is standard practice in any sort of negotiations so starting at $15 per hour makes sense as an initial offer.

The problem for workers is that unless management at McDonalds decides to raise wages or improve benefits they will need their own team of negotiators to represent them. They will also need a structure to approve any agreement. Without this, each employee will be left to fend for themselves – a situation that clearly has and will continue to favor the multi-billion dollar corporation.

Unfortunately as soon as employees retain the services of an organization that can help them negotiate better compensation they will also make enemies of those who believe such organizations are "evil".

My colleague Kathryn Hoekstra offers a couple examples of this mentality. Kathy sees the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) working with fast food employees and thinks their motives are anything but altruistic. To her they are nothing but a greedy, self-serving, power hungry organization.

But how is that different than McDonalds? If spending money trying to gain more members makes the SEIU power hungry then the $1 billion in advertising McDonalds spends each year should be a concern as well. If the SEIU executive compensation of around $3 per member shows how greedy unions bosses are then the $77 per employee being paid to McDonalds executives should be much more troubling. If the 6% profit margin average for the fast food industry is meant to illustrate that these companies commitment to their employees what does that say for the SEIU's 5.9% profit margin? More over what does that say about McDonald's with its 19.8% margin?

The reality is both of McDonald's and the SEIU are free market, capitalist entities. Their goals of increasing income and users of their product are the same. Suggesting that the one that benefits the average worker is nefarious and immoral while the one that benefits shareholders and the wealthy is the epitome of American ideals and should be revered is an odd double standard.

Another peculiar argument is that raising employee wages will mean a more expensive Big Mac. Given the current problem with obesity in this country making a Big Mac less affordable certainly doesn't seems like a national catastrophe but it should be noted that taxpayers already contribute around $1.2 billion each year in public assistance to McDonald's employees. It certainly doesn't seem very moral to ask taxpayers to subsidize McDonald's workforce while they shell out billions to shareholders and keep billions more in profit.

Of course even the scariest of predictions leaves McDonalds with around $400 million in profit without touching a single dime of shareholders earnings or raising the price of a single menu item. Clearly that would fall short of McDonald's typical earnings but how many billions of dollars does a company really need to be comfortable?

In the end the data shows that fast food workers would see a significant increase in wages and benefits with union membership and regardless of the doomsday rhetoric plenty of other countries do just as well if not better than the US with considerably higher unionization rate.

So while capitalist zealots will belittle fast food workers by pretending their low wages accurately reflect their "value" the reality is that if the SEIU gets involved these employees are likely to see a sudden and dramatic increase in their "value". This reality seems to be very troubling for some people but the question is why? When did the public become more protective of corporate profits than the general welfare of working Americans?

Blacks and Whites aren't having the same conversation on race

In the wake of the Michael Brown shooting and the subsequent protests, there has been a lot of talk on the airwaves about keeping the conversation going because whether you believe the incident was racially motivated it is clear that a frank discussion about race in America is needed.

Of course since the racial tension makes for good television the issue here isn't keeping the conversation going - it's getting the two sides of this coin to have the same conversation.

On one side of this discussion are those who are holding up the shooting of Michael Brown as an example of the racial inequality in this country and in the justice system in particular. To them the death of Michael Brown is just another instance of cops treating African Americans differently than their white counterparts.

They are protesting a system that saw blacks make up 92.7% of the 521 arrests in Ferguson, MO last year while whites comprise only 6.9%. Additionally 92% of the vehicle searches were that of black individuals while the few whites who were stopped and searched actually had higher rates contraband possession.

They are protesting a system where white youth are more likely to use drugs yet black youth are twice as likely to be arrested for drug use.

They are protesting a system in which Black youth were twice as likely to be arrested on weapons charges and three times as likely to be arrested for assault despite reporting similar rates of fights and weapon possession as their white counterparts.

They are protesting a system where at the peak of New York city's stop and frisk program saw blacks make up 54% of those stopped while whites accounted for only 9%.

They are protesting a system that results in blacks representing 37% of the drug arrests while only 14% of African American's were drug users.

They are protesting a system in which blacks convicted of a crime receive sentences that are 10% longer than their white counterparts. Those longer sentences and higher arrest rates lead to blacks accounting for 56% of those in prison for drug offenses.

On the other side of this discussion are those who see racism as a hoax to be disproved. To them the protests and media attention prove that anyone who doesn't agree with them is a racist race baiter, who attempts to make everything about race in order to profit from the fallacy of racism.

They comment that instead of showing up to Ferguson Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson should be in Chicago fixing the real problem of "black on black crime". Even though both men and the president are already addressing the situation in Chicago. Even though black on black crime occurs at nearly the same rate as white on white crime. Even though data shows that socioeconomic status not skin color is the most prominent factor in crime and murder rates.

They comment, like Bill O'Reilly did, we should be waiting for all the facts to come out because the reporting on Michael Brown's shooting have been awful as the "liberal" media looks for ways to portray the white guy as a murder. Even though in the same breath Bill O'Reilly managed to report complete speculation that "We also hear today that Officer Wilson has an orbital blow out fracture of his eye socket" which turns out to be false. Even though Bill tried to set a Fox News friendly narrative that cops killing citizens is rare while ignoring that blacks comprised an inordinately high 32% of those shot and killed. Even though Bill's employer made a video of a person who may or may not have been a witness to the shooting a core part of their coverage.

But perhaps the best example of how far apart the two sides are on this topic is when they comment that the killing of a white kid (Dillon Taylor) by a black cop deserves the same response and coverage. If those protesting in Ferguson were simply protesting the death of an unarmed teen by a cop to show that cops are too quick to shoot and kill then this would be a reasonable talking point. But the reality is that Michael Brown's death represents the systemic racism present in the US judicial system while Dillon Taylor is just a prop for people who have convinced themselves their fake "white oppression" meme is the biggest problem this country faces.

If people like Bill O'Reilly are furious about the coverage of Michael Brown's death and the protests that followed one can only imagine they would be absolutely beside themselves they would be if they were forced to endure the litany of inequality, injustice, and indignity the African American community deals with on a daily basis.

In the end if these people want to put an end to this perceived reporting double standard they can easily fix the issue. All they have to do is acknowledge that the deck is in fact stack against blacks in the US and quit enabling the deniers of this reality. As soon as that happens the conversation can be about how to rectify this issue instead of how these events are covered.

Republican grasping at straws in same sex marriage debate

In a number of cases across the country, including Michigan, Republicans are fighting progress and asking that their states be allowed to discriminate against people based on sexual preference by allowing same sex marriage bans approved by voters and state legislatures to remain legal.

This is being done in spite of rulings that these bans are unconstitutional.

One of the arguments used by lawyers in support of their state's same sex marriage ban asserts that there isn't enough data on how children of same sex couples fare in life. Since when did we decided that the constitution only applies to those who can provide a child with an arbitrarily measured "good life"? Children from poor families are less likely to "fare well" than children for wealthy families. Does that mean we get to refuse to recognize the marriage of two individuals until their combined earnings reach a congressionally sanctioned level?

Perhaps what these people really mean is same sex couples may raise their kids to believe that everyone is created equal and to avoid prejudging people based on a certain characteristic. Don't these gay couples realize that such tolerance only applies to people who love guns, Jesus, and Duck Dynasty? Because these groups are the ones that are truly ostracized in this country.

Perhaps what these people really mean is that being gay is a disease that can spread like the "great cooties outbreak of 52". If same sex couples are giving access to children they will turn them all gay and soon take over the nation like the zombie apocalypse.

Regardless of their motives the idea that how children fare with same sex parents despite the counterfactuals suggests this argument is perhaps the pinnacle of stupidity.

The other argument these lawyers appear to be making is that decisions on same sex marriage should come “not through the courts, but through the people.”

Clearly the idea that each state should be allowed carte blanche to determine which parts of the constitution they will follow and which parts they won't is universally considered an awful idea. But having the Republican legal delegation from Michigan make such a contention is very odd.

Where was this concern for the people when Michigan residents voted to remove the emergency manager law from the books only to see the legislature replace it a few months later?

Where is the concern for the Raise Michigan petition that was going to give voters the opportunity to voice their opinion on setting the minimum wage for Michigan businesses before the legislature killed the law and replaced it - rendering the petition null and void without a single Michigan voter’s stamp of approval?

Where is the concern for Michigan residents that want a voice in whether we as a state allow wolf hunting or not? Even with multiple ballot initiatives on the topic ready for November the legislature stepped in and agreed to allow wolf hunting regardless of how the majority of Michiganders feel.

Where is the concern for the Michigan legislature’s abuse of power in shielding laws like these and others from voter referendums? By including small and unnecessary budgetary stipulations the legislature has decided to unapologetically silence the people they claim should hold all of the power when it comes to a decision on the legality of same sex marriage.

But if these Republicans are serious about giving people a voice on the fate of Michigan's constitutional ban on same sex marriage, then they should pull a few strings and put the question on this year’s ballot and see if the attorney general is really fighting for what voters want or if this is just an excuse to use the bigotry of a bygone era as justification to propagate an uneducated phobia.

In the end no matter how much work the legislature, the governor, or the attorney general do to circumnavigate, hinder, or quash the will of the people their jobs will always be in the hands of the voters. November affords all voters the perfect opportunity to voice their opinion. It's possible that these lawyers and legislators really do speak for the citizens they represent, but just to be on the safe side they might want to give their resume a quick once over because polls and recent court decisions suggest these bastions of democracy are on the wrong side of history when it comes to same sex marriage.

Conservative media coverage of Michael Brown is embarrassing

Over the past couple weeks there has been a considerable amount of attention paid to the events of August 9th in Ferguson Missouri. Unfortunately the color of your skin or your political affiliation plays a big part in how you view this case. If you are white or Republican you are likely to think the racial component of the shooting of Michael Brown is getting far too much attention. If you are black or a Democrat you are likely to feel the opposite is true.

This divide suggests we don't live in a post racial America like many would have you believe. The problem is that the typical white experience with law enforcement is completely different than the typical black experience and as a result each group has a drastically different view of the events in Ferguson.

Compounding this issue is how the media covers such events. As Bill O'Reilly suggested “Decent people step back and allow the facts to emerge,”

While O'Reilly was directing his comments at "liberal media" if jumping to conclusions is an issue O'Reilly might want to take a quick look at conservative media outlets first. Pat Roberts suggested Michael Brown might have been on drugs. Is that an example of letting all the facts come out before drawing a conclusion? Pat Dollard wrote and article claiming Michael Brown was part of a violent gang. Is that an example of responsible reporting? Charles Johnson and others reported that Michael Brown might have a criminal record. Is that an example unbiased coverage?

Of course even Bill's employer couldn't help themselves. After allowing any number of talking heads air time to chastise liberals for making a white cop killing a black teen a racial thing they still managed to fall all over themselves to report the slightest modicum of evidence that supports the white guys story. Making the YouTube video statements of someone who hasn't even been confirmed as a witness the headline of your 4 o'clock newsfeed doesn't suggest that conservatives are exhibiting the sort of reasoned impartiality they keep preaching for others to practice.

These attacks by conservative media go beyond simple speculation. Rather than covering the facts surrounding the shooting of an unarmed teen these organizations pivot quickly to assert a new narrative. For example even though the front page of the Fox News website is inundated with stories related to Ferguson Missouri they still manage to have on correspondents who claim supposed liberal news outlets have turned white on black crime into a cottage industry to boost ratings. Beyond the blatant hypocrisy of such a statement this attempt to belittle the legitimate concerns of how the Ferguson police interact with black residents is shameful.

The old "liberal media" claim is just one of many slick tactics the conservative media uses to legitimize their viewers prejudices. One look at the Fox News coverage and you will see the standard attack on Reverend Al Sharpton. It should be noted that by showing up Al Sharpton is hoping to draw attention to the situation. If you think he doesn't deserve the attention then why comment on his presence every time? Just once it would be nice to see Fox News not make Al Sharpton a core part of their coverage and use his presence as an excuse to dismiss a culture of abuse with repugnant uninformed topics like "black on black crime" and "black leaders’ role".

Having said that do conservatives complain when the NRA makes a statement after every mass shooting? Do they lament when Dick Cheney makes the rounds every time Iraq or torture is in the news? Do they whine every time Dr. Ben Carson speaks out during racially charged events?

Perhaps the worst narrative to come out of the conservative media recently was from Kimberly Guilfoyle who offered this word of advice when discussing the events that occurred in Ferguson "don't commit crimes". This is possibly the biggest lie that conservatives tell themselves. The protests in Ferguson are not about defending those that have committed a crime but rather how police treat every black citizen as a criminal. The senseless shooting of Michael Brown is the catalyst for their response but they are a result of years of abuse.

So while everyone from Barack Obama on down can urge the residents of Ferguson to refrain from looting and vandalizing because it doesn't help the situation, few have set the same expectation for those in charge of keeping the peace. Does anyone think that a police office antagonizing protesters with the statement "Bring it! All you f*#king animals." helps? Does anyone think a St. Louis County Police Lieutenant urging his offices with the phrases like "Let's have a black day," and "Let's make the jail cells more colorful." helps? Does anyone think that police threatening to shoot and mace reporters helps?

Maybe instead of castigating the few bad apples masquerading as protesters we should start by requiring the abusers, racists and bullies masquerading as police officers be held accountable.

In the end the reality is that the conservative media needs this to be about race far more than any of the "liberal media" sources because in the conservative bubble racism against blacks doesn't exist anymore. But if you’re one of those racist blacks or people with "white guilt" and can't see the forest for the trees feel free to check out any of the altruistic conservative media sites so you can get a thorough education in how the white guy is always justified in beating, mistreating and murdering the savage black criminal. If you're not convinced then clearly you are the worst kind of racist - a racist against the poor oppressed white majority.

Republican's offer ironically awful attacks on Mark Schauer

Polls show that over the past few months Mark Schauer has closed the gap in the Michigan governor's race with Rick Snyder. It comes as no surprise that this has put Republicans on the attack. In the last week alone three of my conservative colleagues wrote columns attempting to attenuate the Schauer campaign. While most political campaigns employee selective data analysis to cast aspersions on a candidate the talking points being offered seem to indicate a level of desperation from Michigan's Right.

First to take a swing at Mark Schauer was Director of Communications for the Michigan Republican Party, Darren Littell. His complaints are two-fold. One being that Mark Schauer voted in the Republican primary of the 2012 election cycle to which he asks the question "where are the Democratic officials who condemn this type of behavior and why aren’t they admonishing Mark Schauer for his antics?" The second complaint is that he misses too many votes and lost a seat on the coveted Campaign & Election Oversight Committee for missing meetings.

Perhaps cross voting is a problem however it seems hypocritical for the MRP to chastise Mark Schauer for his single vote when the guy they support for governor, Rick Snyder, appealed to Democrats to vote for him in the 2010 primary election.

As far as the missed meetings are concerned reports show that Schauer attended every meeting that was held in Lansing but missed the four that the Republican controlled committee held elsewhere. Of course Schauer wasn't unique in missing meetings either. In fact while one Republican also missed four meetings but didn't lose his seat, the chairman was the only member to show up to all 9 meetings.

But if Republicans are really serious about Mark Schauer's record on voting attendance they would acknowledge that as a member of the US House of Representatives his 0.8% missed vote rate is much better than his successor Republican Tim Walberg's rate of 2.2% and superior to that of Michigan worst voting representative Mike Rogers at 5.8%.

As a Michigan State Senator his 2.4% rate compares favorably to the rest of the Senate and falls short of the number of votes missed by 10 of his Republican colleagues.

If Republican's believe missing votes shows a politician doesn't deserve their job then they might want to do some house cleaning before pointing a finger at Mark Schauer.

Next up in the bash-a-Schauer sweepstakes was editor at HermanCain.com, Dan Calabrese who while appreciative of the effort found Mark Schauer's jobs plan to be boilerplate liberal policies. Ironically Dan goes point by point using boilerplate conservative logic to prove these ideas wrong. The problem is this doesn't make one side right and the other side wrong. Part of the reason an idea becomes standard fair for political parties is because the parties believe these ideas work. How boilerplate they are doesn't address their effectiveness.

Of course if just being boilerplate is an issue it should be noted that Rick Snyder's revolutionary ideas to create jobs are cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and busting unions. Are there Republican circles where these concepts qualify as avant-garde?

The last applicant to attempt a take down of Mark Schauer is Republican activist Brandon Helderop who attempts to draw a parallel between President Obama and Mark Schauer suggesting that the presidents current approval rating of 39 percent speaks to his results as president. Of course if this low approval rating reflects poorly on the presidents abilities then it should be noted that Rick Snyder's approval rating stands a touch lower at 37 percent.

Brandon also has concerns that over his 12 years in the Michigan legislature Mark Schauer voted to increase taxes over 40 times. It should be noted however that in just four years Rick Snyder has supported or signed into law a tax on pensions, a tax on gas, an increased taxes on homeowners, an increase in taxes for low income Michiganders, an increase in taxes for families with children, as well as eliminating tax credits for food banks, homeless shelters, college tuition, adoptions, and donations to universities, and public radio stations. All told around half of Michigan tax payers have seen a tax increase under Rick Snyder.

If the average Michigan family is worried about their tax rate going up they should probably be less worried about the nebulous tax increases Mark Shauer may have supported fifteen years ago and more interested in the increases that Rick Snyder offered to pay for his big corporate tax give away.

To end his article Brandon states that "Schauer has run a campaign based on rhetoric and little substance." While this seems like a claim that could be made against nearly every candidate for public office over the past century or more one wonders if Republicans were inspired by the specifics of Rick Snyder's first campaign when talking about the number of jobs his corporate tax cut would create "Can we quantify all the numbers? No. But we know it's going to happen." Now that's substance.

And if vapid rhetoric is a major problem shouldn't Republicans be concerned that as a candidate Rick Snyder was against taxing pensions, against increasing gas taxes, and against picking winners and loser yet suddenly supported them as governor.

It's fine to believe the Mark Schauer isn't the right man for the job but if these attacks are meant to prove that point Rick Snyder should be very concerned since these Republican metrics indicate he is even less qualified to be governor than Mark Schauer.

Campbell Brown's education reform isn't good for children

When it comes to fear mongering vocal Republicans have no equal. Even though the only legislation passed during the Obama administration regarding gun rights actually expanded those rights, that doesn't stop the NRA from claiming the president is trying to take guns away. Even though the Affordable Care Act has never been responsible for euthanizing a single grandparent as part of the "death panel" provision that doesn't stop nearly 50% of Republicans from believing it is does. Even though renewable energy is adding jobs faster than coal is losing them and the jobs lost in the coal industry are due to competition from other energy sources many still believe Democratic energy policies are killing jobs.

Of course if there is one thing Republicans hate more than anything else it is a successful government program. So it comes as no surprise that Republicans are leading the charge in the manufactured "crisis in education". The latest vocal Republican to pick up the "broken education" pitch fork is former CNN and NBC news anchor Campbell Brown.

According to Campbell Brown when determining which education improvements to support we should always ask "is this good for a child"?

With that in mind what revolutionary ideas are Campbell Brown and her organization offering? More charter schools, eliminate unions and kill teacher tenure.

Perhaps Campbell would be interested in knowing that charter schools, non union schools and schools without tenure protections don't outperform their counterparts. If the goal is to improve the educational outcomes for children and these "solutions" don't do that then it starts to look like reformers have ulterior motives.

Imagine if a salesman walked into the corporate office at Ford Motor Company and told them he had a solution to fix their lagging sales which would result in no additional sales. Does anyone think a multimillion dollar corporation would make wholesales changes for zero improvements? Absolutely not. So why would these people who worship at the altar of the free market make these decades old failed ideas the crux of their education utopia? Follow the money and you will see it has nothing to do with what's good for the children.

Take tenure for example. The complaint is that firing a bad teacher is costly and takes a long time. So how will ending tenure change this and improve education? It will give administrators the opportunity to remove underperforming teachers without the hassle of proper documentation and due process. But will that really save money and end protracted legal battles? Probably not.

Without such a system teachers will be forced to sue school districts for wrongful termination. For one New York teacher that meant an award of $3.5 million on top of the standard court costs. Given that the estimates for firing a tenured teacher come in at about $220,000, districts could afford to fire around 16 tenured teachers for every instance of wrongful termination.

Since when did Republicans support making changes that would lead to more lawsuits? When it comes to health care, Republicans are adamant that the threat of legal action causes doctors to practice defensive medicine which increases costs. After one big loss administrators and school boards would become gun shy when it comes to removing teachers. No matter how legitimate the defense, many believe our court system to be rife with frivolous lawsuits that supposedly cost millions. If the reason for removing tenure protects is to limit the costs and time involved, our health care system suggests such a change would do neither and may actually make matter worse.

It should also be noted that less than a third of teachers in the US have tenure protections while top performing countries such as Finland, Korea, and Singapore have much higher rates. Perhaps the answer to the fictitious crisis in education is more tenure not less.

Perhaps more astonishing than the fallacy of her attacks on tenure is Campbell's inadvertent support of these protections. In a recent interview with Stephen Colbert in which she was asked to reveal who is funding her organization, Campbell Brown said she would not expose these people to the public for fear of retribution? The irony of this statement is astounding.

Let's say a teacher has a personality conflict with an administrator, vocally supported a losing school board candidate, or fails a prominent citizen’s child - shouldn't that teacher have some sort of protection that prevents a retaliatory dismissal - A system that forces those in power to be accountable for their actions? Apparently only those who agree with Campbell Brown deserve a shield from reprisal.

While tenure may not be a perfect system when did we become a country that simply discards everything that has a minor flaw? Congress is clearly more broken than our education system yet few rational people would consider scrapping our Democratic Republic. Corporations have lied, cheated and stolen money harming millions of people over the years yet hardly anyone suggests we should abandon our free market principles. The US is one of the world leaders in gun deaths per year yet only a small fraction of the people argue for a repeal of the 2nd amendment. Suggesting that the only way to fix the perceived issues with tenure is a complete elimination represents a childish and uneducated position.

The reality is that reformers like Campbell Brown aren't serious about improving education. If they were they we admit that even if every reform idea they supported were adopted and as wildly successful as their echo chamber reports they would still fall woefully short of the improvements in educational outcomes of reducing poverty.

For all of the attention the achievement gap gets the gap between poor and well off students is far more pronounced. A study by Harvard University found that small boost in income for a family living in poverty raised a child's score to that of a child whose family makes twice as much. Data also shows in the US and across the world the more impoverish students a school has the lower the scores. Other statics show that when adjusted for poverty the US already has the best education system in the world.

All of the attention that improving education has received recently is a good thing. Now what we need is for Campbell Brown and others like her to take her advice and ask "is this good for a child" because the real answer to that question would lead them in a completely different direction.

Invest in Detroit: An opportunity for cerditors

Sometime in the next month Detroit pensioners, creditors and the DIA should have some clarification as to how they fair in Detroit's bankruptcy. While all groups involved can expect to receive a reduced level of compensation the current agreement protects the DIA and limits the loses for pensioners. Bond holders stand to see the biggest drop which explains why they are also the most vocal opposition to the current plan that many are calling the grand bargain.

As with any bankruptcy the goal is to restructure debt in a way that allows the entity - the city of Detroit in this case - a chance to recover and become a functioning entity again. For this reason protecting the DIA from a fire sale makes a lot of sense. The DIA hosted over a half million visitors last year and has seen in increase in attendance for each of the past four years. It brings people to Detroit and gives the community a world class cultural facility.

It should be noted that the DIA while perhaps the most valuable asset in Detroit is far from the only asset in Detroit. If Michigan officials are serious about rebuilding Detroit then they should consider taking some of the 50,000 or so government owned properties and offer them to the creditors. This could be a win/win for both parties since it offers creditors a chance to recoup some of their lost profit by constructing commercial properties, parking structures, grocery stores, apartment buildings, shopping malls, or entertainment complexes.

Imagine if the motor city were to have a new complex that hosted NASCAR or Indy car races that also served as a state of the art facility that the big three could use to show off new products. Imagine if the Detroit casinos were flanked by a number of Las Vegas style theaters that hosted acts like Cirque du Soleil, the Blue Man Group or top Michigan music acts. Imagine if Detroit had the facilities to host a top golf, tennis, boxing or horse racing event.

The more attractions Detroit can provide the more people will visit and these visitors will create jobs that Detroit and Michigan can obviously use.

Of course free blighted properties aren't necessarily a prize for these investment companies however if the state also offered tax abatements to these groups as well they might be more motivated to develop the property or partner with a company that will.

No one should feel bad for some of Detroit's biggest creditors since they knew full well going in that they could lose their investment and they would receive a good return based on this risk. But in the end when it came to finding a solution that avoided devastating financial damage to the hard working men and women of this city while also protecting a valuable asset and iconic Michigan institution these groups were able to find creative options, there is no reason this can't be done with other creditors as well with an eye towards expediting the transformation of Detroit.