During the State of the Union President Obama returned to his roots with impassioned talk about some core liberal policies. To no one's surprise, conservatives were not moved. Sean Hannity said the Obama administration "has exhibited an astounding level of tone deafness...and this State of the Union falls into that category". Glenn Beck suggested the president's speech was nothing but a cash grab - "all he’s doing is just raising money for the campaign". And Rush Limbaugh didn't even need to watch the State of the Union to determine that he hated everything the president had to say.
Of course these three hardly represent the intellectual wing of the conservative pundit class. Unfortunately even some of the more respected conservative media members still managed to dumb down the conversation. For example, while discussing the presidents statements regarding climate change on Real Time this weekend Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens used two seemingly logical but errant arguments in an attempt to reframe the debate.
A recent survey of peer reviewed articles on climate change showed that only 2 out of 10855 articles believe that humans aren't causing global warming. In response to this Stephens said "consensus should not rule science" because "we think of great scientific discovery as proceeding from people who are willing to break with consensus and that's why we honor people like Galileo". Obviously part of the reason Stephens uses Galileo as an example of a contrarian who revolutionized science is that technology of today makes it very easy to determine that the Earth is round and that the planets rotate around the sun. As such, modern history no longer includes these sorts of great discoveries.
Another problem for Stephens is that fact when there are scientific breakthroughs that gain scientific consensus they are not subsequently disproven. The initial theories on excess CO2 included both global cooling and global warming. What followed was years of scientific research that determined the affects of CO2 on the Earth were indeed an increase in temperature over time and a consensus that humans were responsible for some of this increase. The reality is we are getting close to consensus on climate change not further despite increased spending on research by climate deniers.
Pretending that a few holdouts with no new evidence are on the precipice of a scientific breakthrough simply because it suits you agenda can have dangerous results. Just ask the parents who refused to have their kids vaccinated because one "scientist" claimed to find a link to autism.
Scientific consensus has no political bias. It represents the research and results of hundreds or thousands of scientist which is why even studies like the one mainly funded by the Koch bothers have concluded that climate change is real and caused by humans.
Given that the science and the history of scientific discovery so obviously disputes his thesis Stephens decided if he couldn't shoot holes in climate change using science he would use economics instead. He referenced an economic model put together by some of the worlds brightest minds, known as the Copenhagen Consensus, which ranks the "bang for the buck" of a number of issues facing the international community. The point which Stephens attempts to make is that climate change ranks very low on using this measure.
While it is true that this economic analysis does show reaching the 2 centigrade target is a poor investment, it also indicates that spending on Energy Technology RD&D is a fairly good use of our money. The results suggest we should refocus our efforts to combat climate change on research and development not that we should forgo combating climate change all together.
Having said that, if Stephens supports using return on investment as a basis for political policy he should be prepared to swallow a big helping of medicine that will taste very bad going down for he and many other conservatives.
Behind free trade the number one item on Copenhagen Consensus list is "Women's Access to Reproductive Health". When discussing what this means the reports points out that the "empowerment to control their own fertility is an important pre-condition to achieve all the other targets in this paper". The idea of women being in control of their own fertility has certainly had many conservative detractors in recent years.
Second on the list is making beneficial ownership information public. While this should eliminate some money laundering schemes that conservative may like it would also reduce privacy for individuals and entities and add some government regulations both of which have drawn the ire of Republicans over the past few years.
Third on the list is increasing migration which they have defined in part as reducing the barriers to migration "between low and middle-income countries and high-income countries". Clearly this is something few conservatives have supported since Obama took office.
Of course other organization have done similar economic based political analysis and found that ideas championed by Republicans (Bush income tax cuts, Capital gains tax cuts, and Corporate tax cuts) have a much lower ROI than items like Food Stamps, Unemployment benefits, and Infrastructure Spending.
If Stephens believes that political policy should be dictated by economic analysis it seems many liberals would be more than happy with such a change even if that meant a decreased focus on certain environmental targets since this sort of study bolsters that case for a myriad of other liberal policies.
Perhaps the current solutions to fight climate change aren't very efficient and this money could be allocated better but it is difficult to take this sort of advice seriously from people whose denial of science is second only to that of the Flat Earth Society.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Thursday, January 22, 2015
Political pundits don't understand free speech
The attack on the satirical French magazine Charlie Hebdo has ignited a number of conversations about free speech. Unfortunately most of the media people who talk about free speech either don't understand it or intentionally mislead their viewers.
In the U.S. the right for a publication to print satire of a public figure has been guaranteed. This means that any U.S. entity that chooses to mock the prophet Muhammad has the right to do so. The question becomes what is in good taste. Would Americans be as accepting of the free speech rights of Charlie Hebdo if they portrayed Jesus Christ as a pedophile or if they mocked the victims of the 9/11 attacks? While satirist are legally able to do these things it would probably be considered offensive by some Americans and any publication that chose to distribute such satire would likely be boycotted - which is covered by the first amendment - or threatened with violence - which is typically not covered.
Clearly free speech is a basic tenant of American life and the attack on the Charlie Hebdo office offers a unique opportunity to discuss its value. Unfortunately many like Eric Bolling of Fox News decided to use this attack to push a biased political ideology. During a January 9th of 'The Five' Bolling went off the deep end of an already crowded pool. Bolling said "The people who at Brandeis University, Rutgers, Harvard, Berkeley, this year alone, who have killed free speech, who have actually had people disinvited to speeches .... align more closely with the terrorists in Paris than they do with the people from Charlie Hebdo."
The reality is that none of the speakers were actually disinvited as Bolling suggests. Some decided to pull out rather than face protesters while others gave their commencement speeches in spite of the uproar. Of course to some extent Fox News has only themselves to blame for the continued protests. Instead of covering every gathering of students that objects to a conservative hero's presence on campus, giving them a platform to be heard, Fox News could simply ignore them. It should also be noted that Fox News had no such issue with Notre Dame students protesting President Obama's commencement speech in 2009.
Regardless of the political affiliation of the speaker the argument that their statements or actions were out of step with the values of the University are the same.
More concerning however, is that Bolling doesn't recognize that protesting these speakers isn't actually a restriction on their freedom of speech in any way. Even if these speakers had actually been uninvited it still would not represent a restriction of free speech. Condoleezza Rice could have given the exact same speech at a sight off campus instead of being forced to endure the confines of a commencement speech. IMF head Christine Lagarde could have posted her commencement speech on social media sites for millions of people to read instead of limiting it to just Smith College graduates and their families. James Franco could have done a talk show tour sharing his thoughts instead of being subject to protesters at UCLA.
It could also be argued that by protesting, these students are actually increasing the speaker’s free speech since various news outlets will cover the controversy and undoubtedly spread the speakers words to a new audience.
Of course if simply deciding not to allow an individual a bully pulpit is an attack on the freedom of speech then Fox News could be cited for impeding the president's rights when they chose not to air his speech regarding the impending executive action on immigration. They could also be sanctioned for allowing a guest to make statements of fact that were untrue since such errant assertions are not covered by the first amendment.
This misunderstanding or misuse of free speech isn't exclusive to conservative pundits. Bill Maher was also the target of protests over his comments on Muslims and the Islamic faith. In defending himself Bill took a page out of the Fox News play book and suggested that any person who attempts to get Rush Limbaugh removed from the airwaves is "just a baby who can't stand to live in a world where you here things that upset you." On this point Maher couldn't be more wrong.
Maher has made a career out of skewering people he disagrees with. He may not have caused celebrities like Lance Armstrong, Paula Deen, and Tiger Woods to lose sponsors but he certainly participated in heightening the profile of their indiscretions making it more likely they would be a target of increased scrutiny which may or may not cost them money. Intentional or not the results could be the same.
The average citizen doesn't have an HBO show with a team of writers where they can finely craft and air their grievances. To make up for this lack of audience these people band together and exercise their own right to free speech by shining a light on people who they find offensive.
Even if this campaign against Rush Limbaugh succeeded, all it will have done is remove some of the monetary value of his speech. It will have done nothing to impact his constitutional right to continue to say the same ignorant or hateful things. Both Rush Limbaugh and his detractors who work to silence him are using the right to free speech. One or both of them may be acting like babies but that has no bearing on the constitutionality of their actions.
Through the years the courts have heard hours upon hours of arguments and decided numerous cases that have defined the right to free speech. At no point has the legal system, entrusted with interpreting the constitution, ever ruled that protesting a commencement speech, calling those with differing views terrorist, or boycotting a political pundit infringes upon anyone's right to free speech. Luckily for these talking heads this faulty vigilantism is protected by the constitution regardless of what you might have heard on TV.
In the U.S. the right for a publication to print satire of a public figure has been guaranteed. This means that any U.S. entity that chooses to mock the prophet Muhammad has the right to do so. The question becomes what is in good taste. Would Americans be as accepting of the free speech rights of Charlie Hebdo if they portrayed Jesus Christ as a pedophile or if they mocked the victims of the 9/11 attacks? While satirist are legally able to do these things it would probably be considered offensive by some Americans and any publication that chose to distribute such satire would likely be boycotted - which is covered by the first amendment - or threatened with violence - which is typically not covered.
Clearly free speech is a basic tenant of American life and the attack on the Charlie Hebdo office offers a unique opportunity to discuss its value. Unfortunately many like Eric Bolling of Fox News decided to use this attack to push a biased political ideology. During a January 9th of 'The Five' Bolling went off the deep end of an already crowded pool. Bolling said "The people who at Brandeis University, Rutgers, Harvard, Berkeley, this year alone, who have killed free speech, who have actually had people disinvited to speeches .... align more closely with the terrorists in Paris than they do with the people from Charlie Hebdo."
The reality is that none of the speakers were actually disinvited as Bolling suggests. Some decided to pull out rather than face protesters while others gave their commencement speeches in spite of the uproar. Of course to some extent Fox News has only themselves to blame for the continued protests. Instead of covering every gathering of students that objects to a conservative hero's presence on campus, giving them a platform to be heard, Fox News could simply ignore them. It should also be noted that Fox News had no such issue with Notre Dame students protesting President Obama's commencement speech in 2009.
Regardless of the political affiliation of the speaker the argument that their statements or actions were out of step with the values of the University are the same.
More concerning however, is that Bolling doesn't recognize that protesting these speakers isn't actually a restriction on their freedom of speech in any way. Even if these speakers had actually been uninvited it still would not represent a restriction of free speech. Condoleezza Rice could have given the exact same speech at a sight off campus instead of being forced to endure the confines of a commencement speech. IMF head Christine Lagarde could have posted her commencement speech on social media sites for millions of people to read instead of limiting it to just Smith College graduates and their families. James Franco could have done a talk show tour sharing his thoughts instead of being subject to protesters at UCLA.
It could also be argued that by protesting, these students are actually increasing the speaker’s free speech since various news outlets will cover the controversy and undoubtedly spread the speakers words to a new audience.
Of course if simply deciding not to allow an individual a bully pulpit is an attack on the freedom of speech then Fox News could be cited for impeding the president's rights when they chose not to air his speech regarding the impending executive action on immigration. They could also be sanctioned for allowing a guest to make statements of fact that were untrue since such errant assertions are not covered by the first amendment.
This misunderstanding or misuse of free speech isn't exclusive to conservative pundits. Bill Maher was also the target of protests over his comments on Muslims and the Islamic faith. In defending himself Bill took a page out of the Fox News play book and suggested that any person who attempts to get Rush Limbaugh removed from the airwaves is "just a baby who can't stand to live in a world where you here things that upset you." On this point Maher couldn't be more wrong.
Maher has made a career out of skewering people he disagrees with. He may not have caused celebrities like Lance Armstrong, Paula Deen, and Tiger Woods to lose sponsors but he certainly participated in heightening the profile of their indiscretions making it more likely they would be a target of increased scrutiny which may or may not cost them money. Intentional or not the results could be the same.
The average citizen doesn't have an HBO show with a team of writers where they can finely craft and air their grievances. To make up for this lack of audience these people band together and exercise their own right to free speech by shining a light on people who they find offensive.
Even if this campaign against Rush Limbaugh succeeded, all it will have done is remove some of the monetary value of his speech. It will have done nothing to impact his constitutional right to continue to say the same ignorant or hateful things. Both Rush Limbaugh and his detractors who work to silence him are using the right to free speech. One or both of them may be acting like babies but that has no bearing on the constitutionality of their actions.
Through the years the courts have heard hours upon hours of arguments and decided numerous cases that have defined the right to free speech. At no point has the legal system, entrusted with interpreting the constitution, ever ruled that protesting a commencement speech, calling those with differing views terrorist, or boycotting a political pundit infringes upon anyone's right to free speech. Luckily for these talking heads this faulty vigilantism is protected by the constitution regardless of what you might have heard on TV.
Monday, January 19, 2015
Murdering more Muslims won't stop Islamic terrorist
Since the attacks on the Charlie Hebdo office that left twelve people dead there has been a considerable amount of coverage by U.S. media. Unfortunately the bulk of this media attention has been errant fear mongering. For example a number of Fox News on air personalities have suggested that Muslims were "silent" regarding condemnation of this attack. Given the volume of Muslim repudiation such ignorant statements say far more about those who make them than those they are attempting to admonish. There are also those like Matt Drudge who brought out the oft used "Obama hesitates to call murders terrorism" meme.
But perhaps the most surprising of the narratives to come out of this senseless violence is the one that people like Greg Gutfeld are making. These people believe that somehow the liberal media are to blame for all Islamic aggression. If only the media had the gravitas to promote reasoned statements like Jeanine Pirro who said "We need to kill them all." Surely radical Muslims would hear such declarations from the media in a country they are at war with and back down.
The reason the liberal media continues to call for tolerance isn't because they think there aren't Muslims that want to kill Americans. It's because the conservative media and the uninformed over react to every attack and condemn Islam as being evil. This fear mongering leads to radicals like Wade Michael Page who killed six innocent Sikh devotees. It leads to arson attempts at an Islamic Center in Tennessee. And it leads to around 160 reported hate crimes against Muslims in America each year.
The liberal media continues to preach understanding because America has a long an inglorious history of violence and unnecessary restrictions against people who aren't like us. Afraid that Japanese Americans would turn on the U.S. the government sanctioned internment camps. Faced with concerns over the potential spread of Communism a government sponsored witch hunt resulted in the imprisonment of a number of Americans. For hundreds of years black Americans have been subjected to both government backed as well as citizen supported mistreatment, attacks and murders. Members the LGBT community have been abused and treated as a threat to so called traditional values for decades. And now Muslims are seen by some as evil, miscreants who are hell bend on spreading sharia law.
Obviously the Islam practiced by radicals is not something the vast majority of Americans - liberal or conservative - are interested in seeing. But to the extent that liberals "defend" Islam it has far more to do with quelling the irrational fear of easily radicalized Americans than it does a support of Islamic ideals.
Of course Islam is hardly the first or only religion to have murderous followers. History is full of religious violence from nearly all faiths. Few if any have a moral high ground to stand on. In Sri Lanka Buddhists have attacked Christian and Muslim minorities. In Central Africa Christian Militias have forced tens of thousands of Muslims to flee. And in the Gaza strip over a thousand Muslim civilians have been killed by Jews in the name of self defense.
Perhaps the biggest problem here is this eye for an eye mentality. When taking claim for the 9/11 attacks Osama Bin Laden said this was in retaliation for the U.S. support for attacks against Muslims in Somalia, the U.S. support for Russian attacks against Muslims in Chechnya, as well as other aggressions against Muslims. It was not an attempt to spread sharia law or destroy Christianity. The same is also true of other terrorist attacks like the Boston bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, the New York car bombing, the underwear bomber, and the Little Rock Recruiting office shooting.
These incidents suggest that the spread of radical Islam has far more to do with the violent nature of the U.S. than how the media handles these attacks. In fact the U.S. is responsible for the deaths of more Muslim civilians than all of the terrorist attacks combined. It should also be noted that since the U.S. that declared a "War on Terror" the prevalence of Islamic terrorist groups has expanded not decreased. It may make us feel better to see the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims as defending democracy against evil however this is a dangerously ethnocentric way of looking at things.
Imagine if another country bombed your town, killing many of your friends and family, in an effort to protect themselves from extremist leaders they claim live near you. Would you be willing to accept the deaths of those you love as collateral damage for the greater good or would it radicalize you to respond in kind?
Eliminating radical Islam doesn't always require the U.S. to use military might. Instead we should look to leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. who used peaceful methods during the civil rights movement to enact change. The U.S. could support the efforts of Muslims like Malala Yousafzai who is working to destroy radical Islam from the inside by empowering women to get an education so they can think for themselves. After all the Qur'an is a book so being able to read it might go a long way to solving the misinterpretations that act as the basis for many of these terrorist organizations.
Obviously pretending that the benevolent nature of liberals is to blame is far easier than accepting that these attacks could be the response to the U.S. blood lust but the reality is that this eye for an eye mentality hasn't stopped terrorism from spreading. Moving forward we should recognize that we don't let a group like the Westboro Baptist Church serve as the standard bearer for all Christians nor do we accept the KKK or the Black Panthers as prototypical representatives of white and black Americans. With this in mind we shouldn't let Muslim zealots color our view of all Muslims, because how we got to this point is far less important than figuring out a responsible path from here.
But perhaps the most surprising of the narratives to come out of this senseless violence is the one that people like Greg Gutfeld are making. These people believe that somehow the liberal media are to blame for all Islamic aggression. If only the media had the gravitas to promote reasoned statements like Jeanine Pirro who said "We need to kill them all." Surely radical Muslims would hear such declarations from the media in a country they are at war with and back down.
The reason the liberal media continues to call for tolerance isn't because they think there aren't Muslims that want to kill Americans. It's because the conservative media and the uninformed over react to every attack and condemn Islam as being evil. This fear mongering leads to radicals like Wade Michael Page who killed six innocent Sikh devotees. It leads to arson attempts at an Islamic Center in Tennessee. And it leads to around 160 reported hate crimes against Muslims in America each year.
The liberal media continues to preach understanding because America has a long an inglorious history of violence and unnecessary restrictions against people who aren't like us. Afraid that Japanese Americans would turn on the U.S. the government sanctioned internment camps. Faced with concerns over the potential spread of Communism a government sponsored witch hunt resulted in the imprisonment of a number of Americans. For hundreds of years black Americans have been subjected to both government backed as well as citizen supported mistreatment, attacks and murders. Members the LGBT community have been abused and treated as a threat to so called traditional values for decades. And now Muslims are seen by some as evil, miscreants who are hell bend on spreading sharia law.
Obviously the Islam practiced by radicals is not something the vast majority of Americans - liberal or conservative - are interested in seeing. But to the extent that liberals "defend" Islam it has far more to do with quelling the irrational fear of easily radicalized Americans than it does a support of Islamic ideals.
Of course Islam is hardly the first or only religion to have murderous followers. History is full of religious violence from nearly all faiths. Few if any have a moral high ground to stand on. In Sri Lanka Buddhists have attacked Christian and Muslim minorities. In Central Africa Christian Militias have forced tens of thousands of Muslims to flee. And in the Gaza strip over a thousand Muslim civilians have been killed by Jews in the name of self defense.
Perhaps the biggest problem here is this eye for an eye mentality. When taking claim for the 9/11 attacks Osama Bin Laden said this was in retaliation for the U.S. support for attacks against Muslims in Somalia, the U.S. support for Russian attacks against Muslims in Chechnya, as well as other aggressions against Muslims. It was not an attempt to spread sharia law or destroy Christianity. The same is also true of other terrorist attacks like the Boston bombing, the Fort Hood shooting, the New York car bombing, the underwear bomber, and the Little Rock Recruiting office shooting.
These incidents suggest that the spread of radical Islam has far more to do with the violent nature of the U.S. than how the media handles these attacks. In fact the U.S. is responsible for the deaths of more Muslim civilians than all of the terrorist attacks combined. It should also be noted that since the U.S. that declared a "War on Terror" the prevalence of Islamic terrorist groups has expanded not decreased. It may make us feel better to see the murder of hundreds of thousands of Muslims as defending democracy against evil however this is a dangerously ethnocentric way of looking at things.
Imagine if another country bombed your town, killing many of your friends and family, in an effort to protect themselves from extremist leaders they claim live near you. Would you be willing to accept the deaths of those you love as collateral damage for the greater good or would it radicalize you to respond in kind?
Eliminating radical Islam doesn't always require the U.S. to use military might. Instead we should look to leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. who used peaceful methods during the civil rights movement to enact change. The U.S. could support the efforts of Muslims like Malala Yousafzai who is working to destroy radical Islam from the inside by empowering women to get an education so they can think for themselves. After all the Qur'an is a book so being able to read it might go a long way to solving the misinterpretations that act as the basis for many of these terrorist organizations.
Obviously pretending that the benevolent nature of liberals is to blame is far easier than accepting that these attacks could be the response to the U.S. blood lust but the reality is that this eye for an eye mentality hasn't stopped terrorism from spreading. Moving forward we should recognize that we don't let a group like the Westboro Baptist Church serve as the standard bearer for all Christians nor do we accept the KKK or the Black Panthers as prototypical representatives of white and black Americans. With this in mind we shouldn't let Muslim zealots color our view of all Muslims, because how we got to this point is far less important than figuring out a responsible path from here.
Friday, January 9, 2015
Michigan Republicans need to stop lying about classroom funding
In response to my December 14th article discussing the impact of then Speaker of Michigan House Jase Bolger's plan to circumvent the voter approved constitutional amendment that required a certain percentage of the sales tax on fuel be used to fund education, now former Director of Communications for the Michigan House Republicans had this response.
“Total school funding has increased by more than $1 billion over the past four years. Citing one single item from the K-12 budget (per-pupil funding amounts) is an inaccurate way to measure funding, unless you want to deliberately mislead people. In addition, per-pupil funding is a very poor measure of how well a school district will perform. When the Highland Park schools collapsed due to horrible mismanagement, they were receiving more than $14,000 per pupil in state and federal funding.” ~ Ari B. Adler, Director of Communications, Michigan House Republicans.
Ironically this is not the first time Adler has used these talking points as a defense. In fact this is a near carbon copy of statements Adler made when disputing claims by the Michigan Education Association early last year.
Beyond the self plagiarism there are a number of other issues with Adler's comment that are well worth further investigation. For example it should be noted that he does not dispute the drop in the per pupil foundation allowance of $648 since Snyder took office. The reason he is forced to return to the same old $1 billion talking point Republicans have been milking for much of the past year is because that is one of the few manipulated numbers that work in their favor.
If they were being honest they would admit that less money is making its way to the classroom under Republican control. To claim more money is being spent on education they include the additional money that is being pumped into the teacher pension system. The problem is that part of that money they are claiming as additional spending is coming out of the pockets of teachers since the percent of their pay that is being funneled into the retirement system has increased over the past few years. It should also be noted that the early retirement, loss of per pupil funding leading to layoffs, and the expansion of charter schools that don't contribute funds all have resulted in more pensioners and fewer teachers contributing. The need for increased pension funding is the result of these Republican policies. Taking credit for fixing the problems you created is hardly something to brag about.
If deliberately misleading people is an issue then Mr. Adler should concede that the $1 billion increase he offers has been just as debunked as the $1 billion cut to education funding that Democrats used.
Of course focusing on Highland Park's per pupil funding is also a very misleading statistic. As Adler stated "citing one single item for the K-12 budget is an inaccurate way to measure funding". Beyond the obvious double standard of then using Highland Park's $14,000 per pupil number as proof of anything, the financial data bulletin where this number comes from doesn't offer an analysis of student performance. If there were an easy correlation then you would expect a school district like Bloomfield Hills, which actually had higher total per pupil funding that Highland Park did, to fail as well. Instead Bloomfield Hills routinely ranks as one of Michigan's highest performing school districts
The truth is there is far more involved in why a district like Bloomfield Hills is successful while Highland Park school district failed than simply reviewing their total per pupil funding.
For instance reports show that wealthy students perform far better in school than poor students. Support from home also makes a big difference. But having good teachers can also have an impact on student outcomes and of the $14,000 per pupil that these school districts received Bloomfield Hills spent nearly $70,000 per teacher to hire the best and brightest while Highland Park spent just under $55,000 per teacher. Conversely Highland Park spends a far greater portion of its funding on things like "added needs" ($2,834 versus $1,250) and adult education ($1,910 versus $0).
The reality is Highland Park schools failed because the needs of their community meant that far few dollars found their way to the classroom than at other school districts. Pretending that the per pupil funding number I quote is deliberately misleading while the Highland Park per pupil number is concrete evidence of the failures of the public education system is an astonishingly hypocritical assertion.
Having said that the reason Adler brings up the Highland Park school district seems to be because he believes that the change from a public school to a charter school has improved student performance. Unfortunately the data show that while some charter schools outperform their public school counterparts a nearly equal amount perform worse. There is also the issue of the numerous charter schools that are doing a much better job of enriching owners and administrators than enriching students.
But perhaps Adler is less concerned about the mediocrity of the average charter school and believes the management team for the Highland Park academy is an exception to the rule. To this point, the Michigan top to bottom ranking does show that as a public institution Highland Park schools ranked in the 8th percentile, however after switching to the Highland Park academy student performance has rocketed all the way up to the 9th percentile. At this rate it should only take around 80 years for Highland Park academy to become one of the state’s best schools.
The truth is, in real dollars the Snyder administration and legislative Republicans have pulled money out of the classroom each of the last four years while reneging on the increases they promised many school districts during their budget deliberations. Highland Park schools was hit with a higher than average $1,000 drop in the per pupil foundation allowance that clearly affected their ability to meet their obligations. These reductions left many other schools scrambling at the start of the new school year to find cuts that would offset the unexpected underfunding.
In the end the fact that people like Ari Adler continue to push the narrative that Michigan Republicans are spending more money on education tells you all you need to know about how devastating this loss of hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the classroom are. Lansing maybe awash with politicians who have convinced themselves they are doing the right thing for education but the closed schools, layoffs, and increased classroom sizes suggest that the group most responsible for horribly mismanaging Michigan's education funding reside in the Michigan Capitol Building.
“Total school funding has increased by more than $1 billion over the past four years. Citing one single item from the K-12 budget (per-pupil funding amounts) is an inaccurate way to measure funding, unless you want to deliberately mislead people. In addition, per-pupil funding is a very poor measure of how well a school district will perform. When the Highland Park schools collapsed due to horrible mismanagement, they were receiving more than $14,000 per pupil in state and federal funding.” ~ Ari B. Adler, Director of Communications, Michigan House Republicans.
Ironically this is not the first time Adler has used these talking points as a defense. In fact this is a near carbon copy of statements Adler made when disputing claims by the Michigan Education Association early last year.
Beyond the self plagiarism there are a number of other issues with Adler's comment that are well worth further investigation. For example it should be noted that he does not dispute the drop in the per pupil foundation allowance of $648 since Snyder took office. The reason he is forced to return to the same old $1 billion talking point Republicans have been milking for much of the past year is because that is one of the few manipulated numbers that work in their favor.
If they were being honest they would admit that less money is making its way to the classroom under Republican control. To claim more money is being spent on education they include the additional money that is being pumped into the teacher pension system. The problem is that part of that money they are claiming as additional spending is coming out of the pockets of teachers since the percent of their pay that is being funneled into the retirement system has increased over the past few years. It should also be noted that the early retirement, loss of per pupil funding leading to layoffs, and the expansion of charter schools that don't contribute funds all have resulted in more pensioners and fewer teachers contributing. The need for increased pension funding is the result of these Republican policies. Taking credit for fixing the problems you created is hardly something to brag about.
If deliberately misleading people is an issue then Mr. Adler should concede that the $1 billion increase he offers has been just as debunked as the $1 billion cut to education funding that Democrats used.
Of course focusing on Highland Park's per pupil funding is also a very misleading statistic. As Adler stated "citing one single item for the K-12 budget is an inaccurate way to measure funding". Beyond the obvious double standard of then using Highland Park's $14,000 per pupil number as proof of anything, the financial data bulletin where this number comes from doesn't offer an analysis of student performance. If there were an easy correlation then you would expect a school district like Bloomfield Hills, which actually had higher total per pupil funding that Highland Park did, to fail as well. Instead Bloomfield Hills routinely ranks as one of Michigan's highest performing school districts
The truth is there is far more involved in why a district like Bloomfield Hills is successful while Highland Park school district failed than simply reviewing their total per pupil funding.
For instance reports show that wealthy students perform far better in school than poor students. Support from home also makes a big difference. But having good teachers can also have an impact on student outcomes and of the $14,000 per pupil that these school districts received Bloomfield Hills spent nearly $70,000 per teacher to hire the best and brightest while Highland Park spent just under $55,000 per teacher. Conversely Highland Park spends a far greater portion of its funding on things like "added needs" ($2,834 versus $1,250) and adult education ($1,910 versus $0).
The reality is Highland Park schools failed because the needs of their community meant that far few dollars found their way to the classroom than at other school districts. Pretending that the per pupil funding number I quote is deliberately misleading while the Highland Park per pupil number is concrete evidence of the failures of the public education system is an astonishingly hypocritical assertion.
Having said that the reason Adler brings up the Highland Park school district seems to be because he believes that the change from a public school to a charter school has improved student performance. Unfortunately the data show that while some charter schools outperform their public school counterparts a nearly equal amount perform worse. There is also the issue of the numerous charter schools that are doing a much better job of enriching owners and administrators than enriching students.
But perhaps Adler is less concerned about the mediocrity of the average charter school and believes the management team for the Highland Park academy is an exception to the rule. To this point, the Michigan top to bottom ranking does show that as a public institution Highland Park schools ranked in the 8th percentile, however after switching to the Highland Park academy student performance has rocketed all the way up to the 9th percentile. At this rate it should only take around 80 years for Highland Park academy to become one of the state’s best schools.
The truth is, in real dollars the Snyder administration and legislative Republicans have pulled money out of the classroom each of the last four years while reneging on the increases they promised many school districts during their budget deliberations. Highland Park schools was hit with a higher than average $1,000 drop in the per pupil foundation allowance that clearly affected their ability to meet their obligations. These reductions left many other schools scrambling at the start of the new school year to find cuts that would offset the unexpected underfunding.
In the end the fact that people like Ari Adler continue to push the narrative that Michigan Republicans are spending more money on education tells you all you need to know about how devastating this loss of hundreds if not thousands of dollars for the classroom are. Lansing maybe awash with politicians who have convinced themselves they are doing the right thing for education but the closed schools, layoffs, and increased classroom sizes suggest that the group most responsible for horribly mismanaging Michigan's education funding reside in the Michigan Capitol Building.
Friday, December 19, 2014
The Christmas spirit is an affront to conservative values
Tis the season for contrived conservative media outrage over the "war on Christmas" while they ironically pretend that Christians are the most derided segment of the U.S. population. Unfortunately this false war obfuscates the real war on conservative values that is currently being waged across the country.
You can see it at your local soup kitchen. It permeates the toy give away down the street. This war even infiltrates the clothes drive being held in your community. On the surface this charitable giving may seem like the right thing to do this holiday season but the reality is this is a nefarious plot being perpetrated by the lame stream media and comrade Obama to turn true patriots into bleeding heart liberals and bring down this once great nation.
This may sound farfetched but consider the important national debates we have had over the past few years.
Back in 2012 Mitt Romney said "I want individuals to have the dignity of work". If you take a close look at these so called charities almost none of them make these men, women and children work for the food, clothing and toys they receive. Everyone knows there is no dignity in receiving something for nothing yet these organizations seem to have succumbed to Obama and his free stuff society mentality.
Of course dignity of work certainly isn't the only area where these organizations have gone horribly off track. Over the past few years there have been numerous discussions and legislative actions aimed at preventing abuse of our treasured systems. These include laws making sure illegal immigrants don't receive benefits as well as voter ID laws. These organizations would be well served to consider implementing similar requirements. Holiday cheer is only meant for those who are here legally and should be limited to one helping per person. Anything less sends the wrong message.
Another area of concern is the personal habits of the people showing up for these handouts. How many of these people are just going to trade in the toys and clothes they receive for drugs? Without a drug testing policy children of poor drug addicts all over the country might end up with a toy or two for Christmas. Worse yet these children could start to think that their parents’ actions have no impact on how the system treats them. If these kids don't take personal responsibility for their parents they really don't deserve these toys do they?
Former presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan stated that "Barack Obama is a drug dealer of welfare;” because Buchanan believes "He (Obama) wants permanent dependency". This is something that many Americans have been concerned about for a long time. We shouldn't have a system that allows people to receive benefits year after year without some sort of work requirement. Yet that is exactly what the charitable organizations do. Shouldn't these people be required to prove they are at least looking for work to participate in these programs that help the less fortunate?
The other question we should be asking is what are the motives of these unconditional handout institutions? Everyone knows that when liberals argue in support of welfare and food stamps they are doing it to keep these poor people poor while simultaneously buying votes. Are these giveaways just a way to proselytize these people in their time of need and tether them to a system of dependence?
If the results of the most recent elections tell us anything it’s that Americans are in full support of the conservative Republican agenda that encourages all of those lazy "takers" to become useful members of society and join the "maker" class. These charities are waging a full frontal assault on traditional American values and need to stop. If they refuse, congress should spend much of the next year symbolically voting to defund these organizations because hypothetically protecting the integrity of this once great nation from the scourge of the down trodden is a 365 day a year job.
You can see it at your local soup kitchen. It permeates the toy give away down the street. This war even infiltrates the clothes drive being held in your community. On the surface this charitable giving may seem like the right thing to do this holiday season but the reality is this is a nefarious plot being perpetrated by the lame stream media and comrade Obama to turn true patriots into bleeding heart liberals and bring down this once great nation.
This may sound farfetched but consider the important national debates we have had over the past few years.
Back in 2012 Mitt Romney said "I want individuals to have the dignity of work". If you take a close look at these so called charities almost none of them make these men, women and children work for the food, clothing and toys they receive. Everyone knows there is no dignity in receiving something for nothing yet these organizations seem to have succumbed to Obama and his free stuff society mentality.
Of course dignity of work certainly isn't the only area where these organizations have gone horribly off track. Over the past few years there have been numerous discussions and legislative actions aimed at preventing abuse of our treasured systems. These include laws making sure illegal immigrants don't receive benefits as well as voter ID laws. These organizations would be well served to consider implementing similar requirements. Holiday cheer is only meant for those who are here legally and should be limited to one helping per person. Anything less sends the wrong message.
Another area of concern is the personal habits of the people showing up for these handouts. How many of these people are just going to trade in the toys and clothes they receive for drugs? Without a drug testing policy children of poor drug addicts all over the country might end up with a toy or two for Christmas. Worse yet these children could start to think that their parents’ actions have no impact on how the system treats them. If these kids don't take personal responsibility for their parents they really don't deserve these toys do they?
Former presidential hopeful Pat Buchanan stated that "Barack Obama is a drug dealer of welfare;” because Buchanan believes "He (Obama) wants permanent dependency". This is something that many Americans have been concerned about for a long time. We shouldn't have a system that allows people to receive benefits year after year without some sort of work requirement. Yet that is exactly what the charitable organizations do. Shouldn't these people be required to prove they are at least looking for work to participate in these programs that help the less fortunate?
The other question we should be asking is what are the motives of these unconditional handout institutions? Everyone knows that when liberals argue in support of welfare and food stamps they are doing it to keep these poor people poor while simultaneously buying votes. Are these giveaways just a way to proselytize these people in their time of need and tether them to a system of dependence?
If the results of the most recent elections tell us anything it’s that Americans are in full support of the conservative Republican agenda that encourages all of those lazy "takers" to become useful members of society and join the "maker" class. These charities are waging a full frontal assault on traditional American values and need to stop. If they refuse, congress should spend much of the next year symbolically voting to defund these organizations because hypothetically protecting the integrity of this once great nation from the scourge of the down trodden is a 365 day a year job.
Friday, December 12, 2014
Republican road funding plan deals another blow to democracy
For more than a decade now the Michigan legislature has failed to properly fund the Department of Transportation which has resulted in a steady decline in the quality of Michigan's roads. The Michigan Senate agreed on bipartisan legislation to address this issue which Governor Rick Snyder supports however Speaker of the House Jase Bolger is concerned that the Senate plan would increase taxes and increasing taxes is something that the Michigan Republican Party doesn't approve of unless you are a retiree, poor, a homeowner or any of the other 50% of Michiganders who have seen their taxes increase under Bolger's watch.
The real problem with Bolger's plan is the shell game required to "generate" the funds for fixing Michigan's roads. Instead of increasing fuel taxes as the Governor had proposed Bolger wants to raid education funding to the tune of $800 million to pay for roads. A spokesman for Speaker Bolger says there is nothing to worry about because the bill also includes wording that suggests education funding can't be reduced. Given that it has taken over a decade of constant decline to get the legislature to find the funds to repair Michigan's roads, trusting the legislature will magically find additional revenue to plug the gaping hole in education spending that this action creates is suspect at best.
Bolger's office also says that increased revenue will cover any potential losses. The only problem is that when the former director of the Michigan House Fiscal Agency - Mitch Bean - examined the real world results of Bolger's plan he found that the biggest loses occurred in the last few years when Michigan was supposedly making its comeback, while one of the few years in which revenue would have actually increased occurred in the middle of the Great Recession. The data suggests Bolger's plan is more wishful thinking than thoroughly vetted economic strategy.
Of course even if you believe Jase Bolger's understanding of economics is better than that of Mitch Bean, it should be noted that relying on increased revenue can have damaging consequences. For example one of the only reasons that Rick Snyder can claim to have increased education spending over his time in office is because of the money he poured into the teacher pension program. Were it not for pervious administration's errant assumptions that the economy would improve because of their efforts these extra contributions to the system would likely have been unnecessary.
Perhaps the economy will continue to improve or perhaps it won't. Jase Bolger doesn't own a crystal ball and wagering education funding on the promise of Republican governance can't be very reassuring to many Michigan parents.
There are also those who believe the government already has enough money and just needs to shift it around. If that is the case why divert money that is dedicated to education to fund the roads only to have to find another budgetary item to cut to make up for the lost education dollars? If you are going to cut the $2 billion Department of Corrections budget to pay for Michigan schools why not just leave school funding alone and increase road spending at the expense of the DOC. Only a person with ulterior motives would make this funding change so convoluted.
Not surprisingly it appears that eliminating the fuel tax that currently funds education is a workaround to Proposal A - the voter approved constitutional amendment that equalized education funding two decades ago. By changing the fuel charge from a tax on consumers to a fee on suppliers this money will no longer be subject to the rules of Proposal A. This is the same kind of subverting the people's wishes that the Republican pulled when the voters repealed the state Emergency Manger Law only to see the Republican legislature implement a new version a few months later that was no longer subject to a voter referendum. Based on the manipulative past of this legislature you can bet this won't be the last time Bolger and his cohorts redefine a sales tax as a "fee" to avoid properly funding Michigan's public schools.
Having said that the entire basis for Bolger's actions demonstrate just how disconnected he is from the average Michigan voter. Polls show that 62% of voters were willing to pay an additional $10 or more per month to repair and upgrade bridges and roads in Michigan while 71% said they would not vote against an elected official for such a tax increase. Voters just don't have the same doomsday view of tax increases that Republicans pretend they do.
Polls also show that while Michigan voters would really like to see more money go towards roads their top priority is education funding. This makes the Bolger plan that much more perplexing especially given the fact that the real per pupil foundation allowance has fallen by $648 under Republican control. Is taking another $475 per student away from public schools just a ploy to put more districts in financial distress so they can be converted to for profit charter schools that big donors love?
The reality is that Jase Bolger has taken a bipartisan bill to improve Michigan's roads that had the support of voters and turned it into something that cuts education funding, vitiates the will of the people, and Governor Snyder has "serious reservations" about - all under the guise of some rigid ideology that the majority of Michigan residents disagree with. But perhaps most concerning is how this legislature continues to use nefarious tactics to avoid the law of the land and spit in the face of the voting public. No wonder Bolger waited until after the elections to bring such a polemic bill to the floor.
The real problem with Bolger's plan is the shell game required to "generate" the funds for fixing Michigan's roads. Instead of increasing fuel taxes as the Governor had proposed Bolger wants to raid education funding to the tune of $800 million to pay for roads. A spokesman for Speaker Bolger says there is nothing to worry about because the bill also includes wording that suggests education funding can't be reduced. Given that it has taken over a decade of constant decline to get the legislature to find the funds to repair Michigan's roads, trusting the legislature will magically find additional revenue to plug the gaping hole in education spending that this action creates is suspect at best.
Bolger's office also says that increased revenue will cover any potential losses. The only problem is that when the former director of the Michigan House Fiscal Agency - Mitch Bean - examined the real world results of Bolger's plan he found that the biggest loses occurred in the last few years when Michigan was supposedly making its comeback, while one of the few years in which revenue would have actually increased occurred in the middle of the Great Recession. The data suggests Bolger's plan is more wishful thinking than thoroughly vetted economic strategy.
Of course even if you believe Jase Bolger's understanding of economics is better than that of Mitch Bean, it should be noted that relying on increased revenue can have damaging consequences. For example one of the only reasons that Rick Snyder can claim to have increased education spending over his time in office is because of the money he poured into the teacher pension program. Were it not for pervious administration's errant assumptions that the economy would improve because of their efforts these extra contributions to the system would likely have been unnecessary.
Perhaps the economy will continue to improve or perhaps it won't. Jase Bolger doesn't own a crystal ball and wagering education funding on the promise of Republican governance can't be very reassuring to many Michigan parents.
There are also those who believe the government already has enough money and just needs to shift it around. If that is the case why divert money that is dedicated to education to fund the roads only to have to find another budgetary item to cut to make up for the lost education dollars? If you are going to cut the $2 billion Department of Corrections budget to pay for Michigan schools why not just leave school funding alone and increase road spending at the expense of the DOC. Only a person with ulterior motives would make this funding change so convoluted.
Not surprisingly it appears that eliminating the fuel tax that currently funds education is a workaround to Proposal A - the voter approved constitutional amendment that equalized education funding two decades ago. By changing the fuel charge from a tax on consumers to a fee on suppliers this money will no longer be subject to the rules of Proposal A. This is the same kind of subverting the people's wishes that the Republican pulled when the voters repealed the state Emergency Manger Law only to see the Republican legislature implement a new version a few months later that was no longer subject to a voter referendum. Based on the manipulative past of this legislature you can bet this won't be the last time Bolger and his cohorts redefine a sales tax as a "fee" to avoid properly funding Michigan's public schools.
Having said that the entire basis for Bolger's actions demonstrate just how disconnected he is from the average Michigan voter. Polls show that 62% of voters were willing to pay an additional $10 or more per month to repair and upgrade bridges and roads in Michigan while 71% said they would not vote against an elected official for such a tax increase. Voters just don't have the same doomsday view of tax increases that Republicans pretend they do.
Polls also show that while Michigan voters would really like to see more money go towards roads their top priority is education funding. This makes the Bolger plan that much more perplexing especially given the fact that the real per pupil foundation allowance has fallen by $648 under Republican control. Is taking another $475 per student away from public schools just a ploy to put more districts in financial distress so they can be converted to for profit charter schools that big donors love?
The reality is that Jase Bolger has taken a bipartisan bill to improve Michigan's roads that had the support of voters and turned it into something that cuts education funding, vitiates the will of the people, and Governor Snyder has "serious reservations" about - all under the guise of some rigid ideology that the majority of Michigan residents disagree with. But perhaps most concerning is how this legislature continues to use nefarious tactics to avoid the law of the land and spit in the face of the voting public. No wonder Bolger waited until after the elections to bring such a polemic bill to the floor.
Thursday, December 4, 2014
White ignorance at the core of racial tensions
The recent grand jury decision to not indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting and killing Michael Brown resulted in protests across the country for those disappointed with the outcome. Of course for those who believe Wilson's actions were justified the response was slightly different. There are those like Ted Nugent, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck who chose to react with all the class of an Anthony Weiner twitter photo. Some like Sean Hannity took the opportunity to blame President Obama for inciting violence and heightening racial tensions. Others have decided to use their victory lap as a way to "educate" the African American community.
It is this last category of people that are the most frustrating. They avoided the outlandish talking points offered up by the classic attention whores but still managed to prove they were completely out of touch with reality. For example longtime Fox News contributor Cal Thomas opinioned that the "real problem" for the African American community is that they have "an attitude of victimhood".
This has been a popular narrative for conservatives for a long time. Rather than admit that there are systemic inequalities that make being black in this country inherently unlawful, they bury their heads in the sands of the Aryan echo chamber and trivialize this struggle with patronizing rhetoric. Having said that the question for Cal Thomas and others like him who believe liberals play the victim is - have you met the American conservatives?
While protesters try and get people to recognize the racial bias of the U.S. legal system that has resulted in the deaths of numerous black men at the hands of law enforcement the conservative media portrays these men as violent thugs and claim it is the officers who are in fact the victim. There is perhaps no bigger disconnect in the mind of these conservative pundits than suggesting the biggest problem in these cases is a "victim mentality" while simultaneously asserting the murders are the victims.
If you want to see a true victim mentality on the topic of race you need look no further than conservatives. These are the people who whine that they can't say anything about race without being called racist. They also think it is a huge injustice that black people can use the 'N' word but they can't. These poor white folks just can't catch a break.
Of course race is hardly the only topic that conservative play the victim card on.
Despite the fact that nearly every Senate has refused to consider partisan House bills Republican's like Eric Cantor are acting like this is the first time in history such an atrocity has occurred. Why must Republicans be forced to suffer so?
Despite the fact that the only guns laws to be passed recently have actually expanded the rights of gun owners that doesn't stop the NRA and some gun owners from pretending there is an all out assault on the 2nd amendment. Will the persecution ever end for these patriots?
Despite the fact that voter fraud is almost non-existent and has never determined the outcome of an election conservatives insist on changing the rules and making it more difficult for some people to vote. They're just trying to uphold the sanctity of the democratic process and are being attacked for no reason.
Despite the fact that it cost taxpayers more money than it saved Florida governor Rick Scott was forced to test welfare recipients for drug usage before handing out checks because protecting every of penny of taxpayer dollars is of paramount importance. How awful it must be for these people to see any of their money fraudulently used.
Despite the fact that renewable energy costs as much or less than fossil fuels, creates jobs and lowers carbon dioxide emissions - saving lives, conservatives insist that any attempts to address climate change would be a job killing move that Americans can't afford. After all, they just want what's best for the country.
Despite the fact that when union membership is highest the middle class is strongest and income inequality is lowest conservatives can't help but be concerned for the poor corporations and the scads of workers who are being forced to accept higher wages and better working conditions against their will. Set my people (and companies) free!
Despite the fact that bans on gay marriage have been found to be unconstitutional conservatives believe that marriage equality weakens traditional marriage. Don't those people realize how tough it is to be straight in this country?
But perhaps most important this time of year are the poor Christians who are being shamed in to considering other people's religious views. Is there any greater indignity than saying Happy Holidays to a fellow American?
The reality is that African Americans and liberals don't hold a monopoly on victim mentality. The only difference is that to conservatives when a liberal claims something is unfair they are playing the victim while when a conservative claims the same it is a fact that proves liberals are ruining this great country.
The "real problem" with Ferguson, New York, Cleveland or any other city where the police have executed black males is not "an attitude of victimhood". No, the real problem is the group who sit in their ivory tower doling out sage advice to people they clearly don't understand about a situation they have no experience with that does nothing but increase the ever widening gap in race relations. Because pretending to know what it's like to be black in America isn't even remotely close to actually being black in America.
It is this last category of people that are the most frustrating. They avoided the outlandish talking points offered up by the classic attention whores but still managed to prove they were completely out of touch with reality. For example longtime Fox News contributor Cal Thomas opinioned that the "real problem" for the African American community is that they have "an attitude of victimhood".
This has been a popular narrative for conservatives for a long time. Rather than admit that there are systemic inequalities that make being black in this country inherently unlawful, they bury their heads in the sands of the Aryan echo chamber and trivialize this struggle with patronizing rhetoric. Having said that the question for Cal Thomas and others like him who believe liberals play the victim is - have you met the American conservatives?
While protesters try and get people to recognize the racial bias of the U.S. legal system that has resulted in the deaths of numerous black men at the hands of law enforcement the conservative media portrays these men as violent thugs and claim it is the officers who are in fact the victim. There is perhaps no bigger disconnect in the mind of these conservative pundits than suggesting the biggest problem in these cases is a "victim mentality" while simultaneously asserting the murders are the victims.
If you want to see a true victim mentality on the topic of race you need look no further than conservatives. These are the people who whine that they can't say anything about race without being called racist. They also think it is a huge injustice that black people can use the 'N' word but they can't. These poor white folks just can't catch a break.
Of course race is hardly the only topic that conservative play the victim card on.
Despite the fact that nearly every Senate has refused to consider partisan House bills Republican's like Eric Cantor are acting like this is the first time in history such an atrocity has occurred. Why must Republicans be forced to suffer so?
Despite the fact that the only guns laws to be passed recently have actually expanded the rights of gun owners that doesn't stop the NRA and some gun owners from pretending there is an all out assault on the 2nd amendment. Will the persecution ever end for these patriots?
Despite the fact that voter fraud is almost non-existent and has never determined the outcome of an election conservatives insist on changing the rules and making it more difficult for some people to vote. They're just trying to uphold the sanctity of the democratic process and are being attacked for no reason.
Despite the fact that it cost taxpayers more money than it saved Florida governor Rick Scott was forced to test welfare recipients for drug usage before handing out checks because protecting every of penny of taxpayer dollars is of paramount importance. How awful it must be for these people to see any of their money fraudulently used.
Despite the fact that renewable energy costs as much or less than fossil fuels, creates jobs and lowers carbon dioxide emissions - saving lives, conservatives insist that any attempts to address climate change would be a job killing move that Americans can't afford. After all, they just want what's best for the country.
Despite the fact that when union membership is highest the middle class is strongest and income inequality is lowest conservatives can't help but be concerned for the poor corporations and the scads of workers who are being forced to accept higher wages and better working conditions against their will. Set my people (and companies) free!
Despite the fact that bans on gay marriage have been found to be unconstitutional conservatives believe that marriage equality weakens traditional marriage. Don't those people realize how tough it is to be straight in this country?
But perhaps most important this time of year are the poor Christians who are being shamed in to considering other people's religious views. Is there any greater indignity than saying Happy Holidays to a fellow American?
The reality is that African Americans and liberals don't hold a monopoly on victim mentality. The only difference is that to conservatives when a liberal claims something is unfair they are playing the victim while when a conservative claims the same it is a fact that proves liberals are ruining this great country.
The "real problem" with Ferguson, New York, Cleveland or any other city where the police have executed black males is not "an attitude of victimhood". No, the real problem is the group who sit in their ivory tower doling out sage advice to people they clearly don't understand about a situation they have no experience with that does nothing but increase the ever widening gap in race relations. Because pretending to know what it's like to be black in America isn't even remotely close to actually being black in America.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Republican manufactured outrage over immigration executive order is misplaced
Conservatives are really angry about the executive action taken by President Obama last week regarding immigration. The only problem is they are having a lot of trouble deciding exactly what they are angry about.
Some people are suggesting that by taking this action the president is acting like a King or a dictator despite the fact that Obama has actually used executive orders at lower rates than most of his predecessors.
Faced with this reality some Republicans claim that it's not how often Obama uses this power but that his actions are unconstitutional or an unprecedented overreach of his power. The reality is that every president over the last six decades have shielded groups here illegally from deportation. This order may protect more people than usual but according to legal scholars it is not illegal, unconstitutional, or unprecedented.
While some would like to pretend that Obama is the first to create a controversial executive order it should be noted that George W. Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to perform warrantless wire taps which was later determined to be unconstitutional. Were it not for an executive order signed by Ronald Reagan the NSA wouldn't even exist. Given the litany if issues with the NSA; its creation could clearly be considered controversial. George W. Bush also had parts of an executive order on terrorism struck down as unconstitutional.
Some of those who are aware of how really unspectacular Obama's recent executive order actually is have attempted to portray the action as something it is not. Conservative politicians and pundits alike have decided to term this order "Executive Amnesty" in spite of the fact that it isn't amnesty. It doesn't give anyone legal status. It doesn't provide a pathway to citizenship. It doesn't give those here illegally the right to vote. It doesn't give them access to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. And it doesn't give the Social Security benefits. It just gives people the opportunity to apply to work here legally without the threat of deportation.
Another group claims the president himself said he could not act on his own and this proves his order is illegal. The irony of this statement is astonishing. Apparently when the president says something they agree with he has the power to unilaterally create law but when they disagree with his actions he suddenly loses this power. Luckily the decision on whether something is constitutional or not isn't for the president to decide. This also means Obama's previous statements have absolutely no bearing on the actual legality of his order.
Imagine if we lived in a world where presidential statements automatically set legal precedent. George H.W. Bush famously stated "read my lips: no new taxes" only to turn around later and raise taxes. In his inaugural address, Ronald Regan remarked "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government" yet he not only expanded spending to unprecedented levels he also added over a 300,000 employees to the government payroll. On the campaign trail George W. Bush declared "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be." however after a few years in Iraq he changed course when he said "There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. All of these statements would have made the president’s actions that followed illegal.
Of course President Obama claims that when talking about what he can and cannot do with regards to immigration reform he was talking about enacting laws similar to that of the Senate immigration reform bill. The executive order he issued falls well short of the sweeping changes the Senate bill would have enacted. According to Obama this executive order only includes language that is within the president’s purview.
But that didn't stop John Boehner from asserting that Obama's actions "deliberately sabotage any chance of enacting bipartisan reforms". He says this despite the fact that the Senate already passed bipartisan immigration reform which the House had the votes to pass with bipartisan backing and over 80% the public supports. The reality is that Boehner is not only the one deliberately sabotaging a bipartisan reform but his refusal to bring this bill up for a vote in the House left Obama with little choice used his executive power.
In the end Republicans who are searching for some rational reason to be outraged by this executive order should be more concerned about the failure of Republican leadership to address this issue because not only did John Boehner miss out on an opportunity to mend fences with a growing Hispanic voting bloc but he has now backed himself into a corner with no clear way out.
Unfortunately rather than admit he over played his hand Boehner threatens to tear families apart as he continues to place party needs over the will of the people. It seems John Boehner is just as happy to "undermine the rule of law in our country" as he believes the president is.
Some people are suggesting that by taking this action the president is acting like a King or a dictator despite the fact that Obama has actually used executive orders at lower rates than most of his predecessors.
Faced with this reality some Republicans claim that it's not how often Obama uses this power but that his actions are unconstitutional or an unprecedented overreach of his power. The reality is that every president over the last six decades have shielded groups here illegally from deportation. This order may protect more people than usual but according to legal scholars it is not illegal, unconstitutional, or unprecedented.
While some would like to pretend that Obama is the first to create a controversial executive order it should be noted that George W. Bush signed an executive order allowing the NSA to perform warrantless wire taps which was later determined to be unconstitutional. Were it not for an executive order signed by Ronald Reagan the NSA wouldn't even exist. Given the litany if issues with the NSA; its creation could clearly be considered controversial. George W. Bush also had parts of an executive order on terrorism struck down as unconstitutional.
Some of those who are aware of how really unspectacular Obama's recent executive order actually is have attempted to portray the action as something it is not. Conservative politicians and pundits alike have decided to term this order "Executive Amnesty" in spite of the fact that it isn't amnesty. It doesn't give anyone legal status. It doesn't provide a pathway to citizenship. It doesn't give those here illegally the right to vote. It doesn't give them access to the provisions of the Affordable Care Act. And it doesn't give the Social Security benefits. It just gives people the opportunity to apply to work here legally without the threat of deportation.
Another group claims the president himself said he could not act on his own and this proves his order is illegal. The irony of this statement is astonishing. Apparently when the president says something they agree with he has the power to unilaterally create law but when they disagree with his actions he suddenly loses this power. Luckily the decision on whether something is constitutional or not isn't for the president to decide. This also means Obama's previous statements have absolutely no bearing on the actual legality of his order.
Imagine if we lived in a world where presidential statements automatically set legal precedent. George H.W. Bush famously stated "read my lips: no new taxes" only to turn around later and raise taxes. In his inaugural address, Ronald Regan remarked "It is time to check and reverse the growth of government" yet he not only expanded spending to unprecedented levels he also added over a 300,000 employees to the government payroll. On the campaign trail George W. Bush declared "I'm not so sure the role of the United States is to go around the world and say, 'This is the way it's got to be." however after a few years in Iraq he changed course when he said "There are five steps in our plan to help Iraq achieve democracy and freedom. All of these statements would have made the president’s actions that followed illegal.
Of course President Obama claims that when talking about what he can and cannot do with regards to immigration reform he was talking about enacting laws similar to that of the Senate immigration reform bill. The executive order he issued falls well short of the sweeping changes the Senate bill would have enacted. According to Obama this executive order only includes language that is within the president’s purview.
But that didn't stop John Boehner from asserting that Obama's actions "deliberately sabotage any chance of enacting bipartisan reforms". He says this despite the fact that the Senate already passed bipartisan immigration reform which the House had the votes to pass with bipartisan backing and over 80% the public supports. The reality is that Boehner is not only the one deliberately sabotaging a bipartisan reform but his refusal to bring this bill up for a vote in the House left Obama with little choice used his executive power.
In the end Republicans who are searching for some rational reason to be outraged by this executive order should be more concerned about the failure of Republican leadership to address this issue because not only did John Boehner miss out on an opportunity to mend fences with a growing Hispanic voting bloc but he has now backed himself into a corner with no clear way out.
Unfortunately rather than admit he over played his hand Boehner threatens to tear families apart as he continues to place party needs over the will of the people. It seems John Boehner is just as happy to "undermine the rule of law in our country" as he believes the president is.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Republican majority destined to fail
This past week President Obama used the power executive authority to prevent the deportation on millions of undocumented immigrants. It should come as no surprise that Republicans do not support this action and have added it to a growing list of complaints about how the president and congressional Democrats do business. Unfortunately for Republicans these complaints represent the pinnacle of hypocrisy.
Perhaps executive actions do undermine the "democratic process" as Speaker Boehner suggests, however it should be noted that Barack Obama averages just 32 executive actions per year while Republican presidents have been far more liberal in their use of this power.
George W. Bush - 36 per year
George H.W. Bush - 41 per year
Ronald Reagan - 47 per year
Gerald Ford - 56 per year
Richard Nixon - 57 per year
If this is a problem, it is a problem for all presidents not just the Democratic ones.
Beyond that Boehner feels that "President Obama has turned a deaf ear to the people that he was elected ... to serve". According to a release by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, a Fox News poll shows that "By a 78-21 percent margin, voters favor allowing immigrants in the U.S. illegally to become citizens after they meet requirements such as passing a background check."
Given that the Senate already passed a comprehensive immigration reform act with bipartisan support that included a pathway to citizenship, that the vast majority of Americans favor, it appears that by refusing to bring this bill up for a vote in the House it is John Boehner who has turned a deaf ear to the people.
Of course the hypocrisy doesn't end with executive actions and immigration reform. For much of the past year Republicans, lead by Eric Cantor, have been portraying the Democratic controlled Senate as a place where good bills go to die. With over 300 bills passed by the House waiting for approval in the Senate such a claim seems accurate however history shows that every year around 300 House bills fail to get a vote in the Senate. 2014 is just another year in long line of political dysfunction.
Having said that the two worst years on record were 2011 and 2012 when Republican filibusters caused a total of nearly 1,300 House bills to stall in the Senate.
Again, if failing to get a vote on House bills is an issue when Republicans control the House then it should also have been a concern for Republicans when Democrats controlled the House.
Having secured majorities in both the House and the Senate Republicans who operated under the directive that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" are now demanding that the president and congressional Democrats focus on "bipartisan reforms".
Data shows that of the 46 "jobs bills" the House has passed that Boehner considers "bipartisan" half of them received support from less than 10% of House Democrats with 2 bills receiving zero votes and 12 others garnering under 5% support.
By contrast the Senate currently has 76 bills waiting for the House to vote on which all have the support of at least 10% of Senate Republicans. If a wave of bipartisanship is sweeping congress shouldn't that also include Senate bills stuck in the House?
Included in the list of bills being ignored by the House and Speaker Boehner are the following:
- S. 2912: Don’t Tax Our Fallen Public Safety Heroes Act
- S. 2673: United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014
- S. 1691: Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014
- S. 2198: Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014
- S. 1417: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2013
- S. 287: Helping Homeless Veterans Act of 2013
- S. 743: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013
- S. 853: Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013
The reality is that while Republican leadership wants to depict Democrats and the president as uncompromising ideologues, such assertions from a group that have shown to be uncompromising ideologues falls on deaf ears. Americans don't want more political posturing, finger pointing and empty rhetoric. They want a government that spends more time in Washington then raising money. They want a government that acts on the wishes of voters instead of the wishes of the highest bidder. They want a government that finds common ground and rallies public support rather than constantly dividing the nation to win elections.
Unfortunately rather than leading the government in a different direction Republicans seem determined to take it further down the rabbit hole which should be disappointing no matter what your political affiliations are.
Perhaps executive actions do undermine the "democratic process" as Speaker Boehner suggests, however it should be noted that Barack Obama averages just 32 executive actions per year while Republican presidents have been far more liberal in their use of this power.
George W. Bush - 36 per year
George H.W. Bush - 41 per year
Ronald Reagan - 47 per year
Gerald Ford - 56 per year
Richard Nixon - 57 per year
If this is a problem, it is a problem for all presidents not just the Democratic ones.
Beyond that Boehner feels that "President Obama has turned a deaf ear to the people that he was elected ... to serve". According to a release by Republican Senator Jeff Sessions, a Fox News poll shows that "By a 78-21 percent margin, voters favor allowing immigrants in the U.S. illegally to become citizens after they meet requirements such as passing a background check."
Given that the Senate already passed a comprehensive immigration reform act with bipartisan support that included a pathway to citizenship, that the vast majority of Americans favor, it appears that by refusing to bring this bill up for a vote in the House it is John Boehner who has turned a deaf ear to the people.
Of course the hypocrisy doesn't end with executive actions and immigration reform. For much of the past year Republicans, lead by Eric Cantor, have been portraying the Democratic controlled Senate as a place where good bills go to die. With over 300 bills passed by the House waiting for approval in the Senate such a claim seems accurate however history shows that every year around 300 House bills fail to get a vote in the Senate. 2014 is just another year in long line of political dysfunction.
Having said that the two worst years on record were 2011 and 2012 when Republican filibusters caused a total of nearly 1,300 House bills to stall in the Senate.
Again, if failing to get a vote on House bills is an issue when Republicans control the House then it should also have been a concern for Republicans when Democrats controlled the House.
Having secured majorities in both the House and the Senate Republicans who operated under the directive that "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president" are now demanding that the president and congressional Democrats focus on "bipartisan reforms".
Data shows that of the 46 "jobs bills" the House has passed that Boehner considers "bipartisan" half of them received support from less than 10% of House Democrats with 2 bills receiving zero votes and 12 others garnering under 5% support.
By contrast the Senate currently has 76 bills waiting for the House to vote on which all have the support of at least 10% of Senate Republicans. If a wave of bipartisanship is sweeping congress shouldn't that also include Senate bills stuck in the House?
Included in the list of bills being ignored by the House and Speaker Boehner are the following:
- S. 2912: Don’t Tax Our Fallen Public Safety Heroes Act
- S. 2673: United States-Israel Strategic Partnership Act of 2014
- S. 1691: Border Patrol Agent Pay Reform Act of 2014
- S. 2198: Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014
- S. 1417: Newborn Screening Saves Lives Reauthorization Act of 2013
- S. 287: Helping Homeless Veterans Act of 2013
- S. 743: Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013
- S. 853: Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013
The reality is that while Republican leadership wants to depict Democrats and the president as uncompromising ideologues, such assertions from a group that have shown to be uncompromising ideologues falls on deaf ears. Americans don't want more political posturing, finger pointing and empty rhetoric. They want a government that spends more time in Washington then raising money. They want a government that acts on the wishes of voters instead of the wishes of the highest bidder. They want a government that finds common ground and rallies public support rather than constantly dividing the nation to win elections.
Unfortunately rather than leading the government in a different direction Republicans seem determined to take it further down the rabbit hole which should be disappointing no matter what your political affiliations are.
Thursday, November 13, 2014
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.
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.
Friday, October 31, 2014
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.
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.
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)
