The recent motor cycle gang violence in Texas has many wondering why the media isn't talking about things like white on white crime, why prominent white leaders aren't out denouncing this violence or why the talking heads aren't dissecting the problems with white culture like they seem apt to do with violence perpetrated by non-whites.
After all, the executive director of the Midwest Outlaw Motorcycle Gang Investigators Association called these biker gangs domestic terrorists, and data show that many of the things that lead people to join extremist groups like ISIS are very similar to what leads people to join violent gangs.
Given this, it seems the media should cover terrorist organizations a little more like they have covered the biker gangs. For example, perhaps nothing exemplifies America's condemnation of Islam more than the Pew poll that shows that around 22% of countries have Blasphemy laws on the books. Of course, it should be pointed out that Canada and certain U.S. states still have blasphemy laws on the books as well, so it seems unlikely that the laws themselves have much of a correlation with violence. It should also be noted that in some of these countries blasphemy laws were introduced by Europeans not the Quran. This suggests that blaming the Muslim holy book for the actions of extremists would be like blaming Harley-Davidson for the actions of these biker gangs.
Another take away from the Pew poll is that Islam is an inherently violent religion, since in some countries a majority of Muslims support death for apostates. Obviously this exposes a problem with these believers; however, it appears that despite what polls may say, most of these supposedly radical countries ignore these laws. In fact, the vast majority of the countries haven't actually killed anyone for apostasy or blasphemy.
Bill Maher once stated that, while the U.S. has crazy Christian fundamentalists, what makes us better is that we don't let them rule our country. If courts in the majority of Islamic countries don't actually sentence anyone to death then does simply having a poll that suggests people support the law actually prove that the bulk of Muslims are really more in need of help than America's religious extremists?
Has anyone ever done a poll of Christians to ask if homosexuals should be killed for being gay? In the U.S. some 30 members of the LGBT community are killed each year. Given that the Bible says that homosexuality is a sin punishable by death, there are numerous preachers who support this belief, and 76% of Christians believe the Bible is the written or inspired word of god - Would it be safe to say that the Bible is the mother lode of bad ideas? Would it be OK to castigate the entire religion for the actions of a select few? Are Americans and Christians really that much different than Muslims in the Middle East?
Polls show 57% of Republicans support making Christianity the official religion of the U.S. while 60% of Tennessee residents are in favor of making the Bible the state’s official book. Similarly majorities of Muslims are in favor of making Sharia law the official law of their country; however, contrary to what some would have you believe, many of these Muslims feel Sharia law should only cover Muslims.
Polls show that U.S. citizens described as "Steadfast Conservatives" (69%) and "Faith and Family left" (91%) both strongly support the idea that believing in God is essential to being a moral person. Similarly Muslims in various regions believe the same thing, with support ranging from 61% for Southern-Eastern Europe to 94% in Southeast Asia.
95% of Americans believe the U.S. was founded on the right for citizens to have religious freedom. Similarly, vast majorities of Muslims believe Religious Freedom is a good thing, with South Asia being the highest at 97%.
In the U.S. 38% of Whites believe Blacks are the most racist while only 10% of Whites believe Whites are the most racist. Similarly in Egypt 50% of Muslims believe Christians are hostile towards Muslims while only 35% of Muslims believe Muslims are hostile towards Christians.
For those who attend Church weekly, 69% believe humans were created by God in our present form while only 1% of this group thinks Humans evolved with no help from God. Similarly 67% of Muslims in the Palestinian territory believe God created humans as we look today.
86% of Americans believe television has caused a decline in values. Similarly 88% of Pakistan Muslims believe western entertainment has hurt morality.
Pretending that the Pew poll results of one question regarding apostasy somehow proves that the Quran is a book of evil is ignorant at best. There is little doubt that extremists that claim to represent Islam are currently the most violent among religious groups, but polling and other data suggests that Muslims across the globe and religious Americans are cut from the same conservative cloth.
The reality is, the reason that the media isn't spending much time investigating white on white crime, the absence of white leaders denouncing these murders or the problems with white culture in response to these biker gang attacks is because the media doesn't believe this is a systemic problem. Which begs the question; why are these same people not willing to accept that this could also be true of Muslim extremists?
Clearly, convincing religious followers that their holy book is not meant to be taken literally but rather used as a guide for how to be a better person would be helpful. But if the goal is to stop this sort of organized violence that plagues the world, then finding other ways to provide disaffected youth the money, protection, inclusion and social bonding they are missing that lead them to become outlaws in the first place should be our top priority. Unfortunately, for many, having an enemy that can be portrayed as inherently evil is far better for business than accepting that society’s failures create the perfect environment for violent groups to flourish.
Friday, May 22, 2015
Wednesday, May 13, 2015
Free Speech is a stupid reason to draw the Prophet Muhammad
Last week Bill Maher continued his one man crusade to convince liberals that belittling and disrespecting Muslims and their faith is somehow a progressive position. This week he was joined in his proselytization by 'The Blaze' analyst Will Cain.
The conversation focused on two separate Islamic based news stories that the media covered recently. The first was opposition to an award being given by the PEN organization to the satirical French Magazine Charlie Hebdo for their "courage" in depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The second was a contest held in Texas where participants had to draw Prophet Muhammad.
For his part Maher stated: "This is America. Do we not have the right to draw whatever we want?" which Cain followed up with: "You don't just have a right to free speech - when someone's position is 'if you offend me, I will kill you' it becomes virtuous for you to offend that person."
It should be noted that these comments both really miss the point of the opposition. No one is saying you can't draw a picture of the Prophet Muhammad - we agree that is your first amendment right. What they are saying is, just because you can do something does that mean you should? It also begs the question; is intentionally offending someone because they have different beliefs than you really a sign of courage?
In schools this sort of premeditated provocation is called bullying and has caused numerous young adults to take their own lives. Who is to blame for their death? The kids doing the bullying or the kid who would rather die than be tortured another day. Cain apparently blames the bullied kid. Of course, some of those who are bullied end up killing the bullies instead. According to Cain, this means the media would be virtuous in relentlessly antagonizing this child since his bully was just practicing free speech.
If killing individuals based on religious beliefs deserves a full frontal assault on that religion why has Cain never written or commented on the hundreds of LGBT are killed every year in majority Christian countries. Shouldn't the media - Cain included - condemn all Christians for the acts of these few who can't control their temper? Isn't that the courageous and righteous thing to do?
One imagines Cain and those who agree with his position would be less inclined to support a contest for drawing Jesus as a homosexual or a museum exhibition of aborted fetuses held by a pro-choice organization. Yet you can bet a couple rednecks with guns would eventually show up to voice their displeasure.
It would also be considered free speech to use the N-word anywhere you want, yet the use of the word in certain locations is likely to cost you your life. Given this reality, shouldn't Will Cain drop the N-bomb every chance he gets? Wouldn't it be virtuous of him to hold an N-word black face parade until those who would kill him change their mind?
When you continually and overtly belittle people for being who they are, eventually some of the people in these groups will respond violently. Is the answer to their violence really to be more offensive? Is unrelenting abuse really the best way to get someone to do a thorough self examination, or does it just make you look like a jerk and further solidify the belief that those outside the group are the real problem?
No one is defending ISIS or other extremist Muslims groups, but realize that it's not just the extremist that you tick off with your blanket Islamic insults. By insisting on drawing the Prophet Muhammad to offend the murders, you are also offending those who would otherwise be your allies. The vast majority of U.S. citizens agree with the goal of ending religious extremism. We just disagree with how you get there, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your first amendment rights to be a total d-bag.
The conversation focused on two separate Islamic based news stories that the media covered recently. The first was opposition to an award being given by the PEN organization to the satirical French Magazine Charlie Hebdo for their "courage" in depicting the Prophet Muhammad. The second was a contest held in Texas where participants had to draw Prophet Muhammad.
For his part Maher stated: "This is America. Do we not have the right to draw whatever we want?" which Cain followed up with: "You don't just have a right to free speech - when someone's position is 'if you offend me, I will kill you' it becomes virtuous for you to offend that person."
It should be noted that these comments both really miss the point of the opposition. No one is saying you can't draw a picture of the Prophet Muhammad - we agree that is your first amendment right. What they are saying is, just because you can do something does that mean you should? It also begs the question; is intentionally offending someone because they have different beliefs than you really a sign of courage?
In schools this sort of premeditated provocation is called bullying and has caused numerous young adults to take their own lives. Who is to blame for their death? The kids doing the bullying or the kid who would rather die than be tortured another day. Cain apparently blames the bullied kid. Of course, some of those who are bullied end up killing the bullies instead. According to Cain, this means the media would be virtuous in relentlessly antagonizing this child since his bully was just practicing free speech.
If killing individuals based on religious beliefs deserves a full frontal assault on that religion why has Cain never written or commented on the hundreds of LGBT are killed every year in majority Christian countries. Shouldn't the media - Cain included - condemn all Christians for the acts of these few who can't control their temper? Isn't that the courageous and righteous thing to do?
One imagines Cain and those who agree with his position would be less inclined to support a contest for drawing Jesus as a homosexual or a museum exhibition of aborted fetuses held by a pro-choice organization. Yet you can bet a couple rednecks with guns would eventually show up to voice their displeasure.
It would also be considered free speech to use the N-word anywhere you want, yet the use of the word in certain locations is likely to cost you your life. Given this reality, shouldn't Will Cain drop the N-bomb every chance he gets? Wouldn't it be virtuous of him to hold an N-word black face parade until those who would kill him change their mind?
When you continually and overtly belittle people for being who they are, eventually some of the people in these groups will respond violently. Is the answer to their violence really to be more offensive? Is unrelenting abuse really the best way to get someone to do a thorough self examination, or does it just make you look like a jerk and further solidify the belief that those outside the group are the real problem?
No one is defending ISIS or other extremist Muslims groups, but realize that it's not just the extremist that you tick off with your blanket Islamic insults. By insisting on drawing the Prophet Muhammad to offend the murders, you are also offending those who would otherwise be your allies. The vast majority of U.S. citizens agree with the goal of ending religious extremism. We just disagree with how you get there, and it has absolutely nothing to do with your first amendment rights to be a total d-bag.
Monday, May 11, 2015
Michigan legislature puts corporations ahead of voters at every turn.
After Tuesday's resounding defeat of Proposal 1 which was meant to raise funding for Michigan roads while allowing cowardly elected officials to pretend they didn't support a tax increase, the question for the legislature and Governor Rick Snyder is; what now?
Polls show that 87% of Michigan residents want Lansing to "Immediately begin working on an alternative road funding plan" which suggests that the vast majority of Michiganders understand that the states infrastructure spending has been woefully inadequate under the Republican lead legislature.
Part of the problem here is that Republican legislators are so clueless or inept that their take away from this defeat is that voters don't want to pay more taxes. While this may be true of a small percentage of people, polls show that the over 75% of voters were against proposal 1 for reasons other than a general opposition to an increased tax rate. Polls also show that 62% of Michigan residents would be willing to pay and extra $10 per month to fix Michigan's transportation system.
Not surprisingly one of the few things in Michigan with a lower favorability rating than Michigan's roads is the Michigan legislature. Yes, voters are more inclined to support Michigan's pothole covered roads than they are to support the elected body tasked with deciding what to do with our tax dollars. Perhaps it's this lack of faith in the legislature that has people unwilling to send any more money to Lansing.
After all, if you look at this legislature's priorities it becomes very clear that the people who would have ended up footing the bulk of the bill for roads under proposal 1 are many of the 50% of Michigan residents that have already seen their taxes increased by this legislature. Between 2009 and 2013 the total tax revenue Michigan collected from corporations fell from $2,554,138,000 to $687,560,000 while the revenue contributed by individuals increased from $6,071,514,000 to $8,211,359,000. This means Michigan residents have seen a 35% increase in their taxes while corporations have seen their contributions fall by 73%.
Most voters already realize that they have done their fair share by paying over $2 billion more in taxes than just a few years ago. If there isn't enough money left to pay for improving and maintaining Michigan's roads it seems the nearly $2 billion cut in taxes for corporations is the most likely culprit.
Of course the idea for cutting taxes is to bring more jobs to Michigan however it should be noted the two years prior to implementing the corporate tax cut Michigan ranked number 3 in job growth while that ranking has subsequently fallen to 21st. Instead it is likely that the political obsession with cutting taxes has cost Michigan jobs since polls show that having access to good roads was the number one concern for executives when deciding where to locate their business.
Additionally University of Michigan economist Don Grimes says that only 10,000 to 15,000 jobs per year cannot be explained by growth in the auto industry or national economic improvement. Assuming 100% of those jobs can be attributed to the corporate tax cut, which seems unlikely, are 10,000 to 15,000 new jobs really worth $2 billion in lost tax revenue?
Making matters worse is the fact that not only are individuals paying more taxes but they have also seen the value of the wages drop when compared to other states. A report by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that Michigan's ranking among the states of "real per capita income" fell 38th to 39th last year. If the tax burden is going to be shifted away from corporations onto the working class shouldn't the goal be to attract the high paying jobs of the future instead of fighting for the low paying jobs of the past?
But perhaps the biggest question for this legislature is what reason is there to believe that voters support the Republican position of smaller government through tax cuts? Ask any Michigan resident if they would like to pay lower taxes and they are likely to say yes. Ask that same resident if they would like to pay less for their car, their insurance, their groceries, their gas, or their utilities. Again the answer would likely be yes. Just because people want to see their dollar go farther doesn't mean that want inferior services which is exactly what the Republican obsession with cutting taxes has done. How about we just tap some of the $5 billion the governor has earmarked for "jobs" (see corporate giveaway) and use that to fix our crumbling infrastructure?
The battle to properly fund Michigan's roads is far from over but unless voters get involved the legislature is likely to continue to increase your taxes, gut education funding, and force your local government to cut police, fire and other essential services instead of asking corporations to do their fair share. Because the only thing this legislature hates more than taxing corporation is losing their job. It's about time we make their worst fears come true.
Polls show that 87% of Michigan residents want Lansing to "Immediately begin working on an alternative road funding plan" which suggests that the vast majority of Michiganders understand that the states infrastructure spending has been woefully inadequate under the Republican lead legislature.
Part of the problem here is that Republican legislators are so clueless or inept that their take away from this defeat is that voters don't want to pay more taxes. While this may be true of a small percentage of people, polls show that the over 75% of voters were against proposal 1 for reasons other than a general opposition to an increased tax rate. Polls also show that 62% of Michigan residents would be willing to pay and extra $10 per month to fix Michigan's transportation system.
Not surprisingly one of the few things in Michigan with a lower favorability rating than Michigan's roads is the Michigan legislature. Yes, voters are more inclined to support Michigan's pothole covered roads than they are to support the elected body tasked with deciding what to do with our tax dollars. Perhaps it's this lack of faith in the legislature that has people unwilling to send any more money to Lansing.
After all, if you look at this legislature's priorities it becomes very clear that the people who would have ended up footing the bulk of the bill for roads under proposal 1 are many of the 50% of Michigan residents that have already seen their taxes increased by this legislature. Between 2009 and 2013 the total tax revenue Michigan collected from corporations fell from $2,554,138,000 to $687,560,000 while the revenue contributed by individuals increased from $6,071,514,000 to $8,211,359,000. This means Michigan residents have seen a 35% increase in their taxes while corporations have seen their contributions fall by 73%.
Most voters already realize that they have done their fair share by paying over $2 billion more in taxes than just a few years ago. If there isn't enough money left to pay for improving and maintaining Michigan's roads it seems the nearly $2 billion cut in taxes for corporations is the most likely culprit.
Of course the idea for cutting taxes is to bring more jobs to Michigan however it should be noted the two years prior to implementing the corporate tax cut Michigan ranked number 3 in job growth while that ranking has subsequently fallen to 21st. Instead it is likely that the political obsession with cutting taxes has cost Michigan jobs since polls show that having access to good roads was the number one concern for executives when deciding where to locate their business.
Additionally University of Michigan economist Don Grimes says that only 10,000 to 15,000 jobs per year cannot be explained by growth in the auto industry or national economic improvement. Assuming 100% of those jobs can be attributed to the corporate tax cut, which seems unlikely, are 10,000 to 15,000 new jobs really worth $2 billion in lost tax revenue?
Making matters worse is the fact that not only are individuals paying more taxes but they have also seen the value of the wages drop when compared to other states. A report by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis shows that Michigan's ranking among the states of "real per capita income" fell 38th to 39th last year. If the tax burden is going to be shifted away from corporations onto the working class shouldn't the goal be to attract the high paying jobs of the future instead of fighting for the low paying jobs of the past?
But perhaps the biggest question for this legislature is what reason is there to believe that voters support the Republican position of smaller government through tax cuts? Ask any Michigan resident if they would like to pay lower taxes and they are likely to say yes. Ask that same resident if they would like to pay less for their car, their insurance, their groceries, their gas, or their utilities. Again the answer would likely be yes. Just because people want to see their dollar go farther doesn't mean that want inferior services which is exactly what the Republican obsession with cutting taxes has done. How about we just tap some of the $5 billion the governor has earmarked for "jobs" (see corporate giveaway) and use that to fix our crumbling infrastructure?
The battle to properly fund Michigan's roads is far from over but unless voters get involved the legislature is likely to continue to increase your taxes, gut education funding, and force your local government to cut police, fire and other essential services instead of asking corporations to do their fair share. Because the only thing this legislature hates more than taxing corporation is losing their job. It's about time we make their worst fears come true.
Wednesday, May 6, 2015
Christian persecution is a problem, just not in the U.S.
It is widely believed that conservative Christians are a key demographic for Republicans. Evidence also suggests that fear mongering is an important political tool used by most politicians and pundits. It comes as no surprise then that the conservative media has spent much of the past decade attempting to paint Christianity as under attack. The problem is the reality doesn't match the narrative.
For example, after a Kentucky court ruled in favor of a t-shirt maker that refused to print shirts for a gay and lesbian organization Fox News' resident Christian outrage peddler, Todd Starnes, sat down with Lou Dobbs and claimed this was a win for religious freedom. While this is clearly the story the conservative media would like to push the decision was actually about freedom of speech, not religious freedom.
In fact the judge’s ruling stated: [“T]he right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all."
Companies are free to choose which products they will and will not sell; this applies to all companies regardless of their religious views. In this case the owners felt that the wording on the shirt was offensive and refused to sell the product. They were not refusing to serve a specific customer as is the case in the other situations that have made news recently.
This is no different than Wal-Mart’s recent decision not to sell UFC fighter Ronda Rousey's autobiography in their stores because they felt it was too violent. Ronda Rousey has no constitutional right to have her book sold at Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart customers have no constitutional right to purchase this book at Wal-Mart.
Conversely, when religious freedom advocates fain indignation over Christian business owners being sued for denial of service what they are really promoting is the option to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Regardless of your religious beliefs it is unconstitutional to deny people service based on who they are.
The problem with people like Todd Starnes is they are either ignorant to this distinction, which is embarrassing for a supposed expert in the field or they are purposefully misleading their consumers, which is both embarrassing and shameful.
Of course the fight over corporate religious freedom is only one car in this politically motivated freight train of misguided Christian fury. Others like Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee believe "We are moving rapidly toward the criminalization of Christianity,” As proof Huckabee says "there are numerous cases, whether it’s the chaplains in the military being told to put their bibles away, no longer pray in Jesus’ name, not to counsel people who are in a homosexual lifestyle, not to counsel them to try to seek assistance for that,".
One assumes some of the other "numerous cases" Huckabee is referencing include when corporations exercise their religious freedom and say "Happy Holidays" to customers instead of "Merry Christmas" or when public schools refuse to allow religious services on school grounds.
Having said that, this idea that there is some sort of "War on Christianity" in the U.S. is small minded and insultingly insensitive to Christians across the globe that experience true religious persecution. As the Open Doors organization points out every month 322 Christians are killed for their faith, 214 Christian churches and properties are destroyed and 772 forms of violence are committed against Christians around the world. Imagine the conservative media coverage if these sort of things happened in America.
The reality is there are few if any places in the world where it is better to be Christian than the U.S so pretending that being forced to abide by the constitution is somehow a "war" comes off a lot like the spoiled rich kid who's parents won't upgrade the radio on the new BMW I8 they are buying for his birthday. It just makes you look uninformed, selfish and silly.
For example, after a Kentucky court ruled in favor of a t-shirt maker that refused to print shirts for a gay and lesbian organization Fox News' resident Christian outrage peddler, Todd Starnes, sat down with Lou Dobbs and claimed this was a win for religious freedom. While this is clearly the story the conservative media would like to push the decision was actually about freedom of speech, not religious freedom.
In fact the judge’s ruling stated: [“T]he right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all."
Companies are free to choose which products they will and will not sell; this applies to all companies regardless of their religious views. In this case the owners felt that the wording on the shirt was offensive and refused to sell the product. They were not refusing to serve a specific customer as is the case in the other situations that have made news recently.
This is no different than Wal-Mart’s recent decision not to sell UFC fighter Ronda Rousey's autobiography in their stores because they felt it was too violent. Ronda Rousey has no constitutional right to have her book sold at Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart customers have no constitutional right to purchase this book at Wal-Mart.
Conversely, when religious freedom advocates fain indignation over Christian business owners being sued for denial of service what they are really promoting is the option to discriminate based on religious beliefs. Regardless of your religious beliefs it is unconstitutional to deny people service based on who they are.
The problem with people like Todd Starnes is they are either ignorant to this distinction, which is embarrassing for a supposed expert in the field or they are purposefully misleading their consumers, which is both embarrassing and shameful.
Of course the fight over corporate religious freedom is only one car in this politically motivated freight train of misguided Christian fury. Others like Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee believe "We are moving rapidly toward the criminalization of Christianity,” As proof Huckabee says "there are numerous cases, whether it’s the chaplains in the military being told to put their bibles away, no longer pray in Jesus’ name, not to counsel people who are in a homosexual lifestyle, not to counsel them to try to seek assistance for that,".
One assumes some of the other "numerous cases" Huckabee is referencing include when corporations exercise their religious freedom and say "Happy Holidays" to customers instead of "Merry Christmas" or when public schools refuse to allow religious services on school grounds.
Having said that, this idea that there is some sort of "War on Christianity" in the U.S. is small minded and insultingly insensitive to Christians across the globe that experience true religious persecution. As the Open Doors organization points out every month 322 Christians are killed for their faith, 214 Christian churches and properties are destroyed and 772 forms of violence are committed against Christians around the world. Imagine the conservative media coverage if these sort of things happened in America.
The reality is there are few if any places in the world where it is better to be Christian than the U.S so pretending that being forced to abide by the constitution is somehow a "war" comes off a lot like the spoiled rich kid who's parents won't upgrade the radio on the new BMW I8 they are buying for his birthday. It just makes you look uninformed, selfish and silly.
Friday, May 1, 2015
No on Proposal 1 is good for Michigan
The good folks over at Eclectablog feel liberals and progressives should vote in favor of proposal 1 and have put together a three part series discussing their rationale. While the assertion that the "truly progressive position is to support (Proposal 1)" is a bit self-aggrandizing and off putting the authors present plenty of good reasons to support this ballot measure.
Unfortunately while claiming to hold the truly liberal position they seem to be somewhat oblivious as to the actual reason for liberals to vote against proposal 1. The opposition isn't to send the legislature a message. History shows they either don't care or don't understand what voters want. The opposition isn't because Rick Snyder supports it. Voting against your own best interested to spite the man at the top is a conservative thing. The opposition isn't a way to force the legislature back to the drawing board. Properly funding Michigan's infrastructure needs has been kicked down the road for years - this legislature clearly isn't capable of producing a viable solution no matter how long they are giving.
No the real progressive opposition to this bill finally standing up the bullies in Lansing and letting them know we aren't going to take this anymore. Getting funds for our roads and bridges, properly supporting public education, and restoring the tax credits for the working poor are all things this legislature should have done without holding voters hostage. The fact that these legislators repeatedly and consistently chose special interests over their constituents needs should cost them their jobs.
The staff at Eclectablog would probably agree with this statement however they seem defeated regarding the prospect of Democrats regaining control and doing the job voters expect from their elected officials, stating "If voters weren't motivated to get out and vote in 2014 after all Republicans had done to our state, I have little confidence they will do so in big enough numbers to take back the House and Senate in 2016, either".
Given how demoralized the authors sound a year and a half before the 2016 election cycle it is no wonder they are willing to capitulate on proposal 1. If failure is predetermined then taking the best deal you can get is the obvious choice. The problem is the assumption that voters won't remove Republicans in the future is anything but predetermined.
Republicans have put an awful lot of eggs in the proposal 1 basket and stand to lose some political capital upon its defeat. Democrats can easily show their Republican counterparts not only passed bill after bill that went against voters’ wishes but also limited the voters’ recourse by castrating democracy. Beyond that, few voters are so involved in politics that they would be outraged by many of the things liberal bloggers think should drive people to the polls. Crumbling roads and bridges however are a very salient failure of the legislature that voters are certain to remember.
Of course the biggest reason to be optimistic that 2016 will be different than 2014 is the fact that 2016 is a presidential election year. Michigan is a blue state and nothing turns out Democrats like a presidential election. In fact Michigan has voted for Democrats for president every years since 1988 including a 17 point win for President Barack Obama in 2008. Given the cacophony of ideologues currently vying for the Republican presidential nomination it seems likely that the Democratic candidate will again turn out a large number of voters in 2016. These numbers should have a positive impact on Democrats running for state office.
There is little doubt that Michigan needs much of what proposal 1 offers but enough is enough. Liberals need to stop taking what they can get and start demanding what they deserve. Based on the results of the past 4 years the only way to make sure that happens is to replace as many of the corporate sponsored Republicans as possible. Voting no on proposal 1 is the first step in removing the devilish shade of red that is slowing strangling this state.
Unfortunately while claiming to hold the truly liberal position they seem to be somewhat oblivious as to the actual reason for liberals to vote against proposal 1. The opposition isn't to send the legislature a message. History shows they either don't care or don't understand what voters want. The opposition isn't because Rick Snyder supports it. Voting against your own best interested to spite the man at the top is a conservative thing. The opposition isn't a way to force the legislature back to the drawing board. Properly funding Michigan's infrastructure needs has been kicked down the road for years - this legislature clearly isn't capable of producing a viable solution no matter how long they are giving.
No the real progressive opposition to this bill finally standing up the bullies in Lansing and letting them know we aren't going to take this anymore. Getting funds for our roads and bridges, properly supporting public education, and restoring the tax credits for the working poor are all things this legislature should have done without holding voters hostage. The fact that these legislators repeatedly and consistently chose special interests over their constituents needs should cost them their jobs.
The staff at Eclectablog would probably agree with this statement however they seem defeated regarding the prospect of Democrats regaining control and doing the job voters expect from their elected officials, stating "If voters weren't motivated to get out and vote in 2014 after all Republicans had done to our state, I have little confidence they will do so in big enough numbers to take back the House and Senate in 2016, either".
Given how demoralized the authors sound a year and a half before the 2016 election cycle it is no wonder they are willing to capitulate on proposal 1. If failure is predetermined then taking the best deal you can get is the obvious choice. The problem is the assumption that voters won't remove Republicans in the future is anything but predetermined.
Republicans have put an awful lot of eggs in the proposal 1 basket and stand to lose some political capital upon its defeat. Democrats can easily show their Republican counterparts not only passed bill after bill that went against voters’ wishes but also limited the voters’ recourse by castrating democracy. Beyond that, few voters are so involved in politics that they would be outraged by many of the things liberal bloggers think should drive people to the polls. Crumbling roads and bridges however are a very salient failure of the legislature that voters are certain to remember.
Of course the biggest reason to be optimistic that 2016 will be different than 2014 is the fact that 2016 is a presidential election year. Michigan is a blue state and nothing turns out Democrats like a presidential election. In fact Michigan has voted for Democrats for president every years since 1988 including a 17 point win for President Barack Obama in 2008. Given the cacophony of ideologues currently vying for the Republican presidential nomination it seems likely that the Democratic candidate will again turn out a large number of voters in 2016. These numbers should have a positive impact on Democrats running for state office.
There is little doubt that Michigan needs much of what proposal 1 offers but enough is enough. Liberals need to stop taking what they can get and start demanding what they deserve. Based on the results of the past 4 years the only way to make sure that happens is to replace as many of the corporate sponsored Republicans as possible. Voting no on proposal 1 is the first step in removing the devilish shade of red that is slowing strangling this state.
Thursday, April 23, 2015
Is Islam really the mother lode of bad ideas?
Late last year, author and intellectual, Sam Harris, appeared on Real Time with Bill Maher and stated that “We have to be able to criticize bad ideas, and Islam is the Mother lode of bad ideas.” Unfortunately it seems the irony of his statement is completely lost on Mr. Harris.
Whether you believe his words to be "gross", "racist" and "ugly" or if you feel this is just a statement of fact, the question Harris has really never answered is what makes Islam the pinnacle of bad ideas? Few would argue that currently Islam doesn't possess the largest contingent of extremists; however, it seems like a stretch to blame the religion for this as Harris does.
There's no doubt that media outlets have pulled verses out of the Quran in an attempt to "prove" that the Muslim holy book is the source of this evil, but are quotes from a religious book really enough to indict an entire religion? With this in mind, listed below is a mix of verses from the Quran as well as the Bible. Is it obvious which book is the mother lode of bad ideas and which one is the religion of peace?
1) But that whoever would not seek the Lord... should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.
2) “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
3) Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.
4) If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.
5) "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
6) "Men are in charge of women."
7) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.
8) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.
9) ‘For if a woman is not veiled, let her hair be cut off; but if it is a shame to a woman to have her hair cut off, let her be veiled.’
10) Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments (veil); this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble.
11) A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.
12) "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
13) "Do you commit immorality while you are seeing? Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly."
14) "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death.”
15) "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.”
16) And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.
17) If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted.
18) "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."
The reality is nearly all religions have at one time or another been a haven for violence and extremists and used their holy book as justification for their actions. The problem with Islam right now is not the Quran, but the number of people who interpret the Quran in a way that allows them to rationalize the killing of others as doing the Lord’s work. As Fareed Zakaria has stated, "There is a cancer of extremism within Islam today" that needs to be addressed; however, condemning an entire religion which contains hundreds of millions of peaceful devotees is certainly a bad idea that is worth criticizing.
1)B, 2)Q, 3)B, 4)B, 5)B, 6)Q, 7)B, 8)B, 9)B, 10)Q, 11)B, 12)B, 13)Q, 14)B, 15)B, 16)Q, 17)B, 18)B.
Whether you believe his words to be "gross", "racist" and "ugly" or if you feel this is just a statement of fact, the question Harris has really never answered is what makes Islam the pinnacle of bad ideas? Few would argue that currently Islam doesn't possess the largest contingent of extremists; however, it seems like a stretch to blame the religion for this as Harris does.
There's no doubt that media outlets have pulled verses out of the Quran in an attempt to "prove" that the Muslim holy book is the source of this evil, but are quotes from a religious book really enough to indict an entire religion? With this in mind, listed below is a mix of verses from the Quran as well as the Bible. Is it obvious which book is the mother lode of bad ideas and which one is the religion of peace?
1) But that whoever would not seek the Lord... should be put to death, whether young or old, man or woman.
2) “As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help.”
3) Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death.
4) If a man commits adultery with another man's wife, both the man and the woman must be put to death.
5) "I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, she must be silent."
6) "Men are in charge of women."
7) All who curse their father or mother must be put to death. They are guilty of a capital offense.
8) Whoever strikes his father or mother shall be put to death.
9) ‘For if a woman is not veiled, let her hair be cut off; but if it is a shame to a woman to have her hair cut off, let her be veiled.’
10) Say to your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers that they let down upon them their over-garments (veil); this will be more proper, that they may be known, and thus they will not be given trouble.
11) A man or a woman who acts as a medium or fortuneteller shall be put to death by stoning; they have no one but themselves to blame for their death.
12) "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives."
13) "Do you commit immorality while you are seeing? Do you indeed approach men with desire instead of women? Rather, you are a people behaving ignorantly."
14) "Take the blasphemer outside the camp, and tell all those who heard him to lay their hands on his head. Then let the entire community stone him to death.”
15) "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children.”
16) And when the forbidden months have passed, kill the idolaters wherever you find them and take them prisoners, and beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them at every place of ambush.
17) If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted.
18) "If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity."
The reality is nearly all religions have at one time or another been a haven for violence and extremists and used their holy book as justification for their actions. The problem with Islam right now is not the Quran, but the number of people who interpret the Quran in a way that allows them to rationalize the killing of others as doing the Lord’s work. As Fareed Zakaria has stated, "There is a cancer of extremism within Islam today" that needs to be addressed; however, condemning an entire religion which contains hundreds of millions of peaceful devotees is certainly a bad idea that is worth criticizing.
1)B, 2)Q, 3)B, 4)B, 5)B, 6)Q, 7)B, 8)B, 9)B, 10)Q, 11)B, 12)B, 13)Q, 14)B, 15)B, 16)Q, 17)B, 18)B.
Friday, April 17, 2015
Proposal 1 proves Republican incompetence
In two weeks Michigan voters will be asked to decide the fate of proposal 1 which would raise the states sales tax to help fund roads. Polls show that at this point Michigan residents are solidly against this proposal despite support from the governor and every major newspaper editorial board in the state.
As with any legislation there are obviously a number of issues that turn off various groups of voters. For example raising the sales tax is a regressive tax that will increase the burden on the poor. Do we really want to fund public roads on the backs of the working poor? The proposal is also based on a percentage which means when the economy is doing well the state will have plenty of money however as soon as the economy hits another bump in the road, legislators will again be looking for ways to pinch pennies. Shouldn't we find a solution that not only functions in the ideal situation but also when the state is struggling? Additionally proposal 1 changes the way in which taxes are collected at the pump allowing the legislature to avoid the voter approved constitutional amendment that requires a certain percentage of this money ends up in public education. Given that the governor already admitted that he and this legislature "cut k-12 education" spending can we really trust that this workaround isn't just another way to reallocate important education funds?
In spite of these and other problems with proposal 1 there are certainly things to like. It increases funding to improve Michigan's crumbling infrastructure which studies say could save Michigan families as much as $1,000 per year. The proposal also includes changes to the earned income tax credit that will benefit working class Michigan residents as well as an additional influx of money for public education.
While these are all important components to consider when making a decision regarding how to vote on proposal 1 they all pale in comparison to the one really damming issue at play in this special election - the reality that were it not for the cowardice of elected officials this trip to the polls would be completely unnecessary. The fact that the people voters tasked with making the tough decisions are so afraid of losing their jobs that they would put the desires of a fringe "no new taxes" group ahead of the needs of their constituents suggests that the real problem here is not road or education funding but a complete and total failure of leadership.
Polls show Michigan voters top two spending priorities are infrastructure and education yet currently Michigan spends less per capita on bridges and roads than any other state in the nation and this legislature has overseen a $648 cut to the per pupil foundation allowance.
Instead of focusing on voters preferences these legislators proved just how beholden they are to corporations by issuing a nearly two billion dollar tax cut to businesses while raising taxes on almost 50% of Michigan residents. Obviously most Michiganders would support these changes if it lead to massive economic improvement however studies show that the vast majority of jobs created over the past few years are not due to any actions by the Michigan legislature. In fact, even organizations that the governor cited in his bid for reelection said “Snyder’s overhaul has not yet prompted as much job growth”, and “his tax overhaul being hard on working families and seniors”.
Having said that a recent LinkedIn poll found that the top two drivers of economic development are having an educated work force and a well maintained infrastructure, while tax climate came in a distant fourth behind Access to Affordable energy. Additionally a survey of corporate executives found that the top consideration for where to locate was access to good roads while the previous number one concern was the availability of skilled labor. The data also show that the Republican legislative priorities of tax rates, job training, and "right to work" were all lower concerns when it came to finding a business location.
These findings suggest that if the Republican's goal was to make Michigan a more competitive state improving infrastructure and education not tax cuts and divisive "right to work" legislation should have been the legislature’s first order of business. This failure to understand the motives of corporations is perhaps why even with all of the efforts the governor and his Republican legislative counterparts claim to be putting in to make Michigan more attractive to business, Michigan still ranks as the 26th best state to do business.
The reality is that like refusing to vote for a tax increase, the legislative priorities of these elected officials has clearly been self preservation by enrich top contributors and ignoring constituents and best practices.
Of course failing to honor the will of the people is hardly a new thing for this legislature. When voters decided to eliminate the Emergency Manager Law, legislative Republicans quickly wrote a new law and tacked on some additional taxpayer dollars so they could call it a budgetary item which makes it referendum proof moving forward. This means whether voters like this law or not they are stuck with it. Similarly many of these same legislators have also been attempting to restrict a woman's right to an abortion as well as standing against same sex marriage despite polls that show opposition to these positions.
This astounding hypocrisy illustrates just how spineless these legislators are. They clearly don't trust voters to make the right decisions yet they would rather look incompetent than be seen as a Republican that supports a tax increase.
Making matters worse is the fact that this special election will cost the taxpayers around $10 million. That is $10 million that could have been used to fix a few roads near you. That is $10 million that could have improved the education for thousands of kids. That is $10 million that could have made the tax burden a little less overwhelming for Michigan's working poor. That is $10 million that this legislature squandered because they were too scared or self absorbed to do their job.
With all due respect to the many editorials written that find just enough to like about this legislation to ask Michiganders to vote yes, this vote is way bigger than simply properly funding roads and education. This vote sends the legislature a message about what voters will tolerate. As the old business saying goes, "If I have to do your job, I don't need you". Well, this legislature has proven over and over again that the needs of Michigan resident place a distant second to retaining their seat. Vote no on proposal 1 and tell the Michigan legislature that they either do their job or we will find someone else who will because this sort of continued ineptitude is completely unacceptable.
As with any legislation there are obviously a number of issues that turn off various groups of voters. For example raising the sales tax is a regressive tax that will increase the burden on the poor. Do we really want to fund public roads on the backs of the working poor? The proposal is also based on a percentage which means when the economy is doing well the state will have plenty of money however as soon as the economy hits another bump in the road, legislators will again be looking for ways to pinch pennies. Shouldn't we find a solution that not only functions in the ideal situation but also when the state is struggling? Additionally proposal 1 changes the way in which taxes are collected at the pump allowing the legislature to avoid the voter approved constitutional amendment that requires a certain percentage of this money ends up in public education. Given that the governor already admitted that he and this legislature "cut k-12 education" spending can we really trust that this workaround isn't just another way to reallocate important education funds?
In spite of these and other problems with proposal 1 there are certainly things to like. It increases funding to improve Michigan's crumbling infrastructure which studies say could save Michigan families as much as $1,000 per year. The proposal also includes changes to the earned income tax credit that will benefit working class Michigan residents as well as an additional influx of money for public education.
While these are all important components to consider when making a decision regarding how to vote on proposal 1 they all pale in comparison to the one really damming issue at play in this special election - the reality that were it not for the cowardice of elected officials this trip to the polls would be completely unnecessary. The fact that the people voters tasked with making the tough decisions are so afraid of losing their jobs that they would put the desires of a fringe "no new taxes" group ahead of the needs of their constituents suggests that the real problem here is not road or education funding but a complete and total failure of leadership.
Polls show Michigan voters top two spending priorities are infrastructure and education yet currently Michigan spends less per capita on bridges and roads than any other state in the nation and this legislature has overseen a $648 cut to the per pupil foundation allowance.
Instead of focusing on voters preferences these legislators proved just how beholden they are to corporations by issuing a nearly two billion dollar tax cut to businesses while raising taxes on almost 50% of Michigan residents. Obviously most Michiganders would support these changes if it lead to massive economic improvement however studies show that the vast majority of jobs created over the past few years are not due to any actions by the Michigan legislature. In fact, even organizations that the governor cited in his bid for reelection said “Snyder’s overhaul has not yet prompted as much job growth”, and “his tax overhaul being hard on working families and seniors”.
Having said that a recent LinkedIn poll found that the top two drivers of economic development are having an educated work force and a well maintained infrastructure, while tax climate came in a distant fourth behind Access to Affordable energy. Additionally a survey of corporate executives found that the top consideration for where to locate was access to good roads while the previous number one concern was the availability of skilled labor. The data also show that the Republican legislative priorities of tax rates, job training, and "right to work" were all lower concerns when it came to finding a business location.
These findings suggest that if the Republican's goal was to make Michigan a more competitive state improving infrastructure and education not tax cuts and divisive "right to work" legislation should have been the legislature’s first order of business. This failure to understand the motives of corporations is perhaps why even with all of the efforts the governor and his Republican legislative counterparts claim to be putting in to make Michigan more attractive to business, Michigan still ranks as the 26th best state to do business.
The reality is that like refusing to vote for a tax increase, the legislative priorities of these elected officials has clearly been self preservation by enrich top contributors and ignoring constituents and best practices.
Of course failing to honor the will of the people is hardly a new thing for this legislature. When voters decided to eliminate the Emergency Manager Law, legislative Republicans quickly wrote a new law and tacked on some additional taxpayer dollars so they could call it a budgetary item which makes it referendum proof moving forward. This means whether voters like this law or not they are stuck with it. Similarly many of these same legislators have also been attempting to restrict a woman's right to an abortion as well as standing against same sex marriage despite polls that show opposition to these positions.
This astounding hypocrisy illustrates just how spineless these legislators are. They clearly don't trust voters to make the right decisions yet they would rather look incompetent than be seen as a Republican that supports a tax increase.
Making matters worse is the fact that this special election will cost the taxpayers around $10 million. That is $10 million that could have been used to fix a few roads near you. That is $10 million that could have improved the education for thousands of kids. That is $10 million that could have made the tax burden a little less overwhelming for Michigan's working poor. That is $10 million that this legislature squandered because they were too scared or self absorbed to do their job.
With all due respect to the many editorials written that find just enough to like about this legislation to ask Michiganders to vote yes, this vote is way bigger than simply properly funding roads and education. This vote sends the legislature a message about what voters will tolerate. As the old business saying goes, "If I have to do your job, I don't need you". Well, this legislature has proven over and over again that the needs of Michigan resident place a distant second to retaining their seat. Vote no on proposal 1 and tell the Michigan legislature that they either do their job or we will find someone else who will because this sort of continued ineptitude is completely unacceptable.
Friday, April 10, 2015
Education reformers are so gullible
Education reformers believe the public education system in America is broken. Despite having a long list of reasons for these failures, they have yet to find a way to turn their conjecture into successful reform. Charter schools, merit pay, ending tenure, fewer union teachers, teacher evaluations, and teach for America are some of the more popular ideas that haven't actually improved outcomes.
The problem is, each of these ideas assumes teachers are the issue. They aren't properly motivated, censured, cultivated, or eliminated. Unfortunately for reformers these tend to be fallacies based on the media's obsession with a few bad apples. For example the bad teachers meme has become so prevalent that even school districts are convinced it is an issue yet when these districts made a concerted effort to identify educators that needed to be removed they found that only 1.5% were actually ineffective.
If a 1.5% ineffective rate is an epidemic that requires a complete overhaul of the public education system it should be noted that 5% of doctors accounted for 54% of malpractice payouts. From the beginning of the century 23% of military veterans who were discharged received a less than honorable discharge. And according to the Harvard Business Review, 40% of CEO's fail in their first 18 months. Where is the public outrage and legislative action to correct these issues?
While it is certainly true that having good teachers is important, teachers are only part of the equation. The reform movement seems completely uninterested in legislation that makes parents and students more accountable for the child's performance. They aren't addressing the inequalities in resources or safety that impact a student’s ability to learn. And they don't seem very concerned about data that show, when adjusted for poverty, the U.S. already has the best education in the world at every level.
Reformers also tend to be very concerned about the amount of money being spent to educate children today. This too seems hypocritical, given that over the past two decades education spending has only increased by 25% more than inflation which is far smaller than increases in defense spending, health care, college tuition, and CEO wages. This suggests public education is hardly the biggest boondoggle in America, yet many of the people who act like education spending is out of control will be the first to defend the never ending rise in funding for some of these other areas.
Given the concern for improving education and saving money, the latest fad for the reformers is very perplexing. Whether you call it virtual schools, online education or cyber schools, the next great thing in education reform is letting kids take classes over the internet. While there are certainly benefits to children learning from home for both the child and the teacher, the process relies on self-directed learning which studies have shown lower educational outcomes in college students.
Based on these results, it comes as no surprise that the data from across the country shows that children who take these online classes preform worse on standardized tests than traditional schools. It's possible the issues are in execution, but it's also possible that this sort of self-directed learning only works for a small portion of students who are already motivated to learn.
Of course, the data also shows that virtual schools cost less than traditional schools. This would seem to fit with reformers concerns of ever increasing education spending; however, currently tax payers see none of the benefits of these savings since these cyber schools receive the same per pupil funding as their brick and mortar counterparts despite the fact that these schools cost less to operate.
Unfortunately this is the real trend in education reform these days. Corporations are looking at ways to monetize America's children while simultaneously undercutting the power of their greatest potential adversaries.
Sure charter schools were a good start to bilking the public out of millions of dollars under the guise of "education reform", but online schools are the golden goose of for-profit education. Of course, any good corporation knows that one of the fastest ways to boost profits is to lower the wages of employees. This means finding excuses to fire well compensated teachers, offering lower starting salaries with the carrot of earning more for meeting unobtainable goals, and hiring under-qualified educators with only weeks of training who will work for less and only stick around for a few years should absolutely be part of any corporate takeover of education.
The only other obstacle to turning what used to be seen as a civic duty into a fortune 500 company are teachers unions. Having an organization that acts as a balance to corporate greed and works to make sure the needs of children and the people entrusted with their education are represented is clearly an issue for increasing profits. Luckily for these companies, there are enough people who have bought the education reform message hook, line and sinker and enough money to buy legislative compliance that changes have reached the top levels of government. And they have done this despite the fact that education reform has met neither goal of improving educational outcomes or saving money.
The thing voters need to ask themselves is, who do they believe has the best interests of their child in mind more - the person who interacts with them every day and is part of their local community or the corporate CEO 500 miles away who answers to an unelected board and investors. Because right now, the only ones really benefiting from the litany of education reform sweeping the nation are the corporations.
It's time for reformers to take a page out of their own playbook and honestly evaluate the effectiveness of their ideas. If they did, they would realize that the only thing truly broken about public education is education reform. Unfortunately too many of these people aren't educated enough to recognize they're being duped.
The problem is, each of these ideas assumes teachers are the issue. They aren't properly motivated, censured, cultivated, or eliminated. Unfortunately for reformers these tend to be fallacies based on the media's obsession with a few bad apples. For example the bad teachers meme has become so prevalent that even school districts are convinced it is an issue yet when these districts made a concerted effort to identify educators that needed to be removed they found that only 1.5% were actually ineffective.
If a 1.5% ineffective rate is an epidemic that requires a complete overhaul of the public education system it should be noted that 5% of doctors accounted for 54% of malpractice payouts. From the beginning of the century 23% of military veterans who were discharged received a less than honorable discharge. And according to the Harvard Business Review, 40% of CEO's fail in their first 18 months. Where is the public outrage and legislative action to correct these issues?
While it is certainly true that having good teachers is important, teachers are only part of the equation. The reform movement seems completely uninterested in legislation that makes parents and students more accountable for the child's performance. They aren't addressing the inequalities in resources or safety that impact a student’s ability to learn. And they don't seem very concerned about data that show, when adjusted for poverty, the U.S. already has the best education in the world at every level.
Reformers also tend to be very concerned about the amount of money being spent to educate children today. This too seems hypocritical, given that over the past two decades education spending has only increased by 25% more than inflation which is far smaller than increases in defense spending, health care, college tuition, and CEO wages. This suggests public education is hardly the biggest boondoggle in America, yet many of the people who act like education spending is out of control will be the first to defend the never ending rise in funding for some of these other areas.
Given the concern for improving education and saving money, the latest fad for the reformers is very perplexing. Whether you call it virtual schools, online education or cyber schools, the next great thing in education reform is letting kids take classes over the internet. While there are certainly benefits to children learning from home for both the child and the teacher, the process relies on self-directed learning which studies have shown lower educational outcomes in college students.
Based on these results, it comes as no surprise that the data from across the country shows that children who take these online classes preform worse on standardized tests than traditional schools. It's possible the issues are in execution, but it's also possible that this sort of self-directed learning only works for a small portion of students who are already motivated to learn.
Of course, the data also shows that virtual schools cost less than traditional schools. This would seem to fit with reformers concerns of ever increasing education spending; however, currently tax payers see none of the benefits of these savings since these cyber schools receive the same per pupil funding as their brick and mortar counterparts despite the fact that these schools cost less to operate.
Unfortunately this is the real trend in education reform these days. Corporations are looking at ways to monetize America's children while simultaneously undercutting the power of their greatest potential adversaries.
Sure charter schools were a good start to bilking the public out of millions of dollars under the guise of "education reform", but online schools are the golden goose of for-profit education. Of course, any good corporation knows that one of the fastest ways to boost profits is to lower the wages of employees. This means finding excuses to fire well compensated teachers, offering lower starting salaries with the carrot of earning more for meeting unobtainable goals, and hiring under-qualified educators with only weeks of training who will work for less and only stick around for a few years should absolutely be part of any corporate takeover of education.
The only other obstacle to turning what used to be seen as a civic duty into a fortune 500 company are teachers unions. Having an organization that acts as a balance to corporate greed and works to make sure the needs of children and the people entrusted with their education are represented is clearly an issue for increasing profits. Luckily for these companies, there are enough people who have bought the education reform message hook, line and sinker and enough money to buy legislative compliance that changes have reached the top levels of government. And they have done this despite the fact that education reform has met neither goal of improving educational outcomes or saving money.
The thing voters need to ask themselves is, who do they believe has the best interests of their child in mind more - the person who interacts with them every day and is part of their local community or the corporate CEO 500 miles away who answers to an unelected board and investors. Because right now, the only ones really benefiting from the litany of education reform sweeping the nation are the corporations.
It's time for reformers to take a page out of their own playbook and honestly evaluate the effectiveness of their ideas. If they did, they would realize that the only thing truly broken about public education is education reform. Unfortunately too many of these people aren't educated enough to recognize they're being duped.
Friday, March 27, 2015
Christian paranoia makes for awful legislation
Christians across the country are paranoid. In their mind there is an unmitigated war on Christianity where Christians are becoming the most ostracized group in America.
Essentially Christian oppression has become the white conservative version of playing the race card and conservative media darling Todd Starnes is the Al Sharpton of this movement. No offense is to insignificant for Starnes to fan the flames of imaginary outraged.
- Student gets reprimanded for adding "god bless America" to the morning announcements without permission and it's proof of Christians being marginalized.
- Say the pledge of allegiance in multiple languages to honor America's immigrant history and again its proof of Christians being marginalized.
For people like Starnes it is a matter of religious freedom for Christians to espouse their beliefs whenever and wherever they please. However if Muslims or Atheists were to do the exact same thing it would show how the liberal public education system is instituting Sharia law and indoctrinating students to hate Jesus. The cognitive dissociation required to make such contradictory arguments is astounding.
Of course guys like Starnes are easy to dismiss as media trolls looking to make a buck by pandering to the irrational fears of low information voters. The real problem is the wave of legislators across the nation who are peddling hate under the guise of religious rights.
In Michigan for example the legislature recently took up two different religious freedom bills. One would allow adoption agencies to deny service to people in the LGBT community. The other would allow for the denial of housing, refusal of service, or rejection of employment due to a citizen's religious beliefs.
The adoption bill seems destined to fail a constitutionally test since previous decisions regarding the separation of church and state have shown that these protections are for things that are secular in nature. Allowing a religious based adoption agency to receive state funding while denying service to people solely based on the organizations religious beliefs appears to violate the Supreme Courts previous rulings.
Perhaps more concerning than the potential constitutionality of this legislation is the idea that an organization acting as an intermediary has more rights than the children there are tasked with helping. If the kids don't mind having same sex parents then the religious objections of the adoption agency are completely immaterial. Do these organizations get to deny adoptions to individuals who have been divorced? Can they turn away adults who take contraception? Is being obese a rational religious exception? If an applicant had an abortion previously can they be rejected? These are all sins or against the religious teachings of these organizations - does that mean they are protected too?
But if legislators and these entities are really concerned about the well being of these children than maybe they should support legislation that prevents some of the thousands of mistreatments that occur at the hands of adoptive and foster parent each year. Does anyone really think protecting the religious rights of an organization should be a higher priority for Michigan than preventing harm to children?
Data also show that kids who are forced into foster care are more likely to be homeless, incarcerated, and unemployed. Is letting a same sex couple love and raise a child really worse than the alternative? Should children really have to suffer because of an organization’s religious objections?
The selfishness required to place the religious freedom of an organization above the good of children seems extraordinarily un-Christian.
As far as allowing people to deny services, housing, or employment based on faith is concerned, so far the courts have ruled against such arguments. If you want to discriminate against any particular group then all you need to do is become a member’s only entity. Churches can refuse to marry same sex couples because you must be a member to receive service. If you don't want any women at your private golf club there is nothing the government can do to prevent you from implementing such a policy. But if you want all the benefits of dealing with the public you forfeit your ability to operate outside of government regulations. The baker can refuse to include speech they find offensive on a cake but they can't refuse to provide cake based on who you are as a person.
Having said that if enacted these laws are likely to hurt the people they are designed to protect. A florist may refuse to provide flowers for a Catholic wedding since the Catholic Church has shown to protect pedophiles. A photographer could deny services to white customers because they only serve blacks. An atheist DJ could decline the opportunity to work with Christians because they have a conscious objection to their beliefs. And as soon as the shoe is on the other foot you can guarantee that Todd Starnes will be outraged and pretend that when these laws are used against Christians it is an abomination that requires government intervention.
The good news is that while this legislation may be popular among a small group of people the general trend shows that American's are increasingly against this sort of discrimination. This means like slavery, interracial marriage, and women's equality before it those who are using the bible as justification for their prejudice against the LGBT community will soon find themselves on the wrong side of history as well as the law.
In the end the constitution already protects everyone's religious freedom. If the courts have decided your brand of Christianity isn't covered by this historical document it doesn't mean there is a war against Christianity. It means you're using your religion to hide the fact that you're an intolerant bigot.
Essentially Christian oppression has become the white conservative version of playing the race card and conservative media darling Todd Starnes is the Al Sharpton of this movement. No offense is to insignificant for Starnes to fan the flames of imaginary outraged.
- Student gets reprimanded for adding "god bless America" to the morning announcements without permission and it's proof of Christians being marginalized.
- Say the pledge of allegiance in multiple languages to honor America's immigrant history and again its proof of Christians being marginalized.
For people like Starnes it is a matter of religious freedom for Christians to espouse their beliefs whenever and wherever they please. However if Muslims or Atheists were to do the exact same thing it would show how the liberal public education system is instituting Sharia law and indoctrinating students to hate Jesus. The cognitive dissociation required to make such contradictory arguments is astounding.
Of course guys like Starnes are easy to dismiss as media trolls looking to make a buck by pandering to the irrational fears of low information voters. The real problem is the wave of legislators across the nation who are peddling hate under the guise of religious rights.
In Michigan for example the legislature recently took up two different religious freedom bills. One would allow adoption agencies to deny service to people in the LGBT community. The other would allow for the denial of housing, refusal of service, or rejection of employment due to a citizen's religious beliefs.
The adoption bill seems destined to fail a constitutionally test since previous decisions regarding the separation of church and state have shown that these protections are for things that are secular in nature. Allowing a religious based adoption agency to receive state funding while denying service to people solely based on the organizations religious beliefs appears to violate the Supreme Courts previous rulings.
Perhaps more concerning than the potential constitutionality of this legislation is the idea that an organization acting as an intermediary has more rights than the children there are tasked with helping. If the kids don't mind having same sex parents then the religious objections of the adoption agency are completely immaterial. Do these organizations get to deny adoptions to individuals who have been divorced? Can they turn away adults who take contraception? Is being obese a rational religious exception? If an applicant had an abortion previously can they be rejected? These are all sins or against the religious teachings of these organizations - does that mean they are protected too?
But if legislators and these entities are really concerned about the well being of these children than maybe they should support legislation that prevents some of the thousands of mistreatments that occur at the hands of adoptive and foster parent each year. Does anyone really think protecting the religious rights of an organization should be a higher priority for Michigan than preventing harm to children?
Data also show that kids who are forced into foster care are more likely to be homeless, incarcerated, and unemployed. Is letting a same sex couple love and raise a child really worse than the alternative? Should children really have to suffer because of an organization’s religious objections?
The selfishness required to place the religious freedom of an organization above the good of children seems extraordinarily un-Christian.
As far as allowing people to deny services, housing, or employment based on faith is concerned, so far the courts have ruled against such arguments. If you want to discriminate against any particular group then all you need to do is become a member’s only entity. Churches can refuse to marry same sex couples because you must be a member to receive service. If you don't want any women at your private golf club there is nothing the government can do to prevent you from implementing such a policy. But if you want all the benefits of dealing with the public you forfeit your ability to operate outside of government regulations. The baker can refuse to include speech they find offensive on a cake but they can't refuse to provide cake based on who you are as a person.
Having said that if enacted these laws are likely to hurt the people they are designed to protect. A florist may refuse to provide flowers for a Catholic wedding since the Catholic Church has shown to protect pedophiles. A photographer could deny services to white customers because they only serve blacks. An atheist DJ could decline the opportunity to work with Christians because they have a conscious objection to their beliefs. And as soon as the shoe is on the other foot you can guarantee that Todd Starnes will be outraged and pretend that when these laws are used against Christians it is an abomination that requires government intervention.
The good news is that while this legislation may be popular among a small group of people the general trend shows that American's are increasingly against this sort of discrimination. This means like slavery, interracial marriage, and women's equality before it those who are using the bible as justification for their prejudice against the LGBT community will soon find themselves on the wrong side of history as well as the law.
In the end the constitution already protects everyone's religious freedom. If the courts have decided your brand of Christianity isn't covered by this historical document it doesn't mean there is a war against Christianity. It means you're using your religion to hide the fact that you're an intolerant bigot.
Friday, March 20, 2015
America needs labor unions
Speaker of the House John Boehner website says "Helping to build a stronger, healthier economy for all Americans is priority number one for House Republicans". He also is one of a small but growing number of Republicans that admit income inequality is a huge obstacle to reaching this goal. Unfortunately Boehner has failed to offer any solutions to this problem beyond the standard "blame Obama" rhetoric.
Luckily for Republicans like Boehner the party's policy from decades ago offers a simply solution to the U.S. income inequality problem. In extolling the virtues of former President Eisenhower's first term in office the GOP platform stated "The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration." In fact, labor unions were so integral to America's success President Eisenhower also said "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
Despite the Republican's change of heart the value of unions to the success of the U.S. economy remains the same today. A report from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development finds that that income inequality cost the U.S. economy 6 to 7 percentage points of growth during the first 10 years of this century. Considering that studies have found a direct correlation between the number of people in labor unions and the distribution of wealth it becomes clear that if the Republicans goal is to build a stronger, healthier economy for all Americans then continuing to add obstacles to organizing is the wrong approach.
Data show that in 2013 corporations profit as a percentage of gross domestic product hit record highs passing the record that was set just a year earlier. If trickledown theory, championed by Republicans, were ever to work then now would be the time since never before has then been so much available to trickle down. Unfortunately instead of sharing this wealth with the laborers who "create the wealth" the numbers show that the vast majority of the gains end up in the pockets of CEO's and shareholders.
Of course the problem isn't that Republicans are necessarily against collective bargaining or letting the workers get a greater piece of the pie. The problem is that they have latched on to every negative union stereotype they have ever heard of and created a union caricature that is antiquated and inaccurate. For example many believe that union bosses earn outrageous sums of money with some of the highest paid earning a little over 10 times the average union member salary. Yet of the companies that comprise Standard & Poor's top 250 the lowest ratio for CEO to employee wage is 173.
It's certainly possible that union heads bring home too much money but it is totally disingenuous to pretend that earning 10 times as much as the average worker is an atrocity while supporting companies who pay their top brass as much as 1,795 times what the average worker makes. The reality is that regardless of whether the organization is a union or a corporation the money the people at the top earn results in less money for the average worker.
These people also pretend that unions have an inordinate amount of influence in politics despite the data that show corporations outspent unions 15 to 1 in the most recent Presidential election cycle.
Some people suggest union members would be better off negotiating their wages independently as though each individual has the tools and power to strike a better deal than they could get as a union member. This is a mighty peculiar argument given that nearly all corporations use the power their size affords them to gain an advantage every day. Would Wal-Mart be able to offer the deals they currently do if they only owned one small store?
Corporations also hire experts to handle nearly every facet of business. Could the CEO also do the job of the accountant, the corporate lawyer, or the salesman? Sure, but they probably aren't as good as the people who have trained for these jobs. Similarly union members have experts in negotiation represent them which are why union members get a greater share of profits and have better benefits than their non union counterparts.
There are also people who believe unions go out of their way to protect bad members. Obviously unions would like to have as many members as possible but in a closed shop situation where is the incentive to retain the worst workers? The guy that is hired to replace the fired union member will automatically be enrolled in the union so there is no benefit in holding onto bad members. This is however an issue in so called "right to work" (RTW) states since the replacement employee may or may not join the union. This uncertainty may lead the unions to be slightly more protective of underperforming employees - making this a self fulfilling prophecy for RTW advocates.
Having said that what the unions are doing in these situations is representing the rights of the employee. The union isn't asked to be judge and jury; they are tasked with making the best case for the employee. To ask the unions to arbitrarily side with the company - against their members - suggests these people believe the corporation and their dismissal process to be infallible despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
In the end there are very few people who profit from diminished union membership. Unfortunately for the vast majority of those who oppose unions they are not in the group that enjoys the monetary benefits from low unionism.
There is no doubt that unions need to make some changes to address the image problem they currently have but to some extent that case if very easy to make. Lower union membership leads to higher income inequality which is bad for the economy. Unions are democratic capitalist organizations. If you don't like the way they are being run become a member and vote for change. After all Republicans have spent decades asserting that using government to pick the winners is losers is something only socialist would do.
The reality is unions are the greatest tool at most workers disposal for rebuilding the middle class. Advocating for the elimination of this tool is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Luckily for Republicans like Boehner the party's policy from decades ago offers a simply solution to the U.S. income inequality problem. In extolling the virtues of former President Eisenhower's first term in office the GOP platform stated "The protection of the right of workers to organize into unions and to bargain collectively is the firm and permanent policy of the Eisenhower Administration." In fact, labor unions were so integral to America's success President Eisenhower also said "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country—they are America."
Despite the Republican's change of heart the value of unions to the success of the U.S. economy remains the same today. A report from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development finds that that income inequality cost the U.S. economy 6 to 7 percentage points of growth during the first 10 years of this century. Considering that studies have found a direct correlation between the number of people in labor unions and the distribution of wealth it becomes clear that if the Republicans goal is to build a stronger, healthier economy for all Americans then continuing to add obstacles to organizing is the wrong approach.
Data show that in 2013 corporations profit as a percentage of gross domestic product hit record highs passing the record that was set just a year earlier. If trickledown theory, championed by Republicans, were ever to work then now would be the time since never before has then been so much available to trickle down. Unfortunately instead of sharing this wealth with the laborers who "create the wealth" the numbers show that the vast majority of the gains end up in the pockets of CEO's and shareholders.
Of course the problem isn't that Republicans are necessarily against collective bargaining or letting the workers get a greater piece of the pie. The problem is that they have latched on to every negative union stereotype they have ever heard of and created a union caricature that is antiquated and inaccurate. For example many believe that union bosses earn outrageous sums of money with some of the highest paid earning a little over 10 times the average union member salary. Yet of the companies that comprise Standard & Poor's top 250 the lowest ratio for CEO to employee wage is 173.
It's certainly possible that union heads bring home too much money but it is totally disingenuous to pretend that earning 10 times as much as the average worker is an atrocity while supporting companies who pay their top brass as much as 1,795 times what the average worker makes. The reality is that regardless of whether the organization is a union or a corporation the money the people at the top earn results in less money for the average worker.
These people also pretend that unions have an inordinate amount of influence in politics despite the data that show corporations outspent unions 15 to 1 in the most recent Presidential election cycle.
Some people suggest union members would be better off negotiating their wages independently as though each individual has the tools and power to strike a better deal than they could get as a union member. This is a mighty peculiar argument given that nearly all corporations use the power their size affords them to gain an advantage every day. Would Wal-Mart be able to offer the deals they currently do if they only owned one small store?
Corporations also hire experts to handle nearly every facet of business. Could the CEO also do the job of the accountant, the corporate lawyer, or the salesman? Sure, but they probably aren't as good as the people who have trained for these jobs. Similarly union members have experts in negotiation represent them which are why union members get a greater share of profits and have better benefits than their non union counterparts.
There are also people who believe unions go out of their way to protect bad members. Obviously unions would like to have as many members as possible but in a closed shop situation where is the incentive to retain the worst workers? The guy that is hired to replace the fired union member will automatically be enrolled in the union so there is no benefit in holding onto bad members. This is however an issue in so called "right to work" (RTW) states since the replacement employee may or may not join the union. This uncertainty may lead the unions to be slightly more protective of underperforming employees - making this a self fulfilling prophecy for RTW advocates.
Having said that what the unions are doing in these situations is representing the rights of the employee. The union isn't asked to be judge and jury; they are tasked with making the best case for the employee. To ask the unions to arbitrarily side with the company - against their members - suggests these people believe the corporation and their dismissal process to be infallible despite the mountains of evidence to the contrary.
In the end there are very few people who profit from diminished union membership. Unfortunately for the vast majority of those who oppose unions they are not in the group that enjoys the monetary benefits from low unionism.
There is no doubt that unions need to make some changes to address the image problem they currently have but to some extent that case if very easy to make. Lower union membership leads to higher income inequality which is bad for the economy. Unions are democratic capitalist organizations. If you don't like the way they are being run become a member and vote for change. After all Republicans have spent decades asserting that using government to pick the winners is losers is something only socialist would do.
The reality is unions are the greatest tool at most workers disposal for rebuilding the middle class. Advocating for the elimination of this tool is the epitome of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Monday, March 16, 2015
The white persons guide to eliminating racism
The conservative media has turned denying racism into a cottage industry. They say things like "the only people perpetuating racism are people like this gentleman from NAACP", "to drive African-Americans to the polls, the race card is now being played", "We have a black president, we have black senators... I don’t think there’s racism.", and "we don't have racism in America anymore".
The report regarding the systemic racism in Ferguson as well as a litany of other incidents over the past few years suggest racism is far from over in the U.S. With that in mind white America should consider the following statement from Thomas Sowell: “When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.” Well, the truth is data show if you are white you are probably racist. You may not be overtly racist but you are racist nonetheless.
Luckily conservative whites have spent an awful lot of time recently telling other races and cultures how they can go about fixing their issues so there is already a guide for white people to follow to help with their racist tendencies.
For example many conservative pundits obsessed over the idea that black leaders were ignoring problems in their communities to focus on systemic inequality in the justice system leading to the deaths of a disproportionately high number of African America's at the hands of law enforcement.
Bill O'Reilly even went as far as to offer up a couple "solutions" to fix what ails the African American community. The first gem was to suggest that "you’ve got to stop young black women from having babies out of wedlock".
Forgetting for a second that socioeconomic status not skin color is the greatest predictor of women having children out of wedlock it seems that if we were to apply O'Reilly's principles equally to both whites and blacks then to end racism we need to stop single whites from having children. After all if being unattached and black means your children are destined to be criminals then children of unwed white mothers will similarly have no choice but to be racist. It's just common sense.
The second completely not racist solution from O'Reilly was "you have to demand discipline in your public schools" because everyone knows that black students are inherently more disruptive than white students. If that wasn't the case then it would mean the reason black students are three times as likely to be suspended and expelled is racism.
Again, following the O'Reilly logic, we also need to demand discipline for whites in public schools since the education system has clearly failed these students. Some whites will claim that students are already being racially indoctrinated in Comrade Obama's public school system but if the conservative media has taught us anything it’s that reality doesn't matter when it comes to discussion about race. If it did then the fact that scores of black leaders were discussing the high rates of crimes in their communities, long before it became a conservative racist denial tactic, would have killed a key media talking point before it started.
Of course African American's aren't the only group that conservative whites have advice for. Following any violence by individuals or groups who are associated with Islam the conservative media outrage machine goes into overdrive. Muslims who interpret their holy book completely differently than the violent extremists are told they must denounce the actions of these people simply because the name of their faith is the same. It is also suggested that these people learn how to assimilate into a society that may be different than the way of life they are used to.
Obviously if these recommendations are good for Muslims then they should also be good for whites. Instead of making excuses for racists and their ignorant actions and statements all whites should denounce them. After all if you are white then you have something in common with racist whites. Essentially you are racist by proxy unless you excoriate white racists.
The same is true for assimilation. Clearly these racists are having trouble assimilating into a world where non-white people are afforded all the same freedoms and rights as their Caucasian countrymen. If whites followed Sean Hannity's rules for Muslims and eliminated all ‘no-go zones’ that deter or prevent non whites from certain places and activities, remove all religious paraphernalia from hotels, and prevent the government from representing any one religion then these racists would assimilate into the American melting pot and racism would completely disappear.
The good news is that conservative pundits have no shortage of spurious solutions that they could support to fix white America's racism problem. The bad news is that the arrogance that allows these people to pontificate on topics they are ill-informed to solve is the same arrogance that lets them dismiss even the most scientific data as invalid. If only these conservatives were as enthusiastic about addressing their own faults as they are pointing out the defect of others.
The report regarding the systemic racism in Ferguson as well as a litany of other incidents over the past few years suggest racism is far from over in the U.S. With that in mind white America should consider the following statement from Thomas Sowell: “When you want to help people, you tell them the truth. When you want to help yourself, you tell them what they want to hear.” Well, the truth is data show if you are white you are probably racist. You may not be overtly racist but you are racist nonetheless.
Luckily conservative whites have spent an awful lot of time recently telling other races and cultures how they can go about fixing their issues so there is already a guide for white people to follow to help with their racist tendencies.
For example many conservative pundits obsessed over the idea that black leaders were ignoring problems in their communities to focus on systemic inequality in the justice system leading to the deaths of a disproportionately high number of African America's at the hands of law enforcement.
Bill O'Reilly even went as far as to offer up a couple "solutions" to fix what ails the African American community. The first gem was to suggest that "you’ve got to stop young black women from having babies out of wedlock".
Forgetting for a second that socioeconomic status not skin color is the greatest predictor of women having children out of wedlock it seems that if we were to apply O'Reilly's principles equally to both whites and blacks then to end racism we need to stop single whites from having children. After all if being unattached and black means your children are destined to be criminals then children of unwed white mothers will similarly have no choice but to be racist. It's just common sense.
The second completely not racist solution from O'Reilly was "you have to demand discipline in your public schools" because everyone knows that black students are inherently more disruptive than white students. If that wasn't the case then it would mean the reason black students are three times as likely to be suspended and expelled is racism.
Again, following the O'Reilly logic, we also need to demand discipline for whites in public schools since the education system has clearly failed these students. Some whites will claim that students are already being racially indoctrinated in Comrade Obama's public school system but if the conservative media has taught us anything it’s that reality doesn't matter when it comes to discussion about race. If it did then the fact that scores of black leaders were discussing the high rates of crimes in their communities, long before it became a conservative racist denial tactic, would have killed a key media talking point before it started.
Of course African American's aren't the only group that conservative whites have advice for. Following any violence by individuals or groups who are associated with Islam the conservative media outrage machine goes into overdrive. Muslims who interpret their holy book completely differently than the violent extremists are told they must denounce the actions of these people simply because the name of their faith is the same. It is also suggested that these people learn how to assimilate into a society that may be different than the way of life they are used to.
Obviously if these recommendations are good for Muslims then they should also be good for whites. Instead of making excuses for racists and their ignorant actions and statements all whites should denounce them. After all if you are white then you have something in common with racist whites. Essentially you are racist by proxy unless you excoriate white racists.
The same is true for assimilation. Clearly these racists are having trouble assimilating into a world where non-white people are afforded all the same freedoms and rights as their Caucasian countrymen. If whites followed Sean Hannity's rules for Muslims and eliminated all ‘no-go zones’ that deter or prevent non whites from certain places and activities, remove all religious paraphernalia from hotels, and prevent the government from representing any one religion then these racists would assimilate into the American melting pot and racism would completely disappear.
The good news is that conservative pundits have no shortage of spurious solutions that they could support to fix white America's racism problem. The bad news is that the arrogance that allows these people to pontificate on topics they are ill-informed to solve is the same arrogance that lets them dismiss even the most scientific data as invalid. If only these conservatives were as enthusiastic about addressing their own faults as they are pointing out the defect of others.
Friday, March 6, 2015
Federal tax code unfair to the super rich
This past week the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) chaired by Republican Paul Ryan released a document titled 'Fairness in Tax Policy". Not surprisingly conservative pundits like Forbes contributor Robert W. Wood fall all over themselves to misrepresent the information in this document with statements like "The 1% Makes 19% Of All Income, Pays 49% Of All Taxes". The reality is this number is just a projection for 2015 tax returns not the actual data. As Fox News reports the most recent release by the IRS show the top 1% making 19% of the adjusted gross income while paying 35% of the taxes.
Of course this statistic only tells half of the story. Reports show that the top 1% also hold 40% of the wealth. Paying only 35% to control 40% seems like a situation most Americans would gladly accept. This simplistic statistic also misses the fact that federal income tax is only one of many taxes that American's pay. After taking into account all of the other taxes involved the reality is the top 1% actually pay less in taxes as a percentage of income than the next 20%.
Having said that, the supposed purpose of the JCT report is to discuss fairness in tax policy. If this is the case then why would they only touch a few minor tax inequality statistics?
For example is it fair for the top 1% to earn just 19% of the income yet receive 50.6% of the tax breaks?
Is it fair that nearly 20,000 household with income over $500,000 paid zero federal income tax?
Is it fair that someone in the 10% tax bracket that donates $1,000 only gets a credit of $100 while the same donation from someone in the 35% tax bracket gets a credit of $350?
Is it fair that the wealthiest 0.01% earn half of all the capital gains yet pay as little as a 15% tax rate on that income?
Is it fair that the top 20% of households receive 80% of the tax benefit of retirement savings while the bottom 60% only receives 7%?
Is it fair that each year the wealthy enjoy approximately $40 billion in tax breaks thanks to a step up basis rule that allows heirs to receive assets completely free of taxes?
Is it fair that politicians use misleading partial information to push for further tax cuts even though studies show those cuts tend to hurt economic growth?
Is it fair that interest and dividends earned must be reported as income yet capital gains are only realized upon the sale of the asset?
Is it fair that if you lose money in the stock market the government will subsidize your loss but if you lose money in your 401K they won't?
Is it fair that the mortgage interest deduction benefits only a third of American households?
Is it fair that as tax rates have come down over the last half century the top 1% has seen their share of income double?
Is it fair that some people get to consider the bulk of the income they earn for their job as capital gains and pay nearly half the rate those with a similar income?
If the goal of Paul Ryan and the JCT was to find one simple bit sized statistic that would convince low information voters that the super rich are somehow being repressed then using "the top 1% makes 19% of the income but pays 35% of the federal taxes" is the ideal talking point. It's easy to consume and allows Republicans to ignore the litany of benefits the tax code affords certain groups of wealthy Americans.
If, however, the goal was to report on the fairness in tax policy this report is an unmitigated failure.
If fairness is the ultimate objective then the fact that some of the top 1% pay the top tax rate while others pay zero in federal income taxes should obviously be a topic of discussion. If broadening the base is important then fixing the ever increasing income equality problem in the U.S. that causes the widening tax gap should be a top priority. If applying the tax code uniformly to all citizens is a concern then using official reports to mislead the public and advance a partisan agenda is shamefully unpatriotic.
It's certainly possible that the top tax rate in America is too high but the fact that elected officials in charge of tax policy pretend that what the top 1% pays in federal income tax is reasonable proxy for fairness tells you all you need to know about how serious they are about fixing the problem.
Of course this statistic only tells half of the story. Reports show that the top 1% also hold 40% of the wealth. Paying only 35% to control 40% seems like a situation most Americans would gladly accept. This simplistic statistic also misses the fact that federal income tax is only one of many taxes that American's pay. After taking into account all of the other taxes involved the reality is the top 1% actually pay less in taxes as a percentage of income than the next 20%.
Having said that, the supposed purpose of the JCT report is to discuss fairness in tax policy. If this is the case then why would they only touch a few minor tax inequality statistics?
For example is it fair for the top 1% to earn just 19% of the income yet receive 50.6% of the tax breaks?
Is it fair that nearly 20,000 household with income over $500,000 paid zero federal income tax?
Is it fair that someone in the 10% tax bracket that donates $1,000 only gets a credit of $100 while the same donation from someone in the 35% tax bracket gets a credit of $350?
Is it fair that the wealthiest 0.01% earn half of all the capital gains yet pay as little as a 15% tax rate on that income?
Is it fair that the top 20% of households receive 80% of the tax benefit of retirement savings while the bottom 60% only receives 7%?
Is it fair that each year the wealthy enjoy approximately $40 billion in tax breaks thanks to a step up basis rule that allows heirs to receive assets completely free of taxes?
Is it fair that politicians use misleading partial information to push for further tax cuts even though studies show those cuts tend to hurt economic growth?
Is it fair that interest and dividends earned must be reported as income yet capital gains are only realized upon the sale of the asset?
Is it fair that if you lose money in the stock market the government will subsidize your loss but if you lose money in your 401K they won't?
Is it fair that the mortgage interest deduction benefits only a third of American households?
Is it fair that as tax rates have come down over the last half century the top 1% has seen their share of income double?
Is it fair that some people get to consider the bulk of the income they earn for their job as capital gains and pay nearly half the rate those with a similar income?
If the goal of Paul Ryan and the JCT was to find one simple bit sized statistic that would convince low information voters that the super rich are somehow being repressed then using "the top 1% makes 19% of the income but pays 35% of the federal taxes" is the ideal talking point. It's easy to consume and allows Republicans to ignore the litany of benefits the tax code affords certain groups of wealthy Americans.
If, however, the goal was to report on the fairness in tax policy this report is an unmitigated failure.
If fairness is the ultimate objective then the fact that some of the top 1% pay the top tax rate while others pay zero in federal income taxes should obviously be a topic of discussion. If broadening the base is important then fixing the ever increasing income equality problem in the U.S. that causes the widening tax gap should be a top priority. If applying the tax code uniformly to all citizens is a concern then using official reports to mislead the public and advance a partisan agenda is shamefully unpatriotic.
It's certainly possible that the top tax rate in America is too high but the fact that elected officials in charge of tax policy pretend that what the top 1% pays in federal income tax is reasonable proxy for fairness tells you all you need to know about how serious they are about fixing the problem.
Friday, February 27, 2015
The embarrassing truth behind the conservative obsession with Obama's patriotism.
Last week Rudy Giuliani caught some flak for suggesting President Obama doesn't love America. Rather than admit like Giuliani himself did before making the comment that this was a horrible thing to say the fine folks at Fox News have doubled down offering "proof" of how the president just doesn't love America as much as conservatives.
To no one's surprise the man driving this clown car of desperation is Sean Hannity. On his February 25th show Hannity devoted almost eight minutes of Fox News air time to convince viewers that Barack Obama isn't a true patriot.
He starts the piece by showing Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's response to Rudy Giuliani's comments. While Farrakhan's statements are ignorant and offensive comparing Farrakhan to Giuliani is laughable. Giuliani is part of the establishment as is evidenced by his time in office, his bids for congress and president, his speaking engagement at the Republican National Convention, his role as "insider" for Fox News and his place in conservative lore as "America's mayor".
At best Farrakhan is an outsider when it comes to the Democratic establishment however most would consider him a fringe bomb thrower. Suggesting Farrakhan's response to Giuliani somehow represents the vast majority of liberals tells you all you need to know about how seriously Hannity is about this topic.
Of course recognizing how weak such an argument would be Hannity then ran a montage of statements made by the president that supposedly confirm the president's distain for the country he was twice elected to lead. These included comments such as:
"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
"The struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."
"There is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."
"Our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures."
Never mind the fact that there is plenty of tape showing the president extolling America's "goodness and greatness and generosity and sacrifice for the cause liberty worldwide" and never mind that these are statements of facts not some sort of hate speech the problem here are not the president's words but the conservative's insistence that recognizing our faults and attempting to do better is somehow a negative.
These are the same people who have multiple media outlets dedicated to telling American's just how bad the country is. These are the same people who believe that telling the blunt truth, no matter how hurtful, is the right thing to do. These are the same people who hate the "everyone gets a trophy mentality" because kids need to learn from their failures. Yet somehow every time the president is the one offering the message these people throw all their beliefs out the window and feign outrage.
One wonders if these same conservatives were infuriated when Ronald Reagan said "Many of us are unhappy about our ... diminishing prestige around the globe, about the weakness in our economy and national security that jeopardizes world peace, about our lack of strong, straight-forward leadership." or when he asked questions like "Is our nation stronger and more capable of leading the world toward peace and freedom or is it weaker?", "Are you more confident that our economy will create productive work for our society or are you less confident?", and "Are you convinced that we have earned the respect of the world and our allies, or has America's position across the globe diminished?"
Are these examples that Reagan didn't love America or do they show a man identifying issues that require change?
Of course no critique of Obama's love of country is complete without bringing up Michelle Obama's remark from 2008 stating this was the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country. Despite showing the clip Hannity still seems clueless as to its meaning. There are probably few who think this was a wise choice of words however Hannity's take that Michelle Obama is "not proud of WWII and America beating back fascism and Nazism and imperial Japan? Not proud of walking on the moon?" is mindboggling. Zero of these events happened in Michelle Obama's adult life. They are not covered by her statement. If you are going to skewer her for her words then at least pay attention to the words she is saying.
Beyond that, the irony of using this quote as proof that Barack Obama doesn't love the country while simultaneously defending Giuliani's statement with "he could have used different words" is just outstanding. Both Giuliani and Obama "clarified" their statements within days of making them. For Hannity to pretend one is a deeply held belief while the other is a simple misunderstanding is clear slap in the face to the Fox News "Fair and Balanced" tagline.
Despite the fact that in less than eight minutes Hannity was able to prove himself as morally bankrupt this treasure trove of slanted misinformation isn't even the worst part about the segment. No the worst part is how much it exposes conservatives.
There are no shortage of issues that Sean Hannity and the two prominent Republicans he brought on his show (Bobby Jindal and Darrell Issa) could have discussed yet they chose to wax poetic about their opinion of the president's patriotism.
Hating Barack Obama certainly paid off well in 2014 so it's no surprise that Republicans would look to replicate this success in 2016 but this tactic also tells you how little the Republican party has to offer the country in terms of actual policy. They can't make the economy an issue because most of the president's policies have worked. They've tried for years to tear down the Affordable Care Act however polls show American's don't support the Republican repeal plan. The same is also true of the Republican position on Immigration reform, marriage equality, military spending, abortion, taxing the rich, net neutrality, background checks for guns, climate change, and Medicare vouchers.
The reality is that Republicans really have no other choice than to stoop to character assassination because if they are forced to run on actual ideas in 2016 they would not only lose the White House but Capitol Hill as well.
To no one's surprise the man driving this clown car of desperation is Sean Hannity. On his February 25th show Hannity devoted almost eight minutes of Fox News air time to convince viewers that Barack Obama isn't a true patriot.
He starts the piece by showing Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan's response to Rudy Giuliani's comments. While Farrakhan's statements are ignorant and offensive comparing Farrakhan to Giuliani is laughable. Giuliani is part of the establishment as is evidenced by his time in office, his bids for congress and president, his speaking engagement at the Republican National Convention, his role as "insider" for Fox News and his place in conservative lore as "America's mayor".
At best Farrakhan is an outsider when it comes to the Democratic establishment however most would consider him a fringe bomb thrower. Suggesting Farrakhan's response to Giuliani somehow represents the vast majority of liberals tells you all you need to know about how seriously Hannity is about this topic.
Of course recognizing how weak such an argument would be Hannity then ran a montage of statements made by the president that supposedly confirm the president's distain for the country he was twice elected to lead. These included comments such as:
"We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America."
"The struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."
"There is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately."
"Our most costly mistakes came not from our restraint but from our willingness to rush into military adventures."
Never mind the fact that there is plenty of tape showing the president extolling America's "goodness and greatness and generosity and sacrifice for the cause liberty worldwide" and never mind that these are statements of facts not some sort of hate speech the problem here are not the president's words but the conservative's insistence that recognizing our faults and attempting to do better is somehow a negative.
These are the same people who have multiple media outlets dedicated to telling American's just how bad the country is. These are the same people who believe that telling the blunt truth, no matter how hurtful, is the right thing to do. These are the same people who hate the "everyone gets a trophy mentality" because kids need to learn from their failures. Yet somehow every time the president is the one offering the message these people throw all their beliefs out the window and feign outrage.
One wonders if these same conservatives were infuriated when Ronald Reagan said "Many of us are unhappy about our ... diminishing prestige around the globe, about the weakness in our economy and national security that jeopardizes world peace, about our lack of strong, straight-forward leadership." or when he asked questions like "Is our nation stronger and more capable of leading the world toward peace and freedom or is it weaker?", "Are you more confident that our economy will create productive work for our society or are you less confident?", and "Are you convinced that we have earned the respect of the world and our allies, or has America's position across the globe diminished?"
Are these examples that Reagan didn't love America or do they show a man identifying issues that require change?
Of course no critique of Obama's love of country is complete without bringing up Michelle Obama's remark from 2008 stating this was the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country. Despite showing the clip Hannity still seems clueless as to its meaning. There are probably few who think this was a wise choice of words however Hannity's take that Michelle Obama is "not proud of WWII and America beating back fascism and Nazism and imperial Japan? Not proud of walking on the moon?" is mindboggling. Zero of these events happened in Michelle Obama's adult life. They are not covered by her statement. If you are going to skewer her for her words then at least pay attention to the words she is saying.
Beyond that, the irony of using this quote as proof that Barack Obama doesn't love the country while simultaneously defending Giuliani's statement with "he could have used different words" is just outstanding. Both Giuliani and Obama "clarified" their statements within days of making them. For Hannity to pretend one is a deeply held belief while the other is a simple misunderstanding is clear slap in the face to the Fox News "Fair and Balanced" tagline.
Despite the fact that in less than eight minutes Hannity was able to prove himself as morally bankrupt this treasure trove of slanted misinformation isn't even the worst part about the segment. No the worst part is how much it exposes conservatives.
There are no shortage of issues that Sean Hannity and the two prominent Republicans he brought on his show (Bobby Jindal and Darrell Issa) could have discussed yet they chose to wax poetic about their opinion of the president's patriotism.
Hating Barack Obama certainly paid off well in 2014 so it's no surprise that Republicans would look to replicate this success in 2016 but this tactic also tells you how little the Republican party has to offer the country in terms of actual policy. They can't make the economy an issue because most of the president's policies have worked. They've tried for years to tear down the Affordable Care Act however polls show American's don't support the Republican repeal plan. The same is also true of the Republican position on Immigration reform, marriage equality, military spending, abortion, taxing the rich, net neutrality, background checks for guns, climate change, and Medicare vouchers.
The reality is that Republicans really have no other choice than to stoop to character assassination because if they are forced to run on actual ideas in 2016 they would not only lose the White House but Capitol Hill as well.
Friday, February 13, 2015
Christians to blame for the "War on Christianity"
Some Christians believe that being anti-Christian is the only acceptable form of bigotry left in America. Outside of the absurdity of the vast majority of the claims offered as "proof" of this fallacy the hypocrisy necessary to make such a claim is phenomenal.
For example noted conservative pundit Ann Coulter once stated "liberals always play the victim in order to advance, win advantages and oppress others". While such tactics are hardly exclusive to liberals the supposed "War on Christianity" represents the pinnacle of all self ascribed pity parties.
Christians comprise just over 78% of the U.S. population which is a significantly higher percentage of the population than the "angry atheists" who only account for 1.6%. What are these poor Christians to do when faced with such overwhelming odds against them?
The problem is that Christians have spent so much time pretending to be victims that they have become oblivious to their own indiscretions.
Spurned HGTV stars David and Jason Benham offer and excellent illustration of this point. The brothers took to Fox News to pen an article discussing how they were dropped from the station for standing by their "Biblical beliefs". Of course the problem wasn't that they were against marriage equality. The problem was that they funded and organized an anti-gay rally because ironically they felt that these "militant gay activists" shouldn't be given the opportunity to express their view that there is nothing "demonic", "veil", or "destructive" about being gay.
There are millions of Christians who don't agree with same sex marriage but only a portion of them shamefully resort to using the bible as justification for their hate speech. Of course the Benham brothers are hardly the first high profile personalities to lose their job because of controversial statements. The fact that they are Christians is secondary to the fact that they have aggressively opposed the gay community in the past. Their actions, not their beliefs, cost them their potential television gig.
Having said that they also seem to be very confused about what is discrimination and what is not. In their article they use three examples of instances where they feel a company should be allowed to deny someone service.
"My brother and I are perfectly okay with a gay owned t-shirt company refusing to make t-shirts that say, “Homosexuality is sin.” And we’re fine with a Jewish baker refusing to cater an event on the Sabbath. And we’d certainly agree with the gun range owner refusing to let self-identifying ISIS members practice shooting at his facility."
First it should be noted that a self identifying ISIS member would be arrested not refused service. However it should be noted that a public gun range would need to be able to show that there is a "legitimate business reason" to deny anyone service.
Second the Jewish baker isn't discriminating when they decide to refuse to cater on the Sabbath. They are simply setting their hours of operation and those hours apply to all customers equally. The discrimination occurs when you don't treat all groups equally.
Finally, the T-Shirt company is already protected from making shirts that require them to including wording they find offensive. That is the companies right of free speech. The T-Shirt company in this case is not refusing the customer service based on who they are they have decide not to produce a product they find offensive. This is why the public cake baker cannot deny service to the gay couple but they can refuse to make a cake that includes words they find objectionable. Denying service based on the person is not the same as denying service based on the content of the service. It may seem like a minor difference however it is very important distinction that the Benham brothers don't appear to understand.
Beyond this propensity for misunderstanding the legal requirements of a business that serves the public, there are others who believe that Christians are ostracized at far greater rates than any other segment of the population. One imagines there are plenty of Muslims, LGBT individuals, and African and Latino Americans that find this suggestion laughable but even the Atheists that are supposedly repressing Christians face as many if not more harassment in the U.S. today. Polls on American attitudes towards various segments of the population as well as other data show that the bias against Atheists is actually one of the most acceptable forms of discrimination.
Todd Starnes, for example, has become the media's resident raconteur of anti-Christian fables and regularly elicits anger towards non-Christians by providing half of the story. His faux outrage includes stories like 'Why did Disney block God?', 'Town told to keep Christ out of Christmas parade', 'Students opposed to LGBT agenda shamed in classroom', and 'Student reprimanded for saying “God Bless America”'. Conspicuously absent from Starnes' list of concerns are stories like 'Christian Professor Gets Fired for 'Trying on Atheism', 'Indiana Teacher Allegedly Fired For Being An Atheist', 'Atheists Are Banned From Holding Public Office In Seven US States', 'Atheist Student Gets Death Threats Over Prayer Banner' and 'Student Forced to Stand For Pledge of Allegiance'. If Starnes is such a religious rights crusader he should be equally infuriated at stories of discrimination against non-Christians.
The question people like Starnes should really ask themselves is: if non-Christians should be tolerant of Christian symbols and references in public spaces then why shouldn't Christian's be tolerant of public spaces being void of all religious paraphernalia. After all who does it hurt if the areas owned by everyone are free from all religious trappings?
The reality is that all non-Christians are asking for is equal treatment. These continued battles are simply a reaction to religious overreach that the courts have declared illegal. If Christians just stopped advocating for public religious observations the so called anti-Christian behavior would all but disappear. Unfortunately asking these Christian activists to apply the constitutional right of religious freedom equally to all Americans will undoubtedly result in more errant claims of anti-Christianity because Christian victimhood is great for business.
For example noted conservative pundit Ann Coulter once stated "liberals always play the victim in order to advance, win advantages and oppress others". While such tactics are hardly exclusive to liberals the supposed "War on Christianity" represents the pinnacle of all self ascribed pity parties.
Christians comprise just over 78% of the U.S. population which is a significantly higher percentage of the population than the "angry atheists" who only account for 1.6%. What are these poor Christians to do when faced with such overwhelming odds against them?
The problem is that Christians have spent so much time pretending to be victims that they have become oblivious to their own indiscretions.
Spurned HGTV stars David and Jason Benham offer and excellent illustration of this point. The brothers took to Fox News to pen an article discussing how they were dropped from the station for standing by their "Biblical beliefs". Of course the problem wasn't that they were against marriage equality. The problem was that they funded and organized an anti-gay rally because ironically they felt that these "militant gay activists" shouldn't be given the opportunity to express their view that there is nothing "demonic", "veil", or "destructive" about being gay.
There are millions of Christians who don't agree with same sex marriage but only a portion of them shamefully resort to using the bible as justification for their hate speech. Of course the Benham brothers are hardly the first high profile personalities to lose their job because of controversial statements. The fact that they are Christians is secondary to the fact that they have aggressively opposed the gay community in the past. Their actions, not their beliefs, cost them their potential television gig.
Having said that they also seem to be very confused about what is discrimination and what is not. In their article they use three examples of instances where they feel a company should be allowed to deny someone service.
"My brother and I are perfectly okay with a gay owned t-shirt company refusing to make t-shirts that say, “Homosexuality is sin.” And we’re fine with a Jewish baker refusing to cater an event on the Sabbath. And we’d certainly agree with the gun range owner refusing to let self-identifying ISIS members practice shooting at his facility."
First it should be noted that a self identifying ISIS member would be arrested not refused service. However it should be noted that a public gun range would need to be able to show that there is a "legitimate business reason" to deny anyone service.
Second the Jewish baker isn't discriminating when they decide to refuse to cater on the Sabbath. They are simply setting their hours of operation and those hours apply to all customers equally. The discrimination occurs when you don't treat all groups equally.
Finally, the T-Shirt company is already protected from making shirts that require them to including wording they find offensive. That is the companies right of free speech. The T-Shirt company in this case is not refusing the customer service based on who they are they have decide not to produce a product they find offensive. This is why the public cake baker cannot deny service to the gay couple but they can refuse to make a cake that includes words they find objectionable. Denying service based on the person is not the same as denying service based on the content of the service. It may seem like a minor difference however it is very important distinction that the Benham brothers don't appear to understand.
Beyond this propensity for misunderstanding the legal requirements of a business that serves the public, there are others who believe that Christians are ostracized at far greater rates than any other segment of the population. One imagines there are plenty of Muslims, LGBT individuals, and African and Latino Americans that find this suggestion laughable but even the Atheists that are supposedly repressing Christians face as many if not more harassment in the U.S. today. Polls on American attitudes towards various segments of the population as well as other data show that the bias against Atheists is actually one of the most acceptable forms of discrimination.
Todd Starnes, for example, has become the media's resident raconteur of anti-Christian fables and regularly elicits anger towards non-Christians by providing half of the story. His faux outrage includes stories like 'Why did Disney block God?', 'Town told to keep Christ out of Christmas parade', 'Students opposed to LGBT agenda shamed in classroom', and 'Student reprimanded for saying “God Bless America”'. Conspicuously absent from Starnes' list of concerns are stories like 'Christian Professor Gets Fired for 'Trying on Atheism', 'Indiana Teacher Allegedly Fired For Being An Atheist', 'Atheists Are Banned From Holding Public Office In Seven US States', 'Atheist Student Gets Death Threats Over Prayer Banner' and 'Student Forced to Stand For Pledge of Allegiance'. If Starnes is such a religious rights crusader he should be equally infuriated at stories of discrimination against non-Christians.
The question people like Starnes should really ask themselves is: if non-Christians should be tolerant of Christian symbols and references in public spaces then why shouldn't Christian's be tolerant of public spaces being void of all religious paraphernalia. After all who does it hurt if the areas owned by everyone are free from all religious trappings?
The reality is that all non-Christians are asking for is equal treatment. These continued battles are simply a reaction to religious overreach that the courts have declared illegal. If Christians just stopped advocating for public religious observations the so called anti-Christian behavior would all but disappear. Unfortunately asking these Christian activists to apply the constitutional right of religious freedom equally to all Americans will undoubtedly result in more errant claims of anti-Christianity because Christian victimhood is great for business.
Wednesday, February 11, 2015
How money can fix public education
Noted conservative political activist Star Parker recently penned an article extoling the virtues of legislation being offered at the federal level to let education dollars follow students to schools beyond their local public school. The problem is school choice is just another red herrings that conservatives continue to offer to fix the manufactured "crisis in education".
So while Parker praises the Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Luke Messer for sponsoring what she calls a "courageous proposal" the question becomes what is so courageous about elected officials proposing a bill that pushes a conservative idea that is more than half a century old? Perhaps what she means is that it is courageous for these men to back such a solution when studies find "there seem to be few apparent benefits of school of choice" and "there was no evidence of program effects on math scores".
Of course choice falls in a long line of conservative ideas that don't actually improve education. Ending tenure doesn't increase test scores. Despite what you might have heard schools win 75% of their cases against tenured teachers. In fact data show non-tenured teachers are less likely to lose their job for poor performance than tenured teachers.
Studies show that the majority of charter schools perform at or below the level of their public school counterparts.
Decades of research show that merit pay doesn't improve student perform.
Even though the states with the high teacher union rates get better results than the states with the low rates, conservatives still pretend that unions are somehow ruining public education.
The problem with the conservative agenda regarding public education is that they spend so much time and effort pushing ideas that don't actually improve education that this miss out on things that really do work.
For instance data show that in schools where 20% or less of the students are impoverished the U.S. ranks number one in the world. This suggests that what U.S. schools are doing is working even without choice, charters or a war on teachers. Given that the U.S. is one of the only countries in the world that actually spends less money on poor students than wealthy students perhaps legislators like Ted Cruz should focus on leveling the playing field or providing extra support to underprivileged children.
Studies also show that when students track their own progress there is a sizable increase in their achievement. This should be an idea that conservatives can get behind since it meets their desire for "personal responsibility".
Research finds that incorporating technology in the education process results in "significant gains in student achievement and boost engagement, particularly among students most at risk". Unfortunately many schools struggle to find the funds as per pupil spending has fallen in recent years.
Some analysis indicate that teacher mentoring programs can help new teachers to become better at their job. Given the impact a good teacher can have this additional support is a superior alternative to the fire and replace method conservative politicians have been offering recently.
For a group who is so concerned about how their tax dollars are being spent with regards to public education it is somewhat surprising that they continue to back ideas that have such a low return on investment. If Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Luke Messer were really courageous they would challenge the decades old conservative education reform status quo and support changes that are based on academic success and proven by scholarly research.
Of course the real problem here is not that conservatives aren't aware of how little the policies they champion do for children. It's that all of their reform ideas are politically motivated because helping children is far less important that weakening teachers unions that almost exclusively back Democrats and enriching the for profit education business that mainly donates to Republicans. Take the money out of politics and watch how much smarter politicians become.
So while Parker praises the Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Luke Messer for sponsoring what she calls a "courageous proposal" the question becomes what is so courageous about elected officials proposing a bill that pushes a conservative idea that is more than half a century old? Perhaps what she means is that it is courageous for these men to back such a solution when studies find "there seem to be few apparent benefits of school of choice" and "there was no evidence of program effects on math scores".
Of course choice falls in a long line of conservative ideas that don't actually improve education. Ending tenure doesn't increase test scores. Despite what you might have heard schools win 75% of their cases against tenured teachers. In fact data show non-tenured teachers are less likely to lose their job for poor performance than tenured teachers.
Studies show that the majority of charter schools perform at or below the level of their public school counterparts.
Decades of research show that merit pay doesn't improve student perform.
Even though the states with the high teacher union rates get better results than the states with the low rates, conservatives still pretend that unions are somehow ruining public education.
The problem with the conservative agenda regarding public education is that they spend so much time and effort pushing ideas that don't actually improve education that this miss out on things that really do work.
For instance data show that in schools where 20% or less of the students are impoverished the U.S. ranks number one in the world. This suggests that what U.S. schools are doing is working even without choice, charters or a war on teachers. Given that the U.S. is one of the only countries in the world that actually spends less money on poor students than wealthy students perhaps legislators like Ted Cruz should focus on leveling the playing field or providing extra support to underprivileged children.
Studies also show that when students track their own progress there is a sizable increase in their achievement. This should be an idea that conservatives can get behind since it meets their desire for "personal responsibility".
Research finds that incorporating technology in the education process results in "significant gains in student achievement and boost engagement, particularly among students most at risk". Unfortunately many schools struggle to find the funds as per pupil spending has fallen in recent years.
Some analysis indicate that teacher mentoring programs can help new teachers to become better at their job. Given the impact a good teacher can have this additional support is a superior alternative to the fire and replace method conservative politicians have been offering recently.
For a group who is so concerned about how their tax dollars are being spent with regards to public education it is somewhat surprising that they continue to back ideas that have such a low return on investment. If Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and Luke Messer were really courageous they would challenge the decades old conservative education reform status quo and support changes that are based on academic success and proven by scholarly research.
Of course the real problem here is not that conservatives aren't aware of how little the policies they champion do for children. It's that all of their reform ideas are politically motivated because helping children is far less important that weakening teachers unions that almost exclusively back Democrats and enriching the for profit education business that mainly donates to Republicans. Take the money out of politics and watch how much smarter politicians become.
Thursday, February 5, 2015
Conservatives abandon values to suppport charter school
Conservatives are always in favor of using free market principles except when the disagree with they outcome of a free market based decision. Case in point: a recent Detroit News editorial titled 'Board wrong to demolish school'.
The issue at hand is the decision by the Saginaw public schools board of education to demolish a school building the district inherited back in 2009 rather than sell it off. Given that the district is working to eliminate a considerable amount of debt selling the building would seem like a good idea however the district has already agreed to sell another property which more than covers their outstanding debt.
The problem is that the organization that bid to purchase the building happens to be a charter school operation. This means that everyone who believes choice and charters are the answer to the manufactured "crisis in education", despite the data that show neither idea actually improves educational outcomes, have come out of the woodworks attempting to shame the district into accepting a deal that might be bad for business.
The hypocritical rhetoric starts with the phrase "competition can be uncomfortable". However true this statement may be the author should also recognize that in a free market, corporations go out of their way to eliminate competition not promote it. If Walmart were moving down the street would they sell their old building to Target? Absolutely not. It would be a stupid business decision.
Of course opponents also presume to know the details of this potential deal when they claim with absolute certainty that turning down this offer "was clearly a bad decision". Not mentioned in the piece is the fact that part of the property the charter school wanted to purchase is currently being rented by Delta College. The article also doesn't bother to consider the value of the property after the building is removed. If the district can sell the land to the college that is currently renting space or another buyer for more than the charter schools offer then then selling low to a potential competitor becomes an even worse decision according to the free market.
Beyond this the article never bothers to question the motives or sincerity of the organization behind the press release that the media has picked up on. The Michigan Association of Public School Academies is a company that makes money off representing charter schools much like a trade union. In their rebuke of the districts decision they assert that the Saginaw school board is keeping "a perfectly good facility out of the hands of another public school — a charter school". Given that the roof of the building collapsed last year and the facility has mold issues it seems like the term "a perfectly good facility" is a bit of an embellishment meant to make the board seem petty and irresponsible.
Having said that, the district still has a few months before it has to do anything regarding the demolition. Perhaps they are just using a free market negotiating tactic to increase the offer from the charter school operators. Walking away from an offer is a textbook method of getting the best deal.
There is also some question as to the value of this particular charter school operator. In the most recent top to bottom rankings, Saginaw schools had two facilities that ranked in the top 98th percentile while the charter school was in the 20th percentile. Perhaps the district just feels this operator doesn't offer a better education to the students most likely to make the switch.
But even more confusing coming from conservatives is the belief that "the Legislature should find a way to force better use of public school buildings". Apparently those outside of the district who did not participate in the negotiations, the school board meetings or the decision making process ride on such a high horse they don't need actual data or information to determine they know what's best for Saginaw residents. Yes, the people who believe in local control are now arguing that the state should force a locally elected board that decided to unanimously reject a charter school offer to accept a potentially bad business deal simply because they received a press release from an organization they support - no questions asked.
It's certainly possible that the best deal for the Saginaw residents is to sell this building to a charter school company but if the conservative media really wants to be mad about something it should be mad at how easily conservatives abandon their core values to argue for a system that benefits corporations far more than students. That or they have to admit that supporting policies that help the rich get richer is really their only core value.
The issue at hand is the decision by the Saginaw public schools board of education to demolish a school building the district inherited back in 2009 rather than sell it off. Given that the district is working to eliminate a considerable amount of debt selling the building would seem like a good idea however the district has already agreed to sell another property which more than covers their outstanding debt.
The problem is that the organization that bid to purchase the building happens to be a charter school operation. This means that everyone who believes choice and charters are the answer to the manufactured "crisis in education", despite the data that show neither idea actually improves educational outcomes, have come out of the woodworks attempting to shame the district into accepting a deal that might be bad for business.
The hypocritical rhetoric starts with the phrase "competition can be uncomfortable". However true this statement may be the author should also recognize that in a free market, corporations go out of their way to eliminate competition not promote it. If Walmart were moving down the street would they sell their old building to Target? Absolutely not. It would be a stupid business decision.
Of course opponents also presume to know the details of this potential deal when they claim with absolute certainty that turning down this offer "was clearly a bad decision". Not mentioned in the piece is the fact that part of the property the charter school wanted to purchase is currently being rented by Delta College. The article also doesn't bother to consider the value of the property after the building is removed. If the district can sell the land to the college that is currently renting space or another buyer for more than the charter schools offer then then selling low to a potential competitor becomes an even worse decision according to the free market.
Beyond this the article never bothers to question the motives or sincerity of the organization behind the press release that the media has picked up on. The Michigan Association of Public School Academies is a company that makes money off representing charter schools much like a trade union. In their rebuke of the districts decision they assert that the Saginaw school board is keeping "a perfectly good facility out of the hands of another public school — a charter school". Given that the roof of the building collapsed last year and the facility has mold issues it seems like the term "a perfectly good facility" is a bit of an embellishment meant to make the board seem petty and irresponsible.
Having said that, the district still has a few months before it has to do anything regarding the demolition. Perhaps they are just using a free market negotiating tactic to increase the offer from the charter school operators. Walking away from an offer is a textbook method of getting the best deal.
There is also some question as to the value of this particular charter school operator. In the most recent top to bottom rankings, Saginaw schools had two facilities that ranked in the top 98th percentile while the charter school was in the 20th percentile. Perhaps the district just feels this operator doesn't offer a better education to the students most likely to make the switch.
But even more confusing coming from conservatives is the belief that "the Legislature should find a way to force better use of public school buildings". Apparently those outside of the district who did not participate in the negotiations, the school board meetings or the decision making process ride on such a high horse they don't need actual data or information to determine they know what's best for Saginaw residents. Yes, the people who believe in local control are now arguing that the state should force a locally elected board that decided to unanimously reject a charter school offer to accept a potentially bad business deal simply because they received a press release from an organization they support - no questions asked.
It's certainly possible that the best deal for the Saginaw residents is to sell this building to a charter school company but if the conservative media really wants to be mad about something it should be mad at how easily conservatives abandon their core values to argue for a system that benefits corporations far more than students. That or they have to admit that supporting policies that help the rich get richer is really their only core value.
Friday, January 30, 2015
Even smart Republicans make stupid arguments against climate change
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
