On Monday, I tweeted that I wouldn't talk about the effort to defund Obamacare.
Well, it turns out that was not entirely true, due to all the infighting it has triggered.
As I have written previously, both sides in the debate have valid points. However, I have found myself more firmly planted on the side of the defund fight as time has gone on. This is not because defunding the law is feasible, however. It is because fighting the law in the first place is the right thing to do.
Something I have noticed since November is that many conservatives are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Republican party. With weak presidential candidates and a propensity give up on a fight when winds shift ever so slightly in the wrong direction, many do not believe the Republicans are willing to fight for what they believe it.
This fight is energizing the conservative base. Even if it is only a handful of senators, like Cruz and Lee, leading the charge, they are salvaging support that was otherwise waning by showing the voting public that there are still people in Washington who care about them. Even if the fight is going to be lost, the public knows there are people out there not just paying lip service to the idea of ending the economy destroying leviathan that is the ACA.
They are not merely talking. They are inspiring those who might otherwise not have hope.
That has been what this fight has always been about. It has not been about winning the fight; not every fight in history has been fought because victory was a prospect. Many battles have been fought simply because they are right. It is because fighting is sometimes necessary, regardless of the outcome. In this case, this fight has far more to do with telling conservatives and anyone who will listen that the battle will not be won as we are. It is a call for reinforcements. More people are needed, both in Washington and in the average American community, calling out this travesty of a law for what it is.
That will not come if we refuse to do anything until "we've won." How will we win over hearts and minds without action?
Now, of course, there are liable to be short term consequences for picking a losing fight. That goes without saying. However, this goes back to the idea of choosing a hill to fight/die on. Conservatives have been told, time and again, that various issues have not been worth fighting over. The right has been looking for someone to take a stand since President Obama was elected and, each time, the fight has been passed over or given up before any effects have been achieved.
Put in other terms, the Republicans have given up hill after hill. At what point do we run out of hills to fight on...or people to fight on those hills at all?
Many on the right are starting to feel backed into a corner, as this fight is demonstrating. They are being told that they're being irrational, that they are foolish, even being subtly implied that they are being ignorant. They are being told this fight is not worth it. Just like every single time before. However, in failing to fight before, those who oppose this action do not realize they have brought this very moment upon us. When one limits a person's options, those have to start taking questionable action to try and make a difference, instead of sitting on their hands doing nothing.
If we are here to turn the country around, would it not only help our cause to show that we mean it? Is it so unfathomable to believe that a tactical defeat now could result in a strategic victory later?
Must we keep cowering to every media caricature of our beliefs?
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Monday, September 23, 2013
On Education
I see many a leftist talk about education and its "problems." Of course, hearing that often entails having to listen to their solutions, from more money to more teachers. The problems and solutions are always simple, more of some commodity is needed in schools and, thus, more resources are thrown haphazardly at the problem, in hopes of fixing it.
Of course many of these liberals likely haven't attended a school in decades.
It has not been so many years that I have forgotten my own school days and I recall back then that something was seriously wrong.
In my high school, there were three "tiers" of classes: Applied, Academic and Honors. According to the catalogue, applied courses were the basic, grade-level requirement courses, designed for lower achieving students. The academic courses were considered the "college" track, more challenging and designed to prepare students for higher education. Honors courses were for the highest achieving students.
Personally, I took the academic courses, except in history. Generally speaking, they were challenging enough, their ease often more dependent on how rigorously the teacher drove the students than the overall course content. The problem seemed to lie in the honors and applied levels.
I was qualified throughout high school to sign up for honors classes, but I never did. There were many reasons to, chief among them that I was never quite sufficiently challenged in academic courses and most of my friends were brilliant enough to be in honors. But then I would see the workloads of my friends. In English alone, they would read books on a near weekly basis and write at least one, if not more, papers as well. The focus seemed to be on the quantity of the work done than the quality of the work done.
Instead of studying topics in an in-depth fashion, like I became accustomed to in university, they simply seemed to do more and more work. The focus seemed to be in the wrong place. Rather than challenging the honors students with content beyond grade level, they simply received grade-level assignments in greater amounts.
On the flip side, applied courses seemed nowhere near grade level. Elective courses frequently gave me the opportunity to interact with applied students and when I did and found out the work they did, something was equally wrong. One student I knew would often do his homework in our Java class and he seemed to be doing exercises or reading books barely fit for a middle schooler, let alone juniors and seniors in high school.
Even more disturbing? Any given semester, applied classes were nearly half of the courses offered in each subject.
In other words, half of each graduating class was learning below grade level.
This problem even extends into college. Well over a third of my time spent there (and thus, money), went into "general education" courses. These courses ranged from statistics, biology to physical education. I went to college to learn about english and history, not to learn about subjects I neither cared for nor needed. And in many of those courses, the professors were perfectly content to curve grades based on the highest score, despite the fact that it skewed both how the outside world perceived the class and how students perceived how well they did.
Is more money the solution to the highlighted problems? Or is the solution instead examining how education is approached in this country?
Instead of stressing the idea of students passing, perhaps we should instead focus on them learning. School should be a place where students appreciate being challenged, instead of seeking the easiest path to graduation. It should be where students figure out where their true talents lie, no matter if its academic, a trade or nothing at all. We must banish this idea that college is for everyone. It is not.
College, likewise, should entirely be about immersing the students in their preferred field, with a handful of extra (not required) options to learn about. I don't need a remedial math class when I want to learn about the english language or the Ming Dynasty. It's simply a waste of time.
The problem is not money; it is how today's students are conditioned to view their education with so little worth.
Of course many of these liberals likely haven't attended a school in decades.
It has not been so many years that I have forgotten my own school days and I recall back then that something was seriously wrong.
In my high school, there were three "tiers" of classes: Applied, Academic and Honors. According to the catalogue, applied courses were the basic, grade-level requirement courses, designed for lower achieving students. The academic courses were considered the "college" track, more challenging and designed to prepare students for higher education. Honors courses were for the highest achieving students.
Personally, I took the academic courses, except in history. Generally speaking, they were challenging enough, their ease often more dependent on how rigorously the teacher drove the students than the overall course content. The problem seemed to lie in the honors and applied levels.
I was qualified throughout high school to sign up for honors classes, but I never did. There were many reasons to, chief among them that I was never quite sufficiently challenged in academic courses and most of my friends were brilliant enough to be in honors. But then I would see the workloads of my friends. In English alone, they would read books on a near weekly basis and write at least one, if not more, papers as well. The focus seemed to be on the quantity of the work done than the quality of the work done.
Instead of studying topics in an in-depth fashion, like I became accustomed to in university, they simply seemed to do more and more work. The focus seemed to be in the wrong place. Rather than challenging the honors students with content beyond grade level, they simply received grade-level assignments in greater amounts.
On the flip side, applied courses seemed nowhere near grade level. Elective courses frequently gave me the opportunity to interact with applied students and when I did and found out the work they did, something was equally wrong. One student I knew would often do his homework in our Java class and he seemed to be doing exercises or reading books barely fit for a middle schooler, let alone juniors and seniors in high school.
Even more disturbing? Any given semester, applied classes were nearly half of the courses offered in each subject.
In other words, half of each graduating class was learning below grade level.
This problem even extends into college. Well over a third of my time spent there (and thus, money), went into "general education" courses. These courses ranged from statistics, biology to physical education. I went to college to learn about english and history, not to learn about subjects I neither cared for nor needed. And in many of those courses, the professors were perfectly content to curve grades based on the highest score, despite the fact that it skewed both how the outside world perceived the class and how students perceived how well they did.
Is more money the solution to the highlighted problems? Or is the solution instead examining how education is approached in this country?
Instead of stressing the idea of students passing, perhaps we should instead focus on them learning. School should be a place where students appreciate being challenged, instead of seeking the easiest path to graduation. It should be where students figure out where their true talents lie, no matter if its academic, a trade or nothing at all. We must banish this idea that college is for everyone. It is not.
College, likewise, should entirely be about immersing the students in their preferred field, with a handful of extra (not required) options to learn about. I don't need a remedial math class when I want to learn about the english language or the Ming Dynasty. It's simply a waste of time.
The problem is not money; it is how today's students are conditioned to view their education with so little worth.
Monday, July 29, 2013
On Accountability
A consulate in a foreign country, sovereign American soil, is attacked on the eleventh anniversary of 9/11. But the president has a big trip to Vegas the next day, so he goes to bed. The next day, he finds out four men died in the attack, including the top diplomat in Libya.
Fortunately, the administration had no forewarning of this attack. It was spontaneous and unexpected, triggered by a low quality YouTube video. It's not like the British ambassador was nearly killed in a bombing just weeks before the attack. Nor is it like the American ambassador himself requested additional security for the consulate mere weeks before the attack. No one was responsible for the deadly attack that ensued that day.
Except Republicans and their spending cuts, of course. After all, cut funding for consulates and you most certainly cannot allocate funds intelligently. That would just be responsible.
Recently, however, the American public learned of something even greater that could very well lead to a chilling effect on speech in the nation.
For years, the IRS has been hampering conservative groups that have applied for 501(c)4 tax exempt status. Instead of granting the status in a reasonable amount of time, groups were kept waiting since 2010 and subjected to audit after audit. Is there any doubt that this increased the president's re-election chances? After all, haranguing groups, forcing them to spend money and time on lawyers and compliance with the strongest agency in the federal government had to have affected their ability to organize.
However, despite these actions being of obvious political benefit to the president, he only found out about it through the papers, like the "rest of us." This was all clearly the work of a couple of middle managers in Cincinnati, acting completely of their own accord.
Of course, President Obama knew nothing of the Justice Department's investigations into journalists, either. Not even his top man in the Department of Justice, Attorney General Eric Holder, knew anything. He recused himself and thus had absolutely nothing to do with anything, anytime, anywhere.
It goes down through the line. Whether it is the president himself, his highest ranking subordinates or his defenders, the president is always lacking in direct knowledge of what is happening in his government. Instead of taking responsibility, the president is instead the last to know. Or it is his predecessor's fault.
The tendrils of the evil George W. Bush administration run deep, it seems.
President Obama, on the other hand, doesn't know a thing about what happens in the government during his tenure. The supposed genius god-king, here to save us from our excesses and Texas, is apparently so dumbfounded by the revelations of the past few weeks, it's any wonder he can dress himself in the morning.
But wait! He did allow himself to be accountable for something! He stands by his decision to expand Bush administration policies tenfold and to the homeland! After all, President Obama has to stand behind decisions he's made that either he thinks are good or make him look good. After all, Osama bin Laden was finally killed during his tenure (in a chain of events started before his tenure).
There's something very wrong with the behavior coming out of White House during this presidency.
The purpose of a leader is to lead. A leader sets the atmosphere and the tone of his organization, whether it's a company or the government. One might argue Obama didn't directly give the orders for any of these controversies, but he created the atmosphere in which all of these things became okay to do in someone's mind. It only gets worse when they claim Obama had no idea any of this was going on.
Ultimately, Obama is the product of the "participation trophy" generation. They voted him in and then allow him a pass for everything under his watch. He tried and that is enough for them.
Unfortunately, in the real world, trying is not enough. Failing to uphold your oaths erodes liberties and gets people killed. If only we had not learned this the hard way through President Obama.
If only we had known before he was given another term.
Fortunately, the administration had no forewarning of this attack. It was spontaneous and unexpected, triggered by a low quality YouTube video. It's not like the British ambassador was nearly killed in a bombing just weeks before the attack. Nor is it like the American ambassador himself requested additional security for the consulate mere weeks before the attack. No one was responsible for the deadly attack that ensued that day.
Except Republicans and their spending cuts, of course. After all, cut funding for consulates and you most certainly cannot allocate funds intelligently. That would just be responsible.
Recently, however, the American public learned of something even greater that could very well lead to a chilling effect on speech in the nation.
For years, the IRS has been hampering conservative groups that have applied for 501(c)4 tax exempt status. Instead of granting the status in a reasonable amount of time, groups were kept waiting since 2010 and subjected to audit after audit. Is there any doubt that this increased the president's re-election chances? After all, haranguing groups, forcing them to spend money and time on lawyers and compliance with the strongest agency in the federal government had to have affected their ability to organize.
However, despite these actions being of obvious political benefit to the president, he only found out about it through the papers, like the "rest of us." This was all clearly the work of a couple of middle managers in Cincinnati, acting completely of their own accord.
Of course, President Obama knew nothing of the Justice Department's investigations into journalists, either. Not even his top man in the Department of Justice, Attorney General Eric Holder, knew anything. He recused himself and thus had absolutely nothing to do with anything, anytime, anywhere.
It goes down through the line. Whether it is the president himself, his highest ranking subordinates or his defenders, the president is always lacking in direct knowledge of what is happening in his government. Instead of taking responsibility, the president is instead the last to know. Or it is his predecessor's fault.
The tendrils of the evil George W. Bush administration run deep, it seems.
President Obama, on the other hand, doesn't know a thing about what happens in the government during his tenure. The supposed genius god-king, here to save us from our excesses and Texas, is apparently so dumbfounded by the revelations of the past few weeks, it's any wonder he can dress himself in the morning.
But wait! He did allow himself to be accountable for something! He stands by his decision to expand Bush administration policies tenfold and to the homeland! After all, President Obama has to stand behind decisions he's made that either he thinks are good or make him look good. After all, Osama bin Laden was finally killed during his tenure (in a chain of events started before his tenure).
There's something very wrong with the behavior coming out of White House during this presidency.
The purpose of a leader is to lead. A leader sets the atmosphere and the tone of his organization, whether it's a company or the government. One might argue Obama didn't directly give the orders for any of these controversies, but he created the atmosphere in which all of these things became okay to do in someone's mind. It only gets worse when they claim Obama had no idea any of this was going on.
Ultimately, Obama is the product of the "participation trophy" generation. They voted him in and then allow him a pass for everything under his watch. He tried and that is enough for them.
Unfortunately, in the real world, trying is not enough. Failing to uphold your oaths erodes liberties and gets people killed. If only we had not learned this the hard way through President Obama.
If only we had known before he was given another term.
On Civility
A common complaint with the modern age is that the myriad communication technologies we have access to has cheapened human interaction.
I believe this is true. Who hasn't seen a young person with their noses to their phones, texting or playing games on them? They are obsessed, even when in public or ostensibly hanging out with friends. Instead of talking to each other and having discussions, we sum up our lives with quaint abbreviations or amusing memes.
However, our ability to connect to each other at any time also leaves us ignorant of proper social interaction. We grow casual where we should be professional. We behave glibly when serious tragedy has struck. We call out people who have done us wrong in public where it is better left in privacy.
That last one in particular is obvious to anyone who has been on social networks.
It seems that in our mad rush to publicize every little detail in our lives, we forgot the boundaries when it comes to other people. Instead of privately discussing why "X" wronged us with X him or herself, we call X out in public, doing our best to demonize that person. We turn every minor disagreement into a major argument.
Even worse, by making these disagreements public, we drag our networks of family, friends and acquaintances in with us. We jade and color their perceptions of us and those around us with our behavior. Often, we just show them an ugly side of ourselves no one knew existed. People make assumptions, take sides and, ultimately, many more people are hurt by events that should have only ever affected two.
Something I have observed for years has become increasingly obvious over time: the anonymity of the internet leads people to behave badly.
We can, in essence, become entirely different people online. Whereas we might be polite in personal company, being nobodies on the internet causes us to break down much needed barriers in our behavior. We are a clean slate, able to behave as well or poorly as we please. There are no nuances in written communication that can tell us how another person truly feels or the mood they're in.
Even if we reveal our names, our jobs, our sexual preferences, et al. online, we're still shielded from the dynamics that develop from speaking mano-a-mano.
We forget that the one on the other side of the wires and servers are also human beings. It leads the crueler, less caring among us to be selfish and narcissistic. They behave like jerks and complain when it is thrown back in their faces.
Of course, our emails, text messages, cell phones, video games and whatever else you can think of have brought innumerable advantages. We can interact with people who were out of our reach just two decades ago. They can enrich our experiences in life and we should not be afraid to embrace them for their positive purposes.
At the same time, however, we should be vigilant not to lose our humanity in the process. Civility and manners are precious commodities and must be nurtured--most especially in this age of digital living.
I believe this is true. Who hasn't seen a young person with their noses to their phones, texting or playing games on them? They are obsessed, even when in public or ostensibly hanging out with friends. Instead of talking to each other and having discussions, we sum up our lives with quaint abbreviations or amusing memes.
However, our ability to connect to each other at any time also leaves us ignorant of proper social interaction. We grow casual where we should be professional. We behave glibly when serious tragedy has struck. We call out people who have done us wrong in public where it is better left in privacy.
That last one in particular is obvious to anyone who has been on social networks.
It seems that in our mad rush to publicize every little detail in our lives, we forgot the boundaries when it comes to other people. Instead of privately discussing why "X" wronged us with X him or herself, we call X out in public, doing our best to demonize that person. We turn every minor disagreement into a major argument.
Even worse, by making these disagreements public, we drag our networks of family, friends and acquaintances in with us. We jade and color their perceptions of us and those around us with our behavior. Often, we just show them an ugly side of ourselves no one knew existed. People make assumptions, take sides and, ultimately, many more people are hurt by events that should have only ever affected two.
Something I have observed for years has become increasingly obvious over time: the anonymity of the internet leads people to behave badly.
We can, in essence, become entirely different people online. Whereas we might be polite in personal company, being nobodies on the internet causes us to break down much needed barriers in our behavior. We are a clean slate, able to behave as well or poorly as we please. There are no nuances in written communication that can tell us how another person truly feels or the mood they're in.
Even if we reveal our names, our jobs, our sexual preferences, et al. online, we're still shielded from the dynamics that develop from speaking mano-a-mano.
We forget that the one on the other side of the wires and servers are also human beings. It leads the crueler, less caring among us to be selfish and narcissistic. They behave like jerks and complain when it is thrown back in their faces.
Of course, our emails, text messages, cell phones, video games and whatever else you can think of have brought innumerable advantages. We can interact with people who were out of our reach just two decades ago. They can enrich our experiences in life and we should not be afraid to embrace them for their positive purposes.
At the same time, however, we should be vigilant not to lose our humanity in the process. Civility and manners are precious commodities and must be nurtured--most especially in this age of digital living.
Monday, July 22, 2013
On Victim Blaming and the IRS
Yesterday, Representative Jim McDermott of Washington attempted to damage the credibility of leaders of several conservative groups when they came to testify before congress about the IRS Scandal. Complaining about them seeking a "subsidy," the congressman essentially blamed the groups for bringing the scrutiny on themselves because of their "political activity."
In so doing, he revealed the hand of the left.
First of all, he obviously believes that the targeting of the conservative organizations was just fine, contrary to his opening statement. He spends so much time justifying what the IRS did, he clearly does not care about the unfair targeting. One does not try to justify actions that are objectively wrong unless one agrees with the activity. To cover for this breach in ethics, McDermott essentially blamed the victim, claiming their political activities is what drew the unfair attention (and constant delays in the bestowal of 501(c)4 status) rather than intentional targeting by the IRS.
Also note his attempts to further justify the targeting by pointing to behavior in the George W. Bush administration. He essentially tries to justify bad behavior by pointing to other (allegedly) bad behavior. Which, of course, contradicts the point he made in the beginning (again), where he claimed to believe that the IRS did something wrong.
Congressman, either the IRS did something wrong in targeting conservatives or what they did was okay. You cannot have it both ways.
And, of course, he used the classic leftist refrain equating "tax exemption" with "tax subsidies." I fully believe he knows the difference between the two, but just doesn't care. For the uninformed, "not paying taxes" is not the same as "receiving funds from the government." It is called "getting to keep your own money."
Then again, to the left, all money is the government's money. They just haven't found a way to take it yet.
I believe there is something else that is missed when discussing the point of granting 501(c)3 and (c)4 status to organizations. While such organizations must fulfill certain requirements to gain the status, the primary reason they have it is that they are non-profit organizations. It has little to do with what the specifics of their activities are. It has far more to do with whether or not they are specifically out to make a profit. Like churches, political action groups are not in business nor are they making a profit.
And every dollar the IRS takes from them hurts far more than the dollars taken from a business. Running on donations means running purely off of the goodwill and ability of donors. Businesses can try to improve their bottom line when times are tough. Non-profits cannot.
Considering the past actions of leftists, there are likely only a handful who truly believe what the IRS did was wrong. They will pay lip service to the fact that it was abusive, but their true feelings are far more reflected by McDermott's victim-blaming and justification. They just happen to be more shrewd with their feelings.
To the left, any means are justified to reach the end of marginalizing, if not destroying, the right.
In so doing, he revealed the hand of the left.
First of all, he obviously believes that the targeting of the conservative organizations was just fine, contrary to his opening statement. He spends so much time justifying what the IRS did, he clearly does not care about the unfair targeting. One does not try to justify actions that are objectively wrong unless one agrees with the activity. To cover for this breach in ethics, McDermott essentially blamed the victim, claiming their political activities is what drew the unfair attention (and constant delays in the bestowal of 501(c)4 status) rather than intentional targeting by the IRS.
Also note his attempts to further justify the targeting by pointing to behavior in the George W. Bush administration. He essentially tries to justify bad behavior by pointing to other (allegedly) bad behavior. Which, of course, contradicts the point he made in the beginning (again), where he claimed to believe that the IRS did something wrong.
Congressman, either the IRS did something wrong in targeting conservatives or what they did was okay. You cannot have it both ways.
And, of course, he used the classic leftist refrain equating "tax exemption" with "tax subsidies." I fully believe he knows the difference between the two, but just doesn't care. For the uninformed, "not paying taxes" is not the same as "receiving funds from the government." It is called "getting to keep your own money."
Then again, to the left, all money is the government's money. They just haven't found a way to take it yet.
I believe there is something else that is missed when discussing the point of granting 501(c)3 and (c)4 status to organizations. While such organizations must fulfill certain requirements to gain the status, the primary reason they have it is that they are non-profit organizations. It has little to do with what the specifics of their activities are. It has far more to do with whether or not they are specifically out to make a profit. Like churches, political action groups are not in business nor are they making a profit.
And every dollar the IRS takes from them hurts far more than the dollars taken from a business. Running on donations means running purely off of the goodwill and ability of donors. Businesses can try to improve their bottom line when times are tough. Non-profits cannot.
Considering the past actions of leftists, there are likely only a handful who truly believe what the IRS did was wrong. They will pay lip service to the fact that it was abusive, but their true feelings are far more reflected by McDermott's victim-blaming and justification. They just happen to be more shrewd with their feelings.
To the left, any means are justified to reach the end of marginalizing, if not destroying, the right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)