Wednesday, November 21, 2012

A thankful member of the 47%


My father died when I was five years old. My mother raised five of us, and during this Thanksgiving season I will always be grateful for her sacrifices. Our government supported my family with monthly veterans’ checks. I was pulled out of a boring English class to go to college free as a track athlete. I entered the work force with a shock. No one provided me with employment as they had provided me food, shelter, and education to this point. I secured a job at a sheltered workshop for 3 ½ years placing the mentally handicapped into competitive employment. I made $8,000 to start and paid no income taxes. This job helped me identify my skills of persuasion, as well as people skills, and an empathetic attitude. It also made me a legitimate member of the 47%. Today, I am a conservative, and do not readily identify with this group. I am empathetic, however.

You see there is an entitlement type of thinking that makes me squirm. Even though I am the recipient of so many handouts over my life, I reject the idea that I will remain dependant on freebees. You see my mom took the entitlements, but she never stopped working. She leveraged her entitlements to create opportunities for her children. I miss her, and think of her often. In the spirit of Thanksgiving I am grateful and want to contribute to this great country that gave me so much opportunity. It is not the handouts that create an entitlement culture. It is the lack of desire for a better lifestyle. It is the selfishness of capitalism that drives most of us to have a better life. When I travel to other countries like Panama and China and they find out that I am from the US it is not democracy that I sense they are envious of. It is not freedom that they seem to long for. I sense that they are more interested in the things that I have, and the opportunities available for both my self and my family. Don’t get me wrong. I think they want the right to express them selves without being harmed. I think they also want what Abraham Lincoln called conceived liberty and dedication to equality. I just think that these lofty ideals are not where people live.

I think that most people are much like my wife. She lives in the here and now and not the lofty ideals of democrats or republicans. She keeps me grounded when I find myself in an idealistic rant. My mother, my wife, and my foreign friends surround me with the reality of the here and now. Human nature becomes industrious when we sacrifice and work to better ourselves. When we get something for free that we don’t have to work for, then we do not value it. We expect more, and become ungrateful for the things we have. The cure for ingratitude is sacrifice. When we must work for something we learn to value it. So we the members of the 47% who have had to sacrifice and struggle reject the idealism of the extreme right wing. Just because someone has given us a hand up does not mean that we are destined to be entitled. We vow to take delight in any help we receive. We will be grateful for opportunities over expectations. When we find ourselves in desperate circumstances we will resist despair. On this Thanksgiving we will identify small reasons to take courage. On this Thanksgiving we proclaim a new breed of 47 percent-ers who will represent those who live in the stress and struggle of the here and now with a can do attitude that rises above our circumstances. 

Monday, November 5, 2012

My Decision! #Obama, #Romney, #Election

I have made a decision, and I am voting tomorrow. Unfortunately, I can not let you know what that decision is. You see I am a high school teacher. My students may be watching my posts. Tomorrow, on Election Day my students and I will be giving out copies of the constitution to every teacher at our school. The Constitution tells us in the first amendment that the government shall not establish or create a religion or forbid its exercise. I agree with this clause. I would even fight and die for this limitation of government.

During the colonial period many evangelical Christians were being persecuted around the time of the  American Revolution in America. The Anglican church at the time was state controlled. During this period the church was a beneficiary of the tax dollars of the state. People did not have the freedom to join the church of their choice. Our founding fathers did not want what they saw In Europe repeated. Giant cathedrals were built with tax dollars and the people resented it, and their religion with it. The first amendment guarantees that this history and oppression over controversial beliefs will not be repeated.

So I know what you are saying. political parties are not a religion. This is true, but I see my job as a sacred trust. My job is to teach students to think, not teach them what to think. My students need to be able to make judgments for themselves. If they must be influenced by someone, then I would prefer that, that someone be their parents. I do not desire to alienate those students who would disagree with my perspective. It is my desire to influence as many of students as possible to think critically. If I take a position, then I want my students to see it as an opportunity to argue with me. I want them to challenge me and be challenged in an environment where there are rules and safety. In this laboratory of kindness students will be able to explore their political, religious and ethnic values in a way where they can make up their own minds with the primary influence from their parents. I will vote tomorrow, for the person who I believe will take us on a systemic course to preserve the free enterprise system, and restore the middle class so that my grandchildren will have the same opportunities that I did when they are able to make their mark.

Are you going to vote tomorrow? If you do, and you should, remember that high school teacher that taught you how to think, not what to think. :)



Wednesday, October 31, 2012

Who would Hurricane Sandy pick for president?

Who would Sandy pick for president?

sandy and pres

I suppose it is how you look at it. I watched many politicians today say in so many words that, "we will rebuild". I am sorry to say that I do not necessary agree. I do not mind if people want to risk their personal money for this development. But, if people use government money, then I disagree. I did not agree when New Orleans was bailed out, and I will not agree when we bail out the barrier islands for uses that they were never meant to have. Of course, if any presidential candidate would say this, it would be political suicide. This may be the most unpopular post that I have ever created. I understand that many people will disagree with me. I have rented a house at the shore for the past 10 years on one of those barrier islands. We have hundreds of wonderful memories during our family vacations. I am not unsympathetic toward this desire to rebuild these areas. Who does not want the ocean breeze in their hair when they go for a walk outside of their home? I just question why the tax payer should assume the risk of this affluent lifestyle.

OC

If we were to take a snap shot of these barrier islands in 1944 we would see a much different picture than the development of today. In earlier years people built changing rooms on the beach where day trippers could come to the beach and change their clothes without having to stay over. The residents of the area called them shoebies. They were day trippers who visited the shore with all of their belongings in a shoe box because they took the train. There were less houses, but these homes were not meant for every season of the year. My suggestion is that the current disaster of a Halloween Hurricane creates an opportunity to preserve some beach areas for parks and open space. Rather than saying we will rebuild, I would suggest we unbuild by dedicating some areas to open space. The tax savings would be fiscally responsible, and make the shore experience more enjoyable. The 6 billion dollars invested in rebuilding could help us put our fiscal house in order.

For these reasons the candidate who does not say "we will rebuild" may have my vote on election day.
 

Monday, October 22, 2012

The last undecided voter! #debate, #Presidential debate, #Election 2012, #Romney, #Obama

The last undecided voter is wavering. At the first debate President Obama's moderate answers and desire to seek the middle ground won me over. In the Vice Presidential debate Paul Ryan's desire to clean up the mistake in Afghanistan with a gradual pull out that will protect our remaining servicemen won me over. In the town hall meeting Romney's lack of big ideas, but strong executive skills persuaded me that an executive without big ideas may not be such a bad thing. In this final debate I guess it comes down to this. Will I vote for an executive who will build consensus by getting ideas from others, and then build a compromise, or will I vote for a idealist who is more like me and proposes ideas that will win over people by the force of his personality?

This week my wife was discouraged. She  is taking a graduate course to complete her Masters in English. It is quite possible that what she is experiencing  is a bit of a generation gap more than anything else. I am 56 years young and she will not let me give out her age, but suffice it to say that I married a younger women who now has six grandchildren. I do not believe it is a generation gap. I believe it is more of a personality gap? My wife is an realist and I am more of idealist. She is a administrator and I am more of an artist. She asks a lot of how questions, and I am constantly asking why. Could it be that her colleagues in the graduate course are younger. more idealistic, and less pragmatic? I think this is highly likely. Winston Churchill once said, "Anyone who isn’t a liberal by age 20 has no heart. Anyone who isn’t a conservative by age 40 has no brain." I confess to having liberal ideas, and my scarecrow persona as in the Wizard of Oz has mellowed with age.

Now no one is entirely an idealist or entirely a realist. It is all a matter of degrees. I think however people have a first line of attack strategy for solving problems. The idealist will tend to push their ideas first, and then consider their advisers' ideas. Perhaps a much better strategy is to let the ownership of an idea originate from others when building consensus. In our current political environment of party polarization, this is much more important. I believe either candidate is savvy enough to see the need for idea ownership at the chief executive level to build consensus. I am only concerned that the split second decisions of the chief executive role could lead to more mistakes that could break deals between legislatures to solve our most serious problems.

For example let's look at the problem of energy. I live in Pennsylvania. I grew up in coal country in western Pennsylvania, and I now live in Eastern Delaware County which is very blue collar. Governor Romney has earned points from the coal caucus in my state. He has not done this by laying out an energy policy that highlights coal. He has done this by not setting a policy against coal. Here is a video created by some of the rank and file that mine coal in Ohio. 



Thomas Peterffy is a Hungarian immigrant who has purchased hundreds of millions of dollars in advertising on television. Peterffy is the 189th wealthiest billionaire in the world with a net worth of $5.4 billion. No one is manipulating him to run these ads. He is a self made man that has made his wealth by employing his wit and cunning at the core of our capitalistic system. His fervent belief in the free enterprise system is at the core of his ideals. This man grew up in a socialist country. In his own life time he has lived the American dream. Would this have been possible in Europe? Mr. Peterffy does not seem to think so. He is spending this money because he believes that this system is in jeopardy. Can we protect and defend our middle class by a top down strategy? At the right time I believe so. My question is this. Is now a better time to protect the middle class by promoting initiative, and building consensus by those ideas from the bottom up instead of from the top down?

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

The last undecided voter

What should a president be good at? Should he be an idealist, a visionary, or should he be more of an executive who knows how to harness the ideas of others around him? Should he be a visionary who comes up with the ideas for his staff to implement?

Tonight there is a great debate in a town hall format. When the candidates are forced to answer questions of specific constituents, then big ideas will be secondary to practical advise. Big ideas are better put before sweeping systems housing large swaths of people. To focus on one individual will test the communication skills of any administrator. The town hall meeting is a test of withholding solutions over revealing the process of relationship development. Every year my students take part in this exercise in our annual Student Government Town Hall Meeting. It is a great activity because it helps connect students with the practical application of government.

Another application of government is being able to negotiate bipartisan deals. This pragmatic exercise is what our country needs right now to solve our most difficult national problems. Here is my speculation on the two very different and equally effective processes. Governor Romney will solve this problem with an implementation strategy. He will give the problem to the idea people, and let them solve it by objective. This is why he has not been forth coming about the details of his 20% tax cut. President Obama will try to solve this problem by coming up with a new idea that will balance the competing forces of republicans and democrats.Which is better? I am a still not sure, and that is why I am still an undecided voter.

I like the ideas of President Obama. I respect the executive decisions of a successful businessman, like Governor Romney. Tonight I stood in grocery line, and the cashier asked me if I would like a free bag with my groceries. She said she would not charge me if I voted for President Obama. When I asked her why she said that, she said no rich man was going to help us in Upper Darby. I did not have time to discuss this with her because I had to run to a meeting. I look forward to continuing this discussion. Perhaps like the town meeting tonight she will finally convince me of what I will gain from the upcoming election.


Thursday, October 11, 2012

#VP Debate Who won?

I watched the debate tonight. I couldn't help feeling like a patronizing older man was lecturing a defensive congressman. I think that both candidates made good points. Most of the questions were stacked against Ryan and in Biden's wheel house. Ryan held his own as an underdog. I guess that alone would give him the nod, however what really persuaded me was the question about the soldier left on the front lines in Afghanistan. This is a question that I feel very strongly about. I think that Paul Ryan had the better answer, and for that reason he wins the debate.

What Paul Ryan did not say is what his plan would be to with drawl troops. I wish he had said that we should determine with drawl as close to the action as possible. I wish he had said that soldiers had to with drawl, but only if they felt they were not placing their comrades into harms way. Paul Ryan felt that we should let the commanders on the ground make the call, and I agree with that, but I also would make sure that the lines between these commanders and their command was clear. At the risk of being accused of being a micro managing commander in chief I would test and see if my directives were making it through to the rank and file.

I really want to believe the bipartisan rhetoric of the Romney Ryan ticket. Tonight I found Ryan more believable than Romney, so he won the debate.

Thursday, October 4, 2012

I would vote for the president if... #debate #Romney or #Obama

On October 4th. in 1945 President Harry Truman ordered the Navy to seize the oil refineries where 43,000 workers were on strike. This action was heroic because the workers were unionized, and traditionally organized labor has backed the democratic party. In essence he was throwing members of his own party under the bus. Truman did this because he was protecting the country. He weighed his options and decided that the partisan benefits of giving in to the union was nothing compared to the threat on our national security from an oil shortage. Last night president Obama said that, "the first role of the American government is to keep its people safe."

Mr. President, I would suggest that our people are economically unsafe. Our deficit and accumulating debt threaten to lower our standard of living and divert resources away from vital services. Mitt Romney would say that we can not afford to cut defense spending. I would suggest that the economic war that we are currently fighting is more significant than any missiles currently aimed at our shores. The only thing currently holding up our standard of living is our currencies dependable reputation. When our currency becomes devalued from ongoing borrowing, then our standard of living and domestic tranquility will be jeopardized.

Real leadership happens when a president decides to attack his own party in the interest of solving a problem which jeopardizes our security. There are examples of this on both sides of the isle. Teddy Roosevelt took on business interests when he purchased land for national parks. Both Truman and Roosevelt's' actions could have easily cost them a second term. If Harry Truman were debating Teddy Roosevelt on the deficit I would like to believe that both of them would give in to accomplish a greater good. In this age of partisan politics I hope that Romney and Obama can reach out across the isle and work together to solve this problem. It does not matter who won the debate last night. This debate was about competition. The real debate right now is with our Chinese competitors. They value cooperation over competition. If we are going to compete in this current economic war we had better learn to compete against their state capitalism with bipartisan cooperation. In this previous post I suggested further dividing the powers of the president over the issue of the deficit. Click here for this post.

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

#debate Divide and conquer the deficit & health care reform.


I like Romney’s entrepreneurial spirit. I do not like his tendency to make every decision his discretion.

I like Obama’s commitment to the middle class. I do not like his propensity to solve big problems with bureaucratic solutions.

Republicans empower people who value their individual liberty. A personal liberty can neglect individuals that can not stand up for them selves.
 Democrats solve problems of inequality. They use central planning to maximize resources, and also reap bureaucratic inefficiency.

Both parties have strengths and weaknesses. I am a Republican because I value my individual liberty over equality. My value is based upon my desire to please the God that I serve in all that I do. I know that everyone does not share my faith. I feel that both parties have perspectives that must be shared and considered when creating and implementing public policy. Equality is one of the founding values of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, Republicans have taken equality for granted. In some cases this is because of their faith, and in other cases they choose selfishness.

The Democrats have an advantage over the Republicans when it comes to creating systems to save the middle class. Democrats are in a better position to create a system, and Republicans can better manage it. Many of the liberal think tanks are filled with bright people with great ideas. I read and listen to many of them. The two parties must work together to solve these difficult problems. At this point I am sure I have alienated many of my friends who would call me a wishy-washy moderate. Democrats should create systems to save the middle class and let Republicans implement it. What is an example of a system that needs to be created?

Medicare is the #1 entitlement problem in our country. Senior citizens are the fastest growing, and arguably the most easily exploited group in our country. We need to use the $700 billion saved from Medicare Advantage, and plug it back into the system. We need to let the Republicans manage that money and implement its execution. I understand that this kind of scenario would turn American politics on its head. But, if this means that we have increased domestic tranquility, then everyone would be for it. When people in other countries jealously look at our country what is it that makes them jealous? Is it liberty, equality, or even freedom that they long for? I have traveled around the world, and I do not think so. I think they want our standard of living. They want cell phones that talk to them and automobiles that do not use gasoline. They see the large number of people who have access to these conveniences, and want them as well. I worry that it won't be long that I will be longing to be in another country because they have what I want.

So today I am advocating for changes in our government. The values of our two party systems are too good to not have them in play at the same time. I have a dream of a shared and collaborative government. I am proposing that the Democratic Party run the legislative branch of our government and the Republicans execute it. I sit and write this as I watch the speeches of the Republican National Convention. The speeches are inspiring, and it is easy to get caught up in the emotion of the moment. I know however, that in another couple of weeks I will be equally swept up by the speeches of the Democratic Convention. I like big ideas with conservative execution. We need the power of both parties to solve the problems of our deficit. I had high hopes for the Simpson Bowles commission. I followed their progress, and as a grandfather myself I embraced their love for their grandchildren. I was crest-fallen when our legislature and the president could not come to an agreement to solve our deficit. I have lost confidence in my government, and I believe that we must try something new to grease the polarization and unite bipartisan solutions through the introduction of different political structures. My wife tells me that I am spitting in the wind. I love my country, and I am grateful for the life it has provided me. I can talk freely about the things that I truly care about without the fear of reprisal. I feel a mounting dissatisfaction with our government, and its lack of action. I am ready for drastic measures of self correction. My hope and prayer is for a radical moderate force of citizens who will have the courage to execute a moderate idea of realistic compromise.

Friday, September 14, 2012

Innocence of Muslims


Are the attacks in Egypt a culture clash?

This week there have been terrible attacks on our embassy in Cairo and a consulate in Libya. These attacks were brutal and riotous. Have you ever been a part of riot? When riots happen they start from protests about injustice or conflicting virtue. It starts from some catalyst. In Benghazi it was a gunshot. When I was in Quebec this year a simple protest could have turned into a riot when one of the protesters rushed at the police line, and one of my students waiting in a doorway shouted an insult at the crowd. Fortunately this did not happen. But the diplomats in Benghazi were not as lucky. If both parties took a closer look at the elements of the conflict that created the protest there is always hope that the protest will stop escalating and settle into diversion.

In order for this to happen both sides must have a good understanding of each others point of view. In the case of the student protest in Quebec the conflict was about college tuition hikes and a voice in government. Which was more important to the students? When the Parliament ruled their strike illegal things heated up very significantly, and my students and I got out of town.  I think one of the things diplomats need to know is when to leave town. More importantly both parties must strive to have a better understanding of what is at the root of the conflict. In the case of the Anti-Muslim video that caused so much offense some helpful questions could settle an injustice by pointing out the conflicting virtues. When I was Egypt in 2007 I had the privilege of visiting a private school. While we were there I took the time to draw out one of the social studies teachers on their curriculum. He was very upset when he showed me copies of the new text books he was required to use by the government. They were history books. They started with the pyramids and then quickly fast forwarded to Nasser. He looked at me with tears in his eyes and told me he can no longer teach about the enlightenment. I would argue that if students do not have the opportunity to study the enlightenment then they will never understand the western mind. He seemed to agree with me. At least in Egypt I noticed there were significant differences by what was meant by freedom of speech inside and outside of the country.

While I was in Egypt I also had the opportunity to meet with a Coptic Christian women who was desperate to leave the country. At one time the Christians in Egypt were treated very favorably, and held key positions of power. The status of the Coptic Christians in Egypt was deteriorating with each passing year. This was still when Hosni Mubarak was still in power. With the Arab Spring I am sure that their position is even less favorable. Remembering what you used to have, and resenting it being taken from you has a way of turning into revenge. Perhaps there was enough revenge that in the ideals of the Coptics the offensive video was justified. America saw the creation of the video as an expression of freedom of speech. The Muslim world saw the video as a direct attack on their God. Since God gives us eternal life, then any action even death is justified to correct this injustice.  In the eyes of the Coptic Christians it could be revenge. Since they used to have power, and now no longer do, then have been persecuted and would like lash out to inflict pain on the people who have offended them.

Is this a culture clash? I think it is more of about special interests protecting their interests. This conflict was not about freedom of speech. It was about misunderstanding speech. What are the elements common to all parties? They are all offended. America is offended because they have been unfairly attacked with causalities. Islam is offended because their prophet was attacked and their God blasphemed. The Coptic Christians are seeking revenge for being demoted from the Egyptian upper class. America must attempt to walk in the shoes of those in the Arab world. We understand revenge. We understand disrespect and offense. We even have a limited understanding of what blasphemy is. The temptation to react instead of respond further escalates the conflict. Instead of a culture clash we should try to respond to the core of the conflict. To the Arab people we must respond to the perceived blasphemy by demonstrating our desire to protect religious expression. One way to do this is to take action to restrict our own media. Because our country believes in freedom of expression we can not go after the people behind the video. Instead we can show how we regulate expression by showing the Arab people how we prohibit this expression in certain settings. We should do everything in our power to create a timeline without offense to reduce the possibility of more violence.

In the end game the Arab people must understand our value system as we attempt to understand theirs. We must take the initiative to demonstrate this by regulating our self expression and then reach out to explain our value system to the blind spots in Arab understanding. We can do this the same way that they were offended by sending them videos in Arabic that explain our desire to protect religious expression guaranteed in the first amendment of our constitution. The root of the conflict is misunderstanding. We must strive to be understood.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Public Employee Labor Unions

I have never understood public employee labor unions. "The primary reason public employee unions are a bad idea is because politicians pay them off with our money. These unions receive billions from taxpayers, who in return contribute millions to the politicians who gave them those billions." Scott Walker. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/02/28/public_unions_a_bad_deal_for_the_public_109052.html

I was a freshman student at Bethel Park High school in 1970. Many students chose not to attend school when our teachers threatened to strike. Even when I was 15 years old I knew it was wrong, and I went to school that day. 


Now we are in the middle of a Chicago teachers strike against democratic mayor Rahm Emanuel. For those of you who do not know. Rahm is the former chief of staff for the Obama administration. The Romney-Ryan ticket just backed Rahm's hard line position against the union that brought on this strike. I can not imagine that I am the only one who does not see the obvious conflict of interests. If Rahm caves in this will be a victory for bureaucracy over the education of our children. I hope Rahm sticks to his ideals and stays the course. I hope that he is not union president of the Illinois state teacher association next year.

When I began my teaching career in 2004 I remember clearly brushing against this conflict in the Philadelphia school district. I was watching some video footage of a former strike, and I was very surprised to see my principal at the front of the picket line with a sign that said the administration was unfair to her. When there is no difference between labor and management the protests against management no longer seem credible. Instead of fighting against injustice they are really fighting to protect their turf. This is the essence of what is wrong with government. It is these kinds of forces that cause bureaucracy and inefficiency in government. These teachers would say that they want to improve education. I think they are more interested in protecting their wages and working conditions over student needs in the district. Public employees need to go back to the days of being public servants. Before their were labor unions in government there was a stronger desire among government employees to work for the good of their country.

I respect a union employee who wants to stick it to the man. However, I find it silly to do this when that man is me.  

Thursday, August 30, 2012

GOP/ Democratic Convention


I like Romney’s entrepreneurial spirit. I do not like his tendency to make every decision his discretion.

I like Obama’s commitment to the middle class. I do not like his propensity to solve big problems with bureaucratic solutions.

Republicans empower people who value their individual liberty. A personal liberty can neglect individuals that can not stand up for them selves.
 Democrats solve problems of inequality. They use central planning to maximize resources, and also reap bureaucratic inefficiency.

Both parties have strengths and weaknesses. I am a Republican because I value my individual liberty over equality. My value is based upon my desire to please the God that I serve in all that I do. I know that everyone does not share my faith. I feel that both parties have perspectives that must be shared and considered when creating and implementing public policy. Equality is one of the founding values of the Republican Party. Unfortunately, Republicans have taken equality for granted. In some cases this is because of their faith, and in other cases they choose selfishness.

The Democrats have an advantage over the Republicans when it comes to creating systems to save the middle class. Democrats are in a better position to create a system, and Republicans can better manage it. Many of the liberal think tanks are filled with bright people with great ideas. I read and listen to many of them. The two parties must work together to solve these difficult problems. At this point I am sure I have alienated many of my friends who would call me a wishy-washy moderate. Democrats should create systems to save the middle class and let Republicans implement it. What is an example of a system that needs to be created?

Medicare is the #1 entitlement problem in our country. Senior citizens are the fastest growing, and arguably the most easily exploited group in our country. We need to use the $700 billion saved from Medicare Advantage, and plug it back into the system. We need to let the Republicans manage that money and implement its execution. I understand that this kind of scenario would turn American politics on its head. But, if this means that we have increased domestic tranquility, then everyone would be for it. When people in other countries jealously look at our country what is it that makes them jealous? Is it liberty, equality, or even freedom that they long for? I have traveled around the world, and I do not think so. I think they want our standard of living. They want cell phones that talk to them and automobiles that do not use gasoline. They see the large number of people who have access to these conveniences, and want them as well. I worry that it won't be long that I will be longing to be in another country because they have what I want.

So today I am advocating for changes in our government. The values of our two party systems are too good to not have them in play at the same time. I have a dream of a shared and collaborative government. I am proposing that the Democratic Party run the legislative branch of our government and the Republicans execute it. I sit and write this as I watch the speeches of the Republican National Convention. The speeches are inspiring, and it is easy to get caught up in the emotion of the moment. I know however, that in another couple of weeks I will be equally swept up by the speeches of the Democratic Convention. I like big ideas with conservative execution. We need the power of both parties to solve the problems of our deficit. I had high hopes for the Simpson Bowles commission. I followed their progress, and as a grandfather myself I embraced their love for their grandchildren. I was crest-fallen when our legislature and the president could not come to an agreement to solve our deficit. I have lost confidence in my government, and I believe that we must try something new to grease the polarization and unite bipartisan solutions through the introduction of different political structures. My wife tells me that I am spitting in the wind. I love my country, and I am grateful for the life it has provided me. I can talk freely about the things that I truly care about without the fear of reprisal. I feel a mounting dissatisfaction with our government, and its lack of action. I am ready for drastic measures of self correction. My hope and prayer is for a radical moderate force of citizens who will have the courage to execute a moderate idea of realistic compromise.

Saturday, July 28, 2012

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Top 10 Corporate Political Contributors via WSJ





I am fascinated that there is not one health care or insurance company on the list in light of the Obama Health Mandate going into effect this year. It is also interesting to note that when you purchase these kind of services you are also contributing to one party or another. Last night I went to a Dreamworks movie, and did not realize that I was contributing to the Democratic Party. Finally, Gambling is the #1 corporate contributor to the political process. This makes me a bit ashamed of the republican party. :(

Thursday, February 16, 2012

Right or Privilege (How to fix bureaucracy)




This is a post that started under the heading, “We have met the enemy and he is us”. A good friend once told me, good can be the enemy of the best. This describes bureaucracy well. Bureaucracy is insidious. The initial purpose of creating an institution is to solve a social problem. The group affected by this problem is growing and a systemic solution is called for. With the creation of this system every thing can start off well. That is the problem. Competent managers can work organizations so efficiently that they need fewer resources. As resources grow they expand aggressively to meet the demand of the problem. However, problems are meant to be solved. The organization adapts and meets the need sometimes very fast, and sometimes more slowly. The end result is the same. The organization has become disconnected from its function. It naturally searches out other reasons, and quickly arrives at protecting the organization itself. An ill conceived problem like sickness or ignorance is never totally eradicated. When a problem grows the feeling of entitlement can increase. The irony of bureaucracy is that systems are set up to organize a solution, but they can end up perpetuating it.

The biggest difference between right and privilege is the motivation behind it. A right gives us a sense of entitlement, and therefore a lack of a need to please. A privilege is earned and can be taken away at any point. The fear of loss is at the root of privilege. Fear can be a very motivating, and emotion is an essential part of communication. When people feel that they deserve something they do not attempt to please. The process of communication becomes lazy, and people turn to anger instead of pleasure. Anger can cause communication breakdown. To bureaucrats the sustainability of the system is more important than anything else. They will use the negative emotion of entitlement to sustain their system. When the service they provide is a right, then they are more concerned with pleasing their employees. Privilege is different. Privilege motivates a bureaucrat to increase efficiency for the consumers of their service. These emotional forces can do more than effect a bureaucrat’s organization. They can undermine the very reason these institutions were created. 

Of course when problems become embedded in our society we turn these organizations into institutions. The Army protecting our defense, and the police, protecting our safety are examples of this. These institutions will never be replaced because the problems are so overwhelming. In the case of the army, we will never lose our fear of strangers. When we consider the police we will always recognize people like to be selfish and not share with others. Roadways are important because the weather is ever changing, and it is monstrous problem to keep up with. When we simplify these problems, and put them on the same level as problems with a beginning and an end, then we plant the seeds of bureaucracy.


The fix for bureaucracy comes down to the basic forces driving the process. The forces seem to be caught up in the answer to this question. Is the systemic solution to a social problem a right or a privilege?  If we say it is a right this creates a strong breeding ground for bureaucracy. If we say it is a privilege, then society can be accused of being cold or harsh. I think there are very few things that we can consider a right. We have a right to life. Having a right to life needs to be balanced with the inevitability of death, since we are all destined to die. Some would say that health care is included in this right. If the right to life is also balanced with the inevitability of death, then choices must be peppered into to the process of determining quality of life. Hospice is an example of this. Comfort over cure can be an excellent emotional choice over fighting a fight that can not be won. Who is determining this choice is at the heart of the health care argument. My opinion is that it should be determined by those who are closest to the problem.

The Constitution also tells us we have a right to liberty. Is liberty a right? Libertarians would agree wholeheartedly. The only problem with this is that it must be balanced against the Declaration of Independence. In this document equality not liberty is the featured value. When I last visited the National Archives in Washington, DC I noticed that both documents were equally revered in the vault where they were stored. The movie, National Treasure, and its popularity would validate the values of The Declaration in our national experience. Both political parties have embraced these values. Mitt Romney likes to call himself a “Log Cabin Republican”. A log cabin republican is a conservative who embraces the egalitarian values of Abraham Lincoln. Abraham Lincoln as the founder of the modern Republican Party. This is a value embraced by the both parties. Liberty must be balanced with equality to produce the value that Americans call freedom. Freedom is a privilege that is earned by balancing these values in a way that enhances domestic tranquility.

How do we stop this cycle from repeating? How do we reverse the process? Some have suggested injecting competition into the organization. Some have suggested term limits. Term limits can jolt us with fear, but upsetting the apple cart will also result in wasted apples. Competition can motivate us though an opportunity to gain, but when the competition is targeted incorrectly, then the target can be easily missed. An example of this is high stakes testing producing poorly educated students. The profit motive or the opportunity to gain is a target that is hard to hit in education. With every right there comes privilege. Rights must be balanced with privilege to give meaning to institutions. Institutions must become flexible and adaptable to change. When new technology is developed organizations must change to accommodate greater efficiency. The rights associated with a systemic solution must never lose a sense of privilege that a need is being met.

It does not matter if an institution is set up by the Republican or The Democratic Party. In either case bureaucracy is a problem that undermines the very purpose of government. The common good must be protected by balancing right and privilege, just as our freedoms are protected by balancing liberty with equality.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

State of the Union and Compulsory Education


I watched the president’s state of the union speech tonight. Overall it was a good speech. I disagree with him about a comment he made about education. 

What would happen if the compulsory education age was raised to 18 years of age?

In the inner city today every teacher knows the secret that most bad students in the urban areas of our country drop out. They do not want to be in school, and the teachers do not want them there either. They disrupt learning, and seasoned high school teachers long to get posts above the 10th grade. By then most of the trouble makers drop out of school. Teachers who hang in there are rewarded with students who want to learn.

Compulsory education is not the answer to our education crisis. Students are not motivated by forcing them to stay in school when they do not want to be there. The father of American education, John Dewey, would say this is a bad policy. Students are motivated by connecting meaning with learning in the classroom. Teachers who are good at doing that should be rewarded. However, if the system is set up with accountability measures that stifle creativity, then good teachers must operate under cover to introduce innovation and real world problem solving into the classroom. Good teachers are no longer the sage on the stage. They need to be a guide on the side. Teachers across the nation are learning to coach and mentor student directed learning. This is difficult to do. It is much easier to take out a work sheet, and keep the pencils moving and the students mouths shut.

The lesson of education from Finland is a simple one. If you want to fix the education system, then honor the profession of education. Pay teachers well. This will accomplish two purposes. Student will aspire to be teachers. The teaching profession will then attract the best and the brightest.

Compulsory education has never been the answer. School choice has proven that. School choice is injecting systemic meaning into the educational system. Home schooling brought education back into the home where our values can be better connected to our values. Neither of these strategies depends upon compulsory education. More of this systemic change is needed. Solving the educational crisis in our country has never been to teach to the test with high stakes testing. This strategy just places a lid on achievement. In attempting to raise the bottom we cap the top. Teachers know that every student can contribute in a classroom that emphasizes teamwork in problem solving. These creative teaching opportunities do not happen where lesson plans are dictated by the results of high stakes tests. The negative reinforcement measure of compulsory education stirs rebellion instead of embracing meaning in education.  

Monday, January 16, 2012

Anybody but Ron Paul


Jon Huntsman announced his withdrawal from the Republican race for the presidential nomination today. He was the one candidate that I could get excited about. I like Jon Huntsman for the following reasons...
  • He was not flashy. I think that a candidate that has less charisma will tend to be more systematic about problem solving on behalf of our country. He will work on meaningful things that are boring, but make a large impact on our lives. Huntsman prioritizing of simplifying the tax code is a good example of this.
  • Huntsman was the son of a manufacturer. I believe that one of the best ways to get our economy back is to focus on manufacturing again. Manufacturing is positioned to make a huge come back in the United States with the advancement of robotics. We must have a leader who is forward thinking enough to see this and make room for this change. 
  • Huntsman was a member of the Obama administration. This shows that he could  he could put partisan bickering aside to get the business of America done. He was a moderate who adapted to change, instead of extreme ideological views that alienate middle America from both sides of the process. 
  • Huntsman was familiar with our main competitor in bringing back manufacturing to the US. He was the ambassador to China. The strategy to "keep your friends close and your enemies closer" by Sun-tzu, a Chinese general & military strategist (~400 BC), is great advice for our relationship with China.  
  • Huntsman's strategy to keep banks from getting too big to fail is excellent. The banks are the most likely capitalists to expand our economy into the world bank. These are dangerous and unexplored waters. The European Union fortunately, went out ahead of us, and is suffering the consequences.
  • The shrinking middle class is a bi-product of this global monopolization of markets.
    Just as our country was able to regulate capitalism in the past. I have faith that the right leader can regulate greed in such a way that incentive is maximized, and the wealth is spread around. 
  • The moral issues of our day is the last reason on this list. It is not last because it is least important. It is last because this point forms the springboard for the rest of this post. Problems like abortion, and the flip side Euthanasia, marriage and cohabitation, runaway government spending and Keynesian economics are threatening to un-glue our institutions. When we redefine institutions too rapidly this short term selfishness can un-moor our vales in ways that wreck many peoples lives.
I am alarmed at the growth of libertarian ideology in our country. The philosophy of Ayan Rand is one that is both selfish and short sighted. There have always been people who would jump at ideas like get rid of the IRS, and to interpret Social Darwinism as the guiding principal of our country. It is bait that will cause many of us to squirm in the long term. It is what Joaquin Posada likes to call Marshmallow thinking. People who jump at short term gains do not wait for the long term benefits. They fall subject to fickle market pressures. The market does not always make sense. To base our governing principals on the fickle nature of the stock market is like eating your desert before your dinner. There may be a momentary satisfaction, but in the end the result is a stomach ache. Over a prolonged period of time this behavior could even lead to more serious stomach bypass surgery.

Ron Paul is the candidate who best defines this ideology. Dr. Paul's prescription of libertarian ideology may provide short term benefits to the younger population of our country for a short time. However, like most medicine what makes it effective is that it is a poison. The poison of libertarian philosophy will kill our babies and seniors, inebriate our youth, and make us irresponsible citizens who will not come to the aid of our neighbor. Is the priority of getting our fiscal house in order worth all the baggage that is likely to accompany it?

I think that it is possible to act fiscally responsible within our current democracy. We must back common sense bipartisan approaches like Simpson Bowles. We must choose to cut our deficit and welcome the Austrian school of economics. John Maynard Keynes has seen his day. It is time for the pendulum to swing back toward fiscal conservation. Libertarian philosophy is not the answer. It opens up far too many questions in the long term that none of us would find acceptable.