Summary:
I disagree with the foundation around which Crashing the Gate is based. Their binary view of the world, along with an inability to be objective, make it hard to take the book seriously.
I skimmed through Crashing the Gate because a friend lent it to me and wanted to know what I think about it. Overall, I have to say I completely disagree with their view of the world that makes the foundation for the book.
First of all, the authors portray a binary view of the world, where the only options are one or zero, right or wrong, liberal or conservative. In that view of the world, if you aren't far enough to the left, than you aren't really a Democrat. There is no middle ground. To them, groups like the DLC simply repackage Republican ideas, and people like Joe Lieberman are traitors.
It is obvious to anyone who knows me why I hate that mentality. I consider myself pretty moderate - especially on foreign policy - and I object to anyone who thinks I am a Republican pretending to be a Democrat. For things like abortion, the economy, and taxes, there is room in the middle that shouldn't be considered a capitulation or gutless compromise to Republicans.
Secondly, the authors tend towards the view that there is something inherent about being Republican that makes them more flawed and always wrong. In the Valerie Plame scandal, Joe Wilson was faultless; Cindy Sheehan is a brave mom, not a lunatic; and when Republicans run large deficits, they are irresponsible but Democrats do it because they have to. The fact that the authors show they are incapable of being objective is a tremendous flaw and makes it hard to take the book seriously.
In the end, the authors of the book seem to think that their movement, the netroots movement, will allow them to create a liberal party that doesn't have to be a big tent party. This is complete nonsense, and I think the recent elections show that. Many of the freshman Democrats are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, or foreign policy hawks. Any party is going to have to include people who don't always toe the party line. Although it helps the party win elections, this isn't the reason the party needs to include them. A big tent party is necessary because when people only listen to other people who think like them, it limits policy possibilities and can push people into bad decisions (think the Bush administration, especially post-Powell).
In the end, I dislike Daily Kos so much because it shows the same intolerance for other points of view as the Bush Administration does. For many of the far left, there was no good reason to support Chief Justice Roberts, and no reason to stay in Iraq. As long as this is the case, the far left and the far right will continue to yell past each other and never make any progress.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Insert Pig Analogy Here
Summary:
Democrats are just as guilty of pork spending as the Republicans were. But maybe we should blame ourselves.
Did anyone else believe that the Democrats might actually follow through on their pledge to end pork and become fiscally responsible? I'll admit that I kind of believed them. Well, if you look at the recent war supplemental (which looks like it is headed for a veto anyway), you'll see that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans were. In some ways, their hypocrisy enrages me. At the same time though, I guess I need to recognize the hypocrisy of the voters. We lambaste politicians for pork spending, but then whether we vote for the incumbent in Congress depends in part on how much money they have brought back to the district. The more things change...
Democrats are just as guilty of pork spending as the Republicans were. But maybe we should blame ourselves.
Did anyone else believe that the Democrats might actually follow through on their pledge to end pork and become fiscally responsible? I'll admit that I kind of believed them. Well, if you look at the recent war supplemental (which looks like it is headed for a veto anyway), you'll see that the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans were. In some ways, their hypocrisy enrages me. At the same time though, I guess I need to recognize the hypocrisy of the voters. We lambaste politicians for pork spending, but then whether we vote for the incumbent in Congress depends in part on how much money they have brought back to the district. The more things change...
Quagmire Anyone?
Summary:
Despite my strong belief that we need to stay in Iraq, sometimes I sink into despair over our inability to improve the situation. Maybe it is a quagmire. We can't leave, but our presence doesn't seem to be improving the situation for the long run.
I have realized that I tend to vacillate between two feelings on the war in Iraq. Most often, I am sure that people like John McCain and and many others are right that we need to stay in Iraq - that if we leave the region will fall apart. A war that brings in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will be bad for our energy needs and our security.
Sometimes though I am overcome by despair and depression. This usually happens after reading an article like this one, where I see that our presence in Iraq is providing some temporary solutions and saving some lives in the short run, but that in the end, the militant groups are winning the day.
When I feel this way, I don't change my mind really about whether or not we should stay. But I do become less sure of that position. As I thought about this last night, I actually allowed myself to use the word quagmire. For so long I have fought against that word when friends and pundits used it to describe Iraq. I was sure that Iraq was not a quagmire; it was not Vietnam.
Now, though I have to admit that it does seem like a quagmire, even if it isn't quite the same as Vietnam. No matter what mood I am in, I firmly believe that if we leave, the region will devolve into a war with many more casualties. On the other hand, we have been in Iraq for four years and with each day the violence increases and stability decreases. At these times, I find it difficult to convince myself that Iraq will become stable enough for us to leave anytime in the next five years.
Unfortunately, I still think the best option is to stay to see if we can do anything in the next two years. But I don't feel good about it. So I am left feeling depressed about the situation there, depressed about our inability to do anything about it, and depressed that more Americans will have to die just to prevent a civil war from becoming a regional war. I have to say though, I completely agree with Thomas Friedman when he says that he'll agree to the surge if Bush makes all Americans get involved (and this means more than to continue shopping). Granted, I don't Democrats calling for that either.
Despite my strong belief that we need to stay in Iraq, sometimes I sink into despair over our inability to improve the situation. Maybe it is a quagmire. We can't leave, but our presence doesn't seem to be improving the situation for the long run.
I have realized that I tend to vacillate between two feelings on the war in Iraq. Most often, I am sure that people like John McCain and and many others are right that we need to stay in Iraq - that if we leave the region will fall apart. A war that brings in Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey will be bad for our energy needs and our security.
Sometimes though I am overcome by despair and depression. This usually happens after reading an article like this one, where I see that our presence in Iraq is providing some temporary solutions and saving some lives in the short run, but that in the end, the militant groups are winning the day.
When I feel this way, I don't change my mind really about whether or not we should stay. But I do become less sure of that position. As I thought about this last night, I actually allowed myself to use the word quagmire. For so long I have fought against that word when friends and pundits used it to describe Iraq. I was sure that Iraq was not a quagmire; it was not Vietnam.
Now, though I have to admit that it does seem like a quagmire, even if it isn't quite the same as Vietnam. No matter what mood I am in, I firmly believe that if we leave, the region will devolve into a war with many more casualties. On the other hand, we have been in Iraq for four years and with each day the violence increases and stability decreases. At these times, I find it difficult to convince myself that Iraq will become stable enough for us to leave anytime in the next five years.
Unfortunately, I still think the best option is to stay to see if we can do anything in the next two years. But I don't feel good about it. So I am left feeling depressed about the situation there, depressed about our inability to do anything about it, and depressed that more Americans will have to die just to prevent a civil war from becoming a regional war. I have to say though, I completely agree with Thomas Friedman when he says that he'll agree to the surge if Bush makes all Americans get involved (and this means more than to continue shopping). Granted, I don't Democrats calling for that either.
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Grading the Presidents
Summary:
In his interview on the Daily Show, Brzezinski made some very sharp and very true attacks on Bush Jr's foreign policy - attacks even a Republican should agree with. Is anyone surprised Brzezinski gave him an 'F'?
I was watching some recent interviews from the Daily Show on their website this past weekend, and caught Zbigniew Brzezinski talking about his new book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. The interview was enough to make me want to read his book, which grades the foreign policies of the three president we have had since the end of the Cold War. Needless to say, Bush, Jr. got an 'F' (Bush Sr. got a 'B' and Clinton a 'C').
His comments were so compact but powerful. Here are some of his comments - quoted as best as I can from notes I took:
"Bush believes that our (his) moral superiority justifies immoral acts." Many other people have attacked Bush for this as well. There is apparently a belief among Bush and his administration that our righteousness is self-evident, that even though we torture prisoners in secret detention centers, the world will understand that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys. Bush sees the world this way (Brzezinski called it "Manichean Paranoia") and is unable to realize that the rest of the world finds this bogus, and because they do we lose our moral authority.
"To lead effectively, you need the trust of other nations. Bush has squandered respect for our power. His foreign policy is dividing our friends and uniting our enemies." Unfortunately, this is something most conservatives don't realize. They still think might makes right. But we are weaker when we don't have international support. Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq and subsequent mismanagement, our refusal to get involved in the peace process in Israel and Palestine except to give Israel our blind support have all increased animosity towards us in the Middle East. Everyone agrees that support for the US was at its peak after 9/11 and our invasion of Afghanistan. Since then, our policies have completely reversed that.
"Leadership requires making sacrifices and to adjust to inequalities in the world. We need to have a sense of social responsibility." I get the feeling Bush doesn't really understand the meaning of sacrifice (growing up as he did, I am not surprised). He feels like we can continue to consume oil with abandon, allow carbon emissions to increase without government involvement, and spend government funds without a care for who will pay for it. Furthermore, our actions around the world show a complete lack of restraint. We went into Iraq without listening to legitimate concerns of the international community. At the same time we look at other crises in the world and don't feel compelled to act.
As I wrap this up, I realize that this post is not very coherent. If you feel that way, I urge you to just read Brzezinski's quotes and meditate on them for a while. If you are a Republican and don't see any truth to them, you need to meditate longer.
In his interview on the Daily Show, Brzezinski made some very sharp and very true attacks on Bush Jr's foreign policy - attacks even a Republican should agree with. Is anyone surprised Brzezinski gave him an 'F'?
I was watching some recent interviews from the Daily Show on their website this past weekend, and caught Zbigniew Brzezinski talking about his new book Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower. The interview was enough to make me want to read his book, which grades the foreign policies of the three president we have had since the end of the Cold War. Needless to say, Bush, Jr. got an 'F' (Bush Sr. got a 'B' and Clinton a 'C').
His comments were so compact but powerful. Here are some of his comments - quoted as best as I can from notes I took:
"Bush believes that our (his) moral superiority justifies immoral acts." Many other people have attacked Bush for this as well. There is apparently a belief among Bush and his administration that our righteousness is self-evident, that even though we torture prisoners in secret detention centers, the world will understand that we are the good guys, and they are the bad guys. Bush sees the world this way (Brzezinski called it "Manichean Paranoia") and is unable to realize that the rest of the world finds this bogus, and because they do we lose our moral authority.
"To lead effectively, you need the trust of other nations. Bush has squandered respect for our power. His foreign policy is dividing our friends and uniting our enemies." Unfortunately, this is something most conservatives don't realize. They still think might makes right. But we are weaker when we don't have international support. Furthermore, our invasion of Iraq and subsequent mismanagement, our refusal to get involved in the peace process in Israel and Palestine except to give Israel our blind support have all increased animosity towards us in the Middle East. Everyone agrees that support for the US was at its peak after 9/11 and our invasion of Afghanistan. Since then, our policies have completely reversed that.
"Leadership requires making sacrifices and to adjust to inequalities in the world. We need to have a sense of social responsibility." I get the feeling Bush doesn't really understand the meaning of sacrifice (growing up as he did, I am not surprised). He feels like we can continue to consume oil with abandon, allow carbon emissions to increase without government involvement, and spend government funds without a care for who will pay for it. Furthermore, our actions around the world show a complete lack of restraint. We went into Iraq without listening to legitimate concerns of the international community. At the same time we look at other crises in the world and don't feel compelled to act.
As I wrap this up, I realize that this post is not very coherent. If you feel that way, I urge you to just read Brzezinski's quotes and meditate on them for a while. If you are a Republican and don't see any truth to them, you need to meditate longer.
Timetable
Summary:
I don't agree with the timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation. But they are coming from a very real and justified frustration with Bush's ineptitude and poor handling of the war.
Let me just say that I don't agree with the Democrat's timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation bills. Granted, the non-binding version in the Senate is harmless, but I still wouldn't vote for it. The binding version in the House is even worse. The truth that most Democrats can't seem to get is that if we leave Iraq, it will devolve into a civil war. The violence now is Shiite against Sunni - not a nationalist insurgency against occupation - and our presence is mitigating that violence. If we were to leave, there would be nothing holding back the Mahdi Army from chasing Sunnis out of Baghdad entirely, and no one supporting the fledging government's security services. I know I sound like a broken record, but I will feel the need to say this as long as Democrats are pushing for it.
At the same time though, I think Bush and fellow Republicans need to realize that the popularity of this movement is a direct response to policy failures in Iraq. It took this administration three years to learn that it needs to increase troop levels and actually take on an insurgency, instead of declaring it dead and then hoping your words make it true. De-Baathification (another failed Bush policy) is finally being reversed, which might help stem the violence in the long run. Americans are so angry with the war that they just want it to end and don't want to think about the consequences. The fact is, the Bush administration has been so convinced of its policies that it ignored all outside voices. Now, it is paying for that mistake. But when I read his remarks about Congress's timetable, he seems oblivious to what is driving this and clueless to his past mistakes and ineptitude. The worst part is that the Iraqi population actually pays for Bush's mistakes far more than he ever will.
I don't agree with the timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation. But they are coming from a very real and justified frustration with Bush's ineptitude and poor handling of the war.
Let me just say that I don't agree with the Democrat's timetable provisions in the supplemental appropriation bills. Granted, the non-binding version in the Senate is harmless, but I still wouldn't vote for it. The binding version in the House is even worse. The truth that most Democrats can't seem to get is that if we leave Iraq, it will devolve into a civil war. The violence now is Shiite against Sunni - not a nationalist insurgency against occupation - and our presence is mitigating that violence. If we were to leave, there would be nothing holding back the Mahdi Army from chasing Sunnis out of Baghdad entirely, and no one supporting the fledging government's security services. I know I sound like a broken record, but I will feel the need to say this as long as Democrats are pushing for it.
At the same time though, I think Bush and fellow Republicans need to realize that the popularity of this movement is a direct response to policy failures in Iraq. It took this administration three years to learn that it needs to increase troop levels and actually take on an insurgency, instead of declaring it dead and then hoping your words make it true. De-Baathification (another failed Bush policy) is finally being reversed, which might help stem the violence in the long run. Americans are so angry with the war that they just want it to end and don't want to think about the consequences. The fact is, the Bush administration has been so convinced of its policies that it ignored all outside voices. Now, it is paying for that mistake. But when I read his remarks about Congress's timetable, he seems oblivious to what is driving this and clueless to his past mistakes and ineptitude. The worst part is that the Iraqi population actually pays for Bush's mistakes far more than he ever will.
Pakistan's Moderates
Summary:
The Bush administration says that President Musharraf's iron fist in Pakistan is the only thing preventing the rise of an Islamic state with control over nuclear weapons. There are others though who think that a true democracy would yield a moderate government.
I think this is a very important opinion piece. The Bush administration, and plenty of analysts, believe that we need President / General Musharraf to remain in control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. The fear is that Islamic groups, like the ones that are protecting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the border regions near Afghanistan, would rise up and take control over the country. For this reason, we tolerate an oppressive regime that took control in a military coup. This opinion piece though argues that Muslim extremist groups are not popular in Pakistan and that a moderate government would come to power. But the longer Musharraf remains in control of an illegitimate government, the more he strengthens extremist groups and weakens the moderates. Since Bush and his neo-cons are so fond of spreading Democracy, maybe we should start with some places where we could really exert some pressure - like Pakistan.
The Bush administration says that President Musharraf's iron fist in Pakistan is the only thing preventing the rise of an Islamic state with control over nuclear weapons. There are others though who think that a true democracy would yield a moderate government.
I think this is a very important opinion piece. The Bush administration, and plenty of analysts, believe that we need President / General Musharraf to remain in control of Pakistan and its nuclear weapons. The fear is that Islamic groups, like the ones that are protecting Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in the border regions near Afghanistan, would rise up and take control over the country. For this reason, we tolerate an oppressive regime that took control in a military coup. This opinion piece though argues that Muslim extremist groups are not popular in Pakistan and that a moderate government would come to power. But the longer Musharraf remains in control of an illegitimate government, the more he strengthens extremist groups and weakens the moderates. Since Bush and his neo-cons are so fond of spreading Democracy, maybe we should start with some places where we could really exert some pressure - like Pakistan.
New Format
By the way, I am trying a new format. I am including a summary at the beginning of my posts. This way, people know what my post will be about and can choose to read it or move to the next one. I think of it as mixing USA Today with the New York Times (don't worry, I don't really think I am as good as the Times, but I thought the comparison was somewhat apt since I am long winded and most frequently link to the Times).
Richardson at DL21C
Summary:
I saw Bill Richardson speak Monday night. He is the most qualified candidate and has lots of good ideas. But alas, his Iraq War policy is a pipe dream.
On Monday night I saw Governor Bill Richardson speak at an event sponsored by the DL21C (Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century). What came across loud and clear was that he is by far the most qualified person in the field. He is the former Secretary of Energy and ambassador to the United Nations. He is a two-term governor of New Mexico and has made some tremendous strides in the state (increased business investment, balanced the budget, improved education).
Energy and foreign policy will probably be our biggest challenges in the near future, and he has experience and good ideas in both arenas. His plan to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is extremely ambitious. In fact it is so ambitious, it almost seems laughable (decrease amount of oil we import from 65% to 10% in ten years) until you realize that he is serious about it and will actually ask Americans to make sacrifices. That leads into foreign policy in that we will be less dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. But he also wants us to display moral leadership and get involved in Sudan and other crises in Africa that we choose to ignore.
I know I said in a previous post that experience isn't everything. I said we should give Obama a chance; that sometimes, new ideas and a keen intellect might be enough. I still stand by that - but when someone shows up with this much experience and a wealth of good ideas, I can't help but move in his direction.
Unfortunately, there is a downside. Like some of the other Democratic contenders, Richardson is calling for an immediate, but dignified withdrawal of Iraq. This is a pipe dream - a fantasy. Either we leave and watch the country devolve into a civil war that will pull in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey (at a minimum), or we stay and try to help them work towards some sort of stability.
So in the end, I find myself a little divided. I think I will still continue to support Richardson, but it will be hard to vote for someone who is either delusional about Iraq, or just lying about the ease of an American withdrawal. I will have to console myself that his plan to bring Iran and Syria in could help while having faith that if things do fall apart, he won't just turn his back.
I saw Bill Richardson speak Monday night. He is the most qualified candidate and has lots of good ideas. But alas, his Iraq War policy is a pipe dream.
On Monday night I saw Governor Bill Richardson speak at an event sponsored by the DL21C (Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century). What came across loud and clear was that he is by far the most qualified person in the field. He is the former Secretary of Energy and ambassador to the United Nations. He is a two-term governor of New Mexico and has made some tremendous strides in the state (increased business investment, balanced the budget, improved education).
Energy and foreign policy will probably be our biggest challenges in the near future, and he has experience and good ideas in both arenas. His plan to decrease our dependence on foreign oil is extremely ambitious. In fact it is so ambitious, it almost seems laughable (decrease amount of oil we import from 65% to 10% in ten years) until you realize that he is serious about it and will actually ask Americans to make sacrifices. That leads into foreign policy in that we will be less dependent on countries like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria. But he also wants us to display moral leadership and get involved in Sudan and other crises in Africa that we choose to ignore.
I know I said in a previous post that experience isn't everything. I said we should give Obama a chance; that sometimes, new ideas and a keen intellect might be enough. I still stand by that - but when someone shows up with this much experience and a wealth of good ideas, I can't help but move in his direction.
Unfortunately, there is a downside. Like some of the other Democratic contenders, Richardson is calling for an immediate, but dignified withdrawal of Iraq. This is a pipe dream - a fantasy. Either we leave and watch the country devolve into a civil war that will pull in Saudi Arabia, Iran and Turkey (at a minimum), or we stay and try to help them work towards some sort of stability.
So in the end, I find myself a little divided. I think I will still continue to support Richardson, but it will be hard to vote for someone who is either delusional about Iraq, or just lying about the ease of an American withdrawal. I will have to console myself that his plan to bring Iran and Syria in could help while having faith that if things do fall apart, he won't just turn his back.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Pelosi, Although Slow and Dangerous Behind the Wheel
As long as Democrats aren't successful, then I agree with Friedman ($) that Pelosi's resistance to Bush's war policy is actually constructive. Although I don't think Iraq is to blame for not having put the country back together yet (that blame lies with us, and people like Tom Vilsack are stupid for even suggesting otherwise), I do think it is useful for the Iraqi government to know that they need to make concessions soon because the Democrats won't allow an extended troop presence. But equally important is Friedman's point that we also need to hope that General Petraeus can make the surge successful. We need some form of stability in Iraq before we can leave. I can't stress this enough.
Let My Poultry Go
I don't know if my favorite vegan would be surprised to hear this or not, but I agree with every word of this opinion piece($). Here is a highlight for those of you who don't have TimesSelect:
Numerous studies have documented crated sows exhibiting behavior characteristic of humans with severe depression and mental illness. Getting rid of gestation crates (already on their way out in the European Union) is welcome and long overdue, but more action is needed to end inhumane conditions at America's hog farms.Basically, I think animals should be treated much better than they are; this is in their interest and in ours. To put animals in unsanitary situations where disease is rampant and combat this by injecting the animals with very high levels of antibiotics can't be good for consumers, and it certainly isn't good for the animals. Free range pork and free range chicken - or at least cage-free - should be the norm, not the expensive exception.
Why Chavez?
To continue on the foreign policy trend, I think the popularity of Hugo Chavez can teach us something important. This article talks about Chavez's appeal in terms of his message of South American empowerment. Although there are many flaws in his positions, he articulates an alternative to US policies that always ensure that South America remains dependent on us. Right now, Chavez is the only alternative for people who are sick of our pressure for policies that always benefit the US (despite Bush's push for ethanol while in Brazil, he is still unwilling to end protectionist tariffs on imported sugar cane-based ethanol). If we were honest about free trade and if our policies really were fair to all parties, demagogues like Chavez would have much less appeal.
Surprisingly, President Bush has moved a bit in the right direction with this change in agriculture subsidies. Hopefully the Democratic Congress will not cave into the giant Agribusiness lobby, but I am worried. In the meantime, even people who see through Chavez will continue to be drawn to his message of empowerment.
Surprisingly, President Bush has moved a bit in the right direction with this change in agriculture subsidies. Hopefully the Democratic Congress will not cave into the giant Agribusiness lobby, but I am worried. In the meantime, even people who see through Chavez will continue to be drawn to his message of empowerment.
Pick a Side
I can't stress how important this debate is and I wish people really thought about it more. Do we want to use force or do we want to stress diplomacy to accomplish our foreign policy aims? As I see it, one cannot work without the other, although I think Bush is just learning this. The question though is which should we stress?
I think it is undeniable that in Iraq we should have stressed diplomacy, sanctions, and working with the international community. In fact, sometimes force and the threat of force only makes leaders of rogue states stronger. Unfortunately, in our dealings with Iran it seems like we haven't learned any of these lessons (for a really funny take on this, check out Kristof's column where he shows just how much bad decisions can hurt our cause - more so than espionage). Of the candidates on the left, I get the impression that Bill Richardson knows how to stress diplomacy while still showing that the US can use force.
I think it is undeniable that in Iraq we should have stressed diplomacy, sanctions, and working with the international community. In fact, sometimes force and the threat of force only makes leaders of rogue states stronger. Unfortunately, in our dealings with Iran it seems like we haven't learned any of these lessons (for a really funny take on this, check out Kristof's column where he shows just how much bad decisions can hurt our cause - more so than espionage). Of the candidates on the left, I get the impression that Bill Richardson knows how to stress diplomacy while still showing that the US can use force.
Monday, March 19, 2007
The Purse Strings
I know I post a lot about education policy; quite often I talk about early intervention, improving middle schools, and rigor in high schools. The bottom line though is that none of it is really worth talking about if we don't change the way we allocate funds. The only way we can eliminate the achievement gap is by making a determined effort to support schools with the greatest need. This means giving more funding to New York City and Syracuse, and less to Long Island and the Hudson Valley.
The problem is that this isn't politically popular. As you can see in this article, the schools in the suburbs want to protect their own interests and are resistant to any decreases in funding. But if funding doesn't decrease in the areas that can afford it, there is little chance of significant increases to schools that need it - there is only so much room in the state budget.
Policy discussions are necessary, but the real action is in the budget. When programs aren't adequately funded, the policy cannot succeed. It is that simple. So don't expect any major improvements in achievement until serious funding changes are made.
The problem is that this isn't politically popular. As you can see in this article, the schools in the suburbs want to protect their own interests and are resistant to any decreases in funding. But if funding doesn't decrease in the areas that can afford it, there is little chance of significant increases to schools that need it - there is only so much room in the state budget.
Policy discussions are necessary, but the real action is in the budget. When programs aren't adequately funded, the policy cannot succeed. It is that simple. So don't expect any major improvements in achievement until serious funding changes are made.
In Sports, I Follow People
I don't usually write about sports, but I think I just realized something. The sports teams I follow - both now and as a kid - revolve around some person that excites me. As a kid, I liked the Detroit Tigers, New York Mets, St. Louis Cardinals, and Oakland Athletics. I used to be embarrassed about this apparent fickleness because I thought it meant I was a front runner. The reality is that only two of those teams actually won while I was a fan (the Tigers and Cards weren't good in the late 1980s). But the truth is that I liked those teams because of a player that thrilled me. For the Tigers it was Jack Morris, the Mets it was Ron Darling and Lenny Dykstra, it was Ozzie Smith on the Cardinals, and of course Mark McGwire on the A's.
The reason I realized this now is because I am finding myself rooting for the New York Islanders, a team I have long despised almost as much as the New Jersey Devils. I am rooting for them because they finally hired Ted Nolan. For those of you who don't know, Ted Nolan was the head coach of the Buffalo Sabres back in the mid 1990s. He won coach of the year in 1997, was fired / not given a contract extension for the following season, and hasn't coached since. I have long thought the reason he wasn't offered a job since then was racism - Ted Nolan is an American Indian and grew up on the Garden River First Nation Reserve.
The truth is that he and his boss, General Manager John Muckler didn't get along, nor did he get along with goalie Dominic Hasek. But for anyone who knows the NHL, they will agree that many coaches have bad reputations for not getting along with GMs and star players, but still get hired if they have had some success (Mike Keenan is the best example of this). Ted Nolan won coach of the year because his Sabres that year played well above anyone's expectations. In light of all this, I was never able to understand why he wasn't hired.
But after a long absence, Ted Nolan is back and I find myself doing the unthinkable, rooting for the Islanders (I think I might even root for them to make the playoffs over the Rangers). For those of you who are unconvinced, here is a recent interview I read.
The reason I realized this now is because I am finding myself rooting for the New York Islanders, a team I have long despised almost as much as the New Jersey Devils. I am rooting for them because they finally hired Ted Nolan. For those of you who don't know, Ted Nolan was the head coach of the Buffalo Sabres back in the mid 1990s. He won coach of the year in 1997, was fired / not given a contract extension for the following season, and hasn't coached since. I have long thought the reason he wasn't offered a job since then was racism - Ted Nolan is an American Indian and grew up on the Garden River First Nation Reserve.
The truth is that he and his boss, General Manager John Muckler didn't get along, nor did he get along with goalie Dominic Hasek. But for anyone who knows the NHL, they will agree that many coaches have bad reputations for not getting along with GMs and star players, but still get hired if they have had some success (Mike Keenan is the best example of this). Ted Nolan won coach of the year because his Sabres that year played well above anyone's expectations. In light of all this, I was never able to understand why he wasn't hired.
But after a long absence, Ted Nolan is back and I find myself doing the unthinkable, rooting for the Islanders (I think I might even root for them to make the playoffs over the Rangers). For those of you who are unconvinced, here is a recent interview I read.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Closing Schools
I feel like this is the part of No Child Left Behind that people don't talk about enough. When schools fail to perform, they are closed down and students are sent to other schools. While it makes sense that poor performing schools shouldn’t just be allowed to continue operating as usual, closing them isn’t having any effect either. A friend in Syracuse told me about one of their schools that closed down. In response, the city essentially sent the kids to another school with a different name; it is still plagued with the same problems. It appears that the schools in the NYC are having the same problems.
The fact is, closing the school and opening it under a new name doesn’t change what is causing poor performance. What we need to do is decide that we are truly serious about changing education results in low income areas. While there has been a lot of lip service given to this, too many groups are actually standing in the way of meaningful reforms. To my mind, one of the best things we can do is to pay teachers a premium to teach in these areas. Data shows that low income areas on average have teachers with less experience.
This makes perfect sense economically; if you are paid the same whether you teach in a school with a challenging education environment or less of a challenging environment, more often than not you will choose the easier environment. I think NYC Department of Education is trying to do this though a new focus on weighted student funding. The unions are of course opposing this, which is really unfortunate because the unions are so strong they can kill almost any proposal or evolution. But make no mistake, we need to make this decision or else we cannot actually deal with the achievement gap. We need to say that we are willing to spend a lot more money in low performing areas, and that includes paying teachers more to teach there.
The fact is, closing the school and opening it under a new name doesn’t change what is causing poor performance. What we need to do is decide that we are truly serious about changing education results in low income areas. While there has been a lot of lip service given to this, too many groups are actually standing in the way of meaningful reforms. To my mind, one of the best things we can do is to pay teachers a premium to teach in these areas. Data shows that low income areas on average have teachers with less experience.
This makes perfect sense economically; if you are paid the same whether you teach in a school with a challenging education environment or less of a challenging environment, more often than not you will choose the easier environment. I think NYC Department of Education is trying to do this though a new focus on weighted student funding. The unions are of course opposing this, which is really unfortunate because the unions are so strong they can kill almost any proposal or evolution. But make no mistake, we need to make this decision or else we cannot actually deal with the achievement gap. We need to say that we are willing to spend a lot more money in low performing areas, and that includes paying teachers more to teach there.
Unions Protect the Worst
I don’t think I could either be classified as pro-union or anti-union (as a whole, I have been rejecting the idea of binary distinctions lately). I certainly recognize the roll unions have played in our history – the 40 hour work week, child labor laws, safe working conditions – the list goes on. But at the same time, I recognize their significant flaws. Above all, their goal is to protect their workers, but in executing this they frequently rely on an adversarial, and unproductive, relationship with management, and worse spend much effort defending poor-performing workers.
When I was an undergraduate, I had a part-time job on campus driving some of the trades workers around campus to perform their duties. Almost all of the workers were excellent and competent. There was one, the electrician, who was notoriously slow, lazy, and adept at hiding and avoiding work. He refused to carry a radio so that he could not be found and dispatched to his next assignment – and in other ways ensured that he would have maximum time between tasks and thereby accomplishing a minimum. Every time management tried to confront him, he filed a grievance and the union defended him. In a small way, the campus would have functioned better if it could have fired the electrician and hired someone willing to work hard for the pay and generous benefits offered by the university.
I see teacher tenure in the same way. In K-12 I see no reason that tenure should exist – in academia I see that it is meant to protect professors and allow them to conduct research that may be unpopular. Teachers unions though protect tenure with all of their effort. In my mind, a system of teacher tenure only protects the low-performing teachers. As a product of public school, I can remember a few teachers who had either long since lost their ability to reach the students, or quite possibly didn’t have it in the first place. The school should have had the ability to fire these teachers if they weren’t effective. Instead, every year 25 students (more or less) had to suffer through a class with this teacher.
This is the fundamental problem I have with unions – their desire to protect the worst employees instead of the best. I am sure the logic is that by protecting the worst, they are protecting all – but I don’t see it that way. I have seen how employee moral can be affected by lazy employees who are never disciplined. What makes me really angry is that the unions want to increase their grab to cover charter schools as well. The idea behind charter schools is to make them closer to their private school counterparts, with more flexibility in curriculum and staff management (hiring and firing teachers, hours and responsibilities, etc). Forcing them to unionize only makes them more like public schools - cumbersome and slow to evolve.
When I was an undergraduate, I had a part-time job on campus driving some of the trades workers around campus to perform their duties. Almost all of the workers were excellent and competent. There was one, the electrician, who was notoriously slow, lazy, and adept at hiding and avoiding work. He refused to carry a radio so that he could not be found and dispatched to his next assignment – and in other ways ensured that he would have maximum time between tasks and thereby accomplishing a minimum. Every time management tried to confront him, he filed a grievance and the union defended him. In a small way, the campus would have functioned better if it could have fired the electrician and hired someone willing to work hard for the pay and generous benefits offered by the university.
I see teacher tenure in the same way. In K-12 I see no reason that tenure should exist – in academia I see that it is meant to protect professors and allow them to conduct research that may be unpopular. Teachers unions though protect tenure with all of their effort. In my mind, a system of teacher tenure only protects the low-performing teachers. As a product of public school, I can remember a few teachers who had either long since lost their ability to reach the students, or quite possibly didn’t have it in the first place. The school should have had the ability to fire these teachers if they weren’t effective. Instead, every year 25 students (more or less) had to suffer through a class with this teacher.
This is the fundamental problem I have with unions – their desire to protect the worst employees instead of the best. I am sure the logic is that by protecting the worst, they are protecting all – but I don’t see it that way. I have seen how employee moral can be affected by lazy employees who are never disciplined. What makes me really angry is that the unions want to increase their grab to cover charter schools as well. The idea behind charter schools is to make them closer to their private school counterparts, with more flexibility in curriculum and staff management (hiring and firing teachers, hours and responsibilities, etc). Forcing them to unionize only makes them more like public schools - cumbersome and slow to evolve.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Richardson for President?
So I finally checked out Bill Richardson's presidential exploratory webpage, since the media hasn't been feeding me too much about him. I have to say I am pretty excited by what I found out. He is a former ambassador to the UN, former head of the Department of Energy, and now two term governor. He seems to have plenty of experience as an executive, and has strong foreign policy and energy credentials, which right now go well together.
Also, I find his message pretty compelling. His foreign policy vision is sound - more diplomacy without backing off our military strength, renewed efforts to fight Al Qaeda and international terrorism, and of course energy independence. He has made two trips to Sudan for negotiations, met with Saddam before the war to negotiate prisoner releases, and met with the President of Mexico to discuss immigration issues.
Since we are talking about it, his immigration policy is pretty strong as well and he isn't afraid to use tough language about standards for any legal immigrants that are granted amnesty or let in as guest workers (although at times the language did seem a little too tough). I of course love his message of bipartisanship (which to me just means less animosity), but I am a sucker for that. And his healthcare and economy talking points seem to make sense. (Although anyone thinking he can replicate his economic success in New Mexico should take caution. I think it is much easier to attract businesses as a governor because when you lower taxes you can steal businesses from other states. I don't think that works as well on a national level.)
The one place where I do disagree with him though is on Iraq. I don't agree with the rhetoric about forcing Iraq to take control of their own security. It is a little ridiculous to expect a country to stop violence that we have created, and step into a vacuum with a military and police that we disbanded. The reason they haven't stepped up yet is because they lack the capability - pure and simple. As I see it, a significant troop draw-down in the near future will only lead to a much worse civil war between Sunnis and Shiites - and more power to Iran and / or Al Sadr in the end.
Overall though, I really do like Richardson. He seems very smart and thoughtful, which is important. Also, his policy recommendations seem realistic and progressive. And, even though I don't think experience is always the most important criteria, he does seem to the best qualified of the major contenders. My hope is that his message actually gets a real chance to be heard. This might not be possible though since Hillary, Obama, and even Edwards are talking over everyone else right now.
Also, I find his message pretty compelling. His foreign policy vision is sound - more diplomacy without backing off our military strength, renewed efforts to fight Al Qaeda and international terrorism, and of course energy independence. He has made two trips to Sudan for negotiations, met with Saddam before the war to negotiate prisoner releases, and met with the President of Mexico to discuss immigration issues.
Since we are talking about it, his immigration policy is pretty strong as well and he isn't afraid to use tough language about standards for any legal immigrants that are granted amnesty or let in as guest workers (although at times the language did seem a little too tough). I of course love his message of bipartisanship (which to me just means less animosity), but I am a sucker for that. And his healthcare and economy talking points seem to make sense. (Although anyone thinking he can replicate his economic success in New Mexico should take caution. I think it is much easier to attract businesses as a governor because when you lower taxes you can steal businesses from other states. I don't think that works as well on a national level.)
The one place where I do disagree with him though is on Iraq. I don't agree with the rhetoric about forcing Iraq to take control of their own security. It is a little ridiculous to expect a country to stop violence that we have created, and step into a vacuum with a military and police that we disbanded. The reason they haven't stepped up yet is because they lack the capability - pure and simple. As I see it, a significant troop draw-down in the near future will only lead to a much worse civil war between Sunnis and Shiites - and more power to Iran and / or Al Sadr in the end.
Overall though, I really do like Richardson. He seems very smart and thoughtful, which is important. Also, his policy recommendations seem realistic and progressive. And, even though I don't think experience is always the most important criteria, he does seem to the best qualified of the major contenders. My hope is that his message actually gets a real chance to be heard. This might not be possible though since Hillary, Obama, and even Edwards are talking over everyone else right now.
Thursday, February 15, 2007
Stupid Presidents
Let's talk about Iran. I get angry every time I hear more news about the Administration's position. To me, the policy should be easy. The goal is to weaken their radical president. The best way to do that is to give no public indication that they are a strong nation while making every attempt to point out the country's weak economy. Our President though does the opposite, he talks about how much of a threat Iran is, and rarely mentions Ahmadinijad's poor leadership.
If I can say one thing about our President, it is that he is good at creating / inventing an enemy. He just made a statement that Iran is supplying arms to Iraq. Granted, this isn't something I contest. But his goal is to give the impression that if we fail in Iraq, it is because of Iran, not a poorly managed war. In the meantime, his actions are making Iran stronger, and giving them more influence in the region. Also, all this tough talk makes me worried that me might lead us into another war or even skirmish with Iran. And I am obviously not the only one since it seems like everyday the secretary of defense has to repeat that we are not going to attack Iran.
If I can say one thing about our President, it is that he is good at creating / inventing an enemy. He just made a statement that Iran is supplying arms to Iraq. Granted, this isn't something I contest. But his goal is to give the impression that if we fail in Iraq, it is because of Iran, not a poorly managed war. In the meantime, his actions are making Iran stronger, and giving them more influence in the region. Also, all this tough talk makes me worried that me might lead us into another war or even skirmish with Iran. And I am obviously not the only one since it seems like everyday the secretary of defense has to repeat that we are not going to attack Iran.
North Korea
I think this is very good news regarding North Korea. I don't know yet where most of the credit belongs (maybe with Secretary Rice?), although it looks like there were bilateral talks - interesting.
Sometimes I Am Wrong
Okay, so just after I finish bashing Hillary's position on the war, I read this ($), by David Brooks. Maybe I was wrong about her; her position does seem to be exactly how I would want a leader to have looked at the situation. Here are some highlights from the column:
If they went back and read what Senator Clinton was saying before the war, they’d be surprised, as I was, by her approach. And they’d learn something, as I did, about what kind of president she would make.I have a feeling that my opinions on the candidates will be changing a lot over the next year or so.
The Iraq war debate began in earnest in September 2002. At that point Clinton was saying in public what Colin Powell was saying in private: emphasizing the need to work through the U.N. and build a broad coalition to enforce inspections.
She delivered her Senate resolution speech on Oct. 10. It was Clintonian in character. On the one hand, she rejected the Bush policy of pre-emptive war. On the other hand, she also rejected the view that the international community “should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it.” Drawing on the lessons of Bosnia, she said sometimes the world had to act, even if the big powers couldn’t agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)