I wonder if the old battle lines defined as the political left and right are becoming less and less relevant. Many of today’s political issues do not fit neatly into these categories. One might argue they never really did. The traditional view of the right vs. left was so heavily influenced by the Cold War that it tended to drown out many of the other issues. When both sides feel that their view is the correct view and the consequence of being wrong is total nuclear annihilation, it tends to dwarf many of the other issues.
Now that the cold war is over, both parties have drifted, arguably towards the center. The Democrats now claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility and the Republicans passed the largest social program, prescription drug benefit, since the New Deal. Since the end of the cold war, party identification seems to have lessened and the majority of Americans seem to swap their allegiance to the two parties with each election.
I say all of this because I think there is a new fault line that lies below the surface of the traditional right vs. left arguments. It is not Democrat vs. Republican or liberal vs. conservative. Both parties ignore this fault line at their own peril. I think the fault line is becoming moral relativism vs. absolute truth. I think this fault line is the foundation which is beginning to take shape and form the modern political philosophies.
Moral relativism is the view that ethical standards, morality, and positions of right or wrong are culturally based and therefore subject to a person's individual choice. You decide what's right for you, and I'll decide what's right for me. Moral relativism says, "It's true for me, if I believe it." Moral relativists hold that no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth. Think about that for a moment. A relativist is comfortable saying that there is no universal standard for truth. That very statement is a universal standard for truth. The very basis for moral relativism is a contradiction.
The absolute truth constituency believes there are universal standards for truth. Our traditional Judeo-Christian heritage is loaded with them. This group is comfortable that there are certain ideals or absolute truths. They realize no one can live up to them but they are and should remain the plumb line for a society. For the most part, the real issue is that relativists do not disagree with the truth expressed in this heritage; they just don’t want to be governed by them. I would ask; if not these ancient morals, whose – yours, mine, Hitler’s?
If truths are merely the opinions of an individual or even an entire culture, who are we to condemn the Nazi extermination of millions of Jews. Hitler believed it. The Germans (culture) at that time accepted it. It must be true. Of course that is ridiculous. The holocaust was wrong on an unprecedented scale. Just because a large group of people have an opinion does not make it right. Opinions can be flat out wrong.
C.S. Lewis points to the nature of most arguments as a clue to what we truly believe. Inherent in those arguments is a concept of fairness, as in "how would you like it if someone did that to you?" When we make that statement, we are appealing "to some kind of standard of behavior [we] expect" the other person to know about. Where do you think that standard originates?
It seems clear that moral relativism is steadily becoming the primary moral philosophy of modern society, a culture that was previously governed by a "Judeo-Christian" view of morality. Evidence of this would be the near 50-50% societal split on gay marriage. This concept was unheard of just a few decades ago. While Judeo-Christian standards continue to be the foundation for civil law, more and more people hold to the concept that right or wrong are not absolutes, but can be and in fact must be determined by each individual. Morals and ethics can be altered from one situation, person, or circumstance to the next. To follow this line of reasoning is to embrace anarchy.
Our founding fathers understood the dangers of moral relativism. In his September 19, 1796 Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington stated: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great Pillars." Washington knew that religion was the source of our morality. He knew that morality is not dependent on the government, but the government is dependent on our morality. Religion is the source of absolute truth which in turn is the source of our morality. We ignore this absolute truth at our own peril.
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Waht Do We Know About Obama's Judgement LDN Oct 2009
In a few days we will elect the most powerful man in the world – the president of the United States of America. The power vested in the presidency is immense, but it is limited. The president does not control the events he will have to face. The range of issues a president faces is vast and daunting. No president – no person, for that matter – has the experience to cover the wide range of issues he will face during his presidency. The president will rely on his advisors, polls, party and political contributors for advice. In the end, these influences plus the president’s own philosophy will shape his judgment that will form the basis for his actions. What do we know about Senator Obama’s judgment?
Tax Philosophy – The conversation with Joe the Plumber finally crystallized Senator Obama’s political view on taxes. Obama told Joe he wanted to use the tax system to “spread the wealth”. Just weeks earlier, Obama stated that he would raise the capital gains tax rate, despite the fact that such a change would generate less tax revenue, because it was “fair”. Senator Obama does not view taxes as a means to fund the government; rather they are an instrument to impose economic fairness. That means he will decide who to take taxes from and who to give them to. This is a radical economic philosophy. In fact, income redistribution (spreading the wealth) is the central tenet of socialism. What kind of judgment does that show?
Iraq – Senator Obama began his campaign based on his opposition to the war in Iraq. At the time President Bush initiated the war, Obama was merely a state senator in Illinois. He had no access to any intelligence reports. Based on these reports, however, Senator Joe Biden, Obama’s own running mate, and Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats supported the war. State Senator Obama merely went with his gut and gave a speech opposing the war. Now let's fast forward to last year and the surge. Obama was then a U.S. senator and had access to foreign intelligence reports. He knew that the choice was to admit defeat and withdraw from Iraq or support an unpopular surge and give victory one last chance. At that point, when equipped with all the facts available, he chose to accept defeat and oppose the surge. The surge has been a remarkable success, and a lasting peace is possible in Iraq. Had Obama succeeded, our troops might be home, but Islamic radicals would control Iraq and America would have suffered its most profound military and political defeat in our entire history. What kind of judgment does that show?
Reverend Wright – Barack Obama attended Reverend Wright’s church for over 20 years. How could Senator Obama sit in the pew of a pastor who preached radical black-liberation theology, a radical social-economic worldview, and not be influenced? He claims to be unaware of these radical statements and beliefs. What kind of judgment does this show?
Questionable Associates – How can a senator start his campaign, endorse the book of, and accept money from an unrepentant domestic terrorist? Of course, Obama was only a child when William Ayers bombed the Pentagon, but Senator Obama was in his thirties when he befriended the radical William Ayers. Can you imagine the media’s reaction if McCain had a similar relationship with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber? This could be excused if there were not so many other questionable associations: ACORN, Rashid Khalidi and Tony Rezko. Who will surround him in the Oval Office? What kind of judgment does this show?
Bipartisanship – Senator Obama claims to be “post partisan”. He knows the majority of the electorate wants a less confrontational approach to solving our problems. I wonder what will change. Barack Obama is the most loyal and liberal Democrat in the senate. He voted the Democratic Party line 97% of the time. Not once did he step outside his party’s boundaries to build a bipartisan coalition to solve a meaningful problem. His talk makes for good politics, but his actions are empty. What kind of judgment does that show?
His Sincerity – There is no doubt Senator Obama may be the most gifted orator in modern history. His prepared speeches are works of art. His oratory skills and rhetoric are inspiring. However, when the teleprompter is off and he is talking to his core supporters, he derides the middle class when he states that “they cling to their guns or their religion.” What does he really believe? What kind of judgment does that show?
We are not electing the national spokesperson. If we were, given his demeanor and oratory skills I would vote for Senator Obama. No, we are voting for the president who will face unknown and seemingly impossible challenges. He will have to reach deep into his soul and make decisions that will affect all of us. While we all hope for change, how sure are you of the changes Mr. Obama has in mind?
Tax Philosophy – The conversation with Joe the Plumber finally crystallized Senator Obama’s political view on taxes. Obama told Joe he wanted to use the tax system to “spread the wealth”. Just weeks earlier, Obama stated that he would raise the capital gains tax rate, despite the fact that such a change would generate less tax revenue, because it was “fair”. Senator Obama does not view taxes as a means to fund the government; rather they are an instrument to impose economic fairness. That means he will decide who to take taxes from and who to give them to. This is a radical economic philosophy. In fact, income redistribution (spreading the wealth) is the central tenet of socialism. What kind of judgment does that show?
Iraq – Senator Obama began his campaign based on his opposition to the war in Iraq. At the time President Bush initiated the war, Obama was merely a state senator in Illinois. He had no access to any intelligence reports. Based on these reports, however, Senator Joe Biden, Obama’s own running mate, and Hillary Clinton and many other Democrats supported the war. State Senator Obama merely went with his gut and gave a speech opposing the war. Now let's fast forward to last year and the surge. Obama was then a U.S. senator and had access to foreign intelligence reports. He knew that the choice was to admit defeat and withdraw from Iraq or support an unpopular surge and give victory one last chance. At that point, when equipped with all the facts available, he chose to accept defeat and oppose the surge. The surge has been a remarkable success, and a lasting peace is possible in Iraq. Had Obama succeeded, our troops might be home, but Islamic radicals would control Iraq and America would have suffered its most profound military and political defeat in our entire history. What kind of judgment does that show?
Reverend Wright – Barack Obama attended Reverend Wright’s church for over 20 years. How could Senator Obama sit in the pew of a pastor who preached radical black-liberation theology, a radical social-economic worldview, and not be influenced? He claims to be unaware of these radical statements and beliefs. What kind of judgment does this show?
Questionable Associates – How can a senator start his campaign, endorse the book of, and accept money from an unrepentant domestic terrorist? Of course, Obama was only a child when William Ayers bombed the Pentagon, but Senator Obama was in his thirties when he befriended the radical William Ayers. Can you imagine the media’s reaction if McCain had a similar relationship with an unrepentant abortion clinic bomber? This could be excused if there were not so many other questionable associations: ACORN, Rashid Khalidi and Tony Rezko. Who will surround him in the Oval Office? What kind of judgment does this show?
Bipartisanship – Senator Obama claims to be “post partisan”. He knows the majority of the electorate wants a less confrontational approach to solving our problems. I wonder what will change. Barack Obama is the most loyal and liberal Democrat in the senate. He voted the Democratic Party line 97% of the time. Not once did he step outside his party’s boundaries to build a bipartisan coalition to solve a meaningful problem. His talk makes for good politics, but his actions are empty. What kind of judgment does that show?
His Sincerity – There is no doubt Senator Obama may be the most gifted orator in modern history. His prepared speeches are works of art. His oratory skills and rhetoric are inspiring. However, when the teleprompter is off and he is talking to his core supporters, he derides the middle class when he states that “they cling to their guns or their religion.” What does he really believe? What kind of judgment does that show?
We are not electing the national spokesperson. If we were, given his demeanor and oratory skills I would vote for Senator Obama. No, we are voting for the president who will face unknown and seemingly impossible challenges. He will have to reach deep into his soul and make decisions that will affect all of us. While we all hope for change, how sure are you of the changes Mr. Obama has in mind?
What is going on in the Finacial Markets? LDN Oct 2008
When I am not playing the intrepid columnist for the LaGrange Daily News, I am the chief financial officer for a consulting company. I only say that because during the day I get a lot of questions from friends and co-workers on what I think about the economy and the Wall Street mess. I am by no means an expert but I do spend considerable time reading and monitoring the situation. I have tried to explain it to many of my colleagues. It doesn’t take long until my soliloquy leads to confusion and that blank stare which means that I have failed again to convey the scope of the problems in simple terms.
A few days ago, a colleague and I were discussing the bailout. He hung in there a little longer than most but like the others before him, he cried “no mas”. However he was not finished. His college-aged children wanted to know what was going on. He then wrote this response. I think it is a pretty good primer on what the meltdown is all about
How did we get here?
The current ‘crisis’ has its roots in bad mortgage loans (a loan made to somebody that wants to buy some property, like a house – where the property is the collateral – which means that if the borrower does not pay back the loan, the lender gets the property) made over the last 8-10 years, primarily for 2 reasons:
1. Loans that never should have been made to people with no chance of paying. Probably the best of intents – but as far back as the late 90’s the Clinton administration put profound pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ease the rules on loans low income borrowers. Probably noble – share the American Dream and all that.
2. Loans made for absurdly inflated values. The ‘bet’ was that property values would continue to escalate, thereby catching up with the inflated loan values.
BIG POINT – These mortgages were packaged up and sold as investments to other financial corporations and brokerage houses (i.e. Merrill Lynch, AIG, Lehman Bros, Wachovia and others). The original underwriter got paid and transferred the risk of payment to someone else.
So, where are we?
Now, fast forward to the last few months. Housing slows down. Property values stop increasing to the point of actually decreasing. Builders and other borrowers can no longer justify their inflated loans vs. the falling value of the actual property and they default (stop paying) on the loan. The investment houses (named above) that ‘bought’ these loans as investments, are now holding the collateral, or foreclosed property, which is worth a FRACTION of the value of the loan assets, so they have had to take what is called a write-down. In other words, their assets (stuff they own) are worth far less today than they were a year ago. That is assuming any other institution will even buy them.
Now it gets interesting. Since these financial companies are worth less, their credit ratings have fallen. With falling credit ratings, they legally have to have more cash. Cash???? Did somebody say cash??? You mean with all these high-falutin’ financial terms and fancy words, somebody actually has to have some cash to pay for this?? Darn right. So, these financial institutions are caught having to raise cash, and we get to:
The last straw:
Because the banks have had to tighten down, there is no credit/cash flowing through our financial system. The banks are simply not loaning any money to each other, or to any borrowers – which is a fundamental pillar of our financial system. Liquidity or the flow of cash from institution to institution to individual is what drives everything in our economy. All the fancy words in the world – but at the end of the day, somebody has to have cash to pay. And it all started with loans that were never going to get paid.
The net/net is that we are Americans and we will get through this. It is time for all of us to ‘bow up’, stop panicking, believe in our system and act a little less selfishly (buy only what we can afford). At some point intelligence will reclaim the market from raw emotion and investors, analysts and the press will realize that companies like Microsoft and GE and many, many more are fundamentally the same sound, solvent and growing enterprises they were 6 months ago. They are simply not worth half today of what they were – and the market will recover. The economy WILL recover.
Net/net – there are some other factors which I have not discussed (to avoid the glazed over eye syndrome) – but at its most basic form, this is a NORMAL AND NATURAL economic cycle, that has been grossly exacerbated by the fact that we artificially kept the ‘boom’ cycle alive for too long.
A few days ago, a colleague and I were discussing the bailout. He hung in there a little longer than most but like the others before him, he cried “no mas”. However he was not finished. His college-aged children wanted to know what was going on. He then wrote this response. I think it is a pretty good primer on what the meltdown is all about
How did we get here?
The current ‘crisis’ has its roots in bad mortgage loans (a loan made to somebody that wants to buy some property, like a house – where the property is the collateral – which means that if the borrower does not pay back the loan, the lender gets the property) made over the last 8-10 years, primarily for 2 reasons:
1. Loans that never should have been made to people with no chance of paying. Probably the best of intents – but as far back as the late 90’s the Clinton administration put profound pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ease the rules on loans low income borrowers. Probably noble – share the American Dream and all that.
2. Loans made for absurdly inflated values. The ‘bet’ was that property values would continue to escalate, thereby catching up with the inflated loan values.
BIG POINT – These mortgages were packaged up and sold as investments to other financial corporations and brokerage houses (i.e. Merrill Lynch, AIG, Lehman Bros, Wachovia and others). The original underwriter got paid and transferred the risk of payment to someone else.
So, where are we?
Now, fast forward to the last few months. Housing slows down. Property values stop increasing to the point of actually decreasing. Builders and other borrowers can no longer justify their inflated loans vs. the falling value of the actual property and they default (stop paying) on the loan. The investment houses (named above) that ‘bought’ these loans as investments, are now holding the collateral, or foreclosed property, which is worth a FRACTION of the value of the loan assets, so they have had to take what is called a write-down. In other words, their assets (stuff they own) are worth far less today than they were a year ago. That is assuming any other institution will even buy them.
Now it gets interesting. Since these financial companies are worth less, their credit ratings have fallen. With falling credit ratings, they legally have to have more cash. Cash???? Did somebody say cash??? You mean with all these high-falutin’ financial terms and fancy words, somebody actually has to have some cash to pay for this?? Darn right. So, these financial institutions are caught having to raise cash, and we get to:
The last straw:
Because the banks have had to tighten down, there is no credit/cash flowing through our financial system. The banks are simply not loaning any money to each other, or to any borrowers – which is a fundamental pillar of our financial system. Liquidity or the flow of cash from institution to institution to individual is what drives everything in our economy. All the fancy words in the world – but at the end of the day, somebody has to have cash to pay. And it all started with loans that were never going to get paid.
The net/net is that we are Americans and we will get through this. It is time for all of us to ‘bow up’, stop panicking, believe in our system and act a little less selfishly (buy only what we can afford). At some point intelligence will reclaim the market from raw emotion and investors, analysts and the press will realize that companies like Microsoft and GE and many, many more are fundamentally the same sound, solvent and growing enterprises they were 6 months ago. They are simply not worth half today of what they were – and the market will recover. The economy WILL recover.
Net/net – there are some other factors which I have not discussed (to avoid the glazed over eye syndrome) – but at its most basic form, this is a NORMAL AND NATURAL economic cycle, that has been grossly exacerbated by the fact that we artificially kept the ‘boom’ cycle alive for too long.
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Why Reverend Wright Matters
By now we are all a little tired of the Reverend Wright and the Trinity Church of Christ scandal. Barak Obama has tried to distance himself, albeit reluctantly, from the controversial pastor and church. My question is this; have we drawn the right conclusion from this series of events? What insight does it provide the electorate concerning Mr. Obama?
This issue matters because we know so little about Mr. Obama. He resume is very thin considering he is running for the most powerful position in the world. He is a Harvard educated attorney, who worked for several years as an associate in a large law firm. He then became a paid community organizer and visiting lecturer at the Chicago School of Law. Just three and half years ago he was a part-time state legislator from the south side of Chicago. He is now the junior senator for the state of Illinois. He has never served in an important leadership position in government, business, or the military. His ability to perform as a chief executive officer is completely untested.
Because he has very few public accomplishments and a thin legislative record we are forced to look at other sources to determine what motivates, inspires and drives this would-be president.
That means his time at Trinity Church of Christ under the spiritual leadership of Reverend Jeremiah Wright matters. Mr. Obama spent twenty years at this church. He has devoted more time to this activity than any other event in his life other than his marriage. Mr. Obama himself described Reverend Wright as his spiritual mentor. He chose to be married at Trinity and for Reverend Wright to officiate the ceremony. He stated publically that he could not disown Rev Wright anymore than he could his uncle, at least until the political pressure made it the expediate thing to do.
It is clear that the Trinity Church of Christ and Reverend Jeremiah Wright have played a big part in shaping Obama’s adult life. What motivated this man to attend this particular church for so long and what does it tell us about Mr. Obama?
I have no doubt that Mr. Obama does not endorse the contemptible statements uttered by Rev. Wright. Reverend Wright is his own person and was inflammatory when he made these statements. Obama should not be held accountable for the statements of another person. However it begs the question: Why did Mr. Obama choose this church? The fact is he chose this church on his own as an adult. It was a conscious decision to align himself with this controversial pastor and church. I can think of four scenarios that would explain Mr. Obama’s actions.
Scenario One - Mr. Obama needed to align himself with a powerful black church. Obama was new to Chicago and was politically ambitious. He might have needed the political clout that came from his association with this large, politically connected church. He would not have been the first politician to pick a church for public relations reasons. If so, this defies his primary appeal that he is not just another politician.
Scenario Two - Mr. Obama was unaware of the radical statements of his pastor. This is hard to believe. Reverend Wright is a showboat speaker. Even if Obama was not there on the multitude of Sunday’s Reverend Wright expressed these views it is incredulous to think that Obama was not aware of them as he has claimed. Why else did he ask Reverend Wright (a strong political sponsor) to avoid the stage when Obama announced his presidential candidacy?
Scenario Three - Mr. Obama embraces the black liberation theology of Reverend Wright and Trinity Church of Christ. This theology is the social cornerstone of this church. It moves beyond the religious to the political. Black liberation theology is embraced by very few churches. It is simply too radical and not part of the mainstream racial reconciliation process in America today. Consider these comments from The Black Value System that are posted on the church’s website (www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html):
• “The highest level of achievement for any Black person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the Black Community.”
• “Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with each individual tenant, the overall message of this value system is radically exclusionary and would make most people, black or white very uncomfortable. These are not the inclusive comments that Mr. Obama speaks about so eloquently on the campaign trail. Why is this important? Look carefully at how Mr. Obama distanced himself from Rev Wright.
He spoke out against Wright’s inflammatory comments - the infamous GD America and US KKK America rants. However, he has never publically denounced or offered his opinion on the basic political rhetoric of the pastor and church. Does he embrace this theology?
Scenario Four- Mr. Obama sat in the pews for 20 years and was clueless as to the teachings of his pastor and church. While this is theoretically possible, it defies logic.
These are four possible scenarios. The question remains, what insight can we draw from this series of events? Is Mr. Obama just another politician using his church for political gain? Does he believe in this radical theology? Or is he really “the One we have all been waiting for.”
This issue matters because we know so little about Mr. Obama. He resume is very thin considering he is running for the most powerful position in the world. He is a Harvard educated attorney, who worked for several years as an associate in a large law firm. He then became a paid community organizer and visiting lecturer at the Chicago School of Law. Just three and half years ago he was a part-time state legislator from the south side of Chicago. He is now the junior senator for the state of Illinois. He has never served in an important leadership position in government, business, or the military. His ability to perform as a chief executive officer is completely untested.
Because he has very few public accomplishments and a thin legislative record we are forced to look at other sources to determine what motivates, inspires and drives this would-be president.
That means his time at Trinity Church of Christ under the spiritual leadership of Reverend Jeremiah Wright matters. Mr. Obama spent twenty years at this church. He has devoted more time to this activity than any other event in his life other than his marriage. Mr. Obama himself described Reverend Wright as his spiritual mentor. He chose to be married at Trinity and for Reverend Wright to officiate the ceremony. He stated publically that he could not disown Rev Wright anymore than he could his uncle, at least until the political pressure made it the expediate thing to do.
It is clear that the Trinity Church of Christ and Reverend Jeremiah Wright have played a big part in shaping Obama’s adult life. What motivated this man to attend this particular church for so long and what does it tell us about Mr. Obama?
I have no doubt that Mr. Obama does not endorse the contemptible statements uttered by Rev. Wright. Reverend Wright is his own person and was inflammatory when he made these statements. Obama should not be held accountable for the statements of another person. However it begs the question: Why did Mr. Obama choose this church? The fact is he chose this church on his own as an adult. It was a conscious decision to align himself with this controversial pastor and church. I can think of four scenarios that would explain Mr. Obama’s actions.
Scenario One - Mr. Obama needed to align himself with a powerful black church. Obama was new to Chicago and was politically ambitious. He might have needed the political clout that came from his association with this large, politically connected church. He would not have been the first politician to pick a church for public relations reasons. If so, this defies his primary appeal that he is not just another politician.
Scenario Two - Mr. Obama was unaware of the radical statements of his pastor. This is hard to believe. Reverend Wright is a showboat speaker. Even if Obama was not there on the multitude of Sunday’s Reverend Wright expressed these views it is incredulous to think that Obama was not aware of them as he has claimed. Why else did he ask Reverend Wright (a strong political sponsor) to avoid the stage when Obama announced his presidential candidacy?
Scenario Three - Mr. Obama embraces the black liberation theology of Reverend Wright and Trinity Church of Christ. This theology is the social cornerstone of this church. It moves beyond the religious to the political. Black liberation theology is embraced by very few churches. It is simply too radical and not part of the mainstream racial reconciliation process in America today. Consider these comments from The Black Value System that are posted on the church’s website (www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html):
• “The highest level of achievement for any Black person must be a contribution of strength and continuity of the Black Community.”
• “Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System.
While there is nothing inherently wrong with each individual tenant, the overall message of this value system is radically exclusionary and would make most people, black or white very uncomfortable. These are not the inclusive comments that Mr. Obama speaks about so eloquently on the campaign trail. Why is this important? Look carefully at how Mr. Obama distanced himself from Rev Wright.
He spoke out against Wright’s inflammatory comments - the infamous GD America and US KKK America rants. However, he has never publically denounced or offered his opinion on the basic political rhetoric of the pastor and church. Does he embrace this theology?
Scenario Four- Mr. Obama sat in the pews for 20 years and was clueless as to the teachings of his pastor and church. While this is theoretically possible, it defies logic.
These are four possible scenarios. The question remains, what insight can we draw from this series of events? Is Mr. Obama just another politician using his church for political gain? Does he believe in this radical theology? Or is he really “the One we have all been waiting for.”
Monday, June 16, 2008
Boy Did I Hit a Nerve
Boy did I hit a nerve. On April 24th, I wrote a column on the state of education and the CRCT test. I have never received so much feedback on a column before. I heard from parents, teachers and even the school superintendent, and that was before the fracas over the CRCT scores. The overwhelming majority of the feedback supported my basic premise that the federal- and state-mandated CRCT testing is missing the mark and we can do better. Everyone is frustrated, and no one, I repeat, no one, is satisfied that our local education system is consistently providing the world-class technical or college prepatory education our children deserve and need.
If that is the case, why can’t we admit it? Every time someone tries to raise the issue, all parties get defensive. Sure, our school system has improved. Of course, most of the teachers and administrators are working tirelessly to provide a quality education. That’s great, but it’s not enough – and that is why everyone is frustrated.
In Superintendent Smiths’s response to my original article, he referenced “change theory” and the need for “quick wins”. I work for an international consulting firm that specializes in change management. I get that. However, quick wins are not enough. We cannot hide behind small incremental improvements in test scores that show that we are just barely above or below the state average. Keep in mind, Georgia ranks near the bottom of virtually every educational ranking known to man. Being average in a below average state is nothing to be proud of.
The first step in fixing a problem is to admit you have a problem. Troup County, we have a problem. Despite the hard work of the educational establishment, our educational system is not delivering a world class education to all of our students.
This issue is quite complex. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the institutions equipped to solve this problem often work against themselves. At this point I am going to venture out onto thin ice. I offer the following comments not with the intent to offend anyone, but to challenge the status quo and see if there is a genuine willingness to improve our local education system.
The School Board: The school board is an elected political body. They are paid very little for the inordinate amount of time they commit. All are good-hearted, well-intentioned citizens who sacrifice tremendous time to serve the citizens of our county. Their ability to serve, however, is predicated on their ability to get elected. They are hamstrung for effecting change because they are reluctant to speak out on the single biggest determinant of low academic performance – the lack of parental involvement. No politician can blame the voter and expect to get elected.
The Chamber of Commerce: The Chamber should be a great forum to drive education excellence. The Chamber is comprised of the resources, civic leaders and business leaders that have the means to drive the changes needed. Again there is a conflict: the Chamber is hesitant to openly discuss the state of our educational system for fear it will drive away potential new businesses. That fear is well-founded. It has been the norm that many, if not most, of the professionals relocated to Troup County have elected to live in Newnan, Peachtree City or Auburn. They overwhelmingly cite one reason – the lack of educational excellence in Troup County compared to these other locations.
The Parents: This one will probably get me run out of town. The drive for a superior education system must be led by the parents of the students. The parents must rise up and demand a superior education, not just an adequate education. In turn they must be willing to invest (time and money) to support these changes. Then, and only then, can the Board and the Chamber begin the long, hard process of making the needed changes.
Far too many parents view school as nothing more than day care. Their children come to school unprepared and go home to a wasteland of TV and video games. The only thing these parents want is a safe place to park their children during the day.
At the other extreme are the parents who value education and will ensure that their children get a decent one. They will instill its importance in their children. My concern is that many of these parents do not realize just how much more rigorous superior school systems are. Their children are getting good grades, so why rock the boat?
The third set of parents is perhaps the silent majority. They view education as a destination, something finite. Something you must complete. They see it as more about time (12 years of attending school) than equipping their children for life long learning. They want the best for their children but are unwilling to get actively involved in the education process. They leave it up to the school system. Their children could achieve so much more but are not being driven by their parents from home or the educators at school. These students will merely pass the standardized tests and graduate – the two key metrics driving our school system today.
If I have not offended you yet, it is because I have run out of space. We are all responsible for the quality of our school system. This problem is huge, and so is the opportunity. We can be different. If this community would choose to make education a priority, we have the means to make it happen. That would truly make Troup County a great place to live and work.
Kirk is a member of the Lagrange Writers Group. He can be reached at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com.
If that is the case, why can’t we admit it? Every time someone tries to raise the issue, all parties get defensive. Sure, our school system has improved. Of course, most of the teachers and administrators are working tirelessly to provide a quality education. That’s great, but it’s not enough – and that is why everyone is frustrated.
In Superintendent Smiths’s response to my original article, he referenced “change theory” and the need for “quick wins”. I work for an international consulting firm that specializes in change management. I get that. However, quick wins are not enough. We cannot hide behind small incremental improvements in test scores that show that we are just barely above or below the state average. Keep in mind, Georgia ranks near the bottom of virtually every educational ranking known to man. Being average in a below average state is nothing to be proud of.
The first step in fixing a problem is to admit you have a problem. Troup County, we have a problem. Despite the hard work of the educational establishment, our educational system is not delivering a world class education to all of our students.
This issue is quite complex. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that the institutions equipped to solve this problem often work against themselves. At this point I am going to venture out onto thin ice. I offer the following comments not with the intent to offend anyone, but to challenge the status quo and see if there is a genuine willingness to improve our local education system.
The School Board: The school board is an elected political body. They are paid very little for the inordinate amount of time they commit. All are good-hearted, well-intentioned citizens who sacrifice tremendous time to serve the citizens of our county. Their ability to serve, however, is predicated on their ability to get elected. They are hamstrung for effecting change because they are reluctant to speak out on the single biggest determinant of low academic performance – the lack of parental involvement. No politician can blame the voter and expect to get elected.
The Chamber of Commerce: The Chamber should be a great forum to drive education excellence. The Chamber is comprised of the resources, civic leaders and business leaders that have the means to drive the changes needed. Again there is a conflict: the Chamber is hesitant to openly discuss the state of our educational system for fear it will drive away potential new businesses. That fear is well-founded. It has been the norm that many, if not most, of the professionals relocated to Troup County have elected to live in Newnan, Peachtree City or Auburn. They overwhelmingly cite one reason – the lack of educational excellence in Troup County compared to these other locations.
The Parents: This one will probably get me run out of town. The drive for a superior education system must be led by the parents of the students. The parents must rise up and demand a superior education, not just an adequate education. In turn they must be willing to invest (time and money) to support these changes. Then, and only then, can the Board and the Chamber begin the long, hard process of making the needed changes.
Far too many parents view school as nothing more than day care. Their children come to school unprepared and go home to a wasteland of TV and video games. The only thing these parents want is a safe place to park their children during the day.
At the other extreme are the parents who value education and will ensure that their children get a decent one. They will instill its importance in their children. My concern is that many of these parents do not realize just how much more rigorous superior school systems are. Their children are getting good grades, so why rock the boat?
The third set of parents is perhaps the silent majority. They view education as a destination, something finite. Something you must complete. They see it as more about time (12 years of attending school) than equipping their children for life long learning. They want the best for their children but are unwilling to get actively involved in the education process. They leave it up to the school system. Their children could achieve so much more but are not being driven by their parents from home or the educators at school. These students will merely pass the standardized tests and graduate – the two key metrics driving our school system today.
If I have not offended you yet, it is because I have run out of space. We are all responsible for the quality of our school system. This problem is huge, and so is the opportunity. We can be different. If this community would choose to make education a priority, we have the means to make it happen. That would truly make Troup County a great place to live and work.
Kirk is a member of the Lagrange Writers Group. He can be reached at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
CRCT covers up state’s educational shortcomings
This week is CRCT testing week in our schools. The CRCT stands for the Criterion-Referenced Competency Tests. If you have a child in the elementary or middle school you know all about CRCT. It is has taken on a life of its own. It seems that the entire school year is geared towards this test and then the world is turned upside down during the test week(s). Little league games are canceled, extracurricular activities are curtailed, there are no homework assignments and we get daily messages to feed the children a good breakfast so they will all be prepared for the all important CRCT. Pardon me, but this is a bunch of horse-hockey.
Let me be clear. This is not our teachers fault. This test is the single measure used by the State and Federal government to determine how a school and its teachers are performing. There are serious ramifications for failing this series of tests. Teachers can lose their jobs and school systems can be labeled failing which will impact the entire community. They call it Adequate Yearly Progress.
Let me digress for a minute. What genius at the Department of Education came up with phrase “Adequate Yearly Progress”? As a parent there is nothing even remotely approaching adequate I want for my child when it comes to their education. I want exemplary or superior. No wonder parents lack confidence in the school system. Does the superintendent not realize how ludicrous it is to a parent to see schools celebrate the fact they are “adequate”? Could you imagine going to you boss and asking for a raise because your work over the last year was adequate? Come on! Doesn’t anyone in the Department of Education have a marketing degree? At the very least you could give it a name that instills confidence rather than disdain. Unfortunately, all of this is a distraction form my real concern.
The CRCT is nothing more than an intentional, misleading political tool. The Georgia Department of Education determines the curriculum, creates the test, administers the test and then grades the test. It does this without publishing the grading criteria prior to commencing the test. It is a closed loop system managed entirely by the State Department of Education. After the tests are graded the scores are released. The net result is that the scores almost inevitably show modest improvement. Each year the scores tend to be a point or two better. Not too much better because that would blow the sham. We all know things have not improved that much. One thing for certain is the scores won’t be too low because that might alert the voters to the real problem. The test is designed and scored to keep the Georgia citizenry lulled into a false sense of adequacy.
In 2006, the Washington DC based Education Trust issued a report that confirmed what parents and teachers already knew. It compared the CRCT to the National Assessment of Educational Progress test (NAEP). The NAEP is often referred to as "the Nation's Report Card". It is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subjects. The study concluded that the CRCT is far too easy and a poor measure of how our Georgia students are stacking up nationally. How else do you explain the fact that the 4th grade students scored 75% proficient and above on Georgia’s CRCT while only 30% of the students were considered proficient on the unbiased NAEP test. For the eighth grade, the Georgia managed and graded CRCT test scores showed 69% of students were proficient on the CRCT, while a dismal 23% scored at that level on the NAEP. Proficiency scores in the 20-30% range are a disgrace. These scores are further validated by Georgia’s near bottom scoring on the SAT, another unbiased national standard.
These discrepancies are too wide to be anything short of indicting. The Georgia education establishment manages the CRCT scoring system to make the parents feel like the public education provided is sufficient, or dare I say, adequate. The reality is that by any fair, unbiased measure the quality of our current education is nothing short of abysmal.
The real crime of the CRCT system is that the inflated scores cover-up the scope of the problem. If Georgia parents really understood the depth of the crisis they would rise up and demand improvement. Hiding a problem never solves the problem. Then and only then, can the educators harness this energy to drive meaningful education reform. The education establishment and the political leaders must deal honestly with the citizens of this state.
As I write this, it is getting late. I have to put my kids to bed. We will follow the CRCT checklist. We will make sure they get at least 8 to 10 hours of sleep. We will get them up early so they can have a hearty breakfast. We will say all kinds of encouraging words as we load them on the school bus. We will turn them over to the state to educate them. All of this in the audacious hope that we can celebrate their ADEQUATE yearly progress.
Kirk is a member of the Lagrange Writers Group. He can be reached at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com
Published 4/24/08 LaGrange Daily News
Let me be clear. This is not our teachers fault. This test is the single measure used by the State and Federal government to determine how a school and its teachers are performing. There are serious ramifications for failing this series of tests. Teachers can lose their jobs and school systems can be labeled failing which will impact the entire community. They call it Adequate Yearly Progress.
Let me digress for a minute. What genius at the Department of Education came up with phrase “Adequate Yearly Progress”? As a parent there is nothing even remotely approaching adequate I want for my child when it comes to their education. I want exemplary or superior. No wonder parents lack confidence in the school system. Does the superintendent not realize how ludicrous it is to a parent to see schools celebrate the fact they are “adequate”? Could you imagine going to you boss and asking for a raise because your work over the last year was adequate? Come on! Doesn’t anyone in the Department of Education have a marketing degree? At the very least you could give it a name that instills confidence rather than disdain. Unfortunately, all of this is a distraction form my real concern.
The CRCT is nothing more than an intentional, misleading political tool. The Georgia Department of Education determines the curriculum, creates the test, administers the test and then grades the test. It does this without publishing the grading criteria prior to commencing the test. It is a closed loop system managed entirely by the State Department of Education. After the tests are graded the scores are released. The net result is that the scores almost inevitably show modest improvement. Each year the scores tend to be a point or two better. Not too much better because that would blow the sham. We all know things have not improved that much. One thing for certain is the scores won’t be too low because that might alert the voters to the real problem. The test is designed and scored to keep the Georgia citizenry lulled into a false sense of adequacy.
In 2006, the Washington DC based Education Trust issued a report that confirmed what parents and teachers already knew. It compared the CRCT to the National Assessment of Educational Progress test (NAEP). The NAEP is often referred to as "the Nation's Report Card". It is the only nationally representative and continuing assessment of what America's students know and can do in various subjects. The study concluded that the CRCT is far too easy and a poor measure of how our Georgia students are stacking up nationally. How else do you explain the fact that the 4th grade students scored 75% proficient and above on Georgia’s CRCT while only 30% of the students were considered proficient on the unbiased NAEP test. For the eighth grade, the Georgia managed and graded CRCT test scores showed 69% of students were proficient on the CRCT, while a dismal 23% scored at that level on the NAEP. Proficiency scores in the 20-30% range are a disgrace. These scores are further validated by Georgia’s near bottom scoring on the SAT, another unbiased national standard.
These discrepancies are too wide to be anything short of indicting. The Georgia education establishment manages the CRCT scoring system to make the parents feel like the public education provided is sufficient, or dare I say, adequate. The reality is that by any fair, unbiased measure the quality of our current education is nothing short of abysmal.
The real crime of the CRCT system is that the inflated scores cover-up the scope of the problem. If Georgia parents really understood the depth of the crisis they would rise up and demand improvement. Hiding a problem never solves the problem. Then and only then, can the educators harness this energy to drive meaningful education reform. The education establishment and the political leaders must deal honestly with the citizens of this state.
As I write this, it is getting late. I have to put my kids to bed. We will follow the CRCT checklist. We will make sure they get at least 8 to 10 hours of sleep. We will get them up early so they can have a hearty breakfast. We will say all kinds of encouraging words as we load them on the school bus. We will turn them over to the state to educate them. All of this in the audacious hope that we can celebrate their ADEQUATE yearly progress.
Kirk is a member of the Lagrange Writers Group. He can be reached at jkirkhancock@yahoo.com
Published 4/24/08 LaGrange Daily News
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Why is Obama a big surprise?
The primary season is almost over. I would argue it was over before it even began. The pundits are beside themselves that this is the closest primary Democratic primary in recent times. For most political prognosticators this is a big surprise. They expected a wide open Republican primary since there was no incumbent in the mix. However, they were all predicting that Hillary had the Democratic nomination in the bag. Little did they know that it would turn out to be quite the opposite. McCain locked up the Republican nomination weeks ago and Hillary and Barak are battling it well into the primary season. The interesting thing is that was entirely predictable if we look at how the two parties historically choose their nominees.
Each political part has it own unique process. There is an old cliché – Democrats fall in love (with their candidates) and Republicans fall in line. This cliché is rooted in each party’s political psyche. Republicans tend to be more conservative and Democrats tend to be more liberal. It is important to keep in mind that the primaries are dominated by the core members of their respective party. This makes the general observation, republican core – very conservative, democratic core – very liberal, even more relevant. When you take this predisposition into account, it is no surprise who their party’s nominee will be.
I will start with the Republicans. Since Republicans are conservative they don’t like radical change. A conservative person will approach the process in an analytical manner. They tend to favor the status quo. They value institutions and are reluctant to radically change them. They tend to be incrementalist; preserve the best of what we have and make measured changes to improve on it.
Given this set of behaviors. Republicans virtually always nominate the next person in line. They do not trust the new kid on the block. The Republican nomination process is to let the candidate run this time and they will be in line during the next cycle. Let’s look at recent Republican nominees:
• Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 but was nominated and won in 1968.
• Reagan lost to Ford in 1976 but won in 1980.
• Bush I was Reagan’s vice president so he was the heir apparent in 1998.
• Dole had run before and was the senior Republican in the Senate when he “earned” the nomination in 1996.
As you can see, the Republican process is geared towards nominating the next in line, whether it is the best candidate or not. They can not help it. It is driven by their conservative nature. Dole was a perfect example of the process failing the party. While he had earned the nomination he was a lousy national candidate and no match for a much younger Bill Clinton.
This year the process worked again. McCain is the process nominee. A long-time Republican who ran for the office in 2000. He is next in line. Romney and Huckabee are the new kids. Do a good job running this time, stay relevant and they will have a shot during the next cycle.
Now for the Democrats. Their liberal ideology means they are generally skeptical of the establishment; seek out new ideas and are open to fresh faces. They tend to be more emotional rather than analytical.
The Democratic Party’s tendency is to reject the established candidate and go for the new candidate. Again let’s look at the recent elections:
• In 1976 they chose a total outsider – Jimmy Carter over the party leader Ted Kennedy
• In 1992 they chose another outsider – Bill Clinton over the entire party establishment
• In 2004 they chose an obscure senator, John Kerry over an old pro like Dick Gephardt
The weakness with this process is the Democratic candidate is often a relative unknown. This means both parties will have a chance to define the candidates on their own terms. This gives the Republicans a significant advantage. In the modern media age it is much easier to define an unknown candidate in negative terms than it is to build a positive persona for the same person. Think “Swift Boats” and John Kerry. McCain has been around. His problem is he has a voting record that can be picked apart, but the public already knows him. No amount of campaigning will change that perception.
The Democratic process has proven to be a significant disadvantage. That is one reason the Republicans win a disproportionate share of elections – 9 of the last 14 elections. However, the Democratic process is very effective when the electorate wants a radical change. Jimmy Carter was the answer to a post Watergate world and Bill Clinton was the answer to 12 years of Republican rule under Reagan and Bush. The question now is as follows: Is the blind, desire for change enough to elect an obscure, junior senator from Illinois over a professional, credentialed politician like Hillary. If the Democrats hold true to form, and I predict they will, they gamble on another newcomer and nominate Obama over Hillary.
Neither process is perfect but both are remarkably predictable. The only real surprise is we are surprised each time the parties follow their respective nomination script.
Each political part has it own unique process. There is an old cliché – Democrats fall in love (with their candidates) and Republicans fall in line. This cliché is rooted in each party’s political psyche. Republicans tend to be more conservative and Democrats tend to be more liberal. It is important to keep in mind that the primaries are dominated by the core members of their respective party. This makes the general observation, republican core – very conservative, democratic core – very liberal, even more relevant. When you take this predisposition into account, it is no surprise who their party’s nominee will be.
I will start with the Republicans. Since Republicans are conservative they don’t like radical change. A conservative person will approach the process in an analytical manner. They tend to favor the status quo. They value institutions and are reluctant to radically change them. They tend to be incrementalist; preserve the best of what we have and make measured changes to improve on it.
Given this set of behaviors. Republicans virtually always nominate the next person in line. They do not trust the new kid on the block. The Republican nomination process is to let the candidate run this time and they will be in line during the next cycle. Let’s look at recent Republican nominees:
• Nixon lost to Kennedy in 1960 but was nominated and won in 1968.
• Reagan lost to Ford in 1976 but won in 1980.
• Bush I was Reagan’s vice president so he was the heir apparent in 1998.
• Dole had run before and was the senior Republican in the Senate when he “earned” the nomination in 1996.
As you can see, the Republican process is geared towards nominating the next in line, whether it is the best candidate or not. They can not help it. It is driven by their conservative nature. Dole was a perfect example of the process failing the party. While he had earned the nomination he was a lousy national candidate and no match for a much younger Bill Clinton.
This year the process worked again. McCain is the process nominee. A long-time Republican who ran for the office in 2000. He is next in line. Romney and Huckabee are the new kids. Do a good job running this time, stay relevant and they will have a shot during the next cycle.
Now for the Democrats. Their liberal ideology means they are generally skeptical of the establishment; seek out new ideas and are open to fresh faces. They tend to be more emotional rather than analytical.
The Democratic Party’s tendency is to reject the established candidate and go for the new candidate. Again let’s look at the recent elections:
• In 1976 they chose a total outsider – Jimmy Carter over the party leader Ted Kennedy
• In 1992 they chose another outsider – Bill Clinton over the entire party establishment
• In 2004 they chose an obscure senator, John Kerry over an old pro like Dick Gephardt
The weakness with this process is the Democratic candidate is often a relative unknown. This means both parties will have a chance to define the candidates on their own terms. This gives the Republicans a significant advantage. In the modern media age it is much easier to define an unknown candidate in negative terms than it is to build a positive persona for the same person. Think “Swift Boats” and John Kerry. McCain has been around. His problem is he has a voting record that can be picked apart, but the public already knows him. No amount of campaigning will change that perception.
The Democratic process has proven to be a significant disadvantage. That is one reason the Republicans win a disproportionate share of elections – 9 of the last 14 elections. However, the Democratic process is very effective when the electorate wants a radical change. Jimmy Carter was the answer to a post Watergate world and Bill Clinton was the answer to 12 years of Republican rule under Reagan and Bush. The question now is as follows: Is the blind, desire for change enough to elect an obscure, junior senator from Illinois over a professional, credentialed politician like Hillary. If the Democrats hold true to form, and I predict they will, they gamble on another newcomer and nominate Obama over Hillary.
Neither process is perfect but both are remarkably predictable. The only real surprise is we are surprised each time the parties follow their respective nomination script.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)