Matter of growing desperation

This is a critique of Matter of national security. The editorial in question is undoubtedly aimed at right wing “Tea-baggers.” The lack of any relevant argument other than conjecture and is only eclipsed by the lack of links to support his argument. The whole editorial appears to be wishful thinking. The President having to have been born in the US is a constitutional requirement, not exactly something you can choose to disregard. There is a good point that Ronnie makes: transparency in records. If a person wants to hold political office, especially the Presidential office, then all details should be completely public. Not that this would change our perception of politicians. We are too forgetful as a country. If some politician makes an error in judgment or is made to look foolish in public, wait 6 months or a year and the media will have “forgotten” the incident. The truth is that the Republicans are attempting to throw the kitchen sink at President Obama. Anything to keep him from being re-elected. Hopefully we are not so shallow of a populace to be so easily mislead.

What question needs to be resolved? What difference would it make? Quoted from the editorial: “I am certain that Joe Biden would try to emerge as the hero and distance himself from the largest scandal of our entire national history.” Ronnie is attempting to do what Fox news does and declare President Obama guilty with out any facts to back it up. The election is over and Republicans need to find a new flag to wave. Chasing windmills is obfuscating the real issue here. We have a government that is so bogged down with bipartisanship that rational choices are compromised for emotional choices. John Boehner is attempting to negotiate the debt ceiling for no tax increases. We have to increase spending and taxes to continue to climb out of the economic hole we are in.

AAAH! It’s t he Deficit!

         The word deficit these days is synonymous with big government and finger pointing.  “We must decrease spending!” cried the rhetoric.  Are we being misled?  Is it realistic to stop spending when still in a recession? Tea Baggers are attempting to point the blame President Obama and prevent his re-election by stalling any kind of perceived recovery.  Both Republicans and Democrats have contributed to our current economy and neither is immune from blame. Making severe cuts to “entitlement programs” will not help those that are currently dependent on them.  In our current financial situation we would be removing the programs that are the life blood of those who can’t find jobs.

          Keynesian theory suggests increasing government spending to offset economic contraction.  However politicians are flag waving the deficit in an  attempt to discredit spending and strike fear into the hearts of voters.  The government needs to raise the debt ceiling and spend more on services like the Works Progress Administration of the great depression.  Once we are out of troubled economic waters, then we need to focus on balancing the budget.  We do need to resolve these wars soon though, are we really gaining anything  from remaining in Iraq or Afghanistan? Another issue that must be addressed is the Bush era tax cuts .

      Having a high deficit is not the end of the world, in the 1940s during the war the US had a deficit that was 120% of GDP.  We seemed to have come out of that OK, granted we owned a lot of Britain’s debt. Although care must be taken: After WWII the French and the British were escalating military action over control of the Suez Canal in Egypt. The US, in protest threatened to dump all of the British debt and collapse their economy. It worked to end the conflict.  The same thing could happen to the US with 47% of the public debt owned by China and Japan.  We need to buy more American bonds so that The US owns more of that public debt.  There are many more factors to our economy than the talking points that are constantly preached at us by politicians.The economy is in tough shape but it is not game ending. If the politicians can get past partisanship and attempting to mislead your votes, we can come out of this recession intact.

GOP misdirection

          A Discussion about Julia's editorial on the Republican (GOP) attack on Planned Parenthood. Julia does not site any sources, nor does she provide links. Her target audience is presumably liberals and women. Her numbers are legitimate according to Planned Parenthood's report from 2009 . Julia shares some widely accepted statements about the conservative nature of the GOP. Her Argument is that the GOP is picking on Planed Parenthood in an effort to restrict women's right to choose.  In fact it more likely that the Republicans are attacking due to it's ideological conflict with Republican “morals.” Planned Parenthood is an easy target because it is associated with abortions. According to the Planed Parenthood website they do not use any money for such procedures, but some critics claim that the federal funds free up other resources enabling abortions to be possible.

       The Republican's validation is that federal law prohibits direct taxpayer funding of abortion. The Republicans are "taking a stand" to gather support from their constituents. Julia is right about the Republicans wanting to narrow choices, not only for  women, but also for secular individuals and gays. Republicans recently got together for a back slapping convention (and to trot out POTUS hopefuls), the theme was the moral slide of the US and how voting GOP would fix the state of the union. Why couldn't the theme be about fixing the economy or the rift that is forming between the left and the right? Roe v. Wade is a popular topic of debate and which side you choose is a good indication of whether you are a Republican or a Democrat. In the book Freakonomics, it is theorized that Roe v. Wade actually helped crime halt it's apocalyptic rise in the US and leveled out the curve in the 80's. There is a general feeling that people take advantage of  welfare programs, but we shouldn't stop a system that is designed to help those in dire need because of some bad apples. On the other hand we as a society need to take more responsibility for our own problems. The government can't provide for everyone unfortunately. Politicians certainly have real issues to fix,  rather than aiming at low hanging fruit like Planned Parenthood.

Oil!

     Some in the Middle East have found hope after years of enduring tyranny. The people, by simply protesting, have been influential enough that two dictators have been removed from power. Libya  witnessed their neighbor Egypt succeed and followed suit. Three countries will have changed their leadership if Gaddafi leaves. With more unrest in Syria and Yemen the changes are not finished yet. The Middle East is having a sundering of political landscape. We are getting involved in hopes of gaining allies or favor when the dust settles. Unfortunately it seems as though we are passed the point of standing by with only aid and protection. Gaddafi will undoubtedly accuse the US as orchestrating the military action. He has to be removed  or the show of force will have been wasted. Gaddafi will exact revenge on the revolutionaries once the coalition leaves.

      The coalition will give only protection for the civilians, but is not opposed to the US or GB giving arms. Pres. Obama already approved covert missions in Libya. But we must not get too involved. Lest we forget, we still have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Our economy is in trouble and we can’t afford to be the world police. Congress would assuredly vote against another engagement. We might have our own protests otherwise.  We could potentially get drawn into a larger conflict by angering allies, Russia does not approve of our coalition's actions. This could spark anger enough to trigger an anti-coalition movement to support Gaddafi simply to oppose the (perceived) US led coalition.

      At home the conflict is causing a stir among republicans. Some say Obama overstepped his authority by authorizing military action. Rep. Timothy V. Johnson (R-IL) wants to pass the Reclaim Act to prevent all further action now. However it appears to be political posturing. Where were the republican protesters when Bush was pushing for war in Iraq? In fact Obama was within his powers as described in the War Powers Resolution. Johnson does have a point however: we the people, do not want another drawn out conflict  for “American interests.” We have a genuine concern with being stretched too thin militarily and economically. We are already paying more at the pump due to disruptions (or anticipated disruptions) in global oil supply . Helping Libya approaches the goal of fast resolution and avoiding prolonged civil war.

Are unions the answer for new American jobs?

      This is a discussion about Gaius Publius commentary on Paul Krugman's editorial on "The real answer to new American jobs." In a time when jobs and unemployment are the center of debate, everyone has a solution. Publius' intended audience are  white collar workers and  union members. Krugman's argument is that computers are going to replace anyone who is not a CEO or a blue collar worker. He says that Unions are the answer for creating jobs in the US.  Unfortunately , unions will not prevent business from going overseas for cheap labor.How exactly do unions create jobs anyway?  Krugman claims the software will change the workforce, but maybe that is a good thing, we should look into this comparative advantage thing more closely.   However we may not be there yet:  “Some specialists acknowledge that the technology has limits. “The documents that the process kicks out still have to be read by someone,” said Herbert L. Roitblat of OrcaTec, a consulting firm in Atlanta."   Someone still has to enter the files into a database for the program to sort and someone still has to decipher the output.

      Part of Krugman's argument is that education does not guarantee a good paying job and thus should not be pursued? This is a valid concern. Due to the rising price of education, more students are buried under student loan debt with little guarantee of return on investment. However one needs to be careful to say that education is not a solution, consider how much harder it is to get a decent job if you don't have a degree. There will always be a demand for highly educated workers but in our global economy it may be shortsighted to assume that an education should equate to a job in the US.

        Jared Diamond theorized in his book Guns Germs and Steel that as hunter gatherers came together they formed villages and if theses villagers basic needs were sustained by farming and cooperation, then individuals were free to  become full time farmers, soldiers or politicians.  They were freed from the shackles of hunting and gathering food daily.  Perhaps we are on the cusp of  such a societal evolution in that many of the tasks that require human calculation will be turned over to programs in order for humans to focus on higher level problems.  The singularity is around the corner...  

        Unions can help generate higher wages and better working conditions for members, but unions can have a  bureaucracy and can stifle innovation

We can't forget what unions have done for the American worker over the last 100 years but to say that Unions are the only way for America to succeed is misleading.

Austin American Statesmen: Distortion of Facts

      This editorial is  a discussion about the Texas Board of Education’s revisions last year on  public school social studies curriculum: Texas distortion of history - Austin American Statesmen Feb 18 2011. The editor seems to be preaching to the choir. He uses exclamatory language to stir up the reader’s anti conservative sentiment: "The current members  have their work cut out for them if the board is to regain what little academic credibility it had."   The editor makes accusations for which he does not provide sources for. Following the link at the end of the editorial takes the reader to a PDF of the Fordham report for Texas with no other links and no way to compare to other states. The report is damning of Texas for lack of completeness in social studies and accusations of evangelical agendas which it provides no proof. 

      In reality the editor appears to be rabble rousing to decry the fouls of conservative manipulation in Texas. The report quoted leaves some unanswered questions of its own; how biased is the report, what is the actual source of the report and why they should be trusted. The editor attempts to show that the report is conservative by invoking former President G.W. Bush:  "Rod Paige, President George W. Bush's education secretary, is a member of the institute's board of directors."   Google provided some illumination with two links.

Here is the Fordham summary report for the nation:  USHistory Final Press Release

“U.S. History Standards Need Radical Overhaul, New Study Reveals

As of Presidents’ Day 2011, history standards in twenty-eight states are mediocre-to-awful; only South Carolina earns a straight ‘A’

WASHINGTON – According to a new analysis, twenty-eight states – a majority – deserve D or F grades for their U.S. history standards for primary-secondary schools. The average grade across all states is a dismal D. South Carolina is the only state to earn a straight A for its standards, according to this review by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Six others – Alabama, California, Indiana, Massachusetts, New York and the District of Columbia – earn A-minuses. And three – Oklahoma, Georgia and Michigan – are in the B range."

 Evangelical Christian right agendas to blame nationwide too?

Another site that criticizes the Fordham institute for being too liberal and making up facts: liberty institute give fordham institute texas social studies report an F

     The objectivity of the editor’s argument comes into question. The author assumes you will read no further than the report he links and that you will agree with him on principal. He expects that like minded voters will join him in condemning the Texas Board of Educations’ revisions last year.  While this could be justified, how can he expect to sway intelligent voters when the author presents his argument with obviously biased “facts” in his favor? The real problem in this debate is the standardization of testing and the "No child left behind" law. We need to make good decisions based on solid facts and not be easily swayed with cheap political rhetoric.

It May Be a Sputnik Moment, but Science Fairs Are Lagging

President Obama is urging greater participation in science fairs, “this is our Sputnik moment “he said during his state of the union address. Mr. Obama suggested the science fair winners should be treated more like the super bowl winners.  However, some teachers suggest it’s not the celebration that is lacking but the administration’s own education policy. Teachers have little time left over for inspiring creativity and questioning possibility after focusing on the higher priority of meeting minimum math and reading scores. Many teachers give up their lunch breaks or spend extra time after school helping students prepare for a science project.   Depreciated interest in science has led to a decline in Science fair attendance.  In Indiana, high school science fair participation has dropped 15% over the last 3 yrs. “One obvious reason for flagging interest in science fairs is competing demands for high school students’ extracurricular attention.” As it stands the teachers have to focus more on meeting criteria to prevent sanctions than to work on building scientific interest. Some teachers have reached out to universities for assistance in getting guidance for the science fair participants but have had limited success.

I think this is an interesting article as it reinforces the idea that  we as a country are falling behind other countries in scientific education. Also and even more importantly it shows that creativity is stifled in pursuit of academic minimum standards.