In Mark 10:46-52, we read the story of Bartimaeus. Before we go into his story, we must fully comprehend the depth of his predicament.
Bartimaeus was blind. He lived 2,000 years ago in Israel. Back then, the typical Jew had three avenues of income: farming, fishing, and carpentry. All three required eyesight. Blind persons simply lacked the perception necessary to plow a field or to navigate a boat or to build a house. Accordingly, men like Bartimaeus usually begged for their meals.
Naturally, beggars needed to be positioned where people with surplus money would be. So they would beg in highly-traversed places, such as the gates of the city, where travelers would certainly pass. While most people would ignore their supplications, eventually someone would show pity.
And so the beggar learned to live by the law of averages. Like the modern telemarketer bent on selling magazine subscriptions at the dinner hour, the ancient beggar learned that survival is a product of persistence plus humility. The beggar understood that while rejection is painful, starvation is worse.
Nevertheless, even with his humble persistence, Bartimaeus was barely getting by. He was struggling. While sighted people--while people with perception--walked back and forth to their jobs carrying their money, Bartimaeus sat on the roadside.
To Bartimaeus, it seemed as if the world were passing him by.
And so, Bartimaeus had two problems. First he was blind. Second, he was poor.
There was nothing that he could do about the first problem, so he attended to the second, begging and pleading all the day long for a scrap of bread or some loose change.
Then he heard Jesus. Bartimaeus may have lacked sight, but he had hearing. He may have lacked some perception, but not all of it. When he perceived that Jesus was near, he addressed Him with the title, "Son of David," indicating that he, Bartimaeus, thought Jesus was the Messiah--the Son of God capable of opening blind eyes.
Bartimaeus had been trained as a beggar. So how did he approach Jesus? By begging... with all of his might! When people chastened him, he yelled all the more. He recognized his chance. He used what little perception he had-- and what little training he had--to attract the attention of Jesus. The very persistence and humility that Bartimaeus had developed as a beggar would attract the attention of the Person who could solve all of his problems.
Jesus asked him what he wanted. Bartimaeus could have replied, "Lord, I want to have a bunch of money so I will never have to beg again." If he had, who knows, Jesus might have pointed him to Nicodemus.
Instead of asking for a material blessing, Bartimaeus petitioned the Lord to expand his perception. Bartimaeus knew that if he had greater perception, he would be able to work. If he were able to work, he would no longer have need to beg. Bartimaeus knew that perception was the solution to his problem. So he asked for his sight, and Jesus obliged.
To some extent, we are all like Bartimaeus. We all have struggles for which we have never fully seen victory. A difficult marriage. A difficult financial situation. Rebellious children. A dead end job. You name it. One of us will certainly have it.
But like Bartimaeus, we have a series of choices that we must make if we want to overcome life's obstacles.
First, we must choose to persevere, even if our perseverance brings shame.
Bartimaeus could have stopped begging and then starved to death. But if he had done that, he would have missed his miracle; he would have lacked the perseverance to call on Jesus when the rest of the world told him to shut up.
Bartimaeus learned as a beggar that what other people think is irrelevant. We too must learn this lesson. We too must stand firm even though our decisions may bring ridicule or self-loathing.
Second, we must recognize that lack of perception is the root of our problems.
Yes, Bartimaeus was broke, but he was broke because he was blind. But, when he got his sight back, Bartimaeus never had to beg again. Likewise, we too need to learn that if God grants us perception of our situation--if God opens our eyes, giving us insight into the world around us--we will no longer need to struggle. Instead, like the newly-sighted Bartimaeus who could push a plow or cast a net or drive a nail, we will have the clarity to address our respective situations. Such clarity will make begging obsolete.
Third, and most important, we must use the lessons we have learned in the past to direct our search for perception.
Bartimaeus learned how to use his ears masterfully. He learned how to beg with humble persistence. So when Jesus came, he used his ears to hear his voice, and he responded as a beggar would. We also must develop our senses to seek after the Lord. Moreover, we must use our talents--our skills--to seek after Him. When we find Him, we must seek Him more persistently than we have struggled in our own problems. And when we find Him, we must ask for perception, not merely for a solution to our short-term problem.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Rising Gas Prices--An Objective Analysis
If you were to examine the 2005 annual report for ExxonMobil (http://exxonmobil.com/corporate/files/corporate/sar_2005.pdf), you would find that the world's largest corporation made $36.13 billion of net profit after taxes.
Thirty six billion dollars is a lot of money. When gas prices have gone up to the point where it takes $50 or $60 to fill up one's tank, that seems a bit excessive. Doesn't it?
If ExxonMobil were to cut some of its profits, then maybe gas prices would drop, and the average American who is living paycheck-to-paycheck wouldn't have to choose between prescription drugs or fuel for his car. Right?
Well, maybe not.
According to ExxonMobil's 2005 Annual Report, the company produced 8,257,000 barrels of petroleum products per day for worldwide consumption in 2005. Gasoline represented only 3,274,000 barrels, or 39.65%, of this daily total.
If gasoline represents only 39.65% of ExxonMobil's production, then ExxonMobil's profits from the sale of gasoline should approximate $14,325,545,000 (or 39.65% of $36.13 billion).
A barrel, by definition, is 42 gallons. (http://www.metric-conversions.org/volume/gallons-to-barrels.htm) Therefore, ExxonMobil produced 137,508,000 gallons of gasoline per day last year. Multiplying this by the number of days in a year, ExxonMobil produced 50,190,420,000 gallons of gasoline during the year 2005.
Now, if we divide ExxonMobil's profits from gasoline ($14,325,545,000) by the total gallons of gasoline the company produced (50,190,420,000), ExxonMobil's per gallon profit equals 28.54 cents per gallon.
Today, I paid $2.94 per gallon for a half tank of gasoline. It was not at an ExxonMobil location, but these days every company in a given locale is charging basically the same price. If we assume that ExxonMobil is charging the same price at a nearby store, what would be the company's breakeven price, assuming a profit of 28.54 cents per gallon?
Naturally, ExxonMobil could sell its fuel for $2.66 per gallon (or $2.94 - $0.28).
If ExxonMobil overnight became altruistic and decided to completely eliminate its profits on gasoline, would that really have an impact on your pocketbook? Well, 28.5 cents per gallon multiplied by, let's say, 40 gallons per full tank, would equal savings of $11.20 per fill-up. Nothing to sneeze at, for sure. But, this is still nowhere near the $1.75 per gallon we paid three or four years ago.
Besides, if ExxonMobil did eliminate its profit, giving the rest of us a break, wouldn't that effect the value of the company? Wouldn't its stock price plummet? What about dividends? Wouldn't they drop?
Who gives a flip about the rich oil barons and their stock prices? No one really cares about dividends. Right?
If ExxonMobil eliminated its profit, its competitors would have to follow suit in order to break even. Then the earnings of all oil companies would collapse. Then investors, particularly institutional investors (pension funds, mutual funds) would go ape crap, filing shareholder derviative suits like they were going out of style.
In the meantime, retirees who live off of their investments would suffer as their income droped precipitously. The elderly would then have to choose between their food bills or their prescription drugs. Likewise, middle class workers who are saving for retirement will see an immediate reduction in the value of their nest eggs.
All because we demand $2.66 per gallon gasoline.
Thirty six billion dollars is a lot of money. When gas prices have gone up to the point where it takes $50 or $60 to fill up one's tank, that seems a bit excessive. Doesn't it?
If ExxonMobil were to cut some of its profits, then maybe gas prices would drop, and the average American who is living paycheck-to-paycheck wouldn't have to choose between prescription drugs or fuel for his car. Right?
Well, maybe not.
According to ExxonMobil's 2005 Annual Report, the company produced 8,257,000 barrels of petroleum products per day for worldwide consumption in 2005. Gasoline represented only 3,274,000 barrels, or 39.65%, of this daily total.
If gasoline represents only 39.65% of ExxonMobil's production, then ExxonMobil's profits from the sale of gasoline should approximate $14,325,545,000 (or 39.65% of $36.13 billion).
A barrel, by definition, is 42 gallons. (http://www.metric-conversions.org/volume/gallons-to-barrels.htm) Therefore, ExxonMobil produced 137,508,000 gallons of gasoline per day last year. Multiplying this by the number of days in a year, ExxonMobil produced 50,190,420,000 gallons of gasoline during the year 2005.
Now, if we divide ExxonMobil's profits from gasoline ($14,325,545,000) by the total gallons of gasoline the company produced (50,190,420,000), ExxonMobil's per gallon profit equals 28.54 cents per gallon.
Today, I paid $2.94 per gallon for a half tank of gasoline. It was not at an ExxonMobil location, but these days every company in a given locale is charging basically the same price. If we assume that ExxonMobil is charging the same price at a nearby store, what would be the company's breakeven price, assuming a profit of 28.54 cents per gallon?
Naturally, ExxonMobil could sell its fuel for $2.66 per gallon (or $2.94 - $0.28).
If ExxonMobil overnight became altruistic and decided to completely eliminate its profits on gasoline, would that really have an impact on your pocketbook? Well, 28.5 cents per gallon multiplied by, let's say, 40 gallons per full tank, would equal savings of $11.20 per fill-up. Nothing to sneeze at, for sure. But, this is still nowhere near the $1.75 per gallon we paid three or four years ago.
Besides, if ExxonMobil did eliminate its profit, giving the rest of us a break, wouldn't that effect the value of the company? Wouldn't its stock price plummet? What about dividends? Wouldn't they drop?
Who gives a flip about the rich oil barons and their stock prices? No one really cares about dividends. Right?
If ExxonMobil eliminated its profit, its competitors would have to follow suit in order to break even. Then the earnings of all oil companies would collapse. Then investors, particularly institutional investors (pension funds, mutual funds) would go ape crap, filing shareholder derviative suits like they were going out of style.
In the meantime, retirees who live off of their investments would suffer as their income droped precipitously. The elderly would then have to choose between their food bills or their prescription drugs. Likewise, middle class workers who are saving for retirement will see an immediate reduction in the value of their nest eggs.
All because we demand $2.66 per gallon gasoline.
Thursday, April 20, 2006
Tom, Katie, and Scientology
Putting aside that Scientology teaches that 75 million years ago, a cosmic ruler named Xenu brought billions of aliens to Earth to blow them up with hydrogen bombs and that their souls are causing problems today (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenu), don't you find it strange that this "religion" has its own "Celebrity Centre"? (http://celebritycentre.org/en_US/index.html.)
Seems mighty snotty, don't you think?
I mean, really... What would happen if the Southern Baptist Convention created its own "Celebrity Centre"?
While some of us would get stuck with a preacher and his wife/organ player in a 1500 square foot brick-and-mortar building in the back woods of Alabama, the special ones would get to see Jerry Falwell live and in person along with all the amenities you would expect at a five-star hotel (except, of course, for the booze).
And who would be allowed to enter such a Baptist "Celebrity Centre"?
I doubt that Jimmy Carter would be there. He is, after all, a moderate. As for the fundamentalists, there's way too many of them to place in an exclusive club. If the Baptists were to follow ole L. Ron's lead, there must be some criteria for admission into what would be the biggest family life center in the world.
According to the Celebrity Centre's official website, the Celebrity Center is "a special Church of Scientology which [caters] to ... artists, politicians, leaders of industry, sports figures and anyone with the power and vision to create a better world."
I guess a Baptist Celebrity Centre would need people of like ilk.
Do we know of any famous Baptist artists? (I'm sure K-LOVE radio would have a list. We should check with them?) What about politicians? (Just ask every governor south of the Mason-Dixon line to join.) Leaders of industry? (Does NASCAR owners count?) Sports figures? (Do NASCAR drivers count?)
What about people with the power and vision to create a better world?
Now that's a tough one, because anybody with faith in Christ fits this description. If the Baptist church were to create a Celebrity Centre, every born-again Christian would be eligible for admission. Why? Because the Bible tells us that when a single person repents, the angels in Heaven celebrate. (Luke 15:7)
That's right... to Jesus, if we turn to Him, if we give our hearts to Him, we become an instant celebrity... But to the proteges of L. Ron Hubbard, apparently there is a more of a bifurcation, to wit: the rich and powerful can hang out with Tom and Katie and John and Kelly at the Celebrity Centre; the rest of us can get lost.
Seems mighty snotty, don't you think?
I mean, really... What would happen if the Southern Baptist Convention created its own "Celebrity Centre"?
While some of us would get stuck with a preacher and his wife/organ player in a 1500 square foot brick-and-mortar building in the back woods of Alabama, the special ones would get to see Jerry Falwell live and in person along with all the amenities you would expect at a five-star hotel (except, of course, for the booze).
And who would be allowed to enter such a Baptist "Celebrity Centre"?
I doubt that Jimmy Carter would be there. He is, after all, a moderate. As for the fundamentalists, there's way too many of them to place in an exclusive club. If the Baptists were to follow ole L. Ron's lead, there must be some criteria for admission into what would be the biggest family life center in the world.
According to the Celebrity Centre's official website, the Celebrity Center is "a special Church of Scientology which [caters] to ... artists, politicians, leaders of industry, sports figures and anyone with the power and vision to create a better world."
I guess a Baptist Celebrity Centre would need people of like ilk.
Do we know of any famous Baptist artists? (I'm sure K-LOVE radio would have a list. We should check with them?) What about politicians? (Just ask every governor south of the Mason-Dixon line to join.) Leaders of industry? (Does NASCAR owners count?) Sports figures? (Do NASCAR drivers count?)
What about people with the power and vision to create a better world?
Now that's a tough one, because anybody with faith in Christ fits this description. If the Baptist church were to create a Celebrity Centre, every born-again Christian would be eligible for admission. Why? Because the Bible tells us that when a single person repents, the angels in Heaven celebrate. (Luke 15:7)
That's right... to Jesus, if we turn to Him, if we give our hearts to Him, we become an instant celebrity... But to the proteges of L. Ron Hubbard, apparently there is a more of a bifurcation, to wit: the rich and powerful can hang out with Tom and Katie and John and Kelly at the Celebrity Centre; the rest of us can get lost.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
Random Thoughts
1. Clearly the folks at Google have no idea what I am discussing in this blog. Their last automatic ad had something to do with a test that you could take to determine what kind of Mom you were.
2. Assuming for a moment that George Bush lied about our reasons for going into Iraq, why is Tony Blair such an adamant supporter of the war effort? Remember, Tony Blair could lose his job tomorrow, and he is a member of the Labour party (which is about as liberal--if not more--than our country's Democratic Party). Why would a man like Blair risk his political career to follow Bush's lead when the PM is much more like Clinton than he is like the current president?
3. Liberals claim that George Bush is a pathetic leader incapable of making a coherent, cogent, concise, constructive comment. "He's no Reagan," they say, "and he is certainly no Clinton." Yet, in the same breath, they answer my previous question vis-a-vis the British Prime Minister by saying that Bush must have manipulated Blair into following his lead. Bush is supposedly incapable of communicating with the average American on his or her own level, but somehow he can effectively convey the need to go to war to an Oxford-educated, British Prime Minister with 23 years political experience who has everything to lose by following suit. Go figure.
4. Speaking of Tony Blair and the war... Have you ever heard him speak about the war? He makes more compelling arguments for the Iraq war than does Bush. (You have to hear this guy speak to understand what I am saying.)
5. Why is it that illegal immigrants from Mexico can influence our government, but they have no influence on their own?
6. What is the point in voting for Republicans if they spend more money than the Democrats?
2. Assuming for a moment that George Bush lied about our reasons for going into Iraq, why is Tony Blair such an adamant supporter of the war effort? Remember, Tony Blair could lose his job tomorrow, and he is a member of the Labour party (which is about as liberal--if not more--than our country's Democratic Party). Why would a man like Blair risk his political career to follow Bush's lead when the PM is much more like Clinton than he is like the current president?
3. Liberals claim that George Bush is a pathetic leader incapable of making a coherent, cogent, concise, constructive comment. "He's no Reagan," they say, "and he is certainly no Clinton." Yet, in the same breath, they answer my previous question vis-a-vis the British Prime Minister by saying that Bush must have manipulated Blair into following his lead. Bush is supposedly incapable of communicating with the average American on his or her own level, but somehow he can effectively convey the need to go to war to an Oxford-educated, British Prime Minister with 23 years political experience who has everything to lose by following suit. Go figure.
4. Speaking of Tony Blair and the war... Have you ever heard him speak about the war? He makes more compelling arguments for the Iraq war than does Bush. (You have to hear this guy speak to understand what I am saying.)
5. Why is it that illegal immigrants from Mexico can influence our government, but they have no influence on their own?
6. What is the point in voting for Republicans if they spend more money than the Democrats?
Thursday, April 13, 2006
What Is Wrong With Education Part II
As we all know, people are not defined by their I.Q.'s. Some developmentally-challenged people, with I.Q.'s below 70, have done very well in life. Conversely, in some fast-food restaurants there are Mensa members flipping burgers. While some people fail to live up to their potential, others through sheer force of will and faith in God exceed their mental capabilities.
I mention this to clarify my earlier comments. Just because a person has a particular IQ does not necessarily mean that they will not be able to learn, or that they will not be able to pass their tests. IQ simply measures their natural ability to learn. Although it may take longer for a person with an IQ of 90 to learn than, say, a person with a 110 IQ, the former student may learn more because he pushes himself harder.
Be that as it may, with all other things being equal, a child with a higher IQ will tend to do better at school than a child with a lower IQ. If a child with a 90 IQ has the same educational experience (i.e., the same school, the same teachers, the same books, the same level of parental involvement) as a child with a 110 IQ, the former will probably make lower grades than the latter.
If one child learns at a faster rate than the other, and if they both are given the same amount of time to study for their tests, then by the time the test is given, the faster child will have a greater understanding of the material and a greater confidence as well. Thus, he will do better than the slower child.
Of course, if a faster child has more distractions and the slower child has better focus, the results may be different. (Remember the "Tortoise and the Hare.") But, again, we are assuming that all other things are equal. We are assuming that both children have the same levels of parental involvement, the same levels of social interaction with other children, and the same amount of time to study.
Now, if we adopt a paradigm where a school's performance is measured by its test scores (and only its test scores), and if the teacher's job security is a direct function of the school's performance, then we create a conflict of interest. If a teacher's livelihood may be placed in jeopardy every time she gives a student a failing grade, she will give less "F's." Likewise, if the principal's career may be placed in jeopardy every time a child is held back a grade, he may be inclined to institute a program of "social promotion."
Intuitively, the school's performance should not be measured by any instrument whereby the teacher or the principal can manipulate the results. School performance must be measured objectively; having the teacher or the principal involved makes it purely subjective.
Knowing this, the politicians have created SOL's. And they have created standardized tests. In theory, it puts an end to social promotion, ensuring that no child will be left behind.
Yeah, right!
What would happen if the state set SOL standards too high? If, let's say, the state set SOL standards so high that first graders needed to understand calculus before they could advance to the second grade, no child would pass. Right? (I'll admit that my hypothetical situation is absurd, but stay with me. ) How do you think the parents would react? Would they be thrilled about higher standards? Or would they be enraged that every first grader in the state had just been held back?
Point is, if politicians wanted to, they could make SOL tests really, really hard. So hard that no body would ever be able to pass them. But they would never do this, because if they did, they would be voted out of office in a heartbeat.
On the other hand, if politicians were to set academic standards way too low, would the parents care? Certainly, most parents wouldn't be too upset if their children advanced from the first grade to the second. This is, after all, the normal progression of events. And no parent thinks his child is abnormal (unless, of course, the child really is out there).
Besides, if the parents do care, all they will notice when they read the paper or watch the news is the Governor or the State superintendent of Education announcing record test scores while patting themselves on the back for a job well done.
While it is undisputed that teachers and principals have incentive to advance a social promotion program on a case-by-case basis, it also holds that politicians have incentive to advance a social promotion program on an aggregate level.
If kids fail out of school, the teacher, the principal, and the politician may lose their jobs. But while the teacher or the principal may have incentive to give one child an unearned grade, the politician may be tempted to give every child an easy test. Either way, when it comes to academic standards, the bank robber is in the vault. Certainly, as Ronald Reagan learned back during the Depression, "the first rule of the bureaucracy is to save the bureaucracy."
A SOLUTION
1. First and foremost, children should no longer be viewed as cogs in a wheel. We have adopted a factory mindset in our schools. The child is the capital; the test score is the product. Schools produce test scores. If a school doesn't produce, its workers are given pink slips and the factory is closed.
Unfortunately, such is the byproduct of SOL's. Because school funding is tied to performance on standardized tests--and not to the actual measure of a child's learning--teachers feel extreme pressure to teach the tests. Oh no, they may not have the tests, per se, from which to teach, but they do have the SOL's from which to guide their curricula.
In theory this may not seem wrong, after all the teachers should have some kind of road map. However, if the SOL's are geared to the least common denominator because the politicians/bureaucrats who drafted them do not want to be embarrassed when half of the students are held back at the end of the year, then the road map is flawed ipso facto.
Although one might argue that the SOL's are a minimum and that teachers are encouraged to teach above this floor, this premise does not account for the large class sizes, the discipline problems which abound these days, and other distractions which keep a teacher from adapting lesson plans to the needs of each child. Thus the floor turns into a ceiling very quickly--especially when the test scores are paramount to the needs of the child.
To return the classroom to its proper focus, we must abolish the SOL's. We must abandon this mindset of "test scores first" and replace it with a more child-centered mentality.
2. Success should be measured one child at a time. Morgan Stanley runs ads which claim that it measures "success one investor at a time." Our schools should adopt the same policy.
Up to now, our schools have focused upon the SOL's. "Children must grasp the SOL's," the state stresses to its schools. So the schools teach the SOL's--and only the SOL's. In turn, students are pigeonholed based upon their grade levels. First graders will know "X". Second graders will know "Y". The fact that some first graders may be capable of also learning "Y" or "Z" is irrelevant; they must go to school to learn "X".
You get the drift. SOL's create a one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach to education. All first graders will act a certain way. All second graders will act another way. Deviation from this approach is almost universally questioned. After all, the school must pass the SOL's or it will cease to exist.
May I suggest something different?
What if a school gave second graders a standardized test at the beginning of the year--a test written by experts from outside of the state. The test would cover material up through the fourth grade. For each child, the test would serve as a baseline, indicating exactly what that child knows as of the first day of school. Then, at the end of the year, the child is given the same test again.
The scores of both tests will be sent to a neutral, out-of-state grading company. The company will measure the grade level that the child was on at the beginning of the year and what level the child is now. If, for example, a child was on a first grade level at the beginning of the year, but now is on a third grade level, he would get 2 points (3-1=2).
Each grade-level would have the same type of testing. Fourth graders would get a test for sixth graders; eighth graders for tenth graders; twelfth graders for college sophomores in liberal arts. They would have the same test at the beginning of the year and at the end. And their changes in grade level will be measured the same way, as noted above.
After the marginal change in grade level is measured for each child in each grade-level, all of the scores for a given school will be averaged. Then they will be ranked statewide. The bottom ten-percent will be placed on probation.
Schools on probation will be examined on-site by business leaders from throughout the state, but not from business leaders in and around their community. Average people will go into these schools to investigate why these schools did not advance as quickly as the others. If there is a reason, such as poor parental involvement, the panel of leaders will make recommendations to the school board. The next year, if the school is on probation again, another panel of business leaders will review the implementation of the prior panel's recommendations. If it is determined that the school made no effort to implement those recommendations, it will close. However, if the panel finds that the school made a good faith effort to implement those recommendations, the school will remain on probation, and the new panel will issue more recommendations.
This approach creates accountability. Test scores are still important, but they are designed to measure aggregate improvement in individual performance. In other words, if more students than not are functioning at greater levels than the year before, the school is safe. But if individual students are not advancing, the school is in trouble. Thus, if a teacher knows that Bobby is already two grade levels ahead of his classmates, she will encourage him to study even more to pick up the slack for the rest of the class.
Furthermore, the tests will be written and graded by groups who are outside of the state. Neither the teacher, nor the principal, nor the politician will control what is on the test or how it is graded; the only control will be that each test will operate on a much higher grade level. As such, the fox will no longer guard the hen house.
This approach will create competition between the schools. Granted, there is already some measure of this with respect to SOL testing. However, since these tests are not based upon any set of SOL's, each school will have the freedom--and even the mandate-- to teach things over and above what they would otherwise show their students. For example, a second grade teacher would be free to expose her class to third grade concepts without fear of skipping any SOL. Likewise, a school board will actually develop curricula on their own to adjust to their situations, without unnecessary interference from the state.
Best of all, if a school is in trouble, business leaders will examine the school to see if there are other reasons for this lack of performance. If the leaders see that teachers are doing the best that they can given the lack of parental involvement--or whatever the reason is--they will make recommendations to fix the problem without necessarily calling for the school to close. In other words, the leaders will factor into the mix other concerns that could not be gleaned from a score report.
Right now our public schools operate like a communist nation. Students are viewed as giant groups instead of being treated like individuals. Each child works for the collective "SOL test score" farm. Their individual successes are not as important as the aggregate success of the entire school. Thus, they do not have the inspiration or the drive to learn on their own, much less succeed on their own. Even if they did have this spark to advance beyond their wildest dreams, the teachers are too busy teaching the SOL's to advance any other subjects.
By adopting my plan, our public schools will operate like a capitalist, free market society. Without undue governmental regulation, each school will adopt its own curricula, and each teacher will have the freedom to teach each child on his or her own level, without fear of upsetting the educational bureaucracy. With tests that are designed to see how each child has improved, the child will be challenged to show the world just how smart he really is. Moreover, really bright students will receive the attention they need to thrive in a learning environment.
I mention this to clarify my earlier comments. Just because a person has a particular IQ does not necessarily mean that they will not be able to learn, or that they will not be able to pass their tests. IQ simply measures their natural ability to learn. Although it may take longer for a person with an IQ of 90 to learn than, say, a person with a 110 IQ, the former student may learn more because he pushes himself harder.
Be that as it may, with all other things being equal, a child with a higher IQ will tend to do better at school than a child with a lower IQ. If a child with a 90 IQ has the same educational experience (i.e., the same school, the same teachers, the same books, the same level of parental involvement) as a child with a 110 IQ, the former will probably make lower grades than the latter.
If one child learns at a faster rate than the other, and if they both are given the same amount of time to study for their tests, then by the time the test is given, the faster child will have a greater understanding of the material and a greater confidence as well. Thus, he will do better than the slower child.
Of course, if a faster child has more distractions and the slower child has better focus, the results may be different. (Remember the "Tortoise and the Hare.") But, again, we are assuming that all other things are equal. We are assuming that both children have the same levels of parental involvement, the same levels of social interaction with other children, and the same amount of time to study.
Now, if we adopt a paradigm where a school's performance is measured by its test scores (and only its test scores), and if the teacher's job security is a direct function of the school's performance, then we create a conflict of interest. If a teacher's livelihood may be placed in jeopardy every time she gives a student a failing grade, she will give less "F's." Likewise, if the principal's career may be placed in jeopardy every time a child is held back a grade, he may be inclined to institute a program of "social promotion."
Intuitively, the school's performance should not be measured by any instrument whereby the teacher or the principal can manipulate the results. School performance must be measured objectively; having the teacher or the principal involved makes it purely subjective.
Knowing this, the politicians have created SOL's. And they have created standardized tests. In theory, it puts an end to social promotion, ensuring that no child will be left behind.
Yeah, right!
What would happen if the state set SOL standards too high? If, let's say, the state set SOL standards so high that first graders needed to understand calculus before they could advance to the second grade, no child would pass. Right? (I'll admit that my hypothetical situation is absurd, but stay with me. ) How do you think the parents would react? Would they be thrilled about higher standards? Or would they be enraged that every first grader in the state had just been held back?
Point is, if politicians wanted to, they could make SOL tests really, really hard. So hard that no body would ever be able to pass them. But they would never do this, because if they did, they would be voted out of office in a heartbeat.
On the other hand, if politicians were to set academic standards way too low, would the parents care? Certainly, most parents wouldn't be too upset if their children advanced from the first grade to the second. This is, after all, the normal progression of events. And no parent thinks his child is abnormal (unless, of course, the child really is out there).
Besides, if the parents do care, all they will notice when they read the paper or watch the news is the Governor or the State superintendent of Education announcing record test scores while patting themselves on the back for a job well done.
While it is undisputed that teachers and principals have incentive to advance a social promotion program on a case-by-case basis, it also holds that politicians have incentive to advance a social promotion program on an aggregate level.
If kids fail out of school, the teacher, the principal, and the politician may lose their jobs. But while the teacher or the principal may have incentive to give one child an unearned grade, the politician may be tempted to give every child an easy test. Either way, when it comes to academic standards, the bank robber is in the vault. Certainly, as Ronald Reagan learned back during the Depression, "the first rule of the bureaucracy is to save the bureaucracy."
A SOLUTION
1. First and foremost, children should no longer be viewed as cogs in a wheel. We have adopted a factory mindset in our schools. The child is the capital; the test score is the product. Schools produce test scores. If a school doesn't produce, its workers are given pink slips and the factory is closed.
Unfortunately, such is the byproduct of SOL's. Because school funding is tied to performance on standardized tests--and not to the actual measure of a child's learning--teachers feel extreme pressure to teach the tests. Oh no, they may not have the tests, per se, from which to teach, but they do have the SOL's from which to guide their curricula.
In theory this may not seem wrong, after all the teachers should have some kind of road map. However, if the SOL's are geared to the least common denominator because the politicians/bureaucrats who drafted them do not want to be embarrassed when half of the students are held back at the end of the year, then the road map is flawed ipso facto.
Although one might argue that the SOL's are a minimum and that teachers are encouraged to teach above this floor, this premise does not account for the large class sizes, the discipline problems which abound these days, and other distractions which keep a teacher from adapting lesson plans to the needs of each child. Thus the floor turns into a ceiling very quickly--especially when the test scores are paramount to the needs of the child.
To return the classroom to its proper focus, we must abolish the SOL's. We must abandon this mindset of "test scores first" and replace it with a more child-centered mentality.
2. Success should be measured one child at a time. Morgan Stanley runs ads which claim that it measures "success one investor at a time." Our schools should adopt the same policy.
Up to now, our schools have focused upon the SOL's. "Children must grasp the SOL's," the state stresses to its schools. So the schools teach the SOL's--and only the SOL's. In turn, students are pigeonholed based upon their grade levels. First graders will know "X". Second graders will know "Y". The fact that some first graders may be capable of also learning "Y" or "Z" is irrelevant; they must go to school to learn "X".
You get the drift. SOL's create a one-size-fits-all, cookie cutter approach to education. All first graders will act a certain way. All second graders will act another way. Deviation from this approach is almost universally questioned. After all, the school must pass the SOL's or it will cease to exist.
May I suggest something different?
What if a school gave second graders a standardized test at the beginning of the year--a test written by experts from outside of the state. The test would cover material up through the fourth grade. For each child, the test would serve as a baseline, indicating exactly what that child knows as of the first day of school. Then, at the end of the year, the child is given the same test again.
The scores of both tests will be sent to a neutral, out-of-state grading company. The company will measure the grade level that the child was on at the beginning of the year and what level the child is now. If, for example, a child was on a first grade level at the beginning of the year, but now is on a third grade level, he would get 2 points (3-1=2).
Each grade-level would have the same type of testing. Fourth graders would get a test for sixth graders; eighth graders for tenth graders; twelfth graders for college sophomores in liberal arts. They would have the same test at the beginning of the year and at the end. And their changes in grade level will be measured the same way, as noted above.
After the marginal change in grade level is measured for each child in each grade-level, all of the scores for a given school will be averaged. Then they will be ranked statewide. The bottom ten-percent will be placed on probation.
Schools on probation will be examined on-site by business leaders from throughout the state, but not from business leaders in and around their community. Average people will go into these schools to investigate why these schools did not advance as quickly as the others. If there is a reason, such as poor parental involvement, the panel of leaders will make recommendations to the school board. The next year, if the school is on probation again, another panel of business leaders will review the implementation of the prior panel's recommendations. If it is determined that the school made no effort to implement those recommendations, it will close. However, if the panel finds that the school made a good faith effort to implement those recommendations, the school will remain on probation, and the new panel will issue more recommendations.
This approach creates accountability. Test scores are still important, but they are designed to measure aggregate improvement in individual performance. In other words, if more students than not are functioning at greater levels than the year before, the school is safe. But if individual students are not advancing, the school is in trouble. Thus, if a teacher knows that Bobby is already two grade levels ahead of his classmates, she will encourage him to study even more to pick up the slack for the rest of the class.
Furthermore, the tests will be written and graded by groups who are outside of the state. Neither the teacher, nor the principal, nor the politician will control what is on the test or how it is graded; the only control will be that each test will operate on a much higher grade level. As such, the fox will no longer guard the hen house.
This approach will create competition between the schools. Granted, there is already some measure of this with respect to SOL testing. However, since these tests are not based upon any set of SOL's, each school will have the freedom--and even the mandate-- to teach things over and above what they would otherwise show their students. For example, a second grade teacher would be free to expose her class to third grade concepts without fear of skipping any SOL. Likewise, a school board will actually develop curricula on their own to adjust to their situations, without unnecessary interference from the state.
Best of all, if a school is in trouble, business leaders will examine the school to see if there are other reasons for this lack of performance. If the leaders see that teachers are doing the best that they can given the lack of parental involvement--or whatever the reason is--they will make recommendations to fix the problem without necessarily calling for the school to close. In other words, the leaders will factor into the mix other concerns that could not be gleaned from a score report.
Right now our public schools operate like a communist nation. Students are viewed as giant groups instead of being treated like individuals. Each child works for the collective "SOL test score" farm. Their individual successes are not as important as the aggregate success of the entire school. Thus, they do not have the inspiration or the drive to learn on their own, much less succeed on their own. Even if they did have this spark to advance beyond their wildest dreams, the teachers are too busy teaching the SOL's to advance any other subjects.
By adopting my plan, our public schools will operate like a capitalist, free market society. Without undue governmental regulation, each school will adopt its own curricula, and each teacher will have the freedom to teach each child on his or her own level, without fear of upsetting the educational bureaucracy. With tests that are designed to see how each child has improved, the child will be challenged to show the world just how smart he really is. Moreover, really bright students will receive the attention they need to thrive in a learning environment.
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
What Is Wrong With Education
I've written so much about immigration that my Google ads have shifted from "Help Support Wesley Clark and Barbara Boxer" to "Immigrate to Canada." This is ipso facto evidence that I have beaten a dead horse into the ground. So now I shift topics to education.
THE BELL CURVE
In order to fully understand my theories on education, one must understand the concept of an intelligence quotient (or "I.Q.") According to the internet encyclopedia www.wikipedia.org, I.Q. is a quantifiable measure of one's cognitive abilities, or one's ability to process information. By design, it is normalized. If you were to measure the I.Q. of every person and distribute the scores, the distribution would, by definition, resemble a bell curve. Depending upon which I.Q. test is used, the shape of the curve may vary slightly between tests since the standard deviation may range from 15 to 24. (It's usually 15.) For all tests, the average (or mean) score is 100.
If the entire world were given a standard I.Q. test (with a standard deviation of 15 and an mean of 100), about 53% of the population would score between 90 and 110. Since this is a bell curve, there would be just as many folks with scores of 111 or greater as there would be persons with scores of 89 or less. (In both cases, approximately 23% of the population.) Likewise, there would be just as many people with I.Q.'s of 79 or less as there would be persons with I.Q.'s of 121 or more. (In both instances, approximately 8% of the population.) This is illustrated below.
THE BELL CURVE
In order to fully understand my theories on education, one must understand the concept of an intelligence quotient (or "I.Q.") According to the internet encyclopedia www.wikipedia.org, I.Q. is a quantifiable measure of one's cognitive abilities, or one's ability to process information. By design, it is normalized. If you were to measure the I.Q. of every person and distribute the scores, the distribution would, by definition, resemble a bell curve. Depending upon which I.Q. test is used, the shape of the curve may vary slightly between tests since the standard deviation may range from 15 to 24. (It's usually 15.) For all tests, the average (or mean) score is 100.
If the entire world were given a standard I.Q. test (with a standard deviation of 15 and an mean of 100), about 53% of the population would score between 90 and 110. Since this is a bell curve, there would be just as many folks with scores of 111 or greater as there would be persons with scores of 89 or less. (In both cases, approximately 23% of the population.) Likewise, there would be just as many people with I.Q.'s of 79 or less as there would be persons with I.Q.'s of 121 or more. (In both instances, approximately 8% of the population.) This is illustrated below.
As scores deviate further from the average (or the mean), the percentage of the affected population drops. As the chart depicts, there are more average people than either mentally-challenged people or geniuses.
Now, let's examine this chart by breaking it into percentiles:
As the above chart indicates, persons having I.Q.'s of 125 have cognition that is greater than or equal to 95% of the population. Likewise, persons having I.Q.'s of 90 have cognition that is greater than or equal to only 25% of the population. Finally, persons having I.Q.'s of 76 have cognition that is greater than or equal to only 5% of the population.
STANDARDS OF LEARNING
How does one measure the performance of a public school?
The generally accepted answer is measure the school's performance by comparing its test scores to those from other schools. In theory, if students at a particular school are failing their tests left, right and center, then such a school should lose its accreditation and close.
The problem with this theory is that the teachers who have a vested pecuniary interest in the accreditation of the school are themselves the ones grading the tests. It's the classic case of the fox guarding the hen house. If Bobby makes an "F" on his math quiz, what would stop his teacher from giving him an "A"? The more "A's" she hands out, the better chance she has of keeping her job. Besides, the less "F's" she distributes, the less she has to deal with irate parents. And if Bobby is a good football player, this makes the coach happy, too.
State departments of education have long recognized this inherent conflict of interest. This is why they have established "Standards of Learning" or "SOL's" which, in turn, are measured by standardized tests that are graded by the state departments and not the schools.
In Virginia, for example, students are tested each year as to whether they have mastered the SOL's. Students who do not pass their SOL tests will not advance to the next grade, and schools with unacceptable numbers of failures will eventually closed. (Not to single out the Old Dominion, just about every other state uses some type of standard.)
In theory, SOL's are good because they provide accountability and raise school standards. But do they really?
TYING IT ALL TOGETHER
Pretend for a moment that Governor X. Y. Z. from the great State of (I don't know... let's make up a name) "Missabama" advances a campaign for higher standards in education. He wants to get tough on under performing schools. So he signs an executive order--or otherwise convinces his legislature to enact a law--that will gear the SOL's to the cognitive abilities of the average child.
Assuming that the cognitive abilities of the all public school children in Missabama is a representative of the rest of the world (that is, the I.Q.'s of Missabama school children can be distributed on a bell curve), what percentage of Missabama students would likely fail their SOL tests?
Naturally, if the SOL's are geared to those students with average I.Q.'s, then those with below-average I.Q.'s would be in trouble. Further, since approximately 50% of all people have cognition that is below average, it follows that close to 50% of Missabama children would have below average I.Q's. Thus, one would expect that about half of Missabama school children would fail or otherwise struggle with their SOL tests.
Now imagine what would happen to the Governor's political fortunes if 50% of public school children failed their SOL's and therefore failed to advance to the next grade? Would the Governor have any hope of being reelected?
OK, let's say the Governor has an epiphany and realizes that he can't gear the SOL's to the average child. So he decides to gear them to the child with a 90 I.Q. --until he realizes that one-in-four school children would likely fail their SOL tests at the end of the year.
So he drops it again, gearing the SOL's to children with I.Q's of 81. Now only 10% are likely to fail. But does he want one-in-ten school children to fail to advance to the next grade while he is in office?
Finally, he drops the standards one more time... this time gearing them to children with I.Q.'s of 76. Now only 5% will have problems. Great! He can live with that.
CONCLUSION
The above hypothetical involving the Governor of the fictitious state of Missabama demonstrates that no one in government is competent to set standards for education.
If academic standards are raised, generally speaking, more students will fail. Conversely, if academic standards are lowered, more students will pass. It's almost axiomatic, really.
Well, if more students fail, more parents will be upset. If more parents are upset, they will demand different leadership at the state and local levels. Governors, legislators, superintendents of education--they all will feel the wrath of angry parents who feel that their children have been mistreated.
Like the teacher who has a vested pecuniary interest in giving Bobby an "A" when he should receive an "F," these politicians have a vested political interest in giving Bobby an "A" as well. After all, as test scores go up... so do the photo ops with smiling children.
Next time I will address solutions.
Monday, April 10, 2006
Immigration Part IV
I wish that I could address other topics, but how can one ignore the hundreds of thousands of people who are protesting for a more relaxed immigration policy.
A very brief recap. The Mexicans are poor. They need jobs desperately. A job paying $2.00 per hour would create an above-average lifestyle back home. So they flock across the borders in droves to search for willing accomplices--American employers who do not wish to pay $5.15 an hour. Selling their labor on the black market, they create a win-win situation for themselves and for their employers. The employer saves 40% to 70% on labor costs; the worker gets a 200% to 400% raise.
Up to now, I have addressed ways to reduce the flow of illigal human trafficking across our southern border by giving the Mexican more incentive to stay at home. In particular, I have augmented the basic premise for the implementation of NAFTA way back in 1993.
Back then, Presidents Bush (41) and Clinton both argued that a prosperous Mexico would purchase more U.S. goods and services. In turn, this would increase our prosperity as well. A rising tide lifts all boats. If the mobile home next to your stately manor is replaced by a mansion, your abode will see an automatic increase in its value. As our neighbor's prosperity increases, so will our prosperity.
The corollary to this principle vis-a-vis immigration is that a man living in a nice home will not leave his manor to scourge through his neighbors dwelling. If Mexico had more jobs, less corruption, and greater productivity, it would enjoy greater prosperity. With less poverty, there would be less incentive for Mexicans to cross our borders. Indeed, when was the last time you heard about illegal aliens from Canada?
Up to now, I have addressed positive incentives to reduce illegal aliens' demand for U.S. jobs. Now, I will address positive incentives to reduce the supply of jobs for illegal aliens.
Why would any U.S. employer even consider hiring an illegal alien?
I'm sure there is a "Christian" dynamic. Here I am-- a rich man with need for labor--watching a grown man beg for work at my feet. Should I turn him away? What would Jesus do? (I submit that Jesus would house him, clothe him, feed him, and then turn him over to the BICE. After all, we are supposed to "render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar...")
I seriously doubt that 12 million illegal immigrants have been given jobs simply because of Christian charity. No. There is an economic dynamic here.
Imagine, if you will, what would happen if Congress were to abolish the minimum wage?
By placing artificial floors on the price of labor--floors that were above the fair market value, Congress created greater incentive for the poor to find work. Discouraged workers who had abandoned all hope of working now had reason to pound the pavement. In and of itself, that's great! (People should never lose hope.) However there was an unintended consequence. As the cost of labor increased, so did the supply of workers. Moreover, as businesses saw a marked increase in labor costs, some employers reduced their hiring demands. Thus, a surplus of labor formed.
Today, our minimum wage attracts labor from parts of the world where $5.15 per hour is living "high on the hog." Like a magnet, it pulls illegal aliens across our borders. The added addition of illegals to our labor market depresses the fair market value for entry-level wages. Concomitantly, this drop in fair market value increases opportunity costs for the employer. But for the minimum wage, the employer recognizes that he could save $2.00, $3.00, maybe $4.00 per hour for each illegal alien he hires.
The employer figures that with twenty employees, he could save up to $166,400 per year by hiring illegal aliens. Before long he realizes that if his competition does the same thing, his competition would be able to lower his own prices. If that happens, he knows that he won't be able to compete. So, the employer hires illegal workers under the table.
Or maybe the employer is a decent guy who doesn't want to break the law. So he hires Americans at $5.15 per hour. But as he feared, he soon could not compete. So he shuts down his factory altogether. Either way, the American worker now has less opportunities--even though he is now entitled to a minimum wage.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating the abolition of the minimum wage. However, I want to illustrate the trade-offs that we must be willing to expect if we intend to set artificial, minimum prices for labor.
Assuming a paradigm where we are unwilling to deploy resources to secure our borders, where we are unwilling to invest capital into Mexico for the express purpose of creating prosperity south of the Rio Grande, where we are reluctant to allow guest workers across our borders, where we are unwilling to criminalize the hiring of illegal aliens---assuming that the present situation does not change, we have two options...
(1) We either can perpetuate a price floor that is ten times the average Mexican wage and still have illegal immigration from our neighbor to the south, OR (2) we can abolish or otherwise reduce our minimum wage and experience reductions in illicit border crossings.
A very brief recap. The Mexicans are poor. They need jobs desperately. A job paying $2.00 per hour would create an above-average lifestyle back home. So they flock across the borders in droves to search for willing accomplices--American employers who do not wish to pay $5.15 an hour. Selling their labor on the black market, they create a win-win situation for themselves and for their employers. The employer saves 40% to 70% on labor costs; the worker gets a 200% to 400% raise.
Up to now, I have addressed ways to reduce the flow of illigal human trafficking across our southern border by giving the Mexican more incentive to stay at home. In particular, I have augmented the basic premise for the implementation of NAFTA way back in 1993.
Back then, Presidents Bush (41) and Clinton both argued that a prosperous Mexico would purchase more U.S. goods and services. In turn, this would increase our prosperity as well. A rising tide lifts all boats. If the mobile home next to your stately manor is replaced by a mansion, your abode will see an automatic increase in its value. As our neighbor's prosperity increases, so will our prosperity.
The corollary to this principle vis-a-vis immigration is that a man living in a nice home will not leave his manor to scourge through his neighbors dwelling. If Mexico had more jobs, less corruption, and greater productivity, it would enjoy greater prosperity. With less poverty, there would be less incentive for Mexicans to cross our borders. Indeed, when was the last time you heard about illegal aliens from Canada?
Up to now, I have addressed positive incentives to reduce illegal aliens' demand for U.S. jobs. Now, I will address positive incentives to reduce the supply of jobs for illegal aliens.
Why would any U.S. employer even consider hiring an illegal alien?
I'm sure there is a "Christian" dynamic. Here I am-- a rich man with need for labor--watching a grown man beg for work at my feet. Should I turn him away? What would Jesus do? (I submit that Jesus would house him, clothe him, feed him, and then turn him over to the BICE. After all, we are supposed to "render unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar...")
I seriously doubt that 12 million illegal immigrants have been given jobs simply because of Christian charity. No. There is an economic dynamic here.
Imagine, if you will, what would happen if Congress were to abolish the minimum wage?
By placing artificial floors on the price of labor--floors that were above the fair market value, Congress created greater incentive for the poor to find work. Discouraged workers who had abandoned all hope of working now had reason to pound the pavement. In and of itself, that's great! (People should never lose hope.) However there was an unintended consequence. As the cost of labor increased, so did the supply of workers. Moreover, as businesses saw a marked increase in labor costs, some employers reduced their hiring demands. Thus, a surplus of labor formed.
Today, our minimum wage attracts labor from parts of the world where $5.15 per hour is living "high on the hog." Like a magnet, it pulls illegal aliens across our borders. The added addition of illegals to our labor market depresses the fair market value for entry-level wages. Concomitantly, this drop in fair market value increases opportunity costs for the employer. But for the minimum wage, the employer recognizes that he could save $2.00, $3.00, maybe $4.00 per hour for each illegal alien he hires.
The employer figures that with twenty employees, he could save up to $166,400 per year by hiring illegal aliens. Before long he realizes that if his competition does the same thing, his competition would be able to lower his own prices. If that happens, he knows that he won't be able to compete. So, the employer hires illegal workers under the table.
Or maybe the employer is a decent guy who doesn't want to break the law. So he hires Americans at $5.15 per hour. But as he feared, he soon could not compete. So he shuts down his factory altogether. Either way, the American worker now has less opportunities--even though he is now entitled to a minimum wage.
Please do not misunderstand me. I am not advocating the abolition of the minimum wage. However, I want to illustrate the trade-offs that we must be willing to expect if we intend to set artificial, minimum prices for labor.
Assuming a paradigm where we are unwilling to deploy resources to secure our borders, where we are unwilling to invest capital into Mexico for the express purpose of creating prosperity south of the Rio Grande, where we are reluctant to allow guest workers across our borders, where we are unwilling to criminalize the hiring of illegal aliens---assuming that the present situation does not change, we have two options...
(1) We either can perpetuate a price floor that is ten times the average Mexican wage and still have illegal immigration from our neighbor to the south, OR (2) we can abolish or otherwise reduce our minimum wage and experience reductions in illicit border crossings.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Immigration Part III
As I have discussed in my previous two postings, Mexican workers have strong incentive to leave their country, but there are barriers to legal immigration into the U. S. With an average wage of 51 cents per hour and with 40% of its population living below the poverty line, there are little, if any, economic opportunies in Mexico.
Conversely, with a minimum wage of $5.15 per hour, with free public education, and with government-subsidized health care, the U. S. has plenty of economic opportunities for the Mexican poor.
The problem is that the typical Mexican must wait seven to fourteen years to enter the U. S., assuming that such a one has family and/or a job awaiting in the States. Thus, with strong pressure to leave, and with impenitrable barriers to legal entry, the Mexican poor have only one real alternative--illegal immigration.
In my most recent posting, I have stressed the importance of job creation in Mexico. If poverty in Mexico decreases, then Mexican workers will experience less pressure to enter the U. S. Of course, political realities would prevent a politician from advancing such a position.
Would any candidate for President dare proclaim a "Jobs For Mexico" platform when GM workers are being laid off from their $73.73 per hour jobs? (This figure includes benefits. See http://www.freemarketproject.com/news/2005/news20051123.asp) In a climate where talk of "exporting jobs" is anathema, could any candidate survive the criticism that would follow an announcment to seal the borders with a wall of factories? No way!
Well if one cannot reduce Mexican demand to enter the U.S. on their side of the border, then what could the government do to reduce Mexican demand from this side of the border? For years, there has been talk of ending services for illegals. No more free education. No more healthcare.
In theory, I suppose this would work. But then again, how could one determine whether a person is a Mexican citizen or a Mexican-American (to borrow from the PC crowd)? Check their drivers' licenses? (In states where illegals are actually given drivers' licenses, this would be a problem. Further, there are some people who don't drive.) What about birth certificates? (Do you carry your birth certificate everywhere you go?) What about "green cards"? (If you are a natural born citizen, you won't have one. But even if you had one, could there ever be a time where a person is treated in an emergency situation where their wallets/purses were lost or destroyed, such as in car accidents?)
In some situations, we are not going to be able to differentiate between the bona fide U.S. citizen/LPR and the illegal. And the first time a hospital denies benefits to a citizen/LPR because of their race, you will see a Section 1983 civil rights suit for millions of dollars, plus attorney's fees. Hospitals are not going to risk this, so they will err on the side of caution, giving aid and comfort to legals and illegals alike.
Well, if we cannot create benefits in Mexico, or reduce benefits in the U. S., then what else is there? The only thing left is to create a more fluid border between the two countries--either by reducing the wait times for Mexicans to get their LPR status, or by creating some sort of temporary worker program.
Since the former alternative would require more funding to the BICE (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service) to hire more employees to process these particular applications, assuming of course that wait times for other countries remain the same and existing employees are not redirected to process Mexican applications, this alternative would cost the taxpayers.
Besides, as incentive to immigrate permanently to the U. S. increases, so will the demand. People who otherwise would be resigned to stay in Mexico would now be inclined to apply for LPR status. I don't believe the BICE would have enough manpower to ever process Mexican applications and keep them current.
And even if they could, would we want 40% of Mexico's citizens joining the ranks of permanent residents of the U.S.? Rather, would we want 40% of any country's citizens moving to our country? We wouldn't be able to absorb all of these people, even if we wanted to.
The only alternative short of provoking riots and/or a Second Mexican War (see my last post) would be the creation of a temporary worker program. Now how would we go about it? In particular, how would we handle the illegals who are already here.
While I do support a guest worker program, which would give Mexican workers the opportunity to find work here, while ensuring their return to Mexico, I do not support any proposal that would give amnesty to those illegals who are already here. Neglecting any retroactive application of this program that would accomodate those who have crossed our borders hitherto, a guest worker program would give Mexicans the opportunity to better their lives without undue strain on our economy. They would come here, provide a service, and leave.
Regardless of which approach we take, if we do not make attempts to reduce the financial incentives for people to immigrate illegally, it will continue. The most efficient way would be to create jobs in Mexico. But if we are not willing to support such a measure, then we should create temporary jobs in the U.S. for these persons. Otherwise, they will continue to overrun our borders and tax our resourses.
Conversely, with a minimum wage of $5.15 per hour, with free public education, and with government-subsidized health care, the U. S. has plenty of economic opportunities for the Mexican poor.
The problem is that the typical Mexican must wait seven to fourteen years to enter the U. S., assuming that such a one has family and/or a job awaiting in the States. Thus, with strong pressure to leave, and with impenitrable barriers to legal entry, the Mexican poor have only one real alternative--illegal immigration.
In my most recent posting, I have stressed the importance of job creation in Mexico. If poverty in Mexico decreases, then Mexican workers will experience less pressure to enter the U. S. Of course, political realities would prevent a politician from advancing such a position.
Would any candidate for President dare proclaim a "Jobs For Mexico" platform when GM workers are being laid off from their $73.73 per hour jobs? (This figure includes benefits. See http://www.freemarketproject.com/news/2005/news20051123.asp) In a climate where talk of "exporting jobs" is anathema, could any candidate survive the criticism that would follow an announcment to seal the borders with a wall of factories? No way!
Well if one cannot reduce Mexican demand to enter the U.S. on their side of the border, then what could the government do to reduce Mexican demand from this side of the border? For years, there has been talk of ending services for illegals. No more free education. No more healthcare.
In theory, I suppose this would work. But then again, how could one determine whether a person is a Mexican citizen or a Mexican-American (to borrow from the PC crowd)? Check their drivers' licenses? (In states where illegals are actually given drivers' licenses, this would be a problem. Further, there are some people who don't drive.) What about birth certificates? (Do you carry your birth certificate everywhere you go?) What about "green cards"? (If you are a natural born citizen, you won't have one. But even if you had one, could there ever be a time where a person is treated in an emergency situation where their wallets/purses were lost or destroyed, such as in car accidents?)
In some situations, we are not going to be able to differentiate between the bona fide U.S. citizen/LPR and the illegal. And the first time a hospital denies benefits to a citizen/LPR because of their race, you will see a Section 1983 civil rights suit for millions of dollars, plus attorney's fees. Hospitals are not going to risk this, so they will err on the side of caution, giving aid and comfort to legals and illegals alike.
Well, if we cannot create benefits in Mexico, or reduce benefits in the U. S., then what else is there? The only thing left is to create a more fluid border between the two countries--either by reducing the wait times for Mexicans to get their LPR status, or by creating some sort of temporary worker program.
Since the former alternative would require more funding to the BICE (Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, formerly known as the Immigration and Naturalization Service) to hire more employees to process these particular applications, assuming of course that wait times for other countries remain the same and existing employees are not redirected to process Mexican applications, this alternative would cost the taxpayers.
Besides, as incentive to immigrate permanently to the U. S. increases, so will the demand. People who otherwise would be resigned to stay in Mexico would now be inclined to apply for LPR status. I don't believe the BICE would have enough manpower to ever process Mexican applications and keep them current.
And even if they could, would we want 40% of Mexico's citizens joining the ranks of permanent residents of the U.S.? Rather, would we want 40% of any country's citizens moving to our country? We wouldn't be able to absorb all of these people, even if we wanted to.
The only alternative short of provoking riots and/or a Second Mexican War (see my last post) would be the creation of a temporary worker program. Now how would we go about it? In particular, how would we handle the illegals who are already here.
While I do support a guest worker program, which would give Mexican workers the opportunity to find work here, while ensuring their return to Mexico, I do not support any proposal that would give amnesty to those illegals who are already here. Neglecting any retroactive application of this program that would accomodate those who have crossed our borders hitherto, a guest worker program would give Mexicans the opportunity to better their lives without undue strain on our economy. They would come here, provide a service, and leave.
Regardless of which approach we take, if we do not make attempts to reduce the financial incentives for people to immigrate illegally, it will continue. The most efficient way would be to create jobs in Mexico. But if we are not willing to support such a measure, then we should create temporary jobs in the U.S. for these persons. Otherwise, they will continue to overrun our borders and tax our resourses.
Friday, April 07, 2006
Immigration Part II
As I demonstrated in the previous posting, the average Mexican working south of the border can expect to make only $4.00 a day. (Actually $4.08, but who's counting?) Working eight hours per day, this translates into an wage of 51 cents per hour.
Given the picayune size of this wage, it would appear that Mexico has serious poverty. Indeed it does. According to the CIA World Factbook, 40% of Mexicans lived below the poverty line in 2003. (Only 12% of Americans shared the same plight.) Mexico's gross domestic product is one-tenth that of the United States GDP, and about 1/4 of its population is underemployed. (See http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html#Econ.)
In short and simple terms, the United States is rich while Mexico is poor. ("Gee, Matt, thanks for the tip.") In light of this stunning revelation, what would you do to fix this poverty if, let's say, you were running the Mexican government?
You might create a minimum wage--or if there is one, raise it. But really, what good would that do? Assuming for a moment that corruption wouldn't be a factor--that bureaucrats enforcing the minimum wage law wouldn't turn blind eyes in exchange for a few pesos--Mexican employers would see this as a barrier to their already hampered trade.
If Mexico were to set its minimum wage to what it is in the U.S., the majority of Mexican employers would see a 900% increase in labor costs (i.e., a jump from $0.51 to $5.15 per hour). To compensate for this increase, these employers would either have to (1) raise the price of their products, (2) cut their profits, or (3) go out of business. Ideally, they would cut their profits, but human nature doesn't work that way, and we all know this. This leaves price increases or business closures--neither of which are good for the poor. Presently, the Mexican economy could not support a minimum wage anywhere near ours. Until they experience a tenfold increase in their GDP, Mexican workers should not expect a tenfold increase in their average national wage. (Hey, the money has to come from somewhere.)
OK, then, Mexico can't grow its way out of this mess anytime soon. Now what?
When I was a child in Mississippi, our public schools were required by law to give achievement tests each year. Legend has it that one school district (which shall remain nameless) would conveniently allow special education students to stay at home on the day of testing. The principal reasoned that if they didn't take the test, the average score for the school would be higher.
By this same logic, if Mexico were to direct the poorest of its people to the United States, its average wage would increase and poverty would drop. In fact, this is what the Mexican government is doing. Reportedly, the Mexico City has distributed pamphlets that explain how to cross into the United States. If these reports are true, the approach of the Mexican government is clear. They intend to export poverty to the United States.
To solve this problem, the U. S. could increase security--making our southern border tighter than Michael Jackson's face--but would that by itself solve the problem? Oh yes, it would be a good start, but would it be enough? Or could that approach cause greater problems?
If the southern border were hermetically sealed, poverty in Mexico would increase in the short term. Not only would there be greater demand for scarce Mexican resources, the flow of American greenbacks into Mexico would steadily decrease as there would be less Mexican workers sending dollars back home. With a sealed border, transfers of wealth from the U.S. and reciprocal transfers of poverty from Mexico would decrease. With all things being equal, Mexico would get poorer while the United States gets richer.
As the disparity between rich and poor increases, so will the desperation. Before long, a band of impoverished Mexican rebels will reason that they have nothing to lose. After anointing some Pancho Villa wannabe, they will wage a daring attack on our sealed border. In response, the American military will blow them away. An international incident will follow as Mexico City will demand some sort of reparations. The U.S. will ignore these demands--until, that is, Hispanic Americans protest by the millions in New York and Los Angeles and Miami. Then, Washington will make some favorable overture to the Mexican government. When word leaks to the countryside that the Gringos have lost face, Pancho Villa's next successor will stage another attack, and the cycle will continue--until finally Washington is perturbed enough to declare a Second Mexican War.
My little hypothetical may be a bit of a stretch, I know. But it does illustrate that a mechanical solution---while necessary in the short term---is not a long term solution. When enacting a zero-tolerance approach to illegal immigration, we must also create positive incentives for Mexicans to stay in their home country (unless, of course, they immigrate legally).
It is a paradox. If we wish to save jobs in America and secure our borders at the least expense, Mexican workers must find better opportunities at home than they would otherwise find in the United States. In the short term, this may yield job losses in the United States, as factories are built in Mexico. But at the end of the day, a wall of factories lining the Mexican border may be less porous than a wall of bricks and mortar.
Given the picayune size of this wage, it would appear that Mexico has serious poverty. Indeed it does. According to the CIA World Factbook, 40% of Mexicans lived below the poverty line in 2003. (Only 12% of Americans shared the same plight.) Mexico's gross domestic product is one-tenth that of the United States GDP, and about 1/4 of its population is underemployed. (See http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/mx.html#Econ.)
In short and simple terms, the United States is rich while Mexico is poor. ("Gee, Matt, thanks for the tip.") In light of this stunning revelation, what would you do to fix this poverty if, let's say, you were running the Mexican government?
You might create a minimum wage--or if there is one, raise it. But really, what good would that do? Assuming for a moment that corruption wouldn't be a factor--that bureaucrats enforcing the minimum wage law wouldn't turn blind eyes in exchange for a few pesos--Mexican employers would see this as a barrier to their already hampered trade.
If Mexico were to set its minimum wage to what it is in the U.S., the majority of Mexican employers would see a 900% increase in labor costs (i.e., a jump from $0.51 to $5.15 per hour). To compensate for this increase, these employers would either have to (1) raise the price of their products, (2) cut their profits, or (3) go out of business. Ideally, they would cut their profits, but human nature doesn't work that way, and we all know this. This leaves price increases or business closures--neither of which are good for the poor. Presently, the Mexican economy could not support a minimum wage anywhere near ours. Until they experience a tenfold increase in their GDP, Mexican workers should not expect a tenfold increase in their average national wage. (Hey, the money has to come from somewhere.)
OK, then, Mexico can't grow its way out of this mess anytime soon. Now what?
When I was a child in Mississippi, our public schools were required by law to give achievement tests each year. Legend has it that one school district (which shall remain nameless) would conveniently allow special education students to stay at home on the day of testing. The principal reasoned that if they didn't take the test, the average score for the school would be higher.
By this same logic, if Mexico were to direct the poorest of its people to the United States, its average wage would increase and poverty would drop. In fact, this is what the Mexican government is doing. Reportedly, the Mexico City has distributed pamphlets that explain how to cross into the United States. If these reports are true, the approach of the Mexican government is clear. They intend to export poverty to the United States.
To solve this problem, the U. S. could increase security--making our southern border tighter than Michael Jackson's face--but would that by itself solve the problem? Oh yes, it would be a good start, but would it be enough? Or could that approach cause greater problems?
If the southern border were hermetically sealed, poverty in Mexico would increase in the short term. Not only would there be greater demand for scarce Mexican resources, the flow of American greenbacks into Mexico would steadily decrease as there would be less Mexican workers sending dollars back home. With a sealed border, transfers of wealth from the U.S. and reciprocal transfers of poverty from Mexico would decrease. With all things being equal, Mexico would get poorer while the United States gets richer.
As the disparity between rich and poor increases, so will the desperation. Before long, a band of impoverished Mexican rebels will reason that they have nothing to lose. After anointing some Pancho Villa wannabe, they will wage a daring attack on our sealed border. In response, the American military will blow them away. An international incident will follow as Mexico City will demand some sort of reparations. The U.S. will ignore these demands--until, that is, Hispanic Americans protest by the millions in New York and Los Angeles and Miami. Then, Washington will make some favorable overture to the Mexican government. When word leaks to the countryside that the Gringos have lost face, Pancho Villa's next successor will stage another attack, and the cycle will continue--until finally Washington is perturbed enough to declare a Second Mexican War.
My little hypothetical may be a bit of a stretch, I know. But it does illustrate that a mechanical solution---while necessary in the short term---is not a long term solution. When enacting a zero-tolerance approach to illegal immigration, we must also create positive incentives for Mexicans to stay in their home country (unless, of course, they immigrate legally).
It is a paradox. If we wish to save jobs in America and secure our borders at the least expense, Mexican workers must find better opportunities at home than they would otherwise find in the United States. In the short term, this may yield job losses in the United States, as factories are built in Mexico. But at the end of the day, a wall of factories lining the Mexican border may be less porous than a wall of bricks and mortar.
Thursday, April 06, 2006
Immigration
Last semester I took a course in immigration and naturalization. Although I am by no means competent to advise a person in matters of this sort since I am not yet an attorney, I did learn a lot about how our immigration system works. With all the talk about guest workers from Mexico, perhaps you may find this information helpful.
Basically, an alien who wishes to become a legal permanent resident ("LPR") of the United States must fit into one of three basic categories. He must receive either a family visa, an employment visa, or a diversity visa.
To qualify for a family visa, the alien must have at least one qualifying family member who is a United States citzen or LPR. Not counting immediate relatives, there are five different types of qualifying family members. I won't go into the differences between the particular categories except to note that an alien's wait time is a function of what category he is placed. While there is no wait for immediate relatives (i.e. spouses and minor children) of citizens or LPR's to obtain their "green card," all other types of relatives must wait in line before they can move to the United States.
To obtain an employment visa, the alien must have a job offer from a US employer. This would seem simple enough except that the alien must also have a labor certification from the state employment board for the jurisdiction where he intends to work. If the employment board believes that there is not a shortage of American workers in that field, the alien is out of luck. But if the employment board agrees that the alien would fill a desperately needed position, then the alien must wait to enter the United States, the wait time being a function of what category he is placed.
To obtain a diversity visa, the alien must be from a country that has been underrepresented in previous distributions of "green cards." If he is from such a country, the State Department holds a drawing. If his number is picked, he can move to the United States. Otherwise, he has to get an employment or family visa.
Notice that I have left out of the equation asylum seekers and refugees. Although they, too, are given a pass to enter the United States, they are not technically classified as LPR's because their statuses may change if the circumstances back home change. (At least that is how I remember it from class.)
I mentioned wait times. According to the April 2006 Visa Bulletin, an alien from Mexico must wait anywhere from seven to fourteen years to get a family visa. An alien from the Phillipines must wait anywhere from four to -- get this -- twenty-three years to obtain a family visa. Wait times are substantially better for employment visas. Most categories have no wait time at all. But for those that do, the alien may have to wait as long as five years.
Now, let's pretend that you are an uneducated migrant worker from Mexico who is living in dire poverty. There are no jobs for you in Northern Mexico. You must provide for your family. So what do you do?
The average wage in Mexico is 45.24 Pesos per day, which currently equals only four U.S. dollars. (Source: http://www.mexperience.com). You hear that just north of the Rio Grande, American employers are obligated by law to pay their workers more than $5.15 an hour (or ten times the average wage in Mexico.) On top of this outlandish wage, you will get free health care and education, paid for by the American taxpayer.
Being the legal eagle that you are, you go to the American Consulate and ask to get a visa. Sorry, you don't have a relative in the U.S. (Even if you did, it would mean a seven year wait.) And while there might be some employers willing to hire you, getting a labor certification would be quite a hassle. And don't even think about getting a diversity visa--Mexico is out of that loop altogether.
So you look at your impoverished family, and you look at the border where--just across the river--prosperity awaits. You count your costs; you weigh your options. Then you make a run for the border. (Apologies to Taco Bell.)
After getting past the border patrol and Minutemen, after surviving a swim across the river, or as the case may be, a long hike through the desert, you finally make it to a small manufacturing facility where the owner offers you a job. Since he knows you are desperate, he offers you something slightly below minimum wage. Since he knows that you won't report him, and since he knows that $2.00 an hour is much better than the $4.00 a day you were getting back home, he has a lot of leverage over you. So you take the job.
After a few weeks, you find that the working conditions are not that great. Safety issues are prevailent. Your living conditions aren't much better. You have to share an "apartment" with twenty of your closest friends.
When it is all said and done, you have become a slave. If you go home, you will starve. If you stay, the owner will put you through hell.
They say that 11 million illegal immigrants are in the United States. Assuming that to be the case, what if all 11 million illegals were given a free pass--amnesty if you will. On the one hand, that would certainly allieviate some of the pressures that these people are facing. Without the fear of reprisal, these poor Mexicans could report safety and labor concerns to the government.
But on the other hand, would it be fair to the legal immigrants who have waited for their green cards--some as long as twenty years? The Filipino woman who has spent decades praying for God to let her into the States, waiting for her priority date to finally appear on the Visa Bulletin--is it fair for her to allow an illegal alien from Mexico to stay in the U.S. even though he evaded the law for years? Of course not!
If we are to grant amnesty to the Mexican workers who skipped into America wrongfully, then we must open the borders for every person from any country to enter the United States. That would be the only fair thing to do. Of course, if we did that, our population would balloon overnight, and our financial, political, and social resources would be overextended.
Completely opening our borders would destroy our way of life. And amnesty for one group would--in fairness--necessiate amnesty for all groups, which would, for all practical purposes, yeild to a completely open border. Thus, amnesty can never work.
Tommorow, Lord willing, I will address solutions. But for now, its nighty night.
Basically, an alien who wishes to become a legal permanent resident ("LPR") of the United States must fit into one of three basic categories. He must receive either a family visa, an employment visa, or a diversity visa.
To qualify for a family visa, the alien must have at least one qualifying family member who is a United States citzen or LPR. Not counting immediate relatives, there are five different types of qualifying family members. I won't go into the differences between the particular categories except to note that an alien's wait time is a function of what category he is placed. While there is no wait for immediate relatives (i.e. spouses and minor children) of citizens or LPR's to obtain their "green card," all other types of relatives must wait in line before they can move to the United States.
To obtain an employment visa, the alien must have a job offer from a US employer. This would seem simple enough except that the alien must also have a labor certification from the state employment board for the jurisdiction where he intends to work. If the employment board believes that there is not a shortage of American workers in that field, the alien is out of luck. But if the employment board agrees that the alien would fill a desperately needed position, then the alien must wait to enter the United States, the wait time being a function of what category he is placed.
To obtain a diversity visa, the alien must be from a country that has been underrepresented in previous distributions of "green cards." If he is from such a country, the State Department holds a drawing. If his number is picked, he can move to the United States. Otherwise, he has to get an employment or family visa.
Notice that I have left out of the equation asylum seekers and refugees. Although they, too, are given a pass to enter the United States, they are not technically classified as LPR's because their statuses may change if the circumstances back home change. (At least that is how I remember it from class.)
I mentioned wait times. According to the April 2006 Visa Bulletin, an alien from Mexico must wait anywhere from seven to fourteen years to get a family visa. An alien from the Phillipines must wait anywhere from four to -- get this -- twenty-three years to obtain a family visa. Wait times are substantially better for employment visas. Most categories have no wait time at all. But for those that do, the alien may have to wait as long as five years.
Now, let's pretend that you are an uneducated migrant worker from Mexico who is living in dire poverty. There are no jobs for you in Northern Mexico. You must provide for your family. So what do you do?
The average wage in Mexico is 45.24 Pesos per day, which currently equals only four U.S. dollars. (Source: http://www.mexperience.com). You hear that just north of the Rio Grande, American employers are obligated by law to pay their workers more than $5.15 an hour (or ten times the average wage in Mexico.) On top of this outlandish wage, you will get free health care and education, paid for by the American taxpayer.
Being the legal eagle that you are, you go to the American Consulate and ask to get a visa. Sorry, you don't have a relative in the U.S. (Even if you did, it would mean a seven year wait.) And while there might be some employers willing to hire you, getting a labor certification would be quite a hassle. And don't even think about getting a diversity visa--Mexico is out of that loop altogether.
So you look at your impoverished family, and you look at the border where--just across the river--prosperity awaits. You count your costs; you weigh your options. Then you make a run for the border. (Apologies to Taco Bell.)
After getting past the border patrol and Minutemen, after surviving a swim across the river, or as the case may be, a long hike through the desert, you finally make it to a small manufacturing facility where the owner offers you a job. Since he knows you are desperate, he offers you something slightly below minimum wage. Since he knows that you won't report him, and since he knows that $2.00 an hour is much better than the $4.00 a day you were getting back home, he has a lot of leverage over you. So you take the job.
After a few weeks, you find that the working conditions are not that great. Safety issues are prevailent. Your living conditions aren't much better. You have to share an "apartment" with twenty of your closest friends.
When it is all said and done, you have become a slave. If you go home, you will starve. If you stay, the owner will put you through hell.
They say that 11 million illegal immigrants are in the United States. Assuming that to be the case, what if all 11 million illegals were given a free pass--amnesty if you will. On the one hand, that would certainly allieviate some of the pressures that these people are facing. Without the fear of reprisal, these poor Mexicans could report safety and labor concerns to the government.
But on the other hand, would it be fair to the legal immigrants who have waited for their green cards--some as long as twenty years? The Filipino woman who has spent decades praying for God to let her into the States, waiting for her priority date to finally appear on the Visa Bulletin--is it fair for her to allow an illegal alien from Mexico to stay in the U.S. even though he evaded the law for years? Of course not!
If we are to grant amnesty to the Mexican workers who skipped into America wrongfully, then we must open the borders for every person from any country to enter the United States. That would be the only fair thing to do. Of course, if we did that, our population would balloon overnight, and our financial, political, and social resources would be overextended.
Completely opening our borders would destroy our way of life. And amnesty for one group would--in fairness--necessiate amnesty for all groups, which would, for all practical purposes, yeild to a completely open border. Thus, amnesty can never work.
Tommorow, Lord willing, I will address solutions. But for now, its nighty night.
Confessions From a Guy With Nothing to Say
When I was in college, I had an opinion on just about everything. I once had an editorial in my campus newspaper. I was so controversial that, from time to time, I got hate mail. On one occasion, grafitti artists colored the sidewalks in chalk to protest one of my columns. My girlfriend--now my wife--feared for my safety. An acquaintance told me that my column was the only reason anybody picked up the paper.
That was ten years ago. Since then, I suppose that I have mellowed. Well, I am still as conservative now as I was then. With age, I suppose wisdom has finally caught up with me. (At least I hope it has!) As I have gotten older, I have learned how to dialogue (and not to demogouge.) While I am still an idealogue, I am no longer a partisan. (If you believe what I do, I don't care about your label.) Yes, I remain passionate about my political views, but now I am for the right reasons.
To me, politics shouldn't be a game. It shouldn't be a competition where two equally insecure men (or women) want to enhance their self-worth by destroying someone else. It ought to be different from an election for student body president where one fraternity sets out to crush the other.
Instead, politics should be the expression of everything that is good about our representative republic. Through vigorous, yet respectful, debate, the liberal should proclaim his support for abortion-rights while the conservative should proclaim his support for the right-to-life. Then, after the best case is made, the people should direct the ship of state with their ballots by selecting their leaders pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Constitution.
Although I am not a candidate for public office, nor will I become one in the near future, perhaps I do have something to say after all. My blog will expound upon what I would do if I were an elected public official. Yeah, that's what I'll do!
I wonder if I will get hate mail.
That was ten years ago. Since then, I suppose that I have mellowed. Well, I am still as conservative now as I was then. With age, I suppose wisdom has finally caught up with me. (At least I hope it has!) As I have gotten older, I have learned how to dialogue (and not to demogouge.) While I am still an idealogue, I am no longer a partisan. (If you believe what I do, I don't care about your label.) Yes, I remain passionate about my political views, but now I am for the right reasons.
To me, politics shouldn't be a game. It shouldn't be a competition where two equally insecure men (or women) want to enhance their self-worth by destroying someone else. It ought to be different from an election for student body president where one fraternity sets out to crush the other.
Instead, politics should be the expression of everything that is good about our representative republic. Through vigorous, yet respectful, debate, the liberal should proclaim his support for abortion-rights while the conservative should proclaim his support for the right-to-life. Then, after the best case is made, the people should direct the ship of state with their ballots by selecting their leaders pursuant to the procedures set forth in the Constitution.
Although I am not a candidate for public office, nor will I become one in the near future, perhaps I do have something to say after all. My blog will expound upon what I would do if I were an elected public official. Yeah, that's what I'll do!
I wonder if I will get hate mail.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
