I'm a huge fan of Free Speech. I believe it should be as robust and inclusive as possible. It should protect a foreign corporation advocating the violent genocide of a racial AND religious minority and the overthrow of the internet!
Folks who want to nibble out little exceptions to free speech, in cases where folks say ugly things or talk about violence, get no sympathy from me. But, if you wanted to propose that cowardly politicians who won't stand for eloquently articulated principles for fear they will lose a few percentage points of popularity or some far-off election can't ever invoke the names of men who literally put their lives on the line taking unpopular positions for no other reason than they were convinced it was the right thing to do... Well, I'd give you ten minutes.
Tuesday, August 16, 2011
Friday, August 5, 2011
"Matt Damon Will Make His Next 3 Flicks for Typical Teacher's Salary" Reports No One Cuz it's Not True
This video has been making the rounds on facebook and the interwebs (and I'm told TMZ) mainly on the buzz supplied by teachers and pro-teacher-minded individuals thinking that Matt Damon makes some amazing point here. I find this notion totally off-base.
First, let me say that I think what Damon says, as a factual matter, is likely pretty true: many people become teachers because they have a passion or overwhelming desire to do so. And, within reason, "shitty salaries" will not cause them to choose a different career path. Fine, great. But even accepting this as true, it is quite a leap to say that financial issues create no incentives whatsoever, and/or that those who are driven to teach no matter what the salary are thusly and by definition good teachers.
I happen to believe that teachers should be paid a lot more than they are currently. The main reason I believe this is that higher pay will attract more people to the teaching profession, and that will in turn raise the quality of teachers we're putting in front of our children. I feel as though the world is full of anecdotal evidence of people who might like to teach or have taught but are also skilled at and passionate about science, or writing, or business and they end up pursuing careers in those fields instead. Higher salaries would entice some of those folks to become teachers, or stay in the teaching profession. And yes, I believe that nearly everyone considers salary as a meaningful factor when picking a career path, whether or not it is the most important one.
So, if I believe all of those things, I don't really see how I can agree with Matt Damon at all. I'm almost waiting for some talking head idiot to appear on Fox News and cite this video as reasons why we should be paying teachers less as a way to save government money. Because Matt Damon says they will work for any amount of money!
None of this is to say that Matt Damon sounds particularly dumb here (I actually agree with his larger argument about less standardized tests, and more teacher autonomy). He's been put on the spot, and he's really pushing back against a larger argument of using free market principles generally to improve teachers' performance, a much murkier and complicated set of issues beyond just salaries. But based on the words that actually come out of his mouth, this one minute video, the argument he makes isn't all that pro-teacher.
That brings us back to my confusion. Teachers and pro-teacher folks seem to love this video, but, assuming they think teachers deserve higher salaries, what exactly is their case for why? Whatever it is, it certainly can't involve the notion that paying teachers more will improve the quality of teaching. At least not according to Matt Damon.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
Debt Ceiling Deal: Lose-Lose-Lose, but it Still May Work Out
While many have rightfully decried the debt ceiling deal as the epitome of DC Kabuki theater, and avoiding our biggest problems under the guise of superficial "problem solving" meant only to look good politically, I believe it was likely an absolute disaster-stroke for Obama and his political fortunes.
On the surface and out of the box, the deal plays poorly for Obama as it makes him look like a weak-kneed capitulator. Indeed, almost no one believes he should have given up more and the dissatisfaction with his base is getting awfully loud. On substantive grounds, the deal doesn't come across as all that serious or "adult" since $1 trillion over ten years in reduced projected spending a) isn't all that much b) doesn't actually cut spending c) doesn't start until 2014 and d) can easily be undone by the five or six Congresses yet to come that can simply vote to say "yeah, no" anytime they feel like it. So, that leaves Barry with the victory of avoiding default and being the most adult in terms of decorum and compromise. That's not nothing, but untethered to results and leadership, it's not all that great.
Looking ahead, the aftermath of this deal makes things worse for winning a second term. The most conventional of all wisdoms says that re-election of a President is closely correlated with the economy. Jobs are a major issue that, left unaddressed, could create conditions whereby Americans elected a pig wearing a monacle just to kick out the sitting President. Yet, Obama has tied his own hands by conducting the debt ceiling debate on Republican terms: that the debt is serious and impacting our economy. This means a $1 trillion dollar tax cut/stimulus plan like the one passed in December '10 can't be taken seriously anymore after all this dire talk of debt andf spending cuts. It means a job program that involves spending on infrastructure or clean energy will be smothered in its crib for fear of an inability to sell it short-term. And, even if you could sell it short term, and get it passed that crazy Congress, you then hit the problem of having way too short of a long-term to see results. In other words, any seriously expensive jobs program has to have results by the first Tuesday in November 2012 or the President will get creamed for it. That all means you probably don't even start down the road of rolling out such a plan. (Did I mention that Congress is crazy?)
This may set up a somewhat inverted pyramid effect where Obama is in the reverse roll he played in the 2008 election. Back then, many Democratic candidates for Congress rode Obama's coat tails and benefitted from the starry-eyed first-time voters that were energized by Obama's soaring rhetoric and earth-shifting charisma. Now, Democrats in Congress can paint themselves as the alternative on job creation, desperate to take government money and stuff it into the overall pockets of America's working class if only these wacky Tea-Party goons would let them. Roll out a few hypothetical, pie-in-the-sky job programs with projections to create 45 bazillion new jobs in six hours, really flesh out the details and put it up for a vote and let the Republicans crush/ignore it. See how that plays.
Let Obama wax that of course he'd love to see any legislation that projects to create jobs but the Congress has to get one to him, and then use that as a hammer against the Republicans who vote against it. Top that off with the looming Bush tax cuts and how they need to expire because.. wait for it.. now again debt is serious (ignore the dissonance and hypocrisy here) and tax cuts don't create jobs evidently. Boom! You may have enough people excited to vote for their congress-critter! And hey, I mean, I guess this Obama guy is better than Romney, so I'll check the box for him too.
On the surface and out of the box, the deal plays poorly for Obama as it makes him look like a weak-kneed capitulator. Indeed, almost no one believes he should have given up more and the dissatisfaction with his base is getting awfully loud. On substantive grounds, the deal doesn't come across as all that serious or "adult" since $1 trillion over ten years in reduced projected spending a) isn't all that much b) doesn't actually cut spending c) doesn't start until 2014 and d) can easily be undone by the five or six Congresses yet to come that can simply vote to say "yeah, no" anytime they feel like it. So, that leaves Barry with the victory of avoiding default and being the most adult in terms of decorum and compromise. That's not nothing, but untethered to results and leadership, it's not all that great.
Looking ahead, the aftermath of this deal makes things worse for winning a second term. The most conventional of all wisdoms says that re-election of a President is closely correlated with the economy. Jobs are a major issue that, left unaddressed, could create conditions whereby Americans elected a pig wearing a monacle just to kick out the sitting President. Yet, Obama has tied his own hands by conducting the debt ceiling debate on Republican terms: that the debt is serious and impacting our economy. This means a $1 trillion dollar tax cut/stimulus plan like the one passed in December '10 can't be taken seriously anymore after all this dire talk of debt andf spending cuts. It means a job program that involves spending on infrastructure or clean energy will be smothered in its crib for fear of an inability to sell it short-term. And, even if you could sell it short term, and get it passed that crazy Congress, you then hit the problem of having way too short of a long-term to see results. In other words, any seriously expensive jobs program has to have results by the first Tuesday in November 2012 or the President will get creamed for it. That all means you probably don't even start down the road of rolling out such a plan. (Did I mention that Congress is crazy?)
This may set up a somewhat inverted pyramid effect where Obama is in the reverse roll he played in the 2008 election. Back then, many Democratic candidates for Congress rode Obama's coat tails and benefitted from the starry-eyed first-time voters that were energized by Obama's soaring rhetoric and earth-shifting charisma. Now, Democrats in Congress can paint themselves as the alternative on job creation, desperate to take government money and stuff it into the overall pockets of America's working class if only these wacky Tea-Party goons would let them. Roll out a few hypothetical, pie-in-the-sky job programs with projections to create 45 bazillion new jobs in six hours, really flesh out the details and put it up for a vote and let the Republicans crush/ignore it. See how that plays.
Let Obama wax that of course he'd love to see any legislation that projects to create jobs but the Congress has to get one to him, and then use that as a hammer against the Republicans who vote against it. Top that off with the looming Bush tax cuts and how they need to expire because.. wait for it.. now again debt is serious (ignore the dissonance and hypocrisy here) and tax cuts don't create jobs evidently. Boom! You may have enough people excited to vote for their congress-critter! And hey, I mean, I guess this Obama guy is better than Romney, so I'll check the box for him too.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)