I caught a mildly interesting article over at the New York Times titled “Why Evangelicals Don’t  Like Mormons” by David Reynolds. Just as the title might suggest, he offers a theory on why evangelicals don’t  like Mormons, and thus don’t vote for Romney. The list, as best as I can distill (and I’ll do some inference and insinuation on behalf of Dr. Reynolds while we’re at it) begins by first dismissing evangelicals as silly, absurd, or confused, and then offers only one explanation for the lack of Romney votes:

• Evangelicals don’t care, or are otherwise confused about morality, and thus vote for thrice-divorced Gingrich over Romney
• Evangelicals are confused about the silliness of their own religion, if they actually think that Mormonism is weird in its beliefs
• Evangelicals are bigots, who fail to take a hard stance on other “out-of-the-mainline” sects like Christian Science, or even some of the founders who may have dabbled in deism
• Evangelicals are worried that a Mormon presidency would give a boost to this flourishing sect, and don’t want their power structure threatened

Got it? Evangelicals don’t like Mormons because the evangelicals are stupid, ignorant, bigoted, inconsistent, and power-hungry.

I especially enjoyed this bit: “it’s important to consider the often antagonistic skepticism that many evangelicals have of Mr. Romney’s brand of Protestantism: Mormonism.” His “brand of Protestantism”? Umm, no. Mormonism is not just another “branch” of Protestantism. The religious world of Christendom isn’t as simply as Protestant or Catholic, with everyone that is not Catholic becoming Protestant by default.

Since the article is drivel, I suppose I should offer a set of clarifications on the part of evangelicals. First, there is the question of why evangelicals don’t like Mormonism. We view it as a cult, a false religion, a religion that denies fundamental tenets of Christianity – namely the deity of Christ. We really don’t have to go beyond that. There’s no need to cast aspersions about polygamy or any other such thing – Mormonism denies Christ.

But the article really isn’t dealing with theology at all, it’s questioning why evangelicals don’t vote for Mormons. Or, rather, it is claiming that evangelicals don’t vote for Romney because Romney is a Mormon and evangelicals don’t like Mormons (because evangelicals are stupid, ignorant, bigoted, inconsistent, and power-hungry … remember?). But this too rings hollow. Evangelicals don’t vote for Romney for a far simpler reason – he’s pro-choice. That’s it. Evangelicals would much rather a thrice-divorced Gingrich who will at least hint at being pro-life than Romney who has been clearly pro-choice for much of his career, only offering a head-fake on leading from a pro-life standpoint in the nomination process.

I personally don’t care much at all about Romney’s Mormonism, it’s his political views that bother me. Much the same, I don’t much care that Obama is a secular-humanist – it’s his policies that I don’t like. But, of course, I also don’t really buy Gingrich’s pro-life positions either. Gingrich is a politician who understands that anti-life allowances in case law help to keep pro-life voters in line. Why would he want to fix that?

Regardless, the explanation of Romney’s failings amongst evangelicals is far simpler than constructing a dialogue to establish Mormonism as just another protestant strain, establish evangelicals as (you remember the list, right?), and then insist that this must be the cause. He’s a pro-choice liberal (moderate?), and that doesn’t fly with evangelicals.

A couple of news items of interest today.

Bad Politics …

The first is a cringe on my part. Before the state of the union address I saw reports that Warren Buffett’s secretary would be sitting in the First Lady’s box for the speech. (She would be one of the “Lenny Skutnik” figures.) Mr. Buffett’s secretary has been brought up many times before by Mr. Buffett himself, who claims (and I have no reason to doubt him) that she pays a higher tax rate than he does. (We discussed the issue a while back in “Warren Buffett Should Make a Better Argument.”) Mr. Buffett feels his taxes should be raised, I feel her taxes should be cut, either way the situation appears “unfair” to the populists and envy-ridden amongst us.

Clearly the narrative plays well into Obama’s progressive tax dream, so he brought in this poor secretary to use as a prop. There’s just one problem though, politically speaking. You see, it’s not like Warren Buffett pays no taxes. He actually pays a pretty high tax rate. For the work-a-day secretary to pay a higher rate in our current system, she has to be pretty well-paid herself. Now I doubt that anybody has the hard numbers (other than the Human Resources department at Berkshire and Hathaway), but reports are swirling that this lady pulls down better than $200,000 annually. (And, mind you, that’s $200K in Omaha, NE – not exactly a high cost-of-living area.)

The reason I cringe at this is that I “called it” before the State of the Union … but didn’t tell anybody else. I knew when I saw the report that it was a political mistake, this lady is likely very well paid and the whole ordeal could backfire on Obama and make him look out of touch. And had I actually written it down in an earlier blog I could go back and say “see, I told you so” … but I didn’t. Opportunity missed. (Frequent readers will know that I hate it when people give an “I told you so” – especially with a prophetic tone – when they  actually made no declarations whatsoever before the event.)

Bold Lies …

As we discussed in yesterday’s item on the state of the union, it takes a particularly bold kind of lying to say “freedom” and mean “slavery”. It’s actually an encouraging sign in some sense. Here we have one of the most overtly corporatist, fascistic, and socialist-sounding presidents in modern history (yes, it is faint praise to say “one of the most … in modern history” which includes maybe 4-5 guys), and he is selling freedom. If somebody who despises freedom actually feels that freedom is the best way to get votes, then that says good things for America. It doesn’t say much for his impression of American intelligence, but it does say that the language of freedom still matters to people.

Buying Votes while Propping up the Wealthy …

One of the more impressive “bold lie” came in Obama’s flourish on “no more bailouts, no more handouts, no more copouts” – which was preceded by a huge bailout proposal. That proposal is related to a story we meant to pick up a few weeks ago, where the president is going to transfer money from responsible homeowners (those who bought within their means and are maintaining their mortgage payments throughout the housing crash) to irresponsible homeowners (those who bought too much or have otherwise refused to pay hoping to get a bailout). The transfer payment will include the money passing into the hands of bankers along the way, via refinancing at “historically low rates.” So, just to recap, responsible pays for (i) buying votes for Obama from irresponsible and (ii) enriching bankers who hold worthless paper.

While I’d love to go on and on about the immorality of such a proposal, I think Mish does a better job: please consider Obama Proposes Mortgage Bailouts.

…

As a mild caveat, let me note that it is not a moral judgment on those who have found themselves underwater on their houses. It happens. When asset prices drop this much you will find otherwise fiscally responsible people underwater. They never intended to be there, and they never intended to fall behind on their bills. But the “through no fault of their own” argument only goes so far. Perhaps it wasn’t their fault – but it wasn’t mine either. And clearly it was at least a little bit their fault, if for no other reason than they made decisions that turned out to be bad ones (again, it’s not a moral judgment).

This country is going to have to come to grips with the prospect of guilt-free consequences. Just because something bad happens to you, and you can rationally justify that your decisions which led to the problem made sense at the time, it still doesn’t require the government (that is, your neighbors) to make you whole.

There is no free lunch here. Yes, rates are historically low – because the federal reserve has made them historically low while punishing savers and those on a fixed income and rewarding borrowers and bankers who front-run the bond trade. Somebody pays. Yes, those who refinance could save a lot of money, but any money they save is a transfer from the general coffers, somebody pays. And who is that somebody? Whoever doesn’t get the bailout, that’s who.

If you’re not in line to make money on the latest bailout offer, then you are paying for it.

With those words, the newly elevated King Rehoboam split the kingdom of Israel in two. One wonders if he knew at the time  that he was driving away half of his kingdom, telling them that they had no place or right to be free, to have their burdens lifted, to enjoy their own lives and their own labors. One wonders if Rehoboam had any concept that the people who he saw as his play things were his equals before God.

Last night president Obama delivered his final State of the Union address before the election. The text of the speech can be found here. To be honest, one wonders if he knew what he was saying.

Consider a few exerpts:

• He wants to build “An economy built to last, where hard work pays off, and responsibility is rewarded.”
• “We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by. Or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.”
• “The state of our union is getting stronger. And we’ve come too far to turn back now. As long as I’m president, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. But I intend to fight obstruction with action, and I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought on this economic crisis in the first place.”

OK, I really have to stop – the list could go on and on and on.

Mr. president, are you listening? Mr. president, do you hear yourself? An economy “where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded” – does that sound like the economy you have promoted? Where money is transferred from hard workers to non-workers by government, and transferred from hard workers to high-rollers by the central bank? Is that an economy where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded? Is that an economy built to last?

Maybe he is defining terms differently. Maybe by “hard work” he means working hard to establish political connection – because cronyism is what “pays off” here. Maybe by “responsibility” he means the general responsibility to pay homage to the political machine – because that is “rewarded” here.

I love the last bit too – “I will oppose any effort to return to the very same policies that brought us this economic crisis in the first place” – please, Mr. president, tell me what failed policies of the Bush administration you have actually opposed? Did you oppose the Wall Street bailout? Did you oppose bubble-blowing rates at the Fed? Did you oppose wealth transfer from responsible to irresponsible via government backing of mortgage debt at Fannie Mae & Freedie Mac? The answer to all of these is “no” – and worse yet, you have doubled down on these policies.

While we’re on the subject, please tell me what Bush policies, if any, that you actually oppose. Yes, we pulled out of Iraq, but we went full steam ahead to topple the Libyan regime, and the pot is starting to boil over in Iran. (Iran is where “crippling sanctions” – also supported by the Bush administration – were supposed to bring the regime to heel over its nuclear ambitions. Another Bush/Obama policy continuance.) Continual wars, bailouts for political cronies, bailouts for the rich and powerful, and a public backstop for risky lending by banks. This is the Obama legacy. He has fully embraced the failures of the previous administration and made them his own.

One wonders if he even understands the terms he’s using. Is this all just political theater, or does he really believe what he is saying? (Side note, for a consideration of the changing definition of “freedom” check out Misdefining Liberty by James Bovard.)

“Let’s never forget: Millions of Americans who work hard and play by the rules every day deserve a government and a financial system that do the same. It’s time to apply the same rules from top to bottom: No bailouts, no handouts, and no copouts.” Ron Paul? No, Barrack Obama. Too bad his actions have contradicted every single point. It’s like a philandering husband declaring his incessant commitment to marital fidelity. The Obama legacy is one of more bailouts, more handouts, more copouts, and a government and financial system that do not play by the rules.

Do you hear yourself, Mr. president? It’s getting embarrassing.

A few years back I took a tour of the Confederate White House in Richmond VA. This was not because of some great love for the Confederacy, but I am fond of history, I was in Virginia, and the Confederate White House is much easier to tour than the actual White House. (It’s much smaller too.) It was a fun tour and the museum was fantastic (they had Robert E. Lee’s sword … really cool).

At one point in the tour we entered the office of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy. Over his desk there was a picture of George Washington. The tour guide noted that the Confederates, and especially Davis, saw their conflict as a continuance of the Revolution and the drive for self-determination. (It’s why I will joke with some of my northern friends that the war was “the Second Revolution – the one we lost.” It is just a joke though.)

This came to mind a few days ago as I was writing a post ahead of the South Carolina primary. Given that South Carolina is often referred to as a “hotbed of secessionism” I thought it appropriate to pull in a Jefferson Davis quote. As I was perusing them, I caught this one: “[Our situation] illustrates the American idea that governments rest on the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter or abolish them whenever they become destructive of the ends for which they were established.” And another: “If the Confederacy fails, there should be written on its tombstone: Died of a Theory.” And another: “All we ask is to be let alone.”

Now, there is certainly an aspect of truth in Davis’ statements (all good lies have a little bit of truth in them). Yes, the Confederacy wanted to be left alone. (This happens quite often in “majority rule” scenarios – the minority will claim that all they want is to be left alone. When the shoe is on the other foot though, they have no troubles enforcing their will.) They wanted to be left alone (in part) because they didn’t get their way on expansion of slavery into the territories.

What I find most disingenuous about the Davis position is the reliance on “consent of the governed.” We see consent of the governed expressed most simply in the right to vote. Now, I don’t care too much for majority rule as it can be quite oppressive. I prefer a strict adherence to individual rights. But despite its imperfections, majority rule would at least be consistent with consent of the governed in some limited sense. That is, if all the people agreed to live by majority rule, and they each get a vote, then we have consent. This, of course, is the problem with the Confederacy – not everybody who was governed by the majority had a right to participate in the majority. The slaves could not vote, though they were certainly impacted by the government. For that matter, women could not vote either. Nor could anyone under the voting age.  All these people were subject to the government but could not participate in consent.

Thus, the rule of government in Davis’ mind rested not on the consent of the governed, but on the consent of the powerful.

As you can tell from my list, we have only partially resolved the issue. Minorities and women can vote in America, but people under the age of 18 cannot. Their future wages (i.e. the exchange of their life for money) have been promised away by those who can vote … and have been promised to those who can vote. Consent of the powerful.

(Am I saying that my five-year-old should be able to vote? Well, if he can have his life promised away without his consent, then I suppose giving him the right to vote would be better than the current situation.)

In a smaller sense, consider the impact of the Federal Reserve for that matter. Its decisions are unaccountable to any voter feedback in our democracy – but they impact everybody’s bank account. The decisions are clearly there to support the banking system, not the people … consent of the powerful.

The list could go on. Heck, the talk coming out of Europe is a move even further away from democracy and toward more power in the hand of an unelected bureaucracy – you know, to “fix” the problems caused by “freedom”. Consent of the powerful.

The comment section is open (as always) – feel free to add your own examples.

Joe Paterno died yesterday, after a short fight with lung cancer. The man who won more games than any coach in Division I history (409) saw his career come to an unceremonious end a few short months ago in 2011 when the Jerry Sandusky scandal broke. It seemed like an unfitting end to such a great and dignified career, and yet (as we wrote at the time), it was the only option available to the University – Paterno had to go.

I’m not a Penn State fan. I don’t dislike the Nittany Lions, but I wouldn’t classify myself as a fan. Still, I think we all have our memories of Joe Paterno.

Probably my favorite was the 1987 Fiesta Bowl win over the “unstoppable” Miami Hurricanes (14-10) to culminate the 1986 season. Back in those days there was no Bowl Championship Series, and it was not at all surprising to see the best two teams play in separate bowl games. Somehow though, the Fiesta Bowl convinced the #1 Hurricanes to leave Florida (they could have played in the Orange Bowl – and likely would have won handily) to come to Tempe Arizona to face the undefeated Nittany Lions. Paterno pulled off the unimaginable.

Miami dominated the game in every way … except on the scoreboard. They piled up 445 yards of offense and 22 first downs, versus 162 yards and 8 first downs for PSU. But they also had 7 turnovers, due in no small part to the defensive genius of Jerry Sandusky. (I hate to say good things about such a man, but  he honestly was an impressive defensive mind.) It’s like they knew they couldn’t stand toe-to-toe with Miami (and they couldn’t). They knew they couldn’t go up and down the field on the Hurricanes (and they couldn’t). The only chance was to “bend but not break” and get turnovers when the field gets crowded down toward the end zone. It was the “rope-a-dope” strategy. It was the only way Ali could beat Foreman, and the only way Penn State could beat Miami – and that’s exactly what they did. Awesome.

My least favorite Paterno moment may have been the 1983 Sugar Bowl, when Penn State knocked off my beloved [at the time] and undefeated Georgia Bulldogs 27-23 to rob us of another national championship.

Those two seasons, 1986 and 1982, were Paterno’s two national championships. He could certainly have won more, but in a voting system you never know what will happen – and plain vanilla football doesn’t always win a popularity contest. I suspect Paterno would have had more titles had he been able to play in a playoff … but we’re still a few years away from that.

The Jerry Sandusky scandal hit Penn State hard, and I think it hit Paterno just as hard. In the lead quote (above) Paterno indicated that winning without honor just didn’t taste good. I suspect that’s what he felt after being relieved of his duties as head football coach. In some sense the honor had been taken away – and that doesn’t taste good. He also said “losing a game is heartbreaking; losing your sense of excellence or worth is a tragedy” – and I suspect that the Sandusky flail caused his sense of excellence or worth to crumble just a bit. One can only wonder whether a crestfallen Paterno had lost his drive by the end, and didn’t really see much point in fighting.

The whole thing reminds us that we are all human. The man who achieves great success is still a fallen, broken, imperfect man – just like the rest of us. We all stand before God with flaws and imperfections, sins, and the stain of evil in our hearts.

The one who trusts in his own greatness, trusts in futility. “But blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose confidence is in him. He will be like a tree planted by the water that sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit.” – Jer 17:7-8.

I prayed for JoePa Saturday. News reports were not good and I admittedly know very little about his religion or his faith in Christ Jesus. I know he’s catholic, but a lot of people are of a lot of religious traditions – who knows what anybody really is except the Lord? So I prayed – for faith and peace. (The catholics will surely be praying still today – but the evangelicals draw the line at death and leave the rest to the Lord … but this isn’t a post about theology.)

Youtube has quite a few Paterno tributes today. I’m sure more will come in. Here’s a historical one that seems pretty fair in its reporting:

The South Carolina primary is today. If you haven’t already gone to the polls, get out there and vote, South Carolina. (And while you’re at it – think about voting for the freedom candidate – Ron Paul.)

The field is thinning on the Republican side. We’re down to four: Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, and Rick Santorum. The current Real Clear Politics average of polls has it Romney 31%, Gingrich 20%, Paul 14.4%, and Santorum 14.2%. There are a few Perry votes lingering, which will fade with time as he has withdrawn his candidacy.

Forget what the punditry is saying about the elections – they change all the time anyway. First it was “Romney is unstoppable!” Now that Gingrich may well win SC it’s “Romney has faltered, can he recover?” But look at those national numbers again. Nobody has even a third of the electorate. As the race thins, things will coalesce, and the idea that they coalesce around the current frontrunner is blithe conjecture.

I liken it to American Idol. People vote for a preferred singer (or candidate), and singers (or candidates) are dropped off the back of the pack as the show progresses. But there is no guarantee whatsoever that the supporters of the latest singer (or candidate) to falter will go to the frontrunner. In fact, it often happens just the opposite. You’ll often see vote splits of 45-30-25 in the “round of 3″ turn into 45-55 in the “round of 2″ as the 25% who supported the 3rd place singer swing to the second place swinger.

This election may play out the same way. Where do the Perry supporters go? Does Santorum eventually drop out? What about Gingrich? Who do those voters support.

My suspicion is that Romney does not drop out. He has the lead and money and can make a fight of it – and he has the liberal Republican vote locked up. My suspicion is also that Ron Paul does not drop out. He doesn’t really have to. The 15% who support him (and it may push 20% by the end) do so on principle. That doesn’t actually require huge funds. He has a seat at the table and can keep going as long as he wants to.

That leaves Gingrich and Santorum. I honestly don’t mind seeing them all stick around. If one drops out, the other will become the front runner – or at least move into a tie with Romney. Either way, the current split makes the likelihood of a brokered convention a bit higher. I can’t say that such an outcome would be all that bad.

“As the snow flies
On a cold and gray Chicago mornin’
A poor little baby child is born
In the ghetto” – Elvis Presley, In the Ghetto

My wife has a Garmin that she uses from time to time to help with directions when she’s going somewhere new. She doesn’t use it much anymore because the iPhone is probably just as useful. Or, at least, the iPhone hasn’t made nearly catastrophic mistakes in an attempt to “help” her find her way.

I remember about a year ago receiving a phone call toward the end of the day from my wife who was in need of directions. She was heading to a friend’s house in northern Virginia (coming from our home in Maryland). The Garmin had warned of impending traffic (normal for the DC beltway) and had redirected her right through the heart of DC – and some pretty shady neighborhoods. I have no doubt that the trip through DC was much longer than any traffic holdup would have been on the beltway, but the Garmin software apparently didn’t make such calculations.

The kicker was that once she landed smack dab in the middle of “the Ghetto,” the Garmin declared it had lost satellite signal and could no longer help. Fantastic. So, I get a phone call.

Fortunately I was at my desk and was able to quickly pull up a map and navigate her safely out of DC and back onto a major, south-bound highway. However, this was not the first time the Garmin had taken her to the “shortest” route that also included some not-so-great crime statistics.

In response to an apparently common problem, Microsoft has put together a smartphone app to help you “avoid the Ghetto” (the common name, though apparently there is no official name yet). I’ve heard about this before, and actually have no idea if Microsoft has the first or only working version. Either way, it sounds like a good idea to me. I mean, this is just data mining, right? All it’s really doing is taking crime statistics (a matter of public record), overlaying them on a map (also publicly available), and finding a path between two points that minimizes some function of those crime statistics. What could be wrong with that? What could be wrong with an app that pulls together information for you and provides it to you in a usable format?

Well, apparently not everybody is enthused about the new development. CBS (and many, many others) are reporting that the app is controversial. The story quotes one Juanita Wallace, who is the president of the Dallas NAACP, as saying “I’m going to be up in arms about it if it happens” (that is, if the app is released). Why, Juanita? Why are you going to be up in arms? Tell me the rationale?

Let’s pull the thread on a few complaints. The first is beyond inane. Let me quote the story at length: “Wallace spent her afternoon at a rally on Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd. and said she felt safe there, but fears the app may project otherwise. ‘Can you imagine me not being able to go to MLK Blvd. because my GPS says that’s a dangerous crime area? I can’t even imagine that,’ she said.” Where to begin?

How about this, “she felt safe there, but fears the app may project otherwise.” I’ll chalk up the shifting of objects to the reporter, not Juanita. I read that sentence as “she felt safe there but fears the app may project that it is an unsafe area” (not that the app might predict that Juanita feels unsafe on MLK blvd). So, Juanita feels safe in what may or may not be a high crime area (I have no idea) but fears crime statistics would say it is unsafe. Umm, Juanita – the problem is the crime statistics, not the app. Further, may I presume that Juanita feels safe there because it is part of her neighborhood? People typically do feel safer in their neighborhood, even if it has bad crime statistics, because it is their neighborhood and they know the people.

The actual quote from Juanita is more ridiculous. “Can you imagine not being able to go to MLK Blvd?”I assure you that there is no Microsoft app in the world that can prevent me from going to MLK blvd. How could that even happen? This isn’t a police state app.

Wallace then goes on to compare the app to gerrymandering. (A policy that is typically welcomed by minority communities because it affords them majority status in a congressional district.) She claims that the app is “stereotyping” … or, as I would call it, retrieving public records … and that it is without a doubt “discriminatory.”

The last flourish sounds a bit too much like “a hit dog will holler.” Nobody, to my knowledge, has linked the app in any way, shape, or form to race. It only draws on crime statistics (again, a matter of public record). If Juanita Wallace wants to protest then she should protest the high crime statistics that have led to the marketability of such an app.

On that last note, consider the freedom of association implications. The app doesn’t use race in its processes (at least to my knowledge), but why shouldn’t there be such an app? Demographics are also readily available and one could easily mine the data, overlay on a map, and produce a route between two points that avoids densities of any ethnicity you want to avoid. Why would that be illegal? I actually doubt that it would, though perhaps there is some federal overreach that prohibits freedom of association.

So why don’t we see such an app? Well, if it is not illegal, I can tell you what it would be – DUMB! It would be the worst business decision Microsoft has made since it refused to pay protection money to the Clinton administration and went through the anti-trust ringer. Can you imagine the consumer backlash against such an app? Can you imagine the number of people who would say “I’ll never buy a Microsoft product again”? Microsoft can, and that’s why they haven’t produced such an app.

But if they won’t produce an “avoid the [insert race here]” app, why have they produced an “avoid the Ghetto” app? Because there is a demand. I want that app for my phone. Or, rather, I want it for my wife’s phone, so she can avoid the Ghetto.

The article then goes on to quote some businessmen in less-than-desirable crime neighborhoods, indicating that it would have a clear economic impact. I personally have my doubts about that one. People looking to avoid the Ghetto are travelers. They want to get from point A to point B – without stopping if possible – and without getting into trouble. They never had any intention of stopping at the local laundromat or insurance company.

That’s not to say there won’t be any economic impact, I just suspect it will be small. I also suspect it will be much smaller than the existing economic impact of high crime. When I go buy a house, I have no compunction about checking crime statistics. Property values (driven by demand, driven by purchasers, driven by crime statistics) clearly impact the economy. Is it “discriminatory” to check the statistics ahead of the purchase? Is it immoral? (“no” and “no”). When businesses look to open a new factory or a new store I guarantee you they check out the crime statistics. Is this discriminatory, or good business?

If the businesses and civil rights groups want to fix the problem, and get off Microsoft’s “Ghetto list” then perhaps they should focus on crime, not technology and data mining … and free people using public information to make free choices about their free lives.

Yesterday we touched on the subject of false praise in education, and how it has led to lower performance. Along similar lines, we found a video over at Real Clear Politics where Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) admits that president Obama would be pushed harder on black unemployment if he were white. It’s a short, amusing video.

While I obviously disagree with Emanuel Cleaver that the president is the right leverage point to press the issue of job creation (Congress  has the main impetus in job-destroying legislation), I find it refreshing that he and his ilk admit they hold Obama to a lower standard than they would a white (or, perish the thought, Republican) president. One can only imagine the demonstrations if unemployment amongst black men stood near 20% under George W. Bush. (And the never-ending charges of “racism”)

My point here is not to dig on the president – he has plenty of detractors. I bring it up simply to note that low standards don’t do a person any favors. It only props you up for the short term, but it allows your mind, or focus, or effort, or ideals to grow weak and lazy, giving you far less long term success.

Obviously this applies to education, as we noted yesterday in Empty Praise Comes Up Short. We often see it politically in the thought processes of red-state Republicans and blue-state Democrats. If you are surrounded by people who think like you, the “bar” for acceptance or entry into the conversation is set very low. You don’t have to work through the ramifications of your political preferences and defend them against legitimate attack.

As a side note, conservatives are fond of complaining about the liberal “state-run media” that gives liberals a pass at ever turn (except Fox news of course, which goes in quite a different direction … that’s not an endorsement, by the way). While such nonsense clearly exists (for anyone paying attention), and can have some short-term implications that are helpful to liberals, the long term impact is the same as any low standard. When you are allowed to “skate” in the middle of nonsense, you have no impetus to change or improve.

Remember that the next time you  see somebody being held to a completely different (and much lower) standard than you. No, it’s not fair. But in the grander scheme, they are the ones suffering from the lower standard, and nobody gets a pass forever.

In one of those “great moments in education” the Washington Post reported yesterday that “In schools, self-esteem boosting is losing favor to rigor, finer-tuned praise.” It’s a fairly well written piece and worth a look. Apparently there is some research out there (groundbreaking?) showing that empty praise doesn’t improve academic performance. Or, as the article puts it, “a growing body of research over three decades shows that easy, unearned praise does not help students but instead interferes with significant learning opportunities.”

The gist: giving praise where none is due turns kids into praise junkies instead of hard workers. Furthermore, it encourages otherwise bright kids to shy away from difficult tasks for fear of failure, preferring instead to focus on “cake-walk” assignments that they have little chance of getting wrong.

This is no surprise …

I’m not shocked by these “new” findings. There are some of us that have known/believed this for a while – despite what the establishment has claimed. Heck, it’s biblical. Consider some verses:

“You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor” – Ex 20:16. It seems simple, but  “don’t lie” should have done the trick. Telling kids “you did great” even when they did poorly is false testimony (though perhaps not in a court of law). Now, I’m not angling for sternness here, one can easily “speak the truth in love” (see Eph 4:15).

“Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly” – Lev 19:15. Fair judgment, right judgment, no favoritism. (One of the hallmarks of the false-praise movement has been that the poor and under-privileged need to have their self-esteem built up so they can achieve.)

“For by the grace given me I say to every one of you: Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought, but rather think of yourself with sober judgment, in accordance with the measure of faith God has given you” – Romans 12:3. Got that? Do not think of yourself more highly than you ought. And, by inference, don’t encourage your neighbor (or your neighbor’s kid) to think more highly of himself than he ought. Now, from where I sit, the phrase “sober judgment” also implies not to think less of yourself than you ought (and don’t tear down your neighbor or his kid so that he thinks too lowly of himself).

“Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor” – Rom 13:7. Yes, the verse isn’t talking about education, but the notion of “giving honor to whom honor is due” is relevant.

Beyond false testimony or wrong judgment, the Bible also has plenty to say about growing through difficult circumstances. “See, I have refined you, though not as silver; I have tested you in the furnace of affliction” – Isaiah 48:10. “I will refine them like silver and test them like gold” – Zech 13:9. “every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful” – John 15:2. “In this you greatly rejoice, though now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials” – 1 Pet 1:6.

One of the more interesting points that comes out  in the article is that while American students have average performance compared to students from other nations (specifically in mathematics), they are far more likely to have high confidence in their abilities. That is, even when they’re failing they think they’re succeeding. This just defies all common sense – but it is the perfectly logical outflow of false-praise.

The mea culpa won’t be forthcoming …

Don’t hold your breath for the education establishment to issue a mea culpa over this. Education results have been trending negative for quite some time, and if this false-praise research is to be believed, the insistence of protecting self-esteem at all costs has not helped. (And by “not helped” performance I mean “hurt” performance.) Will the establishment come out now and confess that their approach was flawed and that a generation was given a lesser education than they should have been?

The problem of education is the problem of government, progressivism, an theocracy …

And why not? Why won’t there be a confession of guilt? Because that’s not what authoritarian systems do. Unchallenged, “all-knowing” bureaucracies cannot afford to appear to be failures. It would challenge their authority going forward.

It is the same for the education establishment, the government, progressive ideologies, and theocracies. They limit the choice to one (themselves), and then insist that they have done the best that could possibly be done, even in the face of deplorable failures.

This runs exactly counter to the notion of freedom and self-determination. I should be free to choose education as I see fit – and not to pay for failure from the non-choice alternative. I should be free to choose moral decisions for my own life (whether sexual, substance, or benevolent). This doesn’t mean I’ll always choose what is best, but I have as good of a chance as an bureaucrat or a majority of my neighbors. And I should be free to choose my own worship of God (and I have chosen Christ). This does not mean that all choices are equally valid (of course I don’t believe that) – but free choices are the ones that matter at the end. God is not interested in automatons.

And so it goes …

So, the story rolls on. I’ll continue  to push for completely free education choices (and, by implication, free choice of which system we choose to pay for). That won’t happen because of one article by the Washington Post, but it is a small, small, small step in the right direction.

I’ve argued in times past that good teachers would prosper in a system of free choice. Wealthy parents are willing to pay great sums to educate their children. Poor parents are willing to work ghastly hours to find a way to educate their children and give them a better tomorrow. In this world, people who are skilled at teaching can command a great salary. They don’t need to hide behind bureaucracy, limited choices, and political power.

For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water – 1 Peter 3:18-20

Over the weekend, the Italian cruise liner Costa Concordia ran aground just off of Giglio, Italy. There were over 4000 people on board, with 5 now confirmed dead and 17 unaccounted for. As you can imagine in the aftermath of such an accident, the news stories are all over the place and the narrative of what actually happened is forming slowly. The short version is this: the ship ran into a reef (or sand bar?) and began listing; the crew was less-than-organized about the rescue; some of the lifeboats could not be lowered (or just plain were not lowered); and more than a few people jumped overboard to make a swim for it. Amidst all of that – only 22 are dead or unaccounted for.

When I see stories like this I often envision what I would do in such a circumstance. Typically I’m asking myself how I would manage getting my wife and three kids off the boat to safety. (With the busyness of life I rarely get to exercise that much anymore. But, in a moment of honesty and openness, I will admit that my motivation for exercising – what gives me focus when I’ve been sedentary for too long – is whether or not I’d be able to get my three boys to safety in just such an emergency.)

The wreck comes almost 30 years to the day after Air Florida flight 90 crashed into the 14th street bridge in Washington D.C. (wikipedia page here). I was seven years old at the time, but I still remember the news broadcasts of the accident and the displays of heroism. (This was, of course, before the Web and Youtube, so I couldn’t just get footage on demand … I had to actually watch the news and wait.)

The first rescue attempt was apparently a makeshift rope constructed by the bystanders and tied around the waist of Roger Olian, another commuter near the bridge. He then attempted to swim to the passengers to grab one to be pulled to safety. When he was almost there, a park police helicopter showed up, and attempted to rescue Olian first. At this, Olian was pulled back to shore so the helicopter crew would go after the survivors.

They began pulling the six survivors to the shore one-by-one with a life preserver. As they did, one of the survivors, Arland Williams Jr., continually passed the life preserver on to the next person, intending to go last. He would succumb to the ice-cold waters before they got back to him on the last run.

As the helicopter crew was pulling Priscilla Tirado to safety, she was unable to hold on to the life preserver (going into shock) and she began to sink into the river. At this, another bystander, Lenny Skutnik, jumped into the river after her, swam 30 feet in the icy water, and was able to drag her to shore.

It is the video of Skutnik that I most remember from when I was seven (see video clip shortly). I’m reminded now of the Mighty Mighty Bosstones line: “I’m not a coward, I’ve just never been tested – I like to think that if I was I would pass.” Well done Lenny, you passed the test.

I also see the result from the Priscilla Tirado side. If you’re stuck in an untenable situation, the freezing waters are sending you into shock, you can barely breathe – fight to the last, and keep your head above water – you never know when Lenny Skutnik might be diving in after you.