Caffeinated Thoughts

Mike Huckabee’s Not So Simple View of Education
Rand Paul Stresses Leadership as New Leadership is Introduced at Iowa GOP’s Night of the Rising Stars
Charlie Sheen’s Traveling Train Wreck
An Apology to Make

Mike Huckabee’s Not So Simple View of Education

Posted: 04 Apr 2011 03:30 AM PDT

I finally picked up former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee's book, A Simple Government. I haven't read the whole thing yet, but when looking through the table of contents I saw there was a chapter on education. Since that is an issue I've been working on and following closely it piqued my interest and I went there first.

I was encouraged by some of what I read, and disappointed by some other things. First the good.

He understands the brokenness of our public educational system and his question, "Are the taxes you pay going to provide a high school education or a high school diploma? In too many of our schools they are not the same thing,’" (pg. 91). More kids are dropping out, and the ones who don't are seeing a depreciation of their diploma evidenced by more and more youth not being adequately prepared to go the college.

He believes that while problem with our public schools is a national problem, it isn't a problem that can be solved at the national level, (pg. 93). He said, "I do not endorse letting the federal government take over education and would oppose having it set the curriculum, standards, class sizes, or teacher pay for public schools," (pg. 94).

He recognizes one of the primary problems with public education is the pay structure – tenure and "step and level pay." He favors merit pay, as does Iowa's new Department of Education Director, Jason Glass. The documentary, Waiting For Superman, does an excellent job pointing out the problems inherent with how most districts currently pay their teachers and how hard it is to get rid of bad teachers mainly due to teachers' unions. It should be a given that the best teachers are rewarded, it should be easier to fire bad teachers and when layoffs come it shouldn't be based on seniority, it should be based on performance.

I also like his idea of personalized learning, and I understand his position on art and music education. The value of both would be determined on how they are implemented. With parental guidance? How do you pay for extracurricular activities like art and music education if you are facing a budget shortfall? Also if this is a bully pulpit item or is he suggesting mandating it? I'd be against mandating either, even at the state level. He lays the ideas out there, but doesn't really suggest how they be implemented.

And now the bad…

He embraces school choice on one hand, but then dismisses it with the other. He said, "getting more children into private schools through vouchers and scholarships and supporting high-performing charter schools are good things. But the truth is that the overwhelming majority of our children are going to go to their local public school. We have to provide solutions for them," (pg. 94-95).

Agreed we do need to provide solutions for them. I think public school reform AND greater school choice is the answer – it isn't an either/or proposition, it's a both/and one. He goes on to say, "As much as I support and appreciate Christian schools, homeschooling, private academies, and charter schools, I doubt they will be able to replace public schools for many of America's students," (pg. 95).

Well of course not, at present. But that type of thinking will only perpetuate the status quo as far as choice for parents is concerned. I recognize that many school choice options should be offered at the local and state levels, but as far as tax policy is concerned what can be done toward credits and deductions? How will taxpayer money spent at the Federal level for education make it back to parents so they can make the best choice for their kids. While taxpayer money is still being spent on education at the Federal level if he is going to run for President he'd better have a plan to advance school choice.

I am extremely disappointed by his support of Race to the Top. He writes, "although I believe education should be left to the states, I fully endorse the new federal program Race to the Top, which has states compete for additional education funds, allowing them to decide what reforms to enact rather than having specific reforms imposed on them from above," (pg. 100).

He goes on to say, "it's a very clever way to prod states to embrace much needed reform just out of the hope of getting federal money, without actually promising any particular state anything."

So this program is good because, it is a good idea. Governor Huckabee would be all right if there were a Good Idea Clause in our Constitution, but there is not. I'm going to assume that Governor Huckabee isn't really aware of the details of this program. If he were I would like to think he wouldn't support it.

First this program is a scheme by the Obama administration to further entrench the Federal government in education. There was little, if any, public feedback given for this program. No opportunity to debate it. It was made possible by a $4.35 billion increase in discretionary money, an "executive earmark" so to speak, in the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. You know the "stimulus" bill to create jobs.

So Race to the Top was designed as carrot and stick program, which Governor Huckabee thinks is a good thing, "a clever way to prod states to embrace much needed reform," to use his words. So this program gave directives to states who were strapped for cash to adopt the Common Core Standards (I thought he was against federal standards?) and make other education policy changes just so they can be competitive for these grants.

To be clear here, under this grant scheme, even if a state's application was perfect, it would be uncompetitive to receive funds without the adoption of the standards. No problem for Iowa, they already ramrodded through the Iowa Core Curriculum the previous year, and then they ramrodded through changes to the charter school law in Iowa with zero time for the public to give feedback. The signing ceremony was already scheduled before the session started.

That type of thing is good? I'll turn to another Southern Governor who seems to have better instinct with matters such as this. Texas Governor Rick Perry rejected the Race to the Top funds, in an op/ed in The Austin Statesman he wrote:

The problem with RTTT funding is clear: Under the program’s rules, Washington gives preference and dollars to states that agree to adopt national standards that haven’t even been written yet….

…Considering Texas is among the nation’s leaders in standards, I imagine whatever federal standards are eventually agreed upon will be weaker than the ones we have now.

Adding injury to insult, the price tag to change all our text books and instructional materials to comply with Washington’s vision for public education would be about $3 billion.

In return, Texas could expect to get back from Race To The Top as little as $75 a student, barely enough to fund our state’s educational system for two days.

So turning down the strings-attached stimulus money was an easy call — in terms of ensuring our children get the best education possible and in simple matters of dollars and cents.

So Governor Huckabee supports a program that is funded by a bill he has said numerous times that he disagrees with. Can we see some inconsistency here?

He supports local control, but states are "dumbing" things down and so let's get the Federal government involved. That seems to be his mindset here.

He has said that he would abolish the Federal Department of Education if given the bill. What he would do before then is what concerns me.

Photo by Dave Davidson

Share and Enjoy:

Rand Paul Stresses Leadership as New Leadership is Introduced at Iowa GOP’s Night of the Rising Stars

Posted: 03 Apr 2011 10:00 PM PDT

The makeup of the Night of the Rising Stars hosted by the Iowa GOP on Saturday night was different than the last time they hosted it two years ago. There were more "rising stars" to celebrate than in 2009. There were also fewer in attendance than the last time. The official count was 500, but it seemed well below that.

Iowa Senate Minority Leader Paul McKinley (R-Chariton) introduced the freshman class of state Senators. He noted if it were not for a total of 71 votes in a couple of close races "we would have ended Mike Gronstal's reign." The Iowa Senate has 10 Republican freshman senators and they flipped six seats from Democrats.

Iowa House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer (R-Garner) noted that their 22 new freshman have been "hazed quite a bit" as she reflected on the Republicans now holding a 60 seat majority. She remarked, "when you sent us these new freshman, you didn't just send us more votes, you sent us rock stars." She also mentioned that every new member has had the opportunity to floor manage a bill that has been passed out of the House to go on to the Senate. She specifically mentioned State Representative Mary Ann Hanusa (R-Council Bluffs) who floor managed the late term abortion ban that passed on Thursday, and State Representative Ron Jorgenson (R-Sioux City) who floor managed the collective bargaining bill that passed in the House (it didn't survive the Senate funnel).

State Auditor David Vaudt said that he was the only Republican on the executive council in 2003. Secretary of Agriculture Bill Northey joined in 2007. They were joined by Secretary of State Matt Schultz, Lt. Governor Kim Reynolds, and Governor Terry Branstad. Schultz during his speech said that he was "going to keep up the fight (for Photo ID)," Taking a swipe at the media he noted that some members of the media have called him unethical in this quest have people show photo ID when they vote. He said, "I'm doing what I said I’d do."

Governor Terry Branstad was introduced and said that his primary mission was to get the state's finances in order. He also demanded a biennial budget out of the Legislature pledging to veto any one year budget that is sent to his desk. He said he's also focused on jobs and he's been hearing from citizens during his administration's jobs tour that they need to reduce the regulatory burden for businesses, as well as reduce the tax burden.

Matt Strawn, Iowa GOP chairman, speaking of Branstad said, "We have a Governor who is letting companies know that Iowa is back open for business." He also said that Iowa has a House committed to stopping an abortionist from setting up shop in Western Iowa. Speaking of Iowa Republicans recent victories in November he noted that was accomplished by running on "conservative, principled solutions." Looking forward to 2012, he said that Republicans have 582 days where they can say to Iowa Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal's "services are no longer needed."

Senator Chuck Grassley introduced the keynote speaker, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). He said of Paul that he "believes in putting the Constitution first ahead of anything else." He also noted that Paul "so far is not as famous as his dad, but one of these days I bet he will be."

Senator Paul took to the stage and complimenting Senator Grassley said, "You know he cares about Iowa, he cares about the people of Iowa, and there is nothing false or disingenuous about him." He talked about getting to use the famous Senator from Kentucky, Henry Clay's desk. He was reminded that Clay was known as the "Great Compromiser" for brokering compromises that kept the Union together. He said, we laud compromising, but "do we ever consider what we are compromising about?" He said Clay compromised on slavery, "Was it ever morally acceptable for one man to own another man?"

He said that he had a cousin, famous abolitionist, Cassius Marcellus Clay, who did not compromise. He said he took no prisoners. Paul said, ""We need more people in Washington who will lead instead of follow." He said we have a President who has abdicated his leadership.

He also said that we are facing a day of moral reckoning, "Can a civilization long endure that doesn't respect life?" Will we be judged for that?" He also noted that we are facing a fiscal day of reckoning where we will no longer be able to pay our bills, and because of the tragedy in Japan he thinks it will come even sooner than anticipated. He said we must cut our spending and we must address our national debt. He stated that his constituents have greater expectations for spending cuts. "I propose cutting $500 billion dollars in cuts, and I go home and they say, 'That's a good start.'"

He said our day of reckoning is coming and that it will take leadership, "It's not enough to be a Republican… Political parties mean nothing unless we imbue them with values…. We need bold leadership like Ronald Reagan. People who can articulate the American dream. People who will believe in the individual. People have unlimited potential if we can get government out of the way."

He also said that the most important vote that he'll take is one on whether or not our soldiers will go to war. Criticizing President Barack Obama's decision on Libya. He noted that President George W. Bush took a lot of grief over his decision to send troops to Afghanistan and Iraq, but also noted he at least went to Congress. Not so with President Obama, Paul said, sharply criticized Obama's circumventing Congress Paul complained, "Obama had time to go to the U.N., he had time go to NATO, he had time to go to the Arab League, and he had time to go talk to individual citizens, but he didn't have time to go to the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and talk to the people's representatives."

Ending his speech he exhorted Iowan Republicans to "help us find the right person" to run against Obama. Afterwards I had an opportunity to ask him about his 2012 aspirations. he told me, "I've got to see what my other half (his father) decides to do."

So it would seem that we'll have a member of the Paul family running in 2012.

Share and Enjoy:

Charlie Sheen’s Traveling Train Wreck

Posted: 03 Apr 2011 11:18 AM PDT

He calls it his "Violent Torpedo of Truth" tour. A more accurate title would be "Charlie Sheen's Traveling Train Wreck."

Whatever you choose to call it, Charlie made his debut in Detroit last night and by all reports, it simply gave the citizens of that once fine city one more thing to grumble about. Even the donning of a Detroit Tiger jersey could not help salvage the "performance."

Apparently, Mr. Sheen thought that trotting a comedian out as an opening act, nearly 20 minutes after the show's scheduled start, would be a good way to warm up the crowd before the warlock, himself, took the stage. Fail! Even a mid-act appearance by Charlie, admonishing the crowd to "give him a chance," didn't ultimately prevent the impatient crowd from booing him off the stage.

If the not-so-funny man didn't elevate the mood of the audience, surely the appearance of his two "goddesses" would… especially if the two women engaged in a long, sensuous lip lock. Charlie… that is so last year! Fail #2.

Nearly an hour after the scheduled start time, the Malibu Messiah finally took the stage and bored the crowd with a series of video clips and a disjointed monologue behind a presidential styled podium. At one point, Charlie summed up his sentiment in response to a heckler, "I already got your money, dude."

What started out as a promising extravaganza of laughter and good times end up in boredom, booing and early exits. Fail #3.

How did we get to this point? Exactly what were the virtuous acts performed by this celebrity that garnered him all the headlines, news segments, water cooler discussions and attention from virtually every pundit known to man? To name a few… illegal drugs, prostitutes, domestic violence, sexual immorality, vandalism, a pink slip from his boss, followed by a series of highly publicized and incoherent ramblings of twisted, narcissistic philosophy.

Charlie Sheen parlayed this body of work into a number of sold out shows and millions of dollars in his wallet. What would motivate the masses to pay good money to see this? Genuine admiration? A raw lust for entertainment regardless of the source? Or is it the base desire for a ringside seat to human destruction?

Whatever the reason, many have signed on to view the circus and you have to ask the question, "What kind of message does this send to the rest of the world?" More importantly, what message does it send to our children?

In our quest for political correctness and a nonjudgmental attitude, we have performed a great disservice to our youth by looking away when we witness such vile behavior. We have been told to tolerate and we behaved. At some point, we graduated from tolerance to acceptance. And finally, we have settled on the promotion of such lifestyles.

I vote for a little straight talk. Charlie Sheen is not to be admired, envied or applauded. He is to be called out, reprimanded and prayed for. It is time to speak clearly, openly, truthfully and strategically and call him what he is… a degenerate.

Trust me… Charlie Sheen is not WINNING! He is disintegrating… duh!

Share and Enjoy:

An Apology to Make

Posted: 03 Apr 2011 09:15 AM PDT

When I started this blog back in 2006 (then it was hosted on Blogger) it was mainly my thoughts on life, theology, ministry and current events… it has morphed to something bigger than that and while the topics have changed considerably, the perspective/worldview from which I (and my contributors) write has not changed – we unapologetically look at culture, current events and politics from distinctly Christian point of view and we do strive to be Christ-like when we post. That tether has helped me on a variety of occasions to measure my words.

Do I do that perfectly? Of course not, I am man with clay feet. I still battle with my flesh, (Romans 7:21-25) just like any Christ-follower does.

Yesterday's post is an example in which I failed. I think the question that made up the title of the post is a fair one – "What really happened to HF 153?" It is a question I should have asked first privately before writing about it publically. While I have disagreed with State Representatives Kim Pearson, Tom Shaw, and Glen Massie (and The FAMiLY Leader) on their lack of support of the late-term abortion ban I have tried to be civil. There was nothing civil about yesterday's post.

I insinuated that we were mislead. I have no basis for that. I had made an assumption about the future of HF 153, and I failed to check it out. This post should not have been written until I had the information needed. Representative Pearson as well as House Majority Leader Linda Upmeyer have been very accessible and I should have asked respectfully why HF 153 didn't make it out of committee and what will the "new form" of the bill look like.

I spoke with Representative Pearson and Majority Leader Upmeyer last night and apologized, they were both extremely gracious. Since this was public I feel that my apology should be public as well. Representatives Pearson, Massie and Shaw, I am sorry that maligned your character, I had no basis that your intent was to mislead. I am very sorry and hope that you would forgive me. We may not always agree, but you should expect better conduct from me. Representative Upmeyer, I also insinuated that perhaps you (collectively as leadership) didn't follow through on a possible deal that was made on HF 153. Again I had no basis for that, I also would like to apologize to you as well.

I also believe I need to apologize to you, my readers, you deserve better than what you got from me yesterday. I am truly sorry.

I will strive to do better.

Share and Enjoy: