When is it a good time to bow out? (I imagine there's never a good time to quit)

The talk has gone on for a while now. Barak Obama is in the lead, Barak Obama has raised more money, Barak Obama is getting endorsed by yet another super delegate. It's to the point now that the news media (which seems to be running the election for all of us... but that's another rant for a later date) has pretty much called it for Barak. We are being led to believe that the Democratic Party is inches from being in shambles as a result of Hillary's continued campaign. And so many pundits are trying figure out just how long Hillary could last. That's a good question.

I've been a strong supporter of Hillary. My cars have Hillary stickers (in the heaviest Republican state, that's a sure way of standing out). My family all voted for Hillary in the state's primary. The first time we could vote for a woman, the first time our vote counted for something. It sure doesn't in the general election (also a rant for a later date). And I have stated earlier why I believe that she is a better choice than Barak.

However, I have always liked them both (actually, all three when John Edwards was still in the race). So this isn't an either him or her thing. It's about timing and perception. As far as timing is concerned, that's really tricky. I don't think there is ever a good time to quit anything unless it has become utterly fruitless. This primary campaign hasn't yet reached that threshold, although the pundits would lead you to believe it is. But the evidence is slowly mounting, the endorsements come weekly, and the contributions mount many times higher for Barak Obama. So the concept of Hillary having to bow out is not so far fetched.

For what it's worth, I'll always endorse the Democrat. That doesn't help in a primary election. However, I stand by Hillary as my choice. And will back Barak as vigorously if he should win the nomination. Therefore, I have to consider a few things:

1. This extended primary season will tear the Democratic Party apart. Bull! This is a primary and this is a good way to see who can stand the heat. Besides, what many have already emphasized, is that more Democrats get a say this time who usually don't because the candidate is decided before their state gets to vote. The problem for Hillary is that if she quits at any point (unless she gets tremendously behind... an unlikely scenario) she will be viewed as not having the ability to stand the heat. And that could also set back future women nominees.

[Note: That's one of the big problems with most of the pundits and regular citizens regarding Hillary, or any female candidate. Frequently, I've heard from people from all walks of life say she's too ambitious. But would you say that of a male candidate? Hell no! I want someone who's ambitious! So why is this a bad thing coming from Hillary?]

2. What about all the people who support you? The more Bill, Chelsea, and Hillary campaign and accept contributions, the tougher it becomes to quit. What do you say to the guy who, just yesterday, gave you the legal maximum. Then the next day you quit? This was probably one of the difficult decisions for Edwards. Except for him, the vote tallies clearly indicated that he didn't stand a chance. With this close race, do you stay in for the supporters, or do you bow out for the party? You're kind of damned if you do and damned if you don't.

Frankly, I think Hillary is in trouble, and the choice to quit isn't a very good option either. Regardless of what happens, there is always the issue of timing. And, more importantly, the issue of perception. Not just of Hillary herself, but of female candidates. Like it or not, that's the real world. I really wouldn't want to be in her place. And that's why many of us don't run for office.

The Scary Ticket

Now that John McCain has secured the Republican nomination, let's play devil's advocate and choose a vice presidential candidate for him.

John McCain has been accused of splitting the Republican Party. Sounding familiar? Seems like the Democratic Party is splitting as well due to the prolonged primary fight (not really, but the pundits would have nothing to talk about otherwise so they have to make up some drama). The problem for John McCain is that he really is a moderate. And being a moderate is what is splitting the conservative base from the moderates in the party. So he has some problems, or does he?

The reality is that the party doesn't get you elected, the general election does. For the most part, when not under duress as has been the case in the past two terrorism-filled elections, the general electorate likes moderates. Bills get passed and everyone feels good. The last time we had hard-line conservatives were Reagan and Bush Jr. Both of whom pretty much trashed the country. Reagan enlarged the deficit so big it took three presidential terms to clean up his mess. And Bush Jr., well, enough said (it's the economy stupid.. or is it the war stupid... or is it the freedoms we've lost during this administration stupid... oh hell). Basically, moderates are the way to go.

So, McCain is actually a danger on the ticket because he's a moderate. The problem he has is that he is turning away the conservative, evangelical base. This may actually hurt him because everyone is either a conservative or a liberal these days and there seems to be no middle ground. So McCain is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Does he stay moderate or does he pander to the Right? Well, he's trying to do both. He's for the war going on indefinitely, he's for doing nothing about the mortgage crisis (let the banks and the people holding the loans work it out... no government interference), and he's for continuing Bush Junior's legacy.

On top of that, he's too damn old to be president! And his wife looks like she can't stand him and is there hoping to be a first lady.

But that aside, who does he pick to be on the ticket? Frankly, it's a no-brainer: Mike Huckabee. Huckabee's days are numbered as a presidential nominee. But he's a great guy. I love listening to him on the radio. I can't stand his views, but he's a great guy as far as conservatives go. And that's the danger. Mike Huckabee can bring in the rest of the vote that John McCain can't. He could easily slip into presidential shoes if McCain were to become incapacitated or die in office forcing the executive branch to lean too far to the right. And he could easily run as his party's nominee if McCain decided not to go for a second term (should he win this election).

Frankly that scares the hell out of me. A McCain/Huckabee ticket would be quite formidable. And, frankly, it's McCain's only choice if he has any hope of overcoming the need for change that the electorate is demanding.

Why Utah Legislators Need an Education

Yes, Utah legislators need an education. First, they need to understand just what exactly goes on in a typical public school classroom. I doubt few, if any, actually do. If they did, this constant onslaught of stupid legislation would cease immediately. Everyone on both sides of the aisle can agree that education needs funding which results in a sense of over-creativity on Capitol Hill. Here are two examples beyond the, now defunct, voucher issue:

We need more teachers. We have a shortfall. We seem to need math and science teachers. That may be true overall but does not apply to every school or district. In an effort to solve this problem, a couple of pieces of legislation have come about that either pay math and science teachers more, or extend the school year for secondary students much like elementary schools who are on a year-round schedule. Another way to attract more teachers is to increase pay. The second option of extending the school year is said to solve the problem. It's a shell game and nothing more.

First, all teachers need a raise. This state pays public school teachers near the bottom of all states. It's shameful. Extending the school year and paying teachers more for their work is not a pay raise, it is just more work. Teachers need more pay-per-contract-hour, not more contract hours.

Second, unlike what legislators seem to think, teachers do not really have summers off. That time is spent refreshing curriculum, going to professional development, networking, and recovering from teaching those little brats with little or no parental and legislative support. Yes, some teachers work a second job for additional income, but that is their choice. They still do all of the above. Having a full-year schedule would still impede the curriculum work and professional development since teachers will not be able to control their schedules.

Also, the year-round provision suggests that students don't attend more school days but that they get to choose when they want to go. Most will choose to have the summer off anyway since that is when they work summer jobs, travel to colleges they want to apply to, etc. Additionally, many older school buildings are not air-conditioned. Who's going to want to go to class then? And how can you focus on schoolwork with all the great weather outside?

Then there is the concept of paying math and science teachers more. This is a dumb idea. Frankly, it is just as difficult for me to teach students in a different content area as it is for the math teacher across the hall to teach them.We are both highly educated professionals and we see the same students, just at different times of the day. Pay us the same rate. If you want to get more math and science teachers, offer a signing bonus, but keep them to the same pay scale as all other content areas.

---

For the "I'm too stupid to write education legislation" category, let's look at State Representative Kevin Garn's latest mailer. I have made it available here. If you can answer #4, I applaud you. I have a couple of college degrees and don't know how to respond to it. Read it carefully. Evidently, neither Mr. Garn nor anyone affiliated with the Utah Republican Party did or can. Mr. Garn should recuse himself from writing any future education legislation or voting on anything to do with education until he becomes better educated. Public education would really benefit if Howard Stephensen, Greg Curtis, Curt Bramble, Chris Buttars, Margaret Dayton, etc., stayed away from any legislation as well.

Bill and Me

I shook Bill Clinton's hand on Sunday, November 4th, 2007, in the Student Union building on the University of Utah campus. I was not alone. My wife shook his hand as did hundreds of other people. That ended what was a truly remarkable experience for me.

I used to live in Arkansas and always thought that I would meet a Clinton there. When I moved out to Utah I had resigned myself to being perpetually surrounded by Republicans living out my life separated from "my people." Yeah, that's right, I'm a Democrat, get over it. (On a side note, I had to introduce myself to a class in diversity that I was taking to finish my Masters of Education and said I was a "western Democrat" which I defined as a liberal who owns guns... the most dangerous kind of liberal). So I was thrilled, as was my wife, to learn that Bill Clinton would swing through the state to fundraise for Hillary.

Many have spoken about how captivating a speaker he is. He is natural, comfortable, smart as hell, and a joy to listen to. So I won't get into that. What I will get into is how he convinced me to become a Hillary Clinton supporter in a year where I feel like our party has a deep bench and I have no problem voting for Hillary Barak Edwards. Namely, I'll strongly support whoever we nominate.

Here is why Hillary must be the next President of the United States:

1. The war in Iraq. Duh! And I know that everyone is going to try to end this mindless endeavor. But the issue is not when or how, but rather, how do we do it in such a way that civil war doesn't break out in Iraq and we can work on repairing our reputation in the region? To me the answer is simple, Hillary not only is well connected around the globe, she is experienced in being in the White House, etc. Besides that she's married to one of the best foreign diplomats we have. Additionally, you can't discount the people that another Clinton administration can bring in to work with her administration. As much as "change" sounds like a great idea, we need some status quo to get the job done of rebuilding all that has been destroyed by the current administration.

2. Our global reputation sucks. We need someone who can rebuild it and fast. Obama and Edwards may be able to do this. But I believe that Hillary can do it faster. See the explanation above. I also believe that Obama and Edwards are not as well connected and it would take them longer to accomplish their goals. However, I believe either one of them would make an excellent President as well.

3. It's the economy, stupid. When Bush #1 left office, the economy sucked. Then we had the Bill Clinton for 8 years and handed a strong economy, a budget surplus, and a peaceful nation to the current clowns. The Clintons know how to balance a budget, inspire the economy, and bring peace.

While some are fearful of a possibility of another 8 years of the Clintons, I have to ask just what the hell you're afraid of? Peace? A strong economy? A balanced budget? Good rapport with other nations?

Epilogue on Vouchers

I haven't posted in a while. The nature of life can sometimes get in the way of getting feelings out in words. I have been busy working on finishing my Masters of Education, teaching high school, and teaching Instructional Technology for Utah State University. The last time I freely expressed myself, I was ranting about the referrendum vote in Utah to get vouchers passed. The history of that vote (briefly) goes like this:

The Utah State Legislature decided to pass a sweeping voucher bill that had no limits on income and no teacher accountability requirements. The voucher could be used for any school regardless of theology, philosophy, etc. In essence, spending public money on religious education. The legislature then passed a second bill just in case the referendum on the first bill passed. The Utah Supreme Court said the second bill was an addendum to the first and could not stand on its own, therefore the referendum was on both bills. That was after the Utah State Attorney General said that he was the 'decider' (the Utah Supreme Court corrected him by pointing out quite judiciously that they were, in fact, the deciders).

Then the media blitz happened. The pro voucher camp argued that class sizes would go down trying to convince what they thought was a stupid voting public. In fact, class sizes don't go down, education is funded by attendance. If there are less students, there will be less teachers and class size stays the same. And so on. Then there was the misinformation campaign fostered by many but best shown through the miscalculation by Utah State Senator Curtis Bramble when wrote in an opinion piece for the Provo Daily Herald and messed with the numbers. Paul Rolly, Salt Lake Tribune columnist called him on it. Then Bramble tried to promote more misinformation by correcting Rolly. (Here is the original article as evidence that Rolly isn't messing with Bramble. It also is a good example of both sides of the argument).

What really offended me about both camps was the dumbing down of the information in media campaigns. That does a disservice to our children. If you take a complicated issue like vouchers and dumb it down, you send the message that critical thinking ability is not necessary. However, both sides argued that public education needed help. They recognize that our students are not performing as high as they should or are capable of. Then why champion education that teaches critical thinking while at the same time dumbing down the message?

Well the campaigning is over, the endless spending (about $8 million) could have helped kids instead. The voucher bill was soundly defeated 62% against the measure. So the pro voucher people are now claiming victory by stating that 38% of voters are saying that education funding in this state needs to change. Only in Utah can a defeat be called a victory.

So what's the point? Three things:

1. Watch for retaliatory legislation from the Utah State Legislature who have a history of not legislating for the good of the people but would rather legislate against the opposition. (When teachers had a one-day strike a few years back, they made life tougher on teachers in the next legislative session). It may not happen in January since there is an election coming up next November for many, but you can count on it in January 2009.

2. Vouchers won't return by that name, but watch out for tuition tax credits. Same thing, different name.

3. Patrick Byrne, creator of Overstock.com, not only dumped a lot of money into the pro voucher campaign, he said 62% of the voting public had a low IQ as a result of turning down welfare for private enterprise. Time to boycott Overstock.com just so we can spend our time and money on increasing our political IQs.

One last thought. The whole point of vouchers is hidden in the rhetoric. The point of vouchers, and of No Child Left Behind, is not the improvement of education, it is the elimination of public funding of public education. The goal is the eventual elimination of public education. The advantage of privatization is that you can have religious education. And, if you can con the public, get public money to pay for it.

But let's look at just how well privatization works. First, the privatization of the Flight Service Stations from the FAA to Lockheed has been a nightmare. Services are poor, flight briefings are inaccurate, wait times are astronomical. Then there is Blackwater. You know the private security firm in Iraq that just randomly shoots at civilians. Yup, that's working well.

Outsider's View of DC

I recently had the opportunity to visit Washington, DC. Yes, I ventured into the lion's den. It's no secret that I have a particular disdain for politicians. It seems like politicians are more concerned about getting re-elected than governing. Laws are passed to appease business interests rather than the general public. To lawmakers, the country is a bunch of businesses, not a bunch of people.

But I digress... back to DC.

Here I was in the power center of the planet. It was amazing. You could feel the power in the city. There were lawyers, tourists, politicians, lobbyists, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists and more tourists. Wow.

I was even more awed by the National Archives. There I got to see the actual US Constitution (all pages) in its glory. The thought, the imagination, the determination of this country's forefathers was amazing. I wish that that kind of patriotism existed today. When I left the Archives and stood outside, I was hit by a sudden swell of remorse and fear. I had seen a great document that was being trashed by politicians just up the street.

We went to the Library of Congress next. It was my wife's desire to get a library card there. This is something special to a Nationally Board Certified Language Arts teacher. I thought it was significant enough to apply for one myself. It now has a place of honor on my desk. Not necessarily a "tourist" thing to do, but totally cool. Especially on a first trip to the nation's capital.

Outside the Library of Congress, we were passed on Independence Avenue by a presidential motorcade. My wife shuddered, then she growled, and I almost thought I was going to see her give the limo the finger. But she is classier than that. It was pretty cool how the motorcade can maneuver through the streets with relative ease during rush hour! I was impressed. It wasn't our first. We were passed by Vice President Cheney's motorcade (which was doing about 80 MPH) on a freeway in Salt Lake City during the 2002 Winter Olympics. He was obviously on his way to an undisclosed location which we all knew was the Snowbird resort.

Back in DC, we ran into the motorcade a second time as we (and the President) were headed towards the White House. Again the reaction from my wife. I actually had to calm her. I told here we were more likely to run into our least favorite person (let along politician) since we were in HIS town, not ours. And I pointed out to her how I felt about DC. The whole city has a feel of power and history. Monuments that stand tall and strong. Documents that have amazingly out lived so many that have come and gone since it was conceived. The notion of the United States is a concept more powerful than a person dead set to weaken it (Cheney, not his puppet Bush).

I told her that she only needs to relax. Until, at least, the election process is completely removed from our reach. That Americans have rarely elected someone the same party for 12 consecutive years. The odds have it that a Democrat was going to the White House, we just don't know who yet. The popularity (or lack there of) and the unpopular war for oil in Iraq would guarantee it. That the concept of democracy and freedom was far greater than a man and his puppet. We will survive this administration. We survived Nixon. We survived Reagan. We will survive Bush. (I hope).

What is Social Responsibility and Where Does It End?

The debate continues with that familiar rhetoric that if we don't defeat the terrorists in Iraq, they'll follow us here. So hand over all the money and allow the Bush Administration to continue to perpetuate its own form of terror. They say that if you place a time limit on how long we will be there to get the job done, the terrorists will simply lay low until we're gone. Maybe so.

Before we can even enter into an argument about this issue, we need to face the fact that Iraq has always been tribal to some degree. That predates our occupation, that predates Saddam's reign, that predates the British occupation, etc. And once you understand that and the presence of different versions of Islamic belief, then you begin to understand that we are in the middle of a civil war not of our making. A civil war that really has nothing to do with us. People will die as a result. It may be a result of our ousting of Saddam, it may have been a long time coming. Regardless, it's here now. People will die as a result. It's just a matter of how quickly they'll die. Either our occupation will draw it out over months or years. Or it can happen very quickly if we step aside and let this difference in attitudes and ideologies work its way out.

Therefore, I don't think we need to discuss timetables or benchmarks. We just need to leave...TODAY. That's right, I said we need to leave today. There is going to be a vacuum when we leave no matter when that is. If we leave now, the world knows we were serious about wanting Iraq to get their butts in gear. No longer are we leaving the timetable to the Iraqis. They can have their little short-lived civil war and get the whole thing over with. We will just simply pull up stakes and head over to Afghanistan and finish what we were supposed to do in the first place. We will still be next to Iran to keep pressure on them, but now we are actually hunting the terrorists who attacked us.

Imagine one fine morning in Iraq. Everyone wakes up, stretches, yawns, prays, whatever the morning ritual is. Then someone looks around and says, "Where did the Americans go?" Then someone else says, "Damn, now we actually have to do something with our lives, our country, etc." I think that leaving will motivate them much faster than funding a continuing unwanted occupation. This is not a surrender, this is a re-deployment. Things change in war and a successful military startegy is a flexible one. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. Let's stop the insanity and move on. It takes a big man to admit a mistake. Unfortunately, there are no big men in the current administration.

(Oh, and the terrorists won't follow us here, they don't need to. Their job is done, they've gotten us to rescind our freedoms through the Patriot Act and other freedom-squelching government acts).