Issues / Raising the Bar on Education

Governor Mitt Romney has said that when parents and kids are free to choose their school everyone benefits.

I would like to hear your reasons to agree or disagree, until then, here are my Reasons to agree with Romney:

1. Competition and choice in Educational opportunities – whether it comes from private schools, charter schools, or home schooling – makes traditional public schools better and improves the quality of Education for all of America's kids.
2. Public schools have no motivation, besides doing the right thing, to do a good job. Sure people want to do the right things, but people don't stick to diets, they cheat on the spouses, and watch too much TV, even when there is a direct reward or punishment that would seem to motivate them. A lot of teachers are great people, but they are no better than the rest of us, and the rest of us often need economic incentives to do what is right. Good schools will attract more kids, and will be able to charge more money, and pay better. Competition will help schools all schools do better.
3. Bethtopaz: "Just go into any DMV and you will see what government control does to quality and motivation to excel and offer the best customer service."
4. People make vague arguments about hidden costs. The example I was given is that middle income people would be able to afford the extra cost to take their kids to better schools. That is the problem with liberals: they think that, yes, this would make the world better for everyone, but it is not perfect on paper and so we should not do it, or not everyone would be able to take full advantage of it... it is accademic to them, and they are able to just ignore the fact that it would help the majority of people directly, and create a better educational environment for everyone. But they don't care. You can find a problem with any plan. A committee is a cul-de-sac down which ideas are lured and then quietly strangled, and democrats love committees.
5. Someone said that private schools were used in the south as a way to segregate. I don't know if this is true or not, but this is strange logic. By this logic, it is wrong to use any tool, that has once been used by bad people. By this logic, we should not go to any schools, because Nazis also sent their children to schools. The only valid question is if vouchers today would lead to segregation, and the whole purpose of vouchers is that they give poor children the opportunity to choose their schools, just like rich people. I think vouchers lead away from segregation.
6. Some say that vouchers would hurt the community, because the way kids go to school now, is based on their location. All the kids from the same neighborhood now go to the same schools. But this the typical liberal way of looking at the world: we know better how to raise your kids than you do. Liberals get an idea in their mind of what leads to ideal communities. They think that for some reason having everyone from a certain area going to the same school will help create a sense of community. Sure. There are times when a sense of community might help a child, or neighborhood, but going to a better school, might also help children. Feeling involved, and empowered might help parents. Their are a lot of complicated decisions, and republicans and libertarians want to empower the individuals.
7. It is best to trust individuals to make decisions for their own lives.
8. Just because it is not practical for everyone, does not mean it is not practical for anyone. It is a simple matter of respecting parents rights, that if you are going to help them with education, and they live equally as close to a catholic school and a public school, the parents should be able to send their kids to whichever one they want.
9. If parents had a choice as to which schools their kids would go to, newspapers, magazines, and other publications that parents read would find ways to evaluate these different schools. If parents had a choice as to which school to send their kids, there would be more interest in education in general. Right now we spend more time thinking about what type of toilet paper to buy, then we think about were to send our kids to school, because we don't have a choice of were to send our kids to school.
10. Bookstores don't hurt libraries, and even if they do, it doesn't matter, unless you work for the library and don't want to work for a bookstore. The important thing is people have a choice of where to go, and that they are able to read books.
11. Its wrong to say; "don't use my tax money to fund private and home schooling". Why should you have the right to tell parents where to send their kids?
12. Catholic schools do better than public schools.
13. Choice is good.
14. School choice is good.

tesst

E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post starts off his column by asking the wrong question:

Let's ask the hard question about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright: Is he as far outside the African American mainstream as many of us would like to think?

Dionne answers his question:

I cite King not to justify Wright's damnation of America or his lunatic and pernicious theories but to suggest that Obama's pastor and his church are not as far outside the African American mainstream as many would suggest.

I don't doubt that Dionne is correct in his assessment that Wright is not far out of the mainstream of African-American thought. Many black leaders and pastors have essentially shrugged their shoulders at Wright's statements. Those calling Wright's statements fanatical are the usual names: Sowell, Steele, Blackwell, etc.

It is not Dionne's assessment of the African-American mainstream that I question, but why that is relevant. If Obama was seeking to replace Sharpton or Jackson as leader of the African-American community, there would be little reason to object to Wright's statements or Obama's association with Wright. Certainly Sharpton and Jackson regularly espouse similar views.

Yet, Obama is not seeking to be leader of the black community. Obama is seeking to be the elected leader of ALL Americans. Thus, it is insufficient to be in the mainstream of African-Americans if that falls outside the American mainstream. It is insufficient for Obama to be in the mainstream of ANY sub-group of Americans if that is not within the larger mainstream of all Americans. Dionne's sleight of hand tries to legitimize Wright's anti-Americanism by placing it in the mainstream of the black community. However, that skirts the issue of whether Wright's statements fall within the American mainstream. Dionne's failure to ask the correct question betrays its answer, which undoubtedly is no.

Labels: Obama

I previously urged folks to vote Hillary Clinton as a strategic vote. With more influential people than me urging the same, we may be having an effect.

I interrupt my regularly scheduled jury trial to chime in here. I thought Obama's speech was a disaster. First of all, I thought Obama dragged himself into a controversy and sought to explain it for far too long. I don't think he diffused it. In fact, I think that overall, more Americans probably know about it now than did before but still know very little about the controversy. He gave the controversy legitimacy it did not have and bogged the speech down with it.

I also found Obama's speech problematic on several fronts. One of those was the attempt to tie in slavery, the principles of the consitution, and racism generally into what is only tenuously relatable. He shrouded himself in a cloak behind which I don't think he should hide. I guess the subtle message was, whatever you think about my pastor, lets talk about slavery.

Another one of those was this notion that a person is and can be separate from their associations. This is where Obama's condemnation of his pastor clashes with his approval of him. No, I'm not saying the guy needs to refuse to speak to him, but I happen to think that what church you associate yourself with says a lot more than Obama wants to fess up to. I have never understood people who say, I disagree with this and this about my church, but I was born ______ and I will die ______ (fill in the appropriate church).

Which left me with the overall conclusion that Obama really lacks moral definition. I happen to think that the guy has a lot of good qualities about him, but I don't think one of those is a solid grounding on principle that when he hears something he disagrees with he will stand up and say, that is not the case. He is much more prone to let it slide. In reality, I think Obama was just fine being in that environment. It didn't bother him. Only when he was forced to take a position on it because it was developing into a controversy did he take that stand. I don't doubt that he disagrees with the rhetoric now, but that aspect of him is a recent development, it seems to me (recent enough that even Mitt "flip-flop" critics should be really skeptical).

To some extent, I chalk this up to the lack of leadership experience. Obama is not a leader. He may be good at rallying, but he is not the person who is going to look in the face of death and make the tough choices that need to be made. John McCain is that man. He is the guy that if someone were saying something he didn't agree with, he would stand up and tell them how he feels.

So, for me, the speech was worthless. I wish he had just given a speech on the greatness of America and how it should be the desire of every man, woman, and child of this country to see to it that we fulfill the dream defined by Martin Luther King, Jr. Racism exists. I am currently handling a hate crime case and I can attest that there is some horrible, horible, racism out there. I must honestly confess though that I think Obama failed to transcend the political circumstances of his current political situation and failed to truly project a concept of unity that left me rallied to the cause.

To that extent, I think the speech will fail where it could have been succesful, which is leaving a lasting mark on the American political landscape. Of course, I have been wrong about predictions in the past. I thought Mitt would win Iowa.

I agree with Justin...to a point. Obama's speech was a rhetorical gem. It flowed naturally from one topic to the next and made a compelling case for his solutions. I was just left with one question after listening:

So what?

If the problem that Obama was confronting, and the need for the speech, had been general racism or discrimination, this would have been a masterful discourse. However, in my view, the problem was not generalized racism, but Obama's particular association with an extremist. It was the statements by one of Obama's closest confidants for the last 20 years that are particularly at odds with the premise for Obama's campaign. Thus, in addressing race rather than his voluntary association, Obama addressed an issue tangential to the reason for the controversy.

The big problem with his speech is that he either gave generalized denunciations to Wright's statements and then made the moral equivalence argument in several ways: equating non-family members to family members, saying all religious leaders make controversial statements, implying that all controversies are equal, etc. These excuses for his continuing association with Wright, in spite of the problems it has caused, makes me question his judgment more fully.

Don't get me wrong, Obama's campaign was smart in pivoting from Obama's particular associations to racism generally. The news, at least that I've seen, has been gushing over his speech about race and have generally forgotten why he needed to give the speech at all. Wright is glossed over and forgotten as the stations will likely do a week's worth of stories about race in America.

Labels: Obama, race, religion

I have to tell you... I found the speech very engaging and well crafted. We dismiss it blithely at our peril.

Don't get me wrong, there was plenty for conservatives to object to... but the argument which Obama framed up created a compelling narrative (especially during the first half of the speech). Obama's strong condemnation of Rev. Wright coupled with his refusal to cut off his pastor cold turkey cuts a very natural path between the black community looking for vindication and conservative critics looking to catch him in hypocrisy.

If I had to regurgitate it, this is what I heard: "This is the reality of what many blacks believe in America, I don't believe it, but you can't reach out to this group by ignoring them or lambasting them outright. Likewise, my fellow blacks need to condemn the ugly vitriol against whites and fess up the to their own messes. America is full of these contradictions. It makes us stronger when we deal with it."

"Contradictions" is a term that many people can relate to.

As others have noted, the last part of the speech was a liberal boilerplate of good intentions. No surprise there. But the overall tenor of the venue was positive in nature and disarming in effect.

I mean, ask yourself. What was his main goal going in? Dissolve the Wright issue and move it into the win column. Did he accomplish that? I think he did.

Labels: anti-american, Obama, religion

I find it interesting that Barack Obama’s continuing difficulties because of Jeremiah Wright are being framed in the context of two things it is definitely not about: race and religion.

This controversy is not about race. If anyone made the claim, and I have yet to hear it, that Obama is being criticized because of his race they are wrong. It is not the color of Obama’s or Wright’s skin that is the subject of controversy. No rational person would equate Wright’s anti-Americanism with the color of his skin, unless we are to believe that skin color determines nationalistic attitudes (which is patently absurd). It is Wright's inflamatory statements themselves that have engendered controversy and not his skin color. Perhaps Wright would say the two are inseperable, but, again, skin color does not determine the content of character. Thus, those who frame the controversy in the context of race are not navigating the facts, but are pushing a headline that is detached from the story.

Likewise, the controversy is not about religion. Wright’s comments are not theological, but are political. It is not the tenets of Obama’s faith that are in question. No one is asking about his belief in God or his belief in the divinity of Christ or any other doctrinal question. No one has suggested that Obama should be disqualified because of his beliefs in spiritual matters. This is distinct from Mitt Romney’s experience where it was doctrinal differences over such things as the nature of God or post-mortal life that were the subject of controversy. Wright’s statements cannot be resolved by resort to religious sources. The slight convergence with religion that this controversy has is because of Wright’s title and the location of the remarks. Wright is a pastor and the remarks were given in a Church. Those facts alone do not make the controversy about religion. The controversy is about religion only insomuch as Obama proclaims religious belief in the statements that Wright made, something that Obama seems unlikely to do.

Labels: Obama, religion

One of the more interesting aspects of the 2008 campaign season has been the use of new media, especially embedded videos like YouTube and video channels on websites like those employed by the Romney campaign and the Obama campaign. I had a chance to interview Michael Kolowich from www.diginovations.com who led video effort for www.mittromney.com.

I actually came across Michael while listening to POTUS 08 on XM radio. He was being interviewed on the Pajamas Media show and I thought it was one of the more interesting interviews I heard in a while. So I found his site, emailed him and he kindly agreed to do the interview. The interview was conducted a few weeks ago, but held up by some things on my end. Despite that, it's a great interview and should be read in concert with his blog post here. BTW, his blog has many posts of great information on the use of web video, if you are as interested in this topic as I am.

1. Describe for our readers how your involvement in the campaign came to be.

Like many of those deeply involved in the Romney For President effort, my involvement was driven entirely by my belief that Mitt Romney would make an exceptional leader for America. I’d worked with Governor Romney in the private sector nearly 25 years ago, and had tracked his career closely ever since. I’d always marveled at his dexterity in problem-solving and his willingness to take on challenges against what seemed like long odds…and succeed.



In the late 2006, with Governor Romney rumored to be readying a run for the White House, I encountered one of his close personal advisors at a business gathering and struck up a conversation about internet video. As a documentary film producer who’s been intensely interested in internet media since the earliest days of the net, I told him, “Mark my words. Internet video will play an enormous role in the 2008 campaign.” Asked to elaborate, I wrote a white paper that later became the blueprint for a tactical video unit.



Mind you, I’d not had any previous experience in politics. But I did know how to tell a story in video and how to make it engaging and accessible on the net. And the next thing I knew, I was sitting at a table with Governor Romney’s top media advisors, charting the course for Mitt TV and a Tactical Video Unit that fed the online channel.

2. In your article and on the interview you gave on POTUS 08 you mention there are negatives associated with Youtube that match the positives.

Describe how those negatives affected your product, and does the cost/benefit ratio of Youtube make publishing content on Youtube a worthwhile venture for the campaigns? (It seems like most of the benefits of Youtube -i.e. embeddable format- can be achieved without Youtube.)



YouTube has been attractive to many political campaigns for several reasons: 1.) it’s an extremely easy platform to publish on; 2.) it’s got a huge built-in audience; and 3.) bloggers and webmasters mostly know how to embed YouTube clips in their postings. Augmenting these advantages was the fact that, by mid-2006, YouTube seemed to be focused on using the presidential campaigns to broaden its appeal and establish a reputation as a serious medium with worth beyond the Mentos-and-Diet-Coke-hack crowd. YouTube gave each of the candidates his/her own “channel” on YouTube – a relatively protected, advertisement-free corner of YouTube to post as many videos as we wanted. So beyond the production cost, the expense of uploading and hosting video on YouTube was nil.



The interesting question, though, was what the opportunity cost of having someone watch a clip on YouTube was, versus having those clips be hosted and framed on our own website. The numbers were quite clear that content – video, text, and photo galleries – were very powerful magnets for visitors to mittromney.com. And when people got excited about the content and visited the website, they tended to take action – volunteer, give money to the campaign, forward the links to friends, and sign up for regular communications. That simply didn’t happen nearly as much on YouTube. In fact, on YouTube the viewer of one of our clips was often presented with a lineup of “related” videos which sometimes were attack clips put together by competing campaigns!



So we decided early on to invest in our own private internet TV channel on mittromney.com, called Mitt TV. It was guaranteed to be ad-free, and we programmed it much like a television station, with a constant flow of fresh new material. We built Mitt TV on a private internet TV publishing system called PermissionTV (www.permissiontv.com), which gave us wonderful capability to build custom channels, adjust lineups to reflect issues and events of the day, and look at detailed viewership metrics to see how well videos held viewer interest and attention.



For us, then, YouTube and Mitt TV were never a matter of “either/or,” but rather a case of “both/and.” YouTube is great for capturing the energy and audience of internet search, while Mitt TV was better for engaging, energizing, and activating its audience. Among competitive campaigns, only the Obama campaign seems to have fully understood and adopted the concept of a fully-integrated and consciously programmed internet TV channel (Barack TV came out a few months after Mitt TV, and was initially almost an exact copy), as opposed to a chronological list of video clips. But the benefits of this approach were dramatic.


3. The Romney campaign obviously had a large budget for a venture like MittTV. For local campaigns, like perhaps a state legislator seat or something of that nature, what is possible in terms of video coverage? How would you recommend they approach video on their own sites?



I think you need to view video not just as nice eye candy, but rather as a critical piece of content that attracts, informs, energizes, and activates supporters. Video is something you can feature in e-newsletters, that people pass along to each other, and that keeps people involved and emotionally energized within your website longer than they otherwise would. It helps people sign up, get involved, and give money. Without giving specifics, it cost much, much less to serve up video clips than the average campaign contribution offered on the typical visit by those who watched them.



For the reasons I stated earlier, I don’t think that YouTube or any of the “free” (i.e. ad-supported) channels are the right answer. After all, YouTube is first and foremost an advertising medium, and I think we were looking in 2007/8 at a one-time phenomenon in offering the ad-free channels to the campaigns; YouTube simply can’t afford to be so generous next time around.



So what’s the answer for a smaller campaign? It’s now becoming possible to set up and host a private, ad-free internet TV channel with total creative control for a few thousand dollars a year. Look for a few new video publishing platforms over the next couple of months that will be perfect for smaller campaigns, and watch my blog (www.web-video-expert.com/blog) to track those new developments. As for capturing the material, there is a virtual army of video-savvy volunteers who are ready and willing to capture the routine events, just to bolster their portfolios. But find a professional to shoot the very critical material, where professional lighting and audio really do make a huge difference. There is a big distinction to be made between “casual” and amateurish.

4. You mentioned MittTV reached out to bloggers. How did this happen, and what was the reception.

The Romney campaign had a couple of staffers totally dedicated to keeping in touch with and feeding material to bloggers, who were always hungry for fresh material to write about and interpret. And many of the blog postings that resulted contained embedded video. This definitely represented an edge for the campaign versus GOP rivals.


5. How did Mitt do when you had to film him? Was he pretty good on camera? Did he have to learn how to do it smoothly?

Governor Romney is, in many ways, a “natural” on camera. I would marvel at the ways in which he’d scribble a few cryptic notes, tape them to the bottom of the camera lens, and then riff in perfect prose for five or six minutes at a time, in a single take. It is a real gift. Mitt always talked about the fact that a president not only had to be commander in chief, but also what he called “educator in chief”, and he loves to explain how the complex systems of the world work.



Particularly late in the campaign, Governor Romney spent much of his time speaking on subjects where he was exceptionally conversant and comfortable: economic policy, the needed changes in Washington, health care, innovation and transformation, and of course family values. Many commentators talked about “finding his voice”…but those of us who were close to him throughout the campaign know that the voice was there all along.