Five Points

A Comment On The Limitations of Electoral Politics

2009-04-03T05:28:00.000-07:00

For exaltation comes neither from the east
Nor from the west nor from the south.
But God is the Judge:
He puts down one,
And exalts another.

-- Psalm 75:6-7

A Fair Tax [Penalty] Indeed

2009-04-01T08:43:00.001-07:00

File under "Goose, Sauce For": N.C. Rep. Jerry Dockham (R-Davidson) has filed the "Geithner Tax Fairness for N.C. Citizens Act":

AN ACT TO PROVIDE NORTH CAROLINA TAXPAYERS WITH THE SAME TAX TREATMENT APPLIED TO UNITED STATES TREASURY SECRETARY TIMOTHY F. GEITHNER BY DISALLOWING PENALTIES WHEN A TAXPAYER OWES LESS THAN FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS OF INCOME TAXES.

(House Bill 941)

Sports: Does The Punishment Fit The Crime?

2009-03-06T15:00:00.000-08:00

A bill submitted by a Duplin County Democrat would bar failing schools from participating in interscholastic sports. While the role of athletics and other extracurriculars may be debateable -- the John Locke Foundation's Karen Palasek has addressed this before)-- the cost or appropriateness of high school athletics is not in question. Neither is it alleged that athletic interests have overwhelmed the school's attention to basic literacy. Sports are simply being used as a carrot-and-stick incentive to encourage the school, at whatever level, to move forward on their responsibility to give and receive a basic education.

The N.C. High School Athletic Association governs participation in public high school sports. They already have scholastic eligibility requirements -- basically, that a student have passing grades in a full-time academic load -- that apply to the individual students (see page five of the NCHSSA handbook). The proposed rule would take the focus off individual eligibility and place the burden on the entire student body, a situation that simply can't be addressed by the student who is already keeping his grades up and his eligibility safe to play basketball, tennis, or whatever.

And that is the problem I see with the present bill: the penalty is too broad. Successful student athletes are denied the opportunity to compete because of the academic failures of even non-athletes in their schools. Perhaps the intent is to penalize the school, seeing the failure as a systemic problem rather than a collection of individual problems. That might be effective at the collegiate level, where student recruitment and donor support often respond favorably to the
college sports program. I think the only effect it would have at the secondary level, where recruitment is positively forbidden (see page four of the NCHSAA rules) and student apathy is a regular complaint anyway, would be to anger students and parents who feel unjustly excluded from a major extracurricular activity.

If you accept that high school sports are just an expected part of high school culture -- and another bill, opening public school sports to students which are not currently eligible, underscores that expectation exists -- then they deserve to be handled fairly and objectively as possible. And if you are going to upset a large number of parents in the best of intentions, it seems there are more effective things to spend political capital upon.

Help Me Out Here

2009-02-24T10:32:00.000-08:00

What's wrong with this sequence?

1. We absolutely have to pass an $800 billion stimulus package without really looking at it.

"With the stakes so high we simply cannot afford the same old gridlock and
partisan posturing in Washington. It's time to move in a new direction.
Americans know that our economic recovery will take years -- not months. But
they will have little patience if we allow politics to get in the way of action,
and our economy continues to slide." (Obama, 1/31/09)
"... we can't afford to make perfect the enemy of the absolutely necessary. The scale and scope of this plan is right. And the time for action is now.Because if we don't move swiftly to put this plan in motion, our economic crisis could become a national catastrophe. Millions of Americans will lose their jobs, their homes, and their health care. Millions more will have to put their dreams on hold." (Obama, 2/7/09)

2. Now that we pass that, we positively have to have $200 billion more for additional things.

3. The President threatens mayors and governors if they waste any of it.

4. Now that we've committed a trillion dollars we didn't have to begin with, we're going to cut the Bush-era deficit in half.

I'm missing the logic behind this.

A Doctrine of Fairness

2009-02-19T10:09:00.000-08:00

I continue to hear calls for [conservative] critics of President Obama to back off and let the president be president for a while. I've addressed this before, and it turned up again in my study this morning:
Then Paul, looking earnestly at the council, said, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” And the high priest Ananias commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth. Then Paul said to him, “God will strike you, you whitewashed wall! For you sit to judge me according to the law, and do you command me to be struck contrary to the law?” And those who stood by said, “Do you revile God’s high priest?” Then Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, ‘You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”

-- Acts 23:1-5

Even though Paul had a justifiable claim against the unjust treatment he was receiving, he repented when he realized the position of the one he was addressing. Calling the high priest a "whitewashed wall" is probably an example of the kind of reviling Christ condemns.

But if the president [our "king"] claims our consideration out of respect for his position --basic fairness, maybe -- then what should we make out of this passage?
Do not curse the king, even in your thought;
Do not curse the rich, even in your bedroom ...

-- Ecclesiastes 10:20a

Is there some unbridled rhetoric and heavy-handed policy coming from the new administration? I think there's room for self-examination and repentance on the other side of the aisle, too.

Maybe Obama Rejected The Wrong Churchill

2009-02-18T08:26:00.000-08:00

Not long after 9/11, the British government loaned a valuable bronze bust of Winston Churchill to President George W. Bush. It occupied a prominent position in the Oval Office for the rest of his term.

Now President Barack Obama has returned it, unrequested, and provoked puzzlement and conjecture in British circles.

The London Telegraph suggests it may be because Churchill was Prime Minister when Britain suppressed the Mau Mau Rebellion in Kenya, and reportedly detained and tortured Obama's Kenyan grandfather.

The (UK) Spectator's Alex Massie opines it is a sign of Obama's "maturity", a sign that he doesn't need the inspiration of Winston Churchill looking over his shoulder to be president. He further lambasts "neoconservatives" as "traducing Chamberlain" and living in a "cult of Churchill" in the U.S. which needs taking down and no delay about it. (HT: The Corner)

I think it's likely nothing more than housecleaning (if you want to say that of an artwork worth hundreds of thousands of dollars). Obama likes Lincoln, so Abe it is in the statue corner.

Anyway, this whole argument loses traction in the reality of Early Churchill v. Later Churchill. We conservatives do admire Churchill's clear understanding of Britain's crumbled national security, his accurate identification of the threat that was Hitler and Nazism long before the rest of the government, and his stalwart leadership of his embattled nation before the Americans were stirred to engage the foe directly, and then ever afterward.

We forget however that Churchill's domestic policies were by no means conservative, including strong support for national socialized medicine, unemployment insurance, huge public works programs and old age pensions decades before we came up with the New Deal. For a time, he was a big-L Liberal. I've commented on this elsewhere before.

Contra The Spectator, I would argue that maybe President Obama would find a kindred spirit in the Early Churchill of 1904-1923, rather than the more remembered Later Churchill of 1939-1945 he supposedly rejects when he evicts Winston's image from the White House. Maybe it is Massie guilty of oversimplifying the history of a very long political career in his own country, and not we American provincials, y'know.

Besides, we have our own leadership cult now, and we've successfully exported the American Up-Leg Thrill to many countries already.

Maybe The Spectator would like a bronze bust of Barack Obama for their offices in return ?

BONUS: If President Obama had kept the bust, would he have been accused of trading on a famous relative?

Our Side Is Bipartisan, Too

2009-02-14T18:00:00.000-08:00

Just as President Obama's jibe, "We won!", is a false justification for staunching opposition, it should be noted that there was bipartisan opposition to the stimulus bill. While true that three Senate Republicans joined the Democrats in the Senate -- not that Senators Specter or Snowe were any surprise in that role -- in the House, there were eight Democratic Congressmen who voted no on the final ballot for the bill. While Speaker Pelosi didn't have to have their votes, I still commend the eight who voted right, and point out that "bipartisan" goes both ways.

Voting NO on H.R. 1:

Bobby Bright (D-AL)
Parker Griffith (D-AL)
Heath Shuler (D-NC)
Gene Taylor (D-MS)
Walt Minnick (D-ID)
Peter DeFazio (D-OR), and
Collin Peterson (D-MN).

Another Thing Wrong With The Stimulus Vote

2009-02-14T17:30:00.000-08:00

With so many bad economic ideas and such glowing setups for fraud, waste, and abuse of taxpayer funds, this may be just one puff in a whirlwind. However, here's a direct Biblical warning of one of the major features of this bill's passage:

He who answers a matter before he hears it
It is a folly and shame to him.

-- Proverbs 18:13

Question: How many members of Congress could honestly say they had read the bill? Or even, that their staff had been able to read the bill and brief the member on its contents?

For further consideration:

Prov 14:29 - He who is implusive exalts folly

Prov 21:5 - The plans of the diligent lead surely to plenty, but those of everyone who is hasty, surely to poverty.

Prov 29:20 - Do you see a man hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him.

Saving and Creating? Really?

2009-02-10T10:04:00.000-08:00

The president and his supporters are claiming that his economic plan “will save or create three to four million jobs”. This is a non-falsifiable statement. Can they tell us, at the next reckoning, which particular jobs were saved? Can their opponents, for that matter, say which particular jobs were not saved, or were lost as a result of the plan? In both cases, it’s impossible to answer. They might as well claim they will save every American job — as the repeated warning of “catastrophe” suggests — since they can no more be called to account for tens of millions than for the few they now claim.

I listened (with pain) to part of President Obama’s prime-time press conference last night, and he is continuing to set up straw men labeled “market economists” and “George W. Bush” and heroically swat them around. I wonder if he’s okay if the real George W. Bush applies the same logic Obama does, and make lots of public appearances to boast of a specific number of American lives saved by his administration successfully thwarting terrorist attacks since 2001.

But whatever might be said of George W. Bush’s policies, I don’t think he indulges in fanciful conjectures as if they were quantifiable facts.

(Cross-posted on The Inundated Calvinist)

Striding Into A Mine Field

2009-02-06T04:25:00.000-08:00

The President's op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post was a toned-down version of his recent rhetoric. While not quite as blunt as the vaudevillian "Shut up, he argued," President Obama contines to insist that his 52% margin in the general election trumps all considerations from the conservative side.

In recent days, there have been misguided criticisms of this plan that echo the failed theories that helped lead us into this crisis -- the notion that tax cuts alone will solve all our problems; that we can meet our enormous tests with half-steps and piecemeal measures; that we can ignore fundamental challenges such as energy independence and the high cost of health care and still expect our economy and our country to thrive.

I reject these theories, and so did the American people when they went to the polls in November and voted resoundingly for change. They know that we have tried it those ways for too long.

The President conveniently ignores the fact that 100% of House Republicans and 17 Republican Senators (of 35 seats on the ballot this year) also won their elections last November.

Analyzing the Sarah Palin phenomenon for Commentary, Yuri Levin writes that "Both economic and cultural populism are politically potent, but in America, unlike in Europe, cultural populism has always been much more powerful. Americans do not resent the success of others, but they do resent arrogance, and especially intellectual arrogance."

This is dangerous territory where the President's increasing reliance on the formula, "I won" to support his sweeping actions to bypass Congressional deliberation. It is going to go up with a bang soon. Charles Krauthammer thinks it already has:
After Obama's miraculous 2008 presidential campaign, it was clear that at some point the magical mystery tour would have to end. The nation would rub its eyes and begin to emerge from its reverie. The hallucinatory Obama would give way to the mere mortal. The great ethical transformations promised would be seen as a fairy tale that all presidents tell -- and that this president told better than anyone.

I thought the awakening would take six months. It took two and a half weeks.

UPDATE: Rich Lowry at National Review writes today :

[Circumstances] change, and no president can adhere to every jot and tittle from his campaign, but the “I won” argument only works if the campaign program matches the governing program. ...

When Barack Obama ran last year, he didn’t say he’d engage in faith-based economic policy on a grand scale. He didn’t say he’d toss aside the normal processes of governing. He didn’t say he’d quickly act to add waste to the federal budget. And he didn’t say he’d try to brush away criticism with the mere assertion of his victory. On the stimulus, when Obama says “I won,” he’s out of better arguments.

More Ethics

2009-02-06T03:59:00.000-08:00

From a WSJ story this morning:

On Thursday, the White House conceded that the husband of Labor Secretary-nominee Hilda Solis this week paid about $6,400 to settle tax liens on his business that had been outstanding for as long as 16 years. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee postponed a confirmation hearing after the news broke.

She was the fourth nominee to come under questioning on tax-related issues. Health and Human Services Secretary-designate Tom Daschle and White House performance czar Nancy Killefer withdrew their names from consideration this week after their own tax problems came to light. Mr. Geithner won confirmation despite failing to pay tens of thousands of dollars in payroll taxes on time.

Peter Kirsanow says there is a "strange ineptitude" in the Administration's otherwise exhaustive vetting process for nominees, describing the voluminous disclosure forms, FBI and IRS investigation, and detailed interviews for potentially disqualifying or embarrassing information. "Either Obama and his nominees aren't easily embarrassed, or the vetters have tin ears the size of satellite dishes," he concludes.

The Home School Legal Defense Association has called for members to oppose the candidacy of David Ogden for deputy attorney general, based on his support for conscience-violating provisions of the unratified U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child. Given the success rate of President Obama's nominations recently, it may behoove us to pay careful attention to the deputy positions as well -- they may be promoted soon.

Religious Discrimination Retained in Stimulus Bill

2009-02-05T18:26:00.000-08:00

Sen. Jim DeMint of South Carolina pointed out that the stimulus package contains the following restrictions on the use of $3.5 billion in renovation funds for colleges and universities:

(2) PROHIBITED USES OF FUNDS.—No funds awarded under this section may be used for—

(C) modernization, renovation, or repair of facilities—

(i) used for sectarian instruction, religious worship, or a school or department of divinity; or

(ii) in which a substantial portion of the functions of the facilities are subsumed in a religious mission; or construction of new facilities

His amendment, which would have removed this language, was rejected by a 54-43 vote in the Senate today. I note that Sen. Kay Hagan voted no on the amendment; given the hullabaloo that was raised by former Sen. Elizabeth Dole's questioning Hagan's Christian commitment, this would have been a quiet way for her to show otherwise. I don't think this vote proves anything one way or another, but it doesn't help her any.

Sen. DeMint responded afterward,
“This is now an ACLU stimulus designed to trigger lawsuits designed to intimidate religious organizations across the nation. This language is so vague, it’s not clear if students can even pray in a dorm room renovated with this funding since that is a form of ‘religious worship.’ If this provision remains in the bill, it will have a chilling effect on students of faith in America. ...
... Our culture cannot survive without faith and our nation cannot survive without freedom. This provision is an assault against both. It's un-American and it's unconstitutional. Intolerant and it's intolerable.”

HT: Mark Hemingway, The Corner

How "Urgent" Is This?

2009-02-02T09:02:00.000-08:00

It took me a couple of days to dig up the quote, but our Congressman, Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC2), spoke on behalf of the stimulus package (HR 1) last week and illustrated one of the main problems with it all:

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the rule for H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, and for the underlying bill. This bill provides urgently needed relief for struggling individuals and businesses and will create or retain three to four million jobs in this country.
H.R. 1 includes America's Better Classroom Act, which will provide tax credits to enable up to $25 billion in school construction and modernization, an initiative that I've been working on for over 12 years, along with my colleagues.

In other words, this gigantic bill is an opportunity to enact a proposal that Rep. Etheridge has been unable to bring to passage in six terms in Congress -- including the time under the control of his own party.

And it's a matter of grave urgency now?

(Quotation from Congressional Record: January 28, 2009 (House), page H613)

Ethics In The News Today

2009-01-30T09:06:00.000-08:00

President Obama, speaking of Wall Street executive bonuses, told a meeting in Washington yesterday that "There will be time for them to make profits, and there will be time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time. And that's a message that I intend to send directly to them, I expect Secretary Geithner to send to them," as reported on ABC News blog.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "It was the sixth-largest year of bonuses, and I don't think anybody that's opened their 401(k) statement has found out that this was the sixth best year for Wall Street," Gibbs said. "He'll address that in some more rage ...", citing the president's inaugural call for "an ethic of responsibility that we needed to see reinstituted in certain aspects of our country, particularly in our financial institutions."

In other news today, the Wall Street Journal reports that Democratic Senator Tom Daschle, Obama's nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services, recently paid $140,000 in back taxes he owed on "unreported consulting income and unwarranted charitable deductions" and a luxury car and driver provided by a client firm between 2005 and 2007.

He That Lives By The Executive OrderWill Die By The Executive Order

2009-01-26T06:40:00.002-08:00

The first week of the Obama Administration demonstrates, once again, the problem of setting major policy by executive order.

On Friday -- staying clear of the three-hundred-thousand-person March for Life which wound around the Capitol and the Supreme Court building Thursday on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade -- the President cancelled the "Mexico City Policy" which restricted federal support for overseas organizations that promote abortion.

The August 1984 executive order by President Reagan was first canceled by President Clinton in 1993, then reinstated and expanded by President George W. Bush in 2001. Now the next Democrat in the White House makes his statement on the matter. At this point it seems to be a tradition.

Regardless of who uses it, this is not the way to run a republic. In this country, a change of administration should not imply a change of law. The path of the Mexico City Policy is an example of that.

Footnotes

Title: The title, of course, alludes to the warning of Jesus to Peter, regarding the use of violence (Matthew 26:51-53). In this case, however, the title is not strictly correct: those infants whose lives had been saved by the Mexico City Policy are presumably alive today. Those who will die after the reversal of it have not had to chance to "live by the executive order".

a change of law: Although a historic reference, something that happens in absolutist regiemes, it's another allusion, this time to Hebrews 7:12, i.e. "For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law." Given the messianic adulation given to the candidate Obama, this is may be appropriate is a strange way of its own.

How To Think About The Inauguration

2009-01-20T19:39:00.000-08:00

David Horowitz, writing in FrontPage Magazine, gives the most balanced, uncompromised view of today's inauguration I've read from a conservative position. The most immediately helpful paragraph, though far from the only one, gives me a handle on the question:

[As] conservatives who embrace the institutions our founders created we need to separate the two roles of the presidency -- symbolic and political. Today the symbolic role takes precedence and we need to appreciate the specific aspects of that symbolism in the new presidency of Barack Obama, and put aside our anticipations of the policies he may later put in place. There will be time enough for that.

Worth it to RTWT ...

(HT: Paul at Powerline)

Question (But Don't Despise) Authority

2009-01-19T19:41:00.000-08:00

Someone recently asked if liberals were rushing out to the parking lot with razor blades to try to peel off their "Question Authority" bumper stickers.

Having a caution about the motives and character of men is healthy, I believe. We are all trapped in a fallen world, and even the best of us fail; sometimes the worst of us achieve positions of leadership or influence. I have severe doubts about the plans and politics of our president elect, but I think he is a man of higher character than many who have occupied that office.

In the course of one week I ran across two passages dealing with this directly:

... the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment, and especially those who walk according to the flesh in the lust of uncleanness and despise authority. They are presumptuous, self-willed. They are not afraid to speak evil of dignitaries ...

2 Peter 2:9-10

Likewise also these dreamers defile the flesh, reject authority, and speak evil of dignitaries.

Jude 1:8

In the New King James, the first passage warns against those who "despise authority." The KJV translates it, "despise government" (note, not "THE government", but the state of being under authority). The word in question is kyriotes and only appears four times in the New Testament, referring to powers and authorities which were created by God and are therefore subservient to Christ (Eph 1:20-21, Col 1:15-17), and are not to be given willful and flippant disrespect. The root word kyrios is the title for God, the Lord, but also refers to civil magistrates and those who exercise smaller dominions (such as a master toward his servants).

Both Peter and Jude point out the same worldly and sinful people who despise authority are "unafraid to speak evil of dignities". The evil here described is the word blasphemeo, and it is broader than just irreligious talk toward God. Paul uses the same term in Titus 3:1-2, again in the context of relationship to authority, when he tells Titus,

Remind them to be subject to rulers and authorities, to obey, to be ready for every good work, to speak evil of no one, to be peaceable, gentle, showing all humility to all men.

The beauty of our system of participatory government, with its layers of checks and balances, is its design to even out our individual tendancies toward sin and error. A free and respectful discussion of ideas, and a respect for the leadership which is created by our electoral system, is necessary for it to work. A Biblically ordered life, even in politics, once again proves foundational to our best attempts at earthly happiness.

This is not to say never criticize or even rebuke, where necessary. Rather, speaking evil in this way is a railing, slash-and-burn kind of attack that goes beyond a Biblical admonition of even the strongest sort. "Reviling" is used in the same passages with this word; "calumniate" is a possbility suggested by the lexicon. It is the kind of attack the Pharisees leveled against Jesus first and then His disciples, and the kind of thing Christ warned against in the Sermon on the Mount.

Frankly, we've all heard it, and at some time probably engaged in it. The Left is quick to accuse conservative talk radio of this sin, and quite honestly, many radio hosts are guilty. To say the president-elect is socialistic in his policy statements is legitimate; to call him a socialist, himself, may even be accurate, though debateable. To call him treasonous would not.

Likewise, the quick labeling of conservatives as avaricious, racist, or worse, is character assassination as well, and freely indulged in liberal punditry. President Bush and his Cabinet members may have been misinformed or misguided in some of their decisions in the war on terror, and history may show a different course altogether would have been more effective. None of them, though, are war criminals, nor are they Nazis. To casually refer to the outgoing president as "McChimpy Bushitler", as some have done, is the kind of reviling that is forbidden to Christians.

We conservatives, stung by an unwelcome election result, need to watch our step that we don't fall into the same sin. There is much to be said, even strenuously, in the next few years, but we have to keep to the right side of that line.

Evangelical Endorsement Watch 2-11-08

2008-02-11T11:50:00.000-08:00

Gary Bauer has announced for McCain.

Paul Weyrich, who formerly endorsed Romney, has come on board for Huckabee.

So Long, Mitt

2008-02-07T11:51:00.000-08:00

I was watching National Review's blog, The Corner, as the story broke this afternoon during lunch. So now we're down to McCain, Huckabee, and Paul -- which I certainly never expected. Jon Sanders had the first poetic tribute posted, actually before the announcement -- rats! --

Adios Romney?

Slightly more conservative

But it's McCain's time

But I had mine up soon after it was official:

Poor Hugh Hewitt had claimed it was crucial
That we give Mitt our full faith fiducial;
But Huck's current day saints
Said of Romney “He ain’t” --
So if not Mitt nor Fred leads, then who sh’ll?

After a few more minutes' thought, I posted a follow-up:

Reagan’s three-legged stool will be stable
If the nominee's tactics are able
To knit GOP hearts --
But as Romney departs,
I’m afraid the right wing’s off the table

Readers know I have never been enthusiastic about Romney, even though National Review swung their support behind him -- and defended it constantly -- several weeks ago. But really, where are the conservatives going to go now?

Arthur Branch, please call your office ...

Evangelical Endorsement Watch 2-6-08

2008-02-06T11:53:00.000-08:00

The long awaited statement from Focus On The Family's Dr. James Dobson came yesterday, in two stages. The rocket's red glare was his anti-endorsement of John McCain, as Dobson announced on Laura Ingraham's show:

"I am deeply disappointed the Republican Party seems poised to select a nominee who did not support a Constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage, voted for embryonic stem-cell research to kill nascent human beings, opposed tax cuts that ended the marriage penalty, has little regard for freedom of speech, organized the Gang of 14 to preserve filibusters in judicial hearings, and has a legendary temper and often uses foul and obscene language.
"I cannot, and will not, vote for Sen. John McCain, as a matter of conscience," Dobson said.

However, he told Dennis Prager later in the day, that he would support Mitt Romney:
"My theology is very, very different, obviously, and I would not find myself in agreement with the ways he sees Scripture, and, of course, their own interpretation and extension of Scripture. I'm not in any way minimizing that; it's a very important issue.

"I think we're facing such a point of crisis in our country, that we're going to have to have the strongest leadership we can. And I think I could deal with that in the polling booth."

Not exactly a formal endorsement statement, but pretty close. Story on Citizen Link here.

Maybe there won't always be an England

2008-02-04T11:56:00.000-08:00

The London Daily Mail reports a survey of 3000 Britons found that 25% believe Winston Churchill is a fictional character, but 60% said Sherlock Holmes was real.

Somehow, I don't think Churchill would be surprised.

Literary Efforts To Commemorate Departures

2008-01-30T12:00:00.000-08:00

A few selected bye-ku from this morning's announcement that Rudy Giuliani is bowing out of the Republican nomination race - Paul Chesser got the first licks in:

Late state strategy
Like skipping the game's first half
Losing was foregone

Likeable Rudy
Wasn't going to get nod
Too many Christians

Jon Sanders extended the meme:

Rudy's dropped out, too
Can't be president if you're
"America's Mayor"

Romney's on the ropes,
(For what it's worth) — Looks like
McCain v. Clinton

So: Rudy, Edwards,
And conservativism —
They're all sunk this year

My humble suggestion:

Unlike Democrats
We don't often move ahead
Driving on the left

Edwards Deserves More ...

2008-01-30T11:58:00.000-08:00

... More than three lines. He announced the end of his campaign today, too, and while others had offered metrical comments earlier, I raised the bar and the syllable count:

His ambition too blatantly crass,
Long he played on resentment of class;
But Americas Two
Have rejected his view
For the Hil or Obama, en masse

Jon Sanders, never one to turn down the challenge, responded:

The poor lost "their voice" today. Drat!
Who'll "speak" for them next? The old bat?
John can't "pimp" now (read: "care")
But he still has his hair,
His mansion, his gym, and all that!

Exit Poetry (Updated)

2008-01-23T12:03:00.000-08:00

Jon Sanders at the John Locke Foundation is a practitioner of the minimalist poetry commemorating the departure of political figures, dubbed the "bye-ku". He unleashed it mercilessly on my [former] candidate yesterday:

Fred Thompson's campaign,

Like the Law & Order theme,

Simply went "Clunk, clunk."

Fellow Locker Room denizen Paul Chesser's reply was even worse:

Sunken, hollow eyes
Vacant much like his campaign
Will he blame Jeri?

I expressed my dilemma this morning:

Since Bill Buckley said

"Vote rightwardmost viable"

and Fred's not it -- whom?

To which Paul agreed:

Mitt flips; McCain, ugh;
Big tax Huck; Rudy pro-choice
None of the above

The root of the problem seems to me:

"Conservatism",

for voters, has Gaussian

popularity

UPDATE: The Boston Phoenix (HT: Real Clear Politics) raised an interesting historical point: This may not be over yet. My link from the Locker Room:

Brokered convention

May resurrect the morbid

Fred-shade of Harding!

And as I'm reading A Team of Rivals, I might add that Lincoln was nominated under similar circumstances in 1860.

Everyone for Fred - It's Tactical

2008-01-17T12:05:00.000-08:00

Quin Hilyer makes the case for voting for Fred Thompson in South Carolina - even if you support Giuliani, Romney, or Huckabee.
If I were a South Carolina Republican voter on Saturday, then for parochial, tactical, and philosophical reasons, I would vote for Fred Thompson.
This doesn't mean that I would not have voted for Mitt Romney in Michigan on Tuesday, if I were a Michigander, or that I would not vote for Rudy Giuliani in Florida later this month. Voting in each state, especially in a drawn-out nomination battle, involves particularly local considerations as well as national ones.
But for South Carolinians who are mainstream conservatives, those local considerations seem to cry out for a boost for Fred Thompson.

From The American Spectator

GOP Candidates on School Choice

2008-01-08T12:06:00.000-08:00

The Club for Growth (the ones who got in a tiff with Huckabee) actually did a full series of white papers on all the candidates' records and positions. School choice was one area surveyed, and here are their findings; most have shown support, though some more consistently than others.

Their introduction: "The Club for Growth supports broad school choice, including charter schools, voucher programs, and tax credits that create a competitive education market including public, private, religious, and non-religious schools. More competition in education can only lead to higher quality and lower costs."

Fred Thompson: ... a faithful supporter of school choice, arguing in 1995 "that our elementary and secondary educational systems need to be restructured ... [which] can be achieved by privatizing a major segment of the educational system" ... support for vouchers that are "universal, available to all parents, and large enough to cover the costs of a high-quality education." ... voted for a 1997 school voucher program in D.C. ... and pilot voucher programs in 1999 and 2001.

Mike Huckabee: ... record on school choice is mixed. On the one hand, he fought hard to protect the rights of parents to home school their children ... a vocal proponent of charter schools ... supported a proposal that would expand charter school eligibility ... signed legislation allowing charter schools to be established in Arkansas. On the other hand, ... is on record opposing voucher programs that allow poor students in failing public schools to attend private schools ... called No Child Left Behind "the greatest education reform effort by the federal government in my lifetime" .... [CFG] Update: As mentioned above, Huckabee's education proposals put greater emphasis on government intervention in the education system instead of calling for greater choice and competition. According to the Sioux City Journal, "Huckabee said he would make arts and music education tested curriculum and provide federal funds to do so."

Rudy Giuliani: ... became one of the country's leading advocates for a competitive education market. ... in 1995, opposed school vouchers ... by 1996, though, Mayor Giuliani began to have a change of heart ... by 1997 had created a widely popular program called the School Choice Scholarships Foundation ... and in 1999, made the leap to a self-proclaimed "prophet" of school choice, proposing a $12 million pilot school choice program even as his school chancellor threatened to quit over the matter. Giuliani even went so far as to argue that "the whole [school] system should be blown up, and a new one put in its place." ... also campaigned on behalf of charter schools, in the hopes of inspiring a "more innovative, performance-driven, entrepreneurial vision of schooling."

Mitt Romney: ... on record supporting charter schools, school vouchers, and home schooling ... charter school expansion rather than a voucher program ... He pushed to eliminate the state-mandated cap on the number of charter schools and successfully vetoed a moratorium on the opening of new charter schools. ... Once advocated abolishing the Department of Education but has since said he supports No Child Left Behind and has seen as a governor that "the Department of Education can actually make a difference."

John McCain: ... record on school choice is very good ... consistently supported school choice programs, voting for voucher programs in 1997, 1999, and 2001 ... eloquently argued that "our children deserve the best education we can provide to them, whether that learning takes place in a public, private, or parochial school. It's time to give middle- and lower-income parents the same right wealthier families have -- to send their child to the school that best meets their needs."

Ron Paul: the perfect is the enemy of the good ... opposition to school choice stems from his opposition to the government's role in education ... arguing that federal voucher programs are "little more than another tax-funded welfare program establishing an entitlement to a private school education." ... He consistently voted against voucher programs ... but supported education tax breaks and introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 612) that provides all parents with a tax credit of up to $3,000, available to parents who choose to send their children to public, private, or home school. ... his votes are a direct impediment to achieving high-quality school choice ... aligning himself with Democrats and the NEA in opposing progress towards a market-based education system ...

UPDATE: I'm not tracking the Democratic positions generally. Club for Growth does even bother to separate them, heading their report "One of These Candidates Is Not Like The Other", but here are their highlights of the Democratic side on school choice:

When it comes to school choice, all four Democratic candidates have the same plan: less choice, more federal government. ... talk about the need to help low-income students trapped in failing public schools, ... [but] reject the one education reform that can actually help ... All have voted against or publicly opposed school choice programs, proposed increasing federal money in education ... and called for universal preschool.

Reflections on the Caucus

2008-01-05T12:08:00.000-08:00

What to think of Iowa, what to think ...

I was watching the commentary in The Corner Thursday evening, and Mark Steyn, speaking of Huckabee's win in Iowa that evening, raised a concern about the evangelical surge there:

It would be truer to say that for a proportion of Huck's followers there is no aisle: he's their kind of Christian, and all the rest - foreign policy, health care, mass transit, whatever - is details. This is identity politics of a type you don't often see on the Republican side.

I share that concern. Although I'm an evangelical Christian and a homeschooler, like many of Huckabee's supporters, I'm not one of his proponents, and I am concerned that his conservatism only goes as far as doctrine, not policy decisions.

If Steyn is right, and the Huckaboom is based on affinity for his doctrinal beliefs rather than his political principles, I doubt that Huckabee will be able to muster significant support outside the evangelical community. At the same time, if he leaves the race, this group of supporters is unlikely to swing its votes to Romney or to Giuliani, as either will be suspect on doctrine or on social issues.

So who would benefit if Huckabee folds? There is a strong libertarian streak in the homeschooling community, taking in both the evangelical and the secular sides of that movement, so Paul is a possibility; he already has home educators on board and working hard in his campaign, though he has other issues to address for the rest of the social conservatives. McCain has the war-hero status that attracts many in the evangelical world, but his maverick voting record has made many cautious about him and where he truly stands politically. Strangely, Thompson shares weaknesses with both Paul and McCain -- an unfortunate support for campaign restrictions, like McCain, and a strong federalist position like Paul, which some interpret as a lack of commitment to addressing moral issues from a federal level. On the other hand, I still think Thompson offers the most balanced platform and the most solid principles both philosophically and politically, so I have hopes he'll gain the attention and votes I think he deserves.

My feeling at the moment is that McCain or Thompson will benefit in the long run, but it's way, way too early to predict with certainty. Reagan lost Iowa in 1980, after all, and more than one ascendent campaign has fallen like Icarus in the warming days of primary season.

Evangelical Endorsement Watch 01-02-08

2008-01-02T12:09:00.000-08:00

Writing on Townhall.com, Christian public relations executive Mark DeMoss endorses Mitt Romney (again):
As an evangelical Southern Baptist and a social conservative, I like the leadership Governor Romney provided our movement in defending traditional marriage between a man and a woman and in opposing embryonic stem cell research. I believe his values are consistent with mine in every way, whether or not his theology is.

More isn't always better

2007-11-12T15:35:00.001-08:00

Report: Longer Class Time Doesn’t Guarantee Results

By HAL YOUNG - Contributing Editor

Carolina Journal (November 2007, p. 11)

RALEIGH -- In a move to add instructional time to the school day, a high school in Bergen County, N.J., recently scheduled nearly 1,000 students to share a single lunch period in a cafeteria built for 300. News reports showing students eating lunch on the cafeteria floor — and a microbiologist’s analysis of the cleanliness of the floor — brought about a change in seating accommodations, but not the schedule.

It might be logical that extending the number of classroom hours allows teachers to present more comprehensive lessons and deepen the learning experience. Many students in other states and overseas spend more time in class than North Carolina’s, and Howard Lee, chairman of the State Board of Education, supports not only longer school days but also longer school years.

However, research suggests that might not be the right move. A report by the John Locke Foundation’s Terry Stoops outlines proof that simply adding hours to the day doesn’t increase academic performance. Some nations with higher test scores actually spend fewer days in the classroom, a concept actually supported by Department of Public Instruction’s own internal
guidebooks, Stoops wrote.

Stoops’ report, “Better Instruction, Not More Time,” says that when student results on international tests are compared, the nations with the highest average scores are not always the ones with the greatest number of classroom hours.

In mathematics, for example, students in the United States average 169 instructional hours per year. In a study of 39 countries by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the nation with the highest math scores, China, spent 177 hours per year in math class, only 4.7 percent more than in the United States, but scored nearly 14 percent higher on the exam. On the other hand, the Netherlands, No. 4 on the list, spent 110 hours on math instruction each year, but scored more than 11 percent higher.

The United States ranked 27th out of 39 countries. U.S. students spent the equivalent of four weeks more than the global average time in math class, but ranked only barely ahead of the lowest fourth.

“Overall, there was no consistent relationship between in-school instructional time in mathematics and the countries’ average score,” Stoops wrote. “In fact, there is a slight decrease in math performance as instructional time increases.”

A study published by Pennsylvania State University found similar results in science, reading, and civics instruction. The researchers recommended that as long as scores were within international norms, “Do not waste resources in marginal increases in instructional time … If there is a choice between using resources to increase time versus improving teaching and the curriculum, give priority to the latter.”

Publications from the Department of Public Instruction acknowledge the need to focus on instructional quality over simple questions of seat time. DPI’s guide for implementing the Standard Course of Study, a pair of documents titled, The Balanced Curriculum, cautions, “extending the school day won’t necessarily help teachers deliver a balanced curriculum. Research has shown that it is how time is used verses [sic] the amount of time that students are in school that makes a difference.”

“It is important not to confuse time spent in school with learning,” the guide says. “Learning is complex and affected by a variety of factors. No notable research exists suggesting that extending time in school results in a direct increase in student learning.”

Stoops acknowledged that some successful schools do have a longer instructional day, such as those based on the Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP). However, he said, the difference is what they do with the time.

“KIPP’s success has much more to do with their high-quality instruction and superior school climate than with the length of their school day. KIPP schools are able to fill their longer school day with highly effective instruction, whereas most public schools do not,” he said.

Programs such as KIPP demonstrate that “an extended school day and year may be well suited for students who could benefit from high-quality supplemental instruction,” Stoops wrote, but longer time “is not the panacea that advocates make it out to be.” Instead of imposing a blanket solution across the state’s entire school system, he recommends making longer, or shorter, school days available at different schools, and giving parents the option to place their children where the time would best be spent.

“Otherwise,” he said, “the measure becomes one in a long list of one-size-fits-all reforms that invariably fail to deliver on the promise of increasing student achievement.”

Evangelical Endorsement Watch 11-08-07

2007-11-08T19:22:00.000-08:00

The Associated Press story was almost too snarky to quote anything of length, but it confirmed the rumor in this morning's Washington Times:

[The Rev. Donald] Wildmon, founder of the American Family Association and a retired United Methodist minister in Tupelo, Miss., announced his support for the former Arkansas governor in a statement released by Huckabee's campaign. ...

"I feel that Governor Huckabee understands the needs of our country and has the ability to lead us in meeting those needs," said Wildmon, who added that his endorsement was personal and did not represent an official endorsement from the family association.

Other Endorsements:

For Rudy Giuliani:

Pat Robertson (Christian Broadcasting Network)

For Mitt Romney:

Paul Weyrich, (The Moral Majority, The Heritage Foundation, Free Congress Foundation)

Dr. Bob Jones III (Bob Jones University)

For John McCain:

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)

For Mike Huckabee:

Home School Legal Defense Association PAC

Still looking for Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Richard Land, Gary DeMar, Mark DeMoss, Franklin Graham, Phyllis Schlafly ... Stay tuned ...

Evangelical Endorsement Watch 11-07-07

2007-11-08T19:21:00.000-08:00

Today Pat Robertson announced his support for Rudy Giuliani for president, saying that

"The overriding issue before the American people, is the defense of our population against the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists ... Our world faces deadly peril...and we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead."

Giuliani, who is pro-choice and pro-gay marriage, welcomed the endorsement; an aide said the mayor and Robertson "have shared goals despite some minor differences", according to Fox News.

My take: Robertson points out Giuliani's obvious strengths, but I don't know how he is dodging the other questions.

Other Endorsements:

For Mitt Romney:
Paul Weyrich, (The Moral Majority, The Heritage Foundation, Free Congress Foundation)
Dr. Bob Jones III (Bob Jones University)

For John McCain:
Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS)

For Mike Huckabee:
Home School Legal Defense Association PAC

Where are Tony Perkins, Gary Bauer, James Dobson, Richard Land, Gary DeMar, Mark DeMoss, Franklin Graham, Phyllis Schlafly ? Stay tuned ...

Guru says third party talk "not about Giuliani"

2007-10-02T07:34:00.000-07:00

Matt Lewis reports on Townhall.com on his interview with conservative guru Richard Viguerie. Contrary to earlier reports, the meeting of social conservatives (notably James Dobson and Tony Perkins) about a possible third party effort in ’08 is not about Rudy Guiliani. Viguerie told him “It goes far beyond that. It’s the conservative base of the Republican party saying we’re fed up.”

Viguerie said that “when they turn their back on conservatives, bad things happen to the Republican party,” citing Dewey, Nixon (in 1960), Ford, and Bush (in 1992) as elections that were lost by Republicans attempting to run left of center with VP candidates or their policies as incumbents. Include the present administration, obviously.

The caution that an '08 third-party effort on the right may usher in another Clinton administration is dismissed as “a very unsophistocated argument that angers conservatives.”

“If they keep saying that, it’s just going to drive us off the reservation sooner,” Viguerie said. He is tired of the argument that conservatives have nowhere else to go, and says the Republican leadership needs to stop treating the conservative base – both social and economic – “like a mistress … respect in private, but wanting nothing to do with us in public.”

“This is not a one-time thing. The leaders of the Republican party need to understand we are very serious. They have mistreated us for the last time. They went crazy in Congress with spending, they have destroyed the Republican brand … they are governing by bribery, trying to bribe the voters, and we are sick and tired of no action on our issues.”

Journalist In Chief

2007-07-27T09:09:00.000-07:00

A journalist, after all, is technically one who records in a journal. We use it to refer to a reporter, a media type, but in fact, a committed diarist is also maintaining a journal. QED.

After years as a political commentator, though -- and I highly recommend Reagan In His Own Hand to sample this phase of his development -- the fortieth president was qualified as both, an astute observer and analyst of the political forces and persons around him, and here, one who kept a fascinating personal diary of his eight years as president.

I got to review The Reagan Diaries for the August issue of Carolina Journal, and I have to say this is one of the hardest I've had to write. The man was so quotable and entertaining I had real difficulties confining myself to a thousand words.

One comment I didn't work into the article was when Sam Donaldson asked him if he didn't share some responsibility for the recession of 1981-1982; the president said,

"Yes, I do. I was once a Democrat."

Another matter that comes up regularly enough is whether Reagan was really as religious as the Right likes to imagine; after all, they point out, he didn't attend church that much while he was president -- a true statement borne out by his diary. What skeptics don't acknowledge is the tremendous disruption caused by a visit from the president; the Reagans decided, reluctantly, that it was too much commotion for them to inflict on the congregation. On the occasions that they do get to worship, Reagan mentions how much he misses it and his desire to be there more often.

Never mind that he found himself in the emergency room, 69 years old with an assassin's bullet in his lung, praying for the gunman. There is an enlightening entry as Reagan considers his father-in-law's rapidly declining health:

Nancy is very depressed about her father's health and understandably so. I want so much to speak to him about faith. He's always been an Agnostic -- now I think he knows fear for probably the 1st time in his life. I believe this is a moment when he should turn to God and I want so much to help him do that. (May 19, 1982, p. 85)

That just isn't the comment of a lukewarm or half-hearted believer.

There is a wealth of interesting first-person material in this volume and I can only scratch the surface in my review. You can read it in the print edition of Carolina Journal here .

2007-07-09T16:34:00.000-07:00

Those who love sausage and respect the law should observe neither being made.

What about pizza and the Charlotte-Mecklenburg School Board?

Here's their purchasing specification:

Only large 16” pizzas will be delivered. All pizza must meet the following Nutrition Based specifications.

Crust: To be made with enriched flour. Dough to equal or exceed 27 oz. in weight. Pan or hand tossed style crust only.

Sauce: A tomato paste base with a blend of Italian seasoning. Total sauce shall equal or exceed 8.0 oz. in volume.

Cheese: Only light Mozzarella cheese. Total Cheese weight for all cheese and meat pizzas shall be 9 oz.

Pepperoni weight shall be 3.5 - 4.1 oz.

Toppings: A choice of Cheese or Reduced Fat Pepperoni toppings will be available to all schools. Historical ordering data indicates previous orders were 15% Cheese Pizza and 85% Pepperoni Pizza.

One slice of eight cut cheese pizza shall not exceed 20.5% calories from fat, 7.5% calories from saturated fat.

One slice of eight cut reduced fat pepperoni pizza shall not exceed 27.0% calories from fat, 10% calories from saturated fat.

Net weight of pizza must be greater than or equal to 48.4 oz.

UPDATE: They remember that quantities are helpful when soliciting a bid, after all.

So how many 16-inch pizzas does CMS consume each year? Well, last year, it was about 200,192, according to the addendum.

The Message

2007-06-15T06:32:00.000-07:00

There are the official topics, and there are the issues, which show up more pervasively than the agenda suggests. At last year’s Conservative Leadership Conference, it was the need to do something about illegal immigration. From many of the featured speakers, this year’s theme would have been, "Get over it and get to work."

The unusual step of scheduling both Bob Ehrlich and Michael Steele, former governor and lieutenant governor of Maryland, underscored this message. The two of them formed a Republican administration in a liberal state, and in spite of high approval ratings and significant and quantifiable policy success, were unable to secure re-election in the "wipe-out election" of 2006, as Ehrlich described it.

Like many other speakers, the former governor said it is not enough to simply be conservative or even to carry out conservative policies; we have to give the electorate an understanding of what that means.

"If these numbers are going to turn around, we have to be hyperactive to get this message out to the community," Ehrlich said. "We’ve got to be relentless."

However, exactly how conservatives do that may be a problem. Sessions featuring talk radio hosts and writers from the state’s major markets were sharply divided on what their roles in the conservative movement should be. Commentator and former congressional candidate Nathan Tabor urged the conservative media to unite around a common agenda, but Jeff Katz from WBT in Charlotte, shot back, "I couldn’t disagree more; our job is not to promote an agenda, but to attract and retain as many listeners as possible for our stations."

Others on the panel agreed with Katz, and several complained that conservative politicos aren’t effectively using the media because they are clueless about the news process.

And that doesn’t address the question of what the unified message should be. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani gave strong support to educational reform, but offered remedies more appropriate for the state than the federal level. Gubernatorial candidate Bob Orr delivered an excellent speech on the dangers of courting and providing business incentives, a favorite development strategy of lawmakers of all sorts, which some called "dry." Representative Walter Jones prompted a walkout during his brief speech.

I have to agree with the Maryland team’s call — we conservatives need to rally around the basic principles we intend to stand for, and then stand for them, for crying out loud. Our first problem, though, is going to be defining just what those principles are going to be — the ones which are conservative first, but then secondly, those definitive conservative principles that we’re really willing to offer more than lip service. That is a topic for another conference.

From Conservative Citizen, Summer 2007 issue, pp. 34-35

Not Wild About Mitt

2007-06-07T16:24:00.000-07:00

My review of Hugh Hewitt's A Mormon In The White House? appeared in Carolina Journal.

I'm unconvinced of Hewitt's belief that Mitt Romney is the best conservative hope for the 2008 election -- though I share his skepticism of the other front runners:

For Hewitt, national security is the main issue. He sees no candidate on the Democratic side that suggests firmness in the face of global terrorism, which he blames partly on the "incompetence, weakness, and blindness" of the last two Democratic presidents. On the other hand, he finds Giuliani highly questionable on social issues, and McCain questionable on everything but security.

Hewitt however has damaged my still-forming opinion of his analytical skills with this promotional effort. Although he tries to bring solid evangelicals into the discussion, including interviews or quotations from Rev. Jerry Falwell, Dr. James Dobson, Dr. Al Mohler, and Chuck Colson, Hewitt gets sucked into the vortex of his own advocacy. Principled objections to Romney are dismissed as "quixotic", those who hold them are called "bigots", and the Constitution is twisted all out of its frame to try and keep evangelicals in line for the Mormon candidate:

... [I]n his seeming fear that the religious right will embrace another candidate, Hewitt overreaches. For example, he explicitly applies the "no religious test" clause of the Constitution as if it were a moral commandment to individuals rather than a policy of government. Thus, a voter whose religious opinions might influence his vote is labeled "not merely un-American, but un-Christian."

The best thing that can be said about the book is that Hewitt correctly warns evangelicals against joining the liberal and secular parade of journalists and commentators for whom Romney's peculiar beliefs are just another form of preposterous religious claptrap. If we allow Romney to be sunk by malicious sarcasm over his church, we can expect the same to be redoubled to us at the next opportunity.

However, there is plenty of room to discuss Romney's political record, his apparent flip flops on key policy issues, and even, to be sure, our own discomfort with his philosophical underpinnings. Theology matters, as Frank Pastore points out on Townhall.com.

Unfortunately for Hewitt -- I'll leave Romney to Providence -- this book doesn't do credit to the very interesting question it proports to address, and is more likely to harm both Hewitt and Romney rather than helping either. Meanwhile, I'll continue to look for the rightwardmost viable candidate; I just won't start here.

The Errand Bill

2007-06-07T04:45:00.001-07:00

The crossover date has passed and we have the working list for the General Assembly's summer. Occasionally you run across a bill which leaves you wondering what, exactly, were the legislators thinking at the time. In particular, I'm wondering about H1562, the "Unattended Child in Vehicle" act which I've dubbed "The Errand Bill".

I have many young children and I've lived in hotter climates than North Carolina, so I'm fully on board with cautions against leaving children in potentially dangerous situations. As so often is the case, I can give full credit to the lawmakers for good intentions with this bill.

However, like the law which now keeps third graders strapped in booster seats, this one may be more hassle than necessary for the desired effect.

It could be worse, and for a time it was. The original bill, as introduced by Representative Underhill, would have made it a class 2 misdemeanor for an eight-year-old child to be left alone in a vehicle "if conditions within or in the immediate vicinity ... present a risk to the child's health or safety". That sounds reasonable, but there is no recognition of even the most mundane of driving events -- a stop for gas. Under the original provisions of the bill, a parent who left the car to fill the tank, even if they paid at the pump and never left the vehicle's side, could have been liable for prosecution and up to thirty days in jail.

Thank goodness for committee work.

In the current edition, the test of a "reasonable person" is added -- though when it comes to children's health and safety, I find that "reasonable people" can be found to believe nearly anything. The penalties are ratcheted down a notch (a parent no longer faces six months in jail if they pump gas and then go to the ATM, i.e. "second or subsequent offense"). They even include a proviso for "line of sight" as adequate supervision.

However, the bill still indicates that you can't leave a 13-year-old to watch the sleeping baby while Mom steps inside to pick up a prescription or to put a package on the post office counter, or a third grader doing homework in the van while dad drops off the vestry keys at the church office.

I am certain our Solons were thinking about day care workers who forget the last child on the van, or parents who recklessly abandon their children while they tank up with a different sort of fire water. Absolutely, people should be held accountable for placing children's lives at risk. The days when a mother might park the baby and carriage outside the store while she selects a bag full of groceries are long, long, forever gone.

But I picture a mom like my wife, huddling next to the van pumping gas on a rainy winter morning, with a baby on her hip and two little ones shivering next to her. Which is endangering the children more, leaving them buckled into their seats while mom stands eighteen inches and a sheet of glass away? Or out of the car, on the pavement, in the rain, as the original bill seemed to expect?

Sometimes you wonder. And that's why the unintended consequences loom large whenever the legislature is in sesson -- good intentions notwithstanding.

It passed the second reading 108-4.

Good intentions

2007-05-31T04:49:00.000-07:00

Barry Smith of the Freedom Newspapers writes in the Burlington Times-News today
about the General Assembly's commission to study increasing the compulsory attendance age from 16 to 18. He makes the same points I do elsewhere -- that not only does the compulsion overrun individual freedom of families and students, it will keep the least interested and most disruptive students in the classroom an additional two years --, and he sums them up neatly:

There are a lot of good ideas in almost every aspect of life. Just because something is a good idea doesn’t mean we should make people do it.

HT: Carolina Journal

In Conference

2007-05-24T20:13:00.000-07:00

My wife and I will be blogging and speaking at the 23rd annual North Carolinians for Home Education Conference in Winston-Salem the next few days. The "NCHE ConferBlog" is located here.

This Week in the Education Committee

2007-05-21T04:50:00.000-07:00

Looking over the calendar for Tuesday's committee meeting, I see an interesting litany of issues lining up for attention:

Raising the cap on charter schools (HB30) - Do it. Yesterday.

UPDATE 12:55 5/22/07 -- The Locke Foundation's Becki Gray reports that Republican Tom Tillis and the committee respond: Not yesterday, and not 2007 either. As we used to say in the military, "Request denied; please resubmit in triplicate for final denial."

Amending the health ed curriculum to tell grades 9-12 how to legally abandon a baby (H485) - O tempora! O mores! If the alternative is infanticide, and if unwed teenaged mothers are those most likely to do this, it makes sense to be sure they know the rules that were meant to prevent babies dying in dumpsters.

Prohibiting corporal punishment in schools. (H853) - If the practice is not producing results in the schools now, I wonder if its repeal will have any measurable effect. I can't foresee any improvement in student discipline and performance, but I don't know if the lack of whatever corporal punishment now exists will

Repealing free UNC tuition to graduates of the N.C. School of Science and Mathmatics (H1269) -
It's a great perk for students who successfully complete a very challenging academic program. My wife, who graduated in the first class of NCSSM, started college with a full year of credit as an incoming student. On the other hand, Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs are much, much more widespread than when we were in high school and NCSSM was Governor James Hunt's new brainchild. The University of North Carolina is already one of the most highly subsidized public universities in the nation. Why should the taxpayers continue paying even more, particularly since these students have already received two years of free room and board in a college-like campus environment, for an illusory benefit -- as if North Carolina schools and businesses are unable to attract or keep talented young students or employees.

Raise the compulsory attendance age to 17 and implement a "task force for 100 percent graduation by eighteen" (H1790) - Almost guaranteed passage in some form, I would say, yet a gesture and nothing more. If a student has given up on the educational process by the age of sixteen, will chaining him to his desk for another year make up for the failures of the previous decade? I doubt it, but it will cost state and local taxpayers another six thousand dollars or so per student and retain the least committed (or "most indifferent"?) students as a burden in the system. To me, it makes little economic or educational sense.

As for 100% graduation, I have a hard time taking it very seriously so long as the state juggles the results of its own internally normalized testing program. If the internal markings of the yardstick are re-drawn every time the measurement is unsatisfactory, why keep the overall length the same, if a major complaint is that enough students don't reach the end? High school used to end at grade 11, and Governor Easley's "Learn and Earn" program which compressed the last year of high school and the first year of college demonstrates that Grade 12 could probably be eliminated once again. "More of the same" is not a radical improvement.

Establishing a right of non-certified school employees to know why they're being disciplined (H1827) - At least, without having to ask for it. One wonders if standard practice is to "dismiss, demote, or suspend" uncertified employees without giving a reason.

Romney Goes South of the Border

2007-05-16T07:32:00.000-07:00

Anyone who drives along I-95 should realize I mean south of the line between the two Carolinas, not all the way to Mexico (where his father was born, incidentally). The thought of a presidential candidate visiting Pedro Land near Dillon, SC, is amusing, anyway.

While I was in South Carolina on a business trip, the Republican presidential hopefuls met in Columbia, SC, for a "debate" sponsored by Fox News. As it happened, I did not have time to stop and observe, but one thing was apparent -- Romney's campaign is already planting yard signs along the Interstate exits.

I have to wonder if this was simply in connection with his appearance at the debate, or if this presages another outreach to evangelicals, coming to this very conservative state from his recent visit to Regent University (formerly CBN University, founded by Pat Robertson, and home of the law school formerly hosted by Oral Roberts University in Oklahoma). Certainly this is the group Romney will have to convince if he's going to gain an edge over Giuliani and McCain -- or the undeclared Fred Thompson, for that matter.

What's next? A visit to Bob Jones University? Seems like McCain did that last time and got castigated for his pains. Maybe Romney should head to BJU's more mainstream neighbor, Furman, if that's his strategy -- but then, he couldn't get much more conservative than BJU, and he's got a lot of ground to make up already.

Lead Her Not Into Temptation

2007-05-15T04:27:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, acting as a representative of the American government, donned the veil of Muslim women to visit the capitols of terrorism-sponsoring nations. This act of meekness and submission sent a clear message to Islamist leaders that America's new leadership, at least, was ready to roll over and cower.

The 82nd Airborne is not amused. Neither is the Constitution, which is a living document, not a mutating one.

Iran is now pulling on the leash that Pelosi handed them.

"In the absence of formal diplomatic relations, we seek to establish a parliamentary relationship with the U.S. Congress and fill the existing gap of contacts between the two nations," [Darioush]Ghanbari, a pro-reform lawmaker, told The Associated Press. ...

According to another Iranian lawmaker, "We are seeking to form this friendship committee to undermine anti-Iran policies of the Bush administration and show our good will and our peace-loving spirits."

Correction -- they're not pulling her leash; they're giving her more rope. After all, this should fit right in with the agenda of Pelosi's party, undermining the policies of the Bush administration.

And while there may not be the same Constitutional problems with personal contact between legislative bodies -- in some circumstances -- Pelosi has already shown a willingness to obliterate the line between acceptable and illegal when dealing with countries on the international rogues list.

Democrats as well as Republicans should call for a civil but firm rebuff to this gesture of "friendship", the same as a friend doesn't let a friend drive drunk.

Hmm, another five-point man

2007-05-10T14:00:00.000-07:00

I haven't taken a position on the coming race for chairman of the state Republican Party. I've known the current chairman, Linda Daves, since she was vice-chairman to Ferrell Blount and I was an alternate to the Republican National Convention in 2004. Linda, her husband Carson, and I refinished a park bench in Harlem as part of the service project that week; politics do bring people together in unexpected ways.

So last week if someone had asked who I was supporting, the pleasant Mrs. Daves or the forbidding Mr. Kindsley from Greensboro, I probably would have said Linda.

But maybe that could change. This week's meeting of the Johnston County Republican Party included a short presentation from Marcus Kindsley, the chairman of the Guilford County GOP. I found he wasn't nearly as overpowering a presence as his campaign photographs suggest. If anything, he was pretty soft-spoken and genial.

What made me open the ballot again was his proposal to take the party's local and elected officials to a hotel retreat and hammer out a five point statement "that an eighth grader could understand", outlining the party's "Contract with North Carolina".

"When 42% of the voters in North Carolina think Jim Black is a Republican, as one survey said, we've got a serious problem getting our message out," Kindsley said. Indeed.

Besides the obvious fact that I like a succinct program statement, Kindsley's on to something. The need to agree on a focused conservative message was one of the themes at the North Carolina Conservative Leadership Conference last month, and getting it out to the voters was paramount. I think most of the "movement" conservatives are saying that Newt Gingrich's "Contract with America" that was ratified by the 1994 House elections was the last principled victory of conservative politics. With Gingrich's name simmering on a back burner of the 2008 presidential campaign, the memories are being refreshed, and with similar recurring comments and exhortations at the most recent conservative gathering in the state, Kindsley may be catching an early wave.

Participatory Democracy

2007-05-09T09:27:00.000-07:00

Not many purple fingers in Smithfield today. Tuesday saw the authorization of over $100 million in bond issues with the approval of less than 4% of Johnston County voters. It just happens that was 80% or so of those who showed up with an opinion.

County commissioners said this can be funded without increasing property taxes. We'll see, but either way only 4650 voters earned the right to complain later if it doesn't work out.

The other 95% of the electorate ought to reflect that they just allowed the county to borrow $1338 apiece in their name.

Also posted at The Locker Room

More on S.C.'s Governor

2007-05-02T05:38:00.000-07:00

I've added a few paragraphs to the original post on remarks by S.C. Governor Mark Sanford this weekend. Just so you'll know.

Walter Jones on Election

2007-05-02T04:05:00.000-07:00

The headline is not a typo.

Occasionally you hear a speaker who is passionate, articulate, principled, and unfortunately, wrong. I had to conclude this listening to Congressman Walter Jones, the representative who drew headlines for, of all things, the name "Freedom Fries" suggested as a protest against French intransigence against our efforts to curb Mesopotamian terrorists, then "surprised friend and foe alike" by his strong swing to the left in opposition to the Iraq war.

Give him full credit -- I do -- for standing on principle even against his own party and president. It is no small thing for a Republican who has generally been an old fashioned social conservative, at least in my hearing, to take a position with the Murthas and Pelosis of the House, and against the Marines and airmen who live in and deploy from his 3rd Congressional District.

Jesus said to the church at Laodicea, "I could wish that you were cold or hot"; maybe more to the point, Martin Luther wrote that Christians may "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly".[1] I think this is where Jones is standing.

One of the most striking comments he made was his answer to an advisor who cautioned him to consider the consequences of an unpopular stand. Jones said, "I told him there is only one election that I care about, and that is my election into Heaven, that I see my Lord and Savior on the throne, and He tell me, 'Welcome into My Kingdom, because you wanted my people to know the truth ...' "[2]

Jones received polite applause but his position on the war was not popular with the audience, even though he steered clear of it in his remarks. After dinner that evening, a conference participant who saw my media badge came up and asked, "Did you see the people who walked out on Walter Jones this afternoon?" I told him no, from my position on the far side of the room I hadn't seen them. "About eight of us walked out on him. When he left the room afterwards we turned our backs on him." He said that several of them were former military and some had sons still deployed in the war, and challenged Jones to take a break from visiting wounded veterans at Walter Reed Hospital and go see the rescue and cleanup workers dying from exposure to toxic dust and materials at the site of Ground Zero.

Jones may be in for some serious trouble in the earthly election next year. A Republican leader who attended the 3rd District convention recently told me that while Jones was their headline speaker at the meeting, he received only the same light applause that greated him in Raleigh last week. His declared challenger, on the other hand, had the room in his hands and drew an enthusiastic response from the delegates there. Whether the voters will respond the same way remains to be seen, but the activists were clearly with the challenger that day.

-------
[1] I realize this is a controversial statement of Luther's, as well. For a fuller discussion of the context and meaning of it, see James Swan's defense of the Reformer's purpose for saying it. Swan says, "Luther was prone to strong hyperbole," and continues,

[The] comparison Luther makes between “sinning boldly” and believing and rejoicing in Christ “even more boldly” comes clear. When assaulted by the fear and doubt of Christ’s love because of previous sins or the remnants of sin in one’s life, one is thrust back into the arms of Christ “on whose shoulders, and not on mine, lie all my sins…”. Rather than promoting a license to sin by saying “sin boldly,” Luther’s point is to simply compare the sinner to the perfect savior. Left in our sins we will face nothing but death and damnation. By Christ’s victory over sin, death, and the world, we stand clothed in His righteousness, the recipients of His grace, no matter what we have done.

[2] Jones is a former Southern Baptist who converted to Roman Catholicism. For a minute there I thought he might be a fellow Calvinist.

N.C. Conservative Leadership Conference Wrap-up

2007-04-30T19:09:00.000-07:00

I was part of the "new media" press corps at the N.C. Conservative Leadership Conference the weekend of April 27-28, joining a number of other bloggers invited for the event. Here is a topical index for some of the live-blogging coverage I found for the weekend; the reader will excuse me putting Five Points at the top of the list, of course.

Featured Speakers:

Presidential Candidate Rudy Giuliani
Five Points: Just One Question, Mr. Mayor
Red Clay Citizen: Giuliani's Remarks About Democrats
Ogre's Politics & Views: Rudy Speaks
Reason & Revelation: Lunch with Giuliani
The Locker Room: Health Care and Plasma TVs

Gubernatorial Candidate Bob Orr
Five Points: The Need for Self-Restraint
Five Points: A Moment of Illumination
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day One

Congressman Patrick McHenry
Five Points: Newtonian Ideas
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day One

Former Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich
Five Points: "We've Got To Be Relentless"
Five Points: Collecting Thoughts
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day One

Congressman Walter Jones
Five Points: Walter Jones on Election

Gubernatorial Candidate Fred Smith
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day Two

Former N.C. Sen. Patrick Ballantine
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day Two

Congressman Heath Shuler
Five Points: Heath Shuler
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day Two

S. C. Gov. Mark Sanford
Five Points: S.C.'s Governor
Five Points: Agreed On History
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day Two

Former Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele
Five Points: Man of Steele
Five Points: The Theme
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day Two
Ogre's Politics & Views: Lt. Governor Steele

Gubernatorial Candidate Phil Graham
Five Points: The Final Dinner
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day Two

Sen. Elizabeth Dole
Five Points: The Final Dinner
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day Two
Ogre's Politics & Views: Dinner with Dole

General Sessions:

The Reagan Legacy
Five Points: Reagan's Legacy
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day One
Ogre's Politics & Views: The Reagan Legacy

The Future of Conservatism
Ogre's Politics & Views: Future of Conservatism

The 2008 Presidential Campaign
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day Two
Ogre's Politics & Views: The 2008 Presidential Campaign

Issue Forums:

Expanding the Conservative Base with Minority Voters
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day Two

Conveying the Conservative Message
Five Points: More on the Relentless Communication
Five Points: What About Imus? And Beyond?
Five Points: Racial Politics and the Conservative Media
Five Points: The Unified Message and the Candidate to Carry It
Ogre's Politics & Views: Conveying the Conservative Message

Education
Five Points: Performance, Preparation, and Violence in Education
Five Points: Questions for the Education Panel
Five Points: "A Travesty"
Five Points: Community Schools
Ogre's Politics & Views: Education
The Locker Room: Stoops and Lee

Health Care
Red Clay Citizen: Post Giuliani - CLC Panel on Health Care
Red Clay Citizen: Cannon: Medicaid

Parental School Choice
The Inner Banks Eagle: Day One

Illegal Immigration
Ogre's Politics & Views: Illegal Immigration

North Carolina Budget & Taxes
Ogre's Politics & Views: NC Budget and Taxes

Other Items:

Protestors
Ogre's Politics & Views: Dole Protesters

School Choice at the Leadership Conference

2007-04-30T18:54:00.000-07:00

When you move from academic to journalistic writing, you have to learn not only a new set of stylistic tools but a new process that gets you out of your own deep thoughts and into other peoples' ... as well as onto their schedules rather than your own.

Live blogging like this past weekend's is another thing again. For one thing, you have to learn how to pace yourself, just as a runner trains differently for a 6k race than a 100-yard sprint.

This is my long justification for not attending every session at the Conservative Leadership Conference. I was hoping to cover the educational angle as much as possible but I missed the School Choice panel, choosing to use the time elsewhere since I had heard several of those speakers many times and knew the best parts of the message already.

Dean Stephens at The Inner Banks Eagle covered it, though, and since he was kind enough to link to my reporting on the Education panel with Dr. Stoops and Chairman Lee, I'll return the favor for his report (and much better photography) on Educational Choice.

A Recess, Not An Adjournment

2007-04-28T16:25:00.000-07:00

I have family to attend to and a district chairman to drive home so I'll sign off for now. However, I have a few more photos to add and some notes from a couple of other speakers that I hope to add later. Check back if you don't mind, and thanks for reading.

The Final Dinner

2007-04-28T16:17:00.000-07:00

Gubernatorial candidate Phil Graham spoke during the salad phase of supper; I didn't catch the entire message, but he said that "education is not their issue alone ... and if they want to claim it I'll take them on any place, any time."

He noted that there are more employees in state government than in manufacturing. "That is simply an upside down economic model," he said. "It can't survive."

Graham finished up saying that Elizabeth Dole is "a political hero of mine ... a gem in American politics."

That wasn't the introduction, though. We had an intervening course of dinner, an odd combination of breaded chicken cutlet and sliced white meat, probably turkey but maybe it was pork.

Chicken, turkey, and pork -- what a political menu that is.

Senator Dole asked who watched the Democratic debate on Thursday night. She said she wasn't sure who won but there was no question who had the best hair. "John Edwards' hair looked mighty fine," she said, "as you'd expect from a guy with a $400 haircut."

She says the Democrats' budget "is like a giant vacuum cleaner sucking money out of folks' pockets and sending it to Washington."

The Senator is delivering straight on message, but the cadence says it's read right from the script. I've only heard her speak a couple of times and as I recall, she does not extemporize much.

She's speaking on the war now, criticizing Reid, Murtha, and Pelosi in turn. "The Constitution prescribes one Commander in Chief, not 535, and I might add only one Secretary of State." [Enthusiastic applause]

Sen. Dole reminds us she is on the Armed Services Committee and represents over 100,000 servicemen and -women from North Carolina. She calls for Iraqi forces and authorities to stand up to their responsibility.

On border security, "the answer is not amnesty. I am opposed to amnesty." She is in favor of genuine temporary workers permits. Dole says she collaborated with Rep. Sue Myrick to get an immigration court in Charlotte.

She said one researcher said that low-skilled households typically receive $22,449 more in benefits than they contribute. Any policy change which increases the number of low-skilled households will have a tremendous fiscal impact.

"I strongly support giving this president or any president the authority to veto individual earmarks," she said, calling for continued support for the line-item veto.

She concluded with praise for the legacy of Ronald Reagan, as one who rejected the Iron Curtain and the status quo, "and his legacy is freedom ... unshackling millions and millions of people who had only known oppression."

"I believe our state and our country have many of their best days ahead. That's why I am inspired to continue to serve," she said.

That's What We're Here For

2007-04-28T15:21:00.000-07:00

Eric Dailey of Cary conveying the conservative message

to the unidentified protestor at the Sheraton

A Word To The Sponsor

2007-04-28T15:18:00.000-07:00

One of the women in the group (while I was there it seemed the women were doing most of the talking) might want to consider if it isn't a bit sexist and anti-feminist to refer to a woman elected official as a "dog", and a "lap dog" at that. Doesn't seem at all sensitive to me.

They're Everywhere

2007-04-28T15:11:00.000-07:00

This is Andrew Silver and an unidentified co-protestor which made up the Fayetteville Street contingent. Silver is a member of the "Raleigh Impeachment Meetup" group, one of three he said were participating today. He said that if a representative of every organization showed up there'd be a pretty good turn out. I went to their website and found they have 43 members (many of them inactive) with a lot of overlap with the Durham Impeachment Meetup group.

Silver wouldn't give me the name of his co-protestor; he said he gives his own advisedly so she might not want to share hers. He said the FBI has a file on him "this thick" because he refused military service in 1966 and probably still has it. I suggested he might be able to get a copy under the Freedom of Information Act , which apparently hadn't occurred to him; he said it wasn't high on his agenda.

Ogre said one on the Salisbury Street side saw him taking pictures and asked, "You're not going to give those to the FBI, are you?" No, just post them on the World Wide Web; it's not like Carolina News 14 hadn't just been interviewing the group on camera for the TV news.

The Protestors Have Arrived

2007-04-28T14:57:00.000-07:00

All six of them. I thought I'd put the photo on the left just for fun.

Here are four of them on the closed end of Salisbury Street, being interviewed by Carolina News 14 (reporter operating her own camera). The gentlemen on the right is Ogre. Way more signs than protestors.

Downtime

2007-04-28T14:54:00.000-07:00

We're back now; we had about a two hour Internet outage here. "Ogre" was sitting behind me in the last education panel this afternoon with "No server found" in his Firefox window. Come to think of it, a little popup had appeared on the screen where the Powerpoint slides were playing, alerting us to little or no connectivity.

But we're back now ...

Community Schools

2007-04-28T11:37:00.000-07:00

Continuing his comments, Luddy said the average standardized test score at Franklin Academy is 88%. They had 400 applicants for 30 openings in the kindergarten, and no room for new students in higher grades once sibling set-asides are met.

He also started an independent Catholic school, St. Thomas More Academy, in north Raleigh. This is one of the top 50 Catholic high schools in the U.S.

He said the public school monopoly does not want the competition of charter schools, so he is working to establish new "Franklin Academy" schools as private schools, not waiting for the 100-school cap on charters and public funding that comes with them. He envisions that families which can afford it will pay about $5000 tuition, and those which can't would be supported by privately funded scholarships.

Very good, I say. To me, the weak point of the charter concept is exactly this -- it is still under the control of the public school system and those who have a stake in the success of charter schools' competitors. The concept Luddy is working on is for small-size, community-based schools, with private funding. Sounds like the old model, coming back.

He was told that only "misfits and malcontents" would attend Franklin Academy but when the charter finally came through, they had no problem filling the rolls. He said they have succeeded in creating a culture within the school that, among other things, respects community- and other people's property (lockers have no locks, for example, and drywall remains un-vandalized). He said older students already teach the younger or new students "We don't do that at our school."

"A travesty"

2007-04-28T11:27:00.000-07:00

Charter school proponent Bob Luddy is talking about the state's testing program.

Comparing results from the North Carolina End of Grade test with the nationally-standardized Iowa Test of Basic Skills, in 1999 the EOG results in the mid-70's translated to ITBS score in the mid-40's. I have pointed this out on several occasions, but private- and homeschool students in this state are required to take nationally standardized tests like the ITBS, but public school students sit for exams developed and normed right here.

"In any other terms, this test is pure fraud," said Luddy. "It is a great travesty."

Luddy counts the N.C. Association of Educators as a union-like organization "which lobbies full-time against the student." He said it is not just that our students are not learning, but we are destroying their character. One slide quotes Walt Whitman: "Are not the processes of culture rapidly creating a class of supercilious infidels who belive in nothing?"

Government schools are socialistic, insofar as the government controls the means of production. Luddy says "Charters are a good step forward ..." I'm waiting to see what the goal is.

Agreed on History

2007-04-28T11:19:00.000-07:00

Gov. Sanford finished his remarks with the account of Col. Joshua Chamberlain's recovery of some 200 deserters for the Union army, culminating a few days later in their successful defense of Little Round Top on the Union left at Gettysburg. It's a great piece of history and I have used the incident for illustrations of several things in presentations I've done, too.

Sanford says that their success on the second day of Gettysburg set up the final victory on the third day, which changed the course of the war and certainly of the country.

What's more, he said, it changed world history too, because in his opinion a disunited America would not have been capable of fighting the two-front war against Fascist and Imperialist agression in the 1940's.

I have had the same thought in the "what if" mode. Could two Americas have been united enough to oppose Hitler and Tojo? Good question, and maybe doubtful. There is great security in believing in a God who does rule in the affairs of men, and therefore knowing that all events of history have passed through His hands and are fully integrated into His providential plan for the world.

S.C.'s Governor

2007-04-28T10:49:00.000-07:00

South Carolina's governor is providing the keynote for lunch today.

He spoke on the spirit of the founding revolutionaries, who banded together make a positive change in their country, without waiting for instructions or leadership from the government. They believed and codified that the individual is the sole repository of power in our political system, and any portion of government has legitimacy only so far as the people have consented to it.

The response to Hurricane Katrina illustrates how far we have consented. Where do people turn when we feel threatened? "Too often, it's the government."

He references Thomas Friedman's The World is Flat and says that for the first time in recorded history, a kid here in Raleigh is directly competing with a kid in Shanghai, Dublin, or another foreign location. We aren't tied to geography like we always were. This is a world completely unimaginable to our grandfathers or even our fathers. David McCollough, the author of 1776, said the most pivotal time in America's history was not 1776 but 2000-2005.

Sanford says that education is the great frontier of the conservative movement. I didn't catch the rest in my notes -- it was a passing comment -- but I think he's right, and not just in the institutional sense of what do we do with the schools. Conservatives have to educate the electorate on why this principles are so important. There is a lot of education pouring through the screens of the main stream media, and we need to get the canoe moving against the current.

"Wherever you are and how you'd like to make a difference, please don't forget the small things," Sanford said. "The name of the game is trying to make a difference by keeping the promises you made to get in there."

Warfare has casualties, he said, and conservatives are in a battle. We need to be ready to lose if necessary to get the message out and stand on principles.

"Be of courage and be willing to take risks," he said. "Winston Churchill said, 'Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm'."

"Look for ways to be happy warriors," the governor said. The Biblical parable of the talents, he reminded, is "not about what we do best, but what we do with what we have."

"Remember it's a movement, not a transaction," he said.

-----

UPDATE: Added more notes to the original posting.

The Theme

2007-04-28T10:47:00.000-07:00

While listening to Lt. Gov. Steele, it struck me that the overriding theme of this conference would have to be "Get over it and get to work". Those weren't his words, but that is the underlying or the overt message of many of the speakers I've heard this weekend.

Coming from the party which lost over two thousand officeholders in the last election, that's good advice.

Man of Steele

2007-04-28T10:30:00.000-07:00

Former Maryland lieutenant governor Michael Steele is delivering a top-notch lunch address. He's asking, "Why do we let others define who we are in that way [as a conspiracy]?"

I heard Steele at a national conference for leaders of state homeschooling organizations. When legislation touching homeschooling was in consideration several years ago, Steele took the time over the course of a month to spend significant time with homeschooling families, really seeking to understand what they were doing and how it worked. He was convinced (I've often thought that those who actually know homeschoolers are almost always believers in the concept, even if they can't make that step for themselves).

That's not the topic this afternoon, but the story shows something of the thoughtfulness of the man as public servant.

Steele said his mother worked two minimum wage jobs for 45 years to make a home for her kids without government assistance, so she could raise her kids, "not the government."

Steele said that one week before the 2006 election, his governor Bob Ehrlich had a 60% approval rating, but on election day, only 48% voted for him. "There is a disconnect," he said, saying that the basic problem is that "We have left the principles of 1994," the "Gingrich Revolution" as Congressman Walter Jones called it a few minutes before.

He looks forward to a time "when each man and each woman is treated as an individual, and not as a member of a hypenated class."

He said we have to be able to communicate the difference "between giving hope and turning hope to action.

"Hope by itself is not a strategy," he said. "Every American has the opportunity to turn their hopes into action ... [and] we have to communicate the concept of ownership -- ownership of their business, ownership of their homes, ownership of their communities."

"Our challenge will not lie in defeating Democrats or liberals; our challenge will lie in not defeating ourselves.

"You and I should focus our energies on this consensus," he says. "I'm asking you to join in this cause and movement to create this mandate, that only opportunity can defeat dependence, and that it is better to elevate those in need rather than consigning them to dependence on that government.

"When that happens, we will 'glory in conflict, that we may exalt in victory,'" he closed, echoing a quotation by Frederick Douglass.*

----------

*He said earlier, "Believe me, as an African-American Roman Catholic conservative Republican from Maryland, I know what conflict is about."

The Unified Message and the Candidate to Carry It

2007-04-28T08:52:00.000-07:00

Laurie Byrd (Whizbang!), in the audience behind me, said that the independence of people like Bill LuMaye and Fox News, neither of which lockstep with talking points, is what makes them successful.

Jeff Katz calls the "unified message" idea "a recipe for disaster"; conservative media is already portrayed as Republican shills. "A good talk show host knows his audience and what they want to talk about. A great talk show host is not afraid to occasionally tell his audience, 'I don't agree with you.'" Rush Limbaugh was always most popular when there was an opposition candidate in office, and he has suffered from the perception that he has been carrying water for the Republicans. "You believe what you believe, advance that, and do it without reservation, with hesitation, and without apology ... without saying 'This is what the Republican party should be doing', 'This is what the Democrats should be doing'."

Nathan Tabor said he doesn't mean talking points, but linking together to help one another out.

Someone said conservatives don't have a George Soros funding our own Moveon.org, but Tabor asks, "Are all conservatives broke? ..." but re-emphasized that we need to be working together wherever we can. Mittan said recently a legislator (Susan Fisher) clearly presented different positions on LuMaye's program in Raleigh than she had said on Mittan's in Asheville; a mutual listener tipped them and the two programs shared that information. However, it was the listeners, not the hosts, that made that happen.

Curtis Wright said, in response to a question why conservative candidates have difficulty getting on the radio, that the liberal network better understands sales, and that conservative candidates don't do the job about returning calls and emails. Jeff Katz said that supporters and staff need to be working on the candidates to make them interesting guests, too. "If you want your guests on the air, you have to remember this is an entertainment medium." He continued, "We had better decide what conservative means --" such as whether Rudy Giuliani is really a conservative, to be speaking at this conference, for example. "Fundamentally, your guy has to be interesting ... it's about grabbing as many human beings as possible and force them to listen as long as possible." And Bill LuMaye says the problem he sees is that no candidate has emerged with enough conservatism to attract the energy and excitement which he believes is latent in the community.

Nathan Tabor asked how many bloggers were in the audience. I saw at least eight hands; just in my corner of the room, literally within arm's reach, are myself, Scott Elliott, and Laurie Byrd. Tabor said there are local commentators blogging in every county about local issues and events, and activists need to get their candidates in touch with these people, too.

Ric Martinez said we have to remember that dealing with ideas and facts is not enough; we have to remember that emotions are legitimate too. Limbaugh is successful because he not only communicates the ideas, but engages you with humor and emotion too. Wright also points out that we have to work hard and share information to make this happen.

Donna Martinez said the liberal message is, "We care and we want to help you." Conservatives have to communicate that too.

Elizabeth Torres is a young woman in the front row, and she told me before the session she intended to be part of the Q&A. She just asked how we should get the message to the young people. Mittan said that the largest bloc is people who don't listen to the radio; he is reaching out to people who don't tune in to Limbaugh and listen to Mittan on their way to Hannity by speaking at college campuses. Elizabeth told me that her older sister is the one who was talking with Howard Lee in yesterday's education panel.

Penultimate question is coming from a young man who is vice-chairman of the UNC-Greensboro College Republicans. His comment is that liberals are targeting young conservatives on campus, and the only air they've been able to get is Wright's station in Wilmington and Mike Adams on Townhall.com. Wright said the reason Greensboro got on the air in Wilmington is there was a connection with UNC-Wilmington and the Star-News wouldn't cover it; it was newsworthy so his station carried it all day. The key is finding news and then packaging it.

Coming from my own experience leading a nonprofit advocacy group, I can say "Amen" to that. Ric Martinez told him, no offense, but, "Too bad. You don't decide what's news. You have to be persistent." And that, I think, is quite true.

Session over, on to lunch ...

Racial Politics and Conservative Media

2007-04-28T08:43:00.000-07:00

An African-American man in the audience said there is not enough coming from the GOP to discredit the leadership of Sharpton and Jackson; he said the black community doesn't see them as leaders but idiots, but the Republicans are not reaching out on that subject.

Curtis Wright challenged his fellow hosts to open their shows on a daily basis to Democratically-registered black leaders, as he [apparently] has done. Bill LuMaye said that he has done some outreach of some sorts but recognizes (and has experienced) the danger that their shows and sponsors become targets. "Isn't it powerful radio, though?" Wright asked. Comments from the panel and the audience say that the problem is conservatives are always on the defensive here and should not be.

Ric Martinez said that the Hispanic community tends to be conservative by nature, and immigrants do not naturally go to Social Services because that option doesn't exist where they're from. He said he is regularly asked, "Why do Mexicans work so hard?" He said it's nothing magic, it's just that there's no other option back where they're from.

Martinez continued to emphasize the issue is not so much what the community believes but what the media presents, and we who have connections with the media need to be standing forth for conservative principles.

What About Imus? And Beyond?

2007-04-28T08:25:00.000-07:00

Why would you take down a liberal talk show host? Jeff Katz asked about the Imus controversy recently. "This is a brilliant tactical move," he said, because they can hold up the carcass of a liberal host and show they were committed to silencing any broadcaster who says something objectionable. "This is a great way for them to start" re-establishing the Fairness Doctrine he said.

Matt Mittan however disagreed, saying that the free market, not the government, decided to remove Imus. Rosie O'Donnell is off as well. [I wasn't aware of that ...] Advertisers responded to consumers' rejection and pulled their dollars. Katz said it wasn't the market that took O'Donnell off, it was ABC. Bill LuMaye said it wasn't the market in Imus' case either, but extortion by the same "poverty pimps" who are seeking to "bar code" everybody and pit groups against each other. "Although the free marketplace should determine things, I don't think that happened here."

Curtis Wright asked why aren't we speaking out more? Why did last November happen? "What I'm worried about is we're going to continue to do it," he said. "I'm more concerned that the product is going to stay the same, rather than asking what we should be doing. Whatever we're doing may be bringing in some dollars, but it's not working. With only 31% of the people in North Carolina voting, we're not inspiring them."

Nathan Tabor's question is whether the organization of the liberal left isn't overrunning the conservative viewpoint. There is consistent, closed-ranks "swarm" behavior from the Moveon.org, Al Sharpton side of the spectrum. What have we done in the last two years to change the failure of education in North Carolina? There is no unified voice in North Carolina to truly make a difference. "When an issue like this comes up we need to be working on a unified voice" to respond. "The conservative message gets lost in the woods because we're all standing around by our own campfires."

Mittan said the message has been getting out, but problem for the Republicans has been failure to deliver for conservative, Constitutional ideas.

Ric Martinez saw the Imus issue as a victory of racial politics, and said that conservatives cannot win at racial politics because we are not "diverse". He said there was only one black conservative who had enough intellectual gumption to answer Sharpton et al, and no one knows about Niger Ennis but Sean Hannity. Wright said that conservative media is not pointing out the line-by-line problems in the credibility of some of the "poverty pimps" as LuMaye called them. He said if it were someone on the right side, the liberal media would press the point every day.

More on the Relentless Communication

2007-04-28T08:06:00.000-07:00

I'm in the session on "Conveying the Conservative Message" with several talk show hosts and columnists, and as it happens, doing some conveyance of my own right now. The room is packed and more coming in. I'm trying to write real time so I apologize if I drop an article or word here or there. (Updates are welcome)

Donna Martinez of State Government Radio opened the panel with the question, asked by an audience member yesterday, whether talk radio is simply preaching to the converted, and not reaching out to communicate this message.

Nathan Tabor of TCV Media said that he admittedly does only occasional radio spots, but he believes that our answers to the oppositional callers will have a long-term effect of getting the message out. [Think Sean Hanity's "Hanitization" riff]

Curtis Wright of WNTB in Wilmington quoted Edward R. Murrow, "'It is our job to educate and illuminate.' I believe that if we ed and ill people on conservative priniciples, that if everything we do comes back to that, then the message will come back. Talking to the choir needs to stop."

But Jeff Katz of WBT in Charlotte disagreed strongly, saying their job as radio hosts was indeed to keep listeners engaged for a given quarter-hour. "You are hired to attract and hold as many people as possible for your radio station. They will hear if you are true to what you believe, and they may or may not react. It is an entertainment medium; the difference is that [talk as a format] has the opportunity to give a perspective at the same time as do my job - to entertain a larger audience." He said his time in Boston and San Francisco felt pretty lonely,

Matt Mittan answered Donna's question if talk radio is bombastic. He said, "Hell, yes, it's bombastic. We're in a battle." He said his market, Asheville, has been called "The Freak Capital of the East", and that the readership of a very liberal local alternative newspaper, The Mountain Express, has voted his program "Take A Stand" their favorite radio program for two years running. He listed his very conservative positions, but said, "I reject the label of 'conservative', because I would rather win on issues rather than labels."

Ric Martinez does both radio and op-ed columns, and he said that since he and Donna began working at State Government Radio, he has been amazed at the lack of conservative voices in the mainstream media. "I wonder if we have ceded that," he said. Ric says that liberals they have interviewed have been surprised that they weren't "torn up" by these conservative journalists. He recommends that conservative journalism students seek places with the MSM like the Raleigh News & Observer rather than Townhall.com, because they can do more good there.

Process Check

2007-04-28T08:02:00.000-07:00

I've got some notes from the other speakers at breakfast, including Senator Smith, but I'm going to be catching up on them as I have opportunity during the day.

I've had some interesting conversations this morning with Patrick Ballantine, Dr. Erik Root of the N.C. Family Policy Council, Bart Ely of Clear Glass Productions, Matt Mittan of WWNC in Asheville, and columnist Ric Martinez. I'll see if I can work some of this in during the day.

Heath Shuler

2007-04-28T06:32:00.000-07:00

This is my first exposure to Heath Shuler; I was disappointed that his election was one of the Republican seats that turned over in 2006, though admittedly I wasn't a great fan of Charles Taylor. However, it was interesting to hear from a freshman Democrat who apparently is taking a conservative stand in the House of Representatives.

Shuler's theme this morning was about the importance of standing on principle. He quoted Scripture and Biblical concepts a number of times and seemed sincere about it; certainly I've heard enough politicians whose newly public faith was as convincing as Hillary Clinton's southern drawl. Shuler "smells right", so I'm encouraged to hear it.

He spoke about having to choose your associations carefully. While in the NFL, he was at a restaurant in New Orleans to close a multi-million dollar deal with a cellular provider. He said as the drinks flowed and the language grew more profane, he noticed some young children at a nearby table watching them closely. He decided that he was going to be an example one way or the other, so when the appetizers arrived, Shuler asked the executives if he could return thanks for the meal ("in all thy ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct thy paths", he quoted). Shuler said the alcohol stopped at that point, the conversation became more polite, and after the children came over for his autograph, he turned down the offer, telling the executives the money wasn't an issue but the company was.

From there he spoke about his association with the "Blue Dog" Democrats, forty-four and counting, who are a conservative caucus within the House (by comparison, there are only twenty-two members of the Progressive Caucus). This is a large enough group that without their support, the Democrats may very well fail to pull the majority they need to pass legislation. He said they are regularly consulted to try and be sure they stay in the "D" column and that this does make a difference.

In conclusion, he says that his parents taught him life is not hard if you do what is right and what you know in your heart to be true -- that the difficulty comes when you waffle or when you are not honest with yourself, as well as others. And he said it is important to have the courage to cross the aisle and work with both parties.

Of course, my question is always if you're conservative, why are you still in the Democratic Party? But everyone has to choose his associations, as Shuler said. Hmm.

Breakfast on the Right

2007-04-28T06:02:00.000-07:00

The first session this morning is breakfast and a rapid succession of speakers -- Senator Fred Smith, former Sen. Patrick Ballantine, U.S. Army journalist Bill Kiever, and just introduced, Congressman Heath Shuler.

Ballantine, by the way, said he rode the elevator with Shuler this morning, when one of the passengers said, "I can't believe we have to go hear a Democrat today." Ballantine told them, "I've got something even worse. Somebody asked me this morning, 'Aren't you Heath Shuler?'"

Vernon Robinson (usually called something like, "The controversial ..." ) came in late and shared the table with us but we didn't have time to speak.

Shuler's up now.

A parting observation

2007-04-27T17:39:00.000-07:00

Here in the midst of the Conservative Leadership Conference, there is one room reserved for the North Carolina Professional Teaching Standards Commission meeting still in progress. Interesting juxtaposition.

Collecting thoughts

2007-04-27T17:37:00.000-07:00

Former Maryland Governor Bob Ehrlich listens to introductory remarks

from Civitas vicepresident Tom Stith on Friday.

"We've got to be relentless"

2007-04-27T17:31:00.000-07:00

Former Maryland governor Bob Ehrlich made a $6 billion turnaround in state budgets, from a $4 billion deficit, while in office. He made department heads start with 88% of the previous year's budget and justify every dollar more to him personally. And he said, "We governors like to say we created so many jobs, but really, I just got out of the way of 100,000 new jobs that were created in our state."

But he said we have to face the facts of the 2006 elections. "We need to think about what a wipeout election this was, as a constant reminder when we regain power, that we can not mess up."

It was an "edgy" talk, as he warned, but good to consider. His overall point: "If these numbers are to turn around, we have to be hyperactive to get this message out to the community." We can view last November as a loss, or as a defeat, but it's up to us to rebuild our credibility now, while it's low for the conservative movement.

Newtonian ideas

2007-04-27T17:23:00.000-07:00

Congressman Pat McHenry said the time has come for Republicans to embrace Reaganesque ideas, concepts so big and all-embracing he calls them "Newtonian".

We know how to make the phone calls, we know how to knock on the doors, but if we can't explain to the people what we want to do with that power if they give it to us ...

What are these big ideas? McHenry says a free market reform of healthcare and education, making both of them tax free. "If it's really a priority, then show it," he said. Tax reform should be a primary goal, and should begin by abolishing the tax code effective December 31, 2010, when the Bush tax cuts revert back to Clinton-era levels. He called for the Secretary of Education to cut fifty checks a year, block grants to the states, then go home, work completed. (This is closer to a Constitutional role of the federal government in education, anyway.) Judiciary reform should take the form of term limits for federal judges and redistricting after every census, just like the legislature. Finally, he called for "a 21st Century Manhattan Project" to eliminate the dependence on foreign energy -- again, as a free market, incentive-driven endeavor. He suggested a $1 billion prize for energy innovation.

A need for self-restraint

2007-04-27T17:03:00.000-07:00

Justice Bob Orr, gubernatorial candidate, gave an excellent speech on the need for citizens and businessmen, as well as their representatives, to "avoid the temptation" to seek incentives, concessions, and other financial benefits from the government.

If we do not exercise self-restraint, we will suffer, business with suffer, and the government is going to continue to encroach in your life.

This past week Orr argued at the Court of Appeals on the case of the Dell incentives, $300 million worth from the state and Winston-Salem, and spoke of the importance of the "'public purpose' provision" in the state constitution -- that tax funds cannot be taken for any reason but a definite public purpose.

He included an excellent quote from Edmund Burke which I will try and update later on.

Humor: Justice Orr apologized for leaving early, but he has a political event in the western part of the state tomorrow morning and an event back here Sunday. He said he is the only candidate who does not have his own airplane, but he has christened his pickup truck "Orr Force One" and plans to sell T-shirts, hats, and mugs to people who have ridden with him.

Reagan's Legacy

2007-04-27T14:46:00.001-07:00

The love and reverance we see for Ronald Reagan is more than simply team spirit. Reagan was a genuine conservative whose convictions didn't change and "evolve" as he mounted the political ladder.

A couple of years ago I reviewed Lee Edwards' short biography The Essential Ronald Reagan. One incident stays in my memory. Edwards had an opportunity to visit the Reagans in their apartment shortly after Reagan entered the political scene. In a quiet moment, left alone in their den, Edwards browsed their bookshelves. Not only did the Reagans have copies of classic economics books by the likes of Hayek and Bastiat, they were well-worn, dog-eared, and thoroughly annotated by the owner.

Another book, Reagan In His Own Hand, is a collection of the essays he wrote for his radio broadcasts in the 1970's. They are brilliant, like gems of concise viewpoint from an unerringly conservative position, and cover a wide range of topics and issues. They are great examples of the art of writing, apart from their philosophical content.

The panel this evening is fleshing out the history with some of their personal recollections of Ronald Reagan. Former Lt. Gov. Jim Gardner shared his time spent with Reagan as a young Congressman in the 1960's and as political campaigner at other times. His wife observed that a campaign trip to Asheville, when then Governor Reagan stepped aside to allow her to exit the plane first, was "the first time I wasn't run down by politicians fighting their way to the microphone." He was a real gentleman as well as a real conservative.

Frank Gaffney served in Reagan's State Department and most recently got headlines when his documentary film, Islam v. Islamists: Voices from the Muslim Center, has been supressed by the PBS which commissioned it. He says our current fight against Islamofascism is exactly parallel to the fight against Soviet Communism in the 1980s. Gaffney says that we need to take the same steps that Reagan did, including defining political statements like his "Tear down this wall!" speech, and serious efforts to dry up the funding which keeps terrorism going.

Congressman Pat McHenry observes that Ronald Reagan made a point of befriending House Speaker Tip O'Neill to expedite the political battles he had to face. This is not standard practice now in Congress. On the other hand, Gaffney pointed out, Reagan had to contend with a Democratic Congress that wanted to impeach him over Iran-Contra, wanted to derail the Strategic Defense Initiative, and went absolutely bananas over his "destructive" statements confronting Communism.

The impact Reagan had on conservatism and this country as a whole can't even start to be appreciated in a single session, but it's always good to hear from those who knew him first hand and had experience in "the revolution". It's probably time for another.

A moment of illumination

2007-04-27T12:57:00.000-07:00

Does Justice Bob Orr receive direct revelation from the Supreme Judge?

Or does the photographer have a problem with stray light?

What's conservatism without Boy Scouts?

2007-04-27T12:44:00.000-07:00

My neighbors at lunch were Will and Dewey, twin brothers and Scouts who were invited to lead the Pledge of Allegiance at the opening session. In the course of the conversation Dewey allowed as how his patrol became bored with the traditional names and mascots, and under the influence of way too much caffeine one evening, hit on the "Rabid Chicken" as their mascot. The badge company must have been bored as well, since they created the image for them.

Seems like I was in "Wolf Patrol" when I was a Scout.

A further times-are-changing moment when I asked if their weekend canoe trip was in state. "I hope so," he said. "My Ipod isn't charged up."

Uh oh. The Scout motto is "Be prepared!" Hopefully that's survived the digital revolution.

Questions for the education panel

2007-04-27T11:34:00.000-07:00

After the presentations from the four panelists, the audience took part in a lively Q&A session. Frankly, Chairman Lee got hammered pretty hard by the group, and he handled their questions very well. I have to hand it to him for coming to a venue which might be expected to be pretty skeptical about the public school system he helps oversee.

Student interests

In answer to a high school student's question [unfortunately I didn't catch it], Lee said he wants to promote online self-study and more relevant course material even at very young ages. He is also in favor of more peer collaboration and peer tutoring. "One of the things we miss is what really we should be doing to hold and enhance the attention of students," he said, and asked the student for her ideas. She said "maybe not as much books" -- Lee says "Yes!" -- "and shorter classes, since the ADD students are mixed in with the regular students." She said her sister goes to the John Locke Foundation's lunchtime Shaftesbury Society lectures and they are much more interesting than the books the schools use.

An older gentleman disagreed with this sort of concern, saying "Our heads are in the sand and the tail is wagging the dog, worrying about keeping the students happy. We need to be focused on giving them what they need to learn. She needs to be made to do the work she needs to achieve and be successful, and not asked 'What do you want to do today, dear?'

"The highest percentage of kids on grade level [in the counties I researched] was Cumberland County 57%, Robeson 27%. How in God's name do you expect kids to do anything if you socially promote them and you can't hire them to do anything? I was a business owner and I hired high school graduates who couldn't fill out the application forms. I believe you are trying to do your job, Mr. Lee, but I'm just telling you like it is."

Dropout statistics

A man on the front row seconded Stoops' call for better statistics, saying that DPI reported 95% graduation rates until last February, when it suddenly dropped to 68%. "What bothers me," said Lee, "is whether that dropout rate is real either. If that kid leaves the school and enrolls in the community college, he's counted as a dropout but I don't think so."

A recent relocation to the state said he is substitute teaching in the local schools and said in his view, "Chaos in the schools starts at the top." Lee expressed concern that the problem is with local boards which are not performing. Stoops immediately disagreed, referencing the Teacher Working Conditions Survey, saying that the governor, SBE, and DPI, focus on pay and benefits rather than the teachers' stated concern about incompetent administration and leadership. Lee had already stated that until we can make teaching more attractive, safe, decently paid, people are going to make another choice and teacher turnover would remain high.

"At the same time, you're completely wrong saying we don't prioritize this," said Lee. "We cannot ignore the fact that teacher pay is an important part of what we do. Keep in mind this is an initiative for Governor Easley and he said it will be a priority for the state board."

Lee challenged the questioner why he was substituting instead of full time; the listener said he tried but was told there was not a high need for history teachers, like he was in West Virginia. Lee said, "You contact my office; you've been given bad information."

Support for charters but not those charters

"When the charter school movement started in North Carolina, the state board threw out charters like apples coming off a tree, because they were under pressure from the legislature," said Lee. "What I want to do is have a methodical approach, not a blue ribbon commission ..." He said again that he didn't care how many charter schools there are if they are done the way he envisions. He was asked then why not support removing the cap on charters now? He said the commission is a six month project only but left the question somewhat open.

Item: Howard Lee said he purchases a lottery ticket every week. Lee said the legislature's current education budget is "ugly!" and the board is looking to help them "pretty it up".

Performance, preparation, and violence in education

2007-04-27T11:01:00.000-07:00

Friday's education panel included Howard Lee, chairman of the State Board of Education, and Dr. Terry Stoops, education analyst for the John Locke Foundation, as well as Senator Harry Brown and Representative Dale Folwell of the General Assembly.

Howard Lee says he is working to gain more authority for the SBE to take over school systems from local boards which are taken up by internal strife. He asserts that "Public schools are working". He praised the "Learn and Earn" program and agreed with the call for more "themed high schools".

"If there's one thing I hope we in NC can get away from, it's the mega-high-schools where kids can get lost," he said.

Alternatives to traditional schools

"I am a very strong advocate for charter schools," said Chairman Lee. "I am not an advocate for some of the charter schools we have now.

"I don't think we can build enough buildings to accommodate the growth we have and expect every child in a classroom. That's why I support virtual schools where a gifted and talented student can accelerate themselves through the system. We can no longer require students to put in seat time; the thing that concerns me is the kids that are dropping out is not just slow learning kids, some are very smart kids who are bored to tears."

The new testing review commission will have its first meeting in two weeks, "determine where we are, how many of these tests are useless, and create a system where teachers can get immediate feedback rather than waiting for the end of the year."

In the next 30 days he will have a charter school review commission. "I want the charter schools who are not performing off the books. The idea of the charter school was freedom from the red tape, not that they should not meet standards. If they do that, we don't need to care about the number. I don't care if we have a thousand, if they are performing ... " he said.

"Think with me for a minute," Lee continued. "When we went to school, the community felt ownership of the schools ... we have lost that. Parents are not engaged, the community is not engaged, in some case the schools encourage the community not to be engaged."

He cited constant turnover of teachers and weak community support as continuing problems. "Our goal has to be to prepare students to function in the world, not just in North Carolina or their community," he said. "Guess what, the car that is now number one in the world is Toyota; if we're going to be engaged in that business, we better be able to speak a little Japanese and understand the Japanese culture ..."

School violence is not adequately documented

Dr. Terry Stoops of the Locke Foundation mused that "we are so willing to close down charter schools but not regular schools." Lee interjected "That was the part I left out of my remarks."

Stoops said he'd like to use his time for a rebuttal, but he chose to focus on school violence issues. He said there is a rising awareness that school crime statistics have been "grossly inaccurate".

According to him, in 2005, a Colorado school claimed no crime the same year a student was stabbed to death in the cafeteria. The largest school district in NC reported one sex crime in the 2004-2005 school year, but actually apologized for the administrative oversight when it was published there were several serious and literally hundreds of minor sexual offenses. In some cases, crimes were never reported because the school could not identify the offender.

Why is this happening? "It is an era of accountability. A school not doing well in testing but wishing to show improvement in some area can fudge on crime statistics to claim they are creating a safer school environment," Stoops said. There are also questions of definitions of certain crimes and violence.

We need better data and information, and make sure DPI is accurately reporting this stuff, he said. "We have programs like Positive Behavior Management that we don't have rigorous analysis to tell us whether these programs are working or not."

Stoops mentioned the media did not report that charter schools had a 30% decrease in suspensions while district schools reported increases. District schools reported 3.1 suspensions per 10 male students, while charter schools only experienced 1 per 10.

Every Child Ready to Learn

"If we have one goal in public schools, it should be not to humiliate a child," said Rep. Folwell of Winston-Salem. He has introduced an eight-word bill to change the cutoff date for kindergarten from October 16 to August 31. He said that North Carolina's public school classrooms have the largest age span of nearly any in the nation and it is a difficult prospect for a 4-year-old to be sharing a classroom with a 6-year-old.

He also called for a unique student identifier which would allow the Employment Security Commission to link a person's work history with his school record, all the way back to kindergarten. He said this is already in place in some states. This gives me some concern but I can't comment right now.

Just one question, Mr. Mayor ...

2007-04-27T10:50:00.000-07:00

Rudy Giuliani was our lunchtime speaker and was genial, well-spoken, connected with the crowd, and all the other things that are said about the mayor. He delivered several applause lines on his strongest issues, which of course are security and governmental reform. One of them, though, left a question hanging, and though I tried to get in on the brief Q&A session at the close, we got cut off at three questions only.

Giuliani spoke of his experience and frustration attempting to reform the New York City public school system, and said he was "starry eyed" to think that he could expect the same success he'd scored with emergency services, social welfare programs, and other big governmental projects. No such luck with the school systems.

He said the turning point in his thinking was when the Children's Scholarship Fund offered 2500 grants to allow parents to enroll their children in private or parochial schools. When the public school authorities refused to allow the CSF information to be distributed in the public school systems, Giuliani said he couldn't override them -- he only controlled two votes on the seven-member board.

Even with very little promotion, though, the CSF program received 168 thousand applications. What does that say?

He argues that since we are already going to spend the money, from $6000 to over $20 thousand (for special needs children), why not increase the alternatives and options available to families, beyond the public schools in their district of residence?

There was much applause because many of us here support the idea of educational reform, expanded alternatives such as public school choice, charter schools, and even tax credits or vouchers to help families direct the funding where they believe their children will be best served. However, Giuliani is not running for mayor or governor, he's a candidate for president, so my unasked (and therefore unanswered) question is:

What is the role of the federal government in an endeavor which is historically and Constitutionally a state and local issue?

See Amendment 10.

UPDATE: Joseph Coletti and I have some back-and-forth on Giuliani and schools in The Locker Room here, here, here, and here.

Links:
Reason & Revelation: Lunch with Giuliani

First we eat

2007-04-27T09:19:00.000-07:00

The opening session is lunch, with an unapologetic blessing in Jesus' name, courtesy Judge Ann Calabria. Jon Sanders at the Locke Foundation saved me a great seat near the front, though I think my pictures will show Rudy Giuliani emerging from a broadleaf palm like ... well, never mind.

Good national anthem and dinner music from the Wake-Rolesville chorus. Senator Fred Smith has a seat nearby but he's out working the crowd. Justice Bob Orr came in a few minutes ago but it looks like he's going to do lunch first. I'm with the judge on this one.

Where's the protest?

2007-04-27T08:44:00.000-07:00

I saw at least two left-leaning (charitable description) websites had targeted the conference for protests ("IMPEACH!"). However, as I observed to another exhibitor, it looks like God has prepared a welcome for them -- the rain is coming down in sheets outside.

Of course, one of the groups is focused on April 28, so if the Ides of March are come, they are not yet gone. So to speak, anyway.

Testing, Testing

2007-04-27T08:35:00.000-07:00

I'm getting logged in and settled here at the North Carolina Conservative Leadership Conference, convening at the Raleigh Sheraton Hotel on beautiful newly-paved Fayetteville Street.

At the moment I'm sitting in the exhibitors' area at the table for North Carolinians for Home Education, the nonprofit group I've worked with for ten years. I expect one of our board member couples to be in later today but in the meantime, I can camp here as well as anywhere.

So far so good on the connection. I was a little worried at first but I see my signal meter has updated and looks very happy.

On A Roll

2007-04-26T13:37:00.000-07:00

Five Points is now on the roll at the Civitas Institute's Red Clay Citizen blog.

Thanks to Max Borders for counting us in.

No King

2007-04-26T06:40:00.000-07:00

The Religion News Service has released a report on the nation's Christian leaders who are most influential in political (or at least, Republican) circles. These have been characterized as "kingmakers" for the GOP, a label that may be accurate in one sense, though it isnot one that I am very comfortable with.

According to Doug Huntington's story in The Christian Post, these included:

Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family
Rev. Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission
Rev. Rod Parsley, pastor of World Harvest Church in Ohio
Michael Farris of Homeschool Legal Defense Association (Farris also a pastor as well as chancellor of Patrick Henry College)
Pam Olsen, president of the Florida Prayer Network
Rev. Don Wildmon of the American Family Association (AFA)
Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council (FRC)
Steve Scheffler of the Iowa Christian Alliance
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice
Tamara Scott, leader of the Iowa chapter of Concerned Women for America

There is a pattern in this list which underlines one of my concerns about the "kingmaker" aspect. Though there are several men whom I know are entitled to be called "Reverend" -- and note that title is never mentioned in the Christian Post article -- only one, Parsley, is predominantly known for his role as a pastor.

I am totally in favor of outspoken Christians working in the political process, because I am convinced that the teachings of Christ and His apostles is relevant to every aspect of our lives. Politics is simply part of living within a diverse community, as we do, and Christianity has much to say about that relationship. For that matter, so do other religions and philosophies, and I don't mind the debate seeking a ground of commonality when it comes to social questions. This is not to say that all beliefs are equally true or valid, but there is significant overlap on many of the earthly questions; we can all agree that the innocent should be protected, that honesty should be a hallmark of our interactions, that murder, theft, and rape are criminal acts.

The ethic of politics and citizenship need to be preached from the pulpit, though, as well as broadcast in the programs and publications of the organizations that are represented. I am similarly convinced that ministries like Promise Keepers, Focus on the Family, the Institute for Basic Life Principles, and others that are occasionally decried as "parachurch" groups would not exist and thrive if the conventional church got around to addressing some of these particular needs within the church and society. As it stands, they can coexist and minister together, but we need more pastors speaking out about current issues, and challenging our response to them beyond comfortable, and predictable, platitudes and applause lines.

Make that, "Amen" lines.

As a second point, I am uncomfortable with the apparent ease of this report assigning the role of political broker in the name of Christ to these men and women. I'm glad they're involved, and I expect most of the "Top 10" don't see themselves this way, but the label carries way more of politics than of piety. For the Christian in America, there is no king but Jesus, and no kingmakers are even possible. As for the political class, all of them are simply ministers, but since we get a hand choosing them, we need to elect wisely. And if there are Christian leaders who have godly counsel to share, let them.

N.C. Conservative Leadership Conference

2007-04-23T13:14:00.000-07:00

Later this week I'll be live blogging from the second North Carolina Conservative Leadership Conference, sponsored by the J.W. Pope Civitas Institute and the John Locke Foundation. This will be my third round of reportorial blogging since last year's CLC -- a brief round at the North Carolinians for Home Education conference in Winston-Salem last May, somewhat hampered the fact I was president of the organization and a speaker at the conference, then a very intense session at the National Center for Family Integrated Churches in St. Louis last fall.

This was an excellent event last year and promises to be even better in 2007. A number of bloggers will be reporting, so I'm hoping to cover an angle not seen in the other blogs; we'll see how that goes.

At last notice, there was still space for late registration, so if you see me at the Raleigh Sheraton this Friday and Saturday, be sure to say hello.

Our own Fred

2007-03-26T04:15:00.000-07:00

I was on a business trip to Nashville when former senator Fred Thompson told Fox News he was considering a run for president. This weekend, I attended what is likely the first "official" stump speech of Johnston County's own Fred, new candidate for governor, state senator Fred Smith.

The senator made his announcement Friday morning in Raleigh, and that evening was the featured speaker at the county GOP's annual "Reagan Day Dinner" (other Republicans celebrate "Lincoln Day", but I think Johnston County's event more accurately reflects the mind of modern conservative Republicans).

The News & Observer was dismissive of the announcement, making a point of Smith's co-sponsorship of "unsuccessful bills that would raise the cap on charter schools, restrict the use of eminent domain to seize private land and put a state constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage before voters" and an "unsuccessful effort by state Republicans to win a majority in the Senate". They did acknowledge he had been hampered by being a member of the minority party.

No doubt, particularly during the past few years of Democratic control.

Nevertheless, I give Senator Smith full credit for the attempts, and I am glad he touched on the same or related issues in particular at the Friday night event. The senator focused on his business experience, such as creating between six and seven hundred jobs in his contracting, home building, and other companies, and said he would work strenuously to make the state government "reflect our traditional conservative values ... [and] empower people, not bureaucrats."

"The strength of North Carolina is in its people, not its government," he said.

Smith also said his time serving as a Johnston County commissioner was invaluable experience to learn about local issues. Representative Leo Daughtry, introducing the senator, had already pointed out the current governor's career went from law school straight to state employment, while Smith's path had including military service, founding a legal firm, then building several successful businesses in Johnston County.

"Mike Easley knows how easy it is to sign the back of a check," said Daughtry. "Fred Smith knows how hard it is to sign the front of the check," meeting payrolls and dealing with the effects of taxes, regulations, and the effect of state spending.

Smith said, "We need a government that understands that all that mothers and fathers want is a student-centered education for their children." He gave general support to public schools in the speech, though his support of bills promoting charter schools and his consistent support of homeschooling indicate a broader view of education than simply more funding for the Department of Public Instruction.

He also referenced the recent death of a Johnston County father and son in a crash with an illegal immigrant as "a disgrace" which he blames on a government which tolerates lackadaisical enforcement of immigration rules.

"Under the rule of law, when one part of the law is weakened, it weakens all," he said. "We at the state and national levels [of government] should do everything we can to solve this immigration crisis. [And] No one should be rewarded for coming here illegally."

He also gave his support to a constitutional amendment to protect the definition of marriage; he did not specify if he meant the state or the federal constitution.

Over three hundred people showed up for the event, which included a formal recognition of veterans and current servicemen -- I did not notice any servicewomen standing, though I saw nothing to exclude them. The audience included more than the Johnston County GOP faithful, since the sheriffs of at least three counties were in attendance, along with Republican chairmen from Wayne, Cleveland, Rutherford, Samson, Guilford, Bertie, and Scotland Counties.

A first look at the first hundred hours

2007-01-11T14:54:00.000-08:00

Bang! And they're off!

Maybe the newly minted Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), wanted to take Franklin Roosevelt's inaugural initiative to fix the Depression – his “First Hundred Days” -- and update it for the Internet days: her “first hundred hours”. Of course, we're not in a worldwide depression, Pelosi has not been elected president, and most importantly, while communication is much faster in 2007 than 1933, the deliberations of Congress are not. Praise God for that, I say.

In fact, much of what has been going on in D.C. the past few days is classically insubstantial. Yesterday, for instance, Charles Rangel of New York proposed a postal stamp to honor Congressman Adam Clayton Powell Jr. Pete Sessions from Texas meanwhile wants the postal service to promote Downs syndrome awareness. Daniel Lapinski of Illinois wants to honor the contributions of Catholic schools, while Charlie Rangel, again, wants to honor bluesman James Brown.

But Congressman Rangel also would “require all persons in the United States between the ages of 18 and 42 to perform national service” and reinstate the draft, as he has promised for some time now.

And in between efforts to rename the White Rocks National Recreation Area in Vermont in honor of Robert T. Stafford (per Senator Patrick Leahy) and designate the new courthouse in Jackson, Mississippi, the “R. Jess Brown United States Courthouse” (courtesy of Rep. Bennie Thompson), Senator Harry Reid is proposing a bill that would hit churches and nonprofit groups with $100,000 fines if their website encourages parishioners to contact their congressman concerning, say, Darfur, without jumping through appropriate hoops. Who knew grassroots lobbying threatened the republic so?

And Senator George Miller and a host of cosponsors offer an increase in the federal minimum wage. Certainly this will have the additional benefit of promoting international trade – or hiring of illegal aliens as underground labor – since many union-negotiated wages will be indexed and rise accordingly, providing a temporary boost to the recipients until the costs flow back through the rest of the economy to them. The minimum wage -- it's not just for warehouse sweepers and burger flippers, nope.

Much of what has happened the past few days has been internal fluff – the reinstatement of the House rules from the 109th Congress, for one thing, and resolutions back and forth like the handshaking signals of an idle computer network. (“We're here! We're here!”) And it's not all the party in majority, of course. To be fair, Senator Christopher Bond moved that the judicial facility in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, be named in honor of Rush Limbaugh, Sr. for example.

Constitutionally, though, it is the role of the federal government to provide for defense – which, I must admit, Rangel's proposal will do – but only to promote the general welfare – which interventions like wage controls are very likely to negate in the long run. The effort to clean up the natural venality of fallen man in political life is righteous, but the – hopefully – unintended crackdown on the free speech of nonprofit organizations like the Family Research Council, Homeschool Legal Defense Association, or Central Baptist Church of Panama City, Florida, is not securing the liberties of the organizations, and more importantly, is interfering in the efforts of their members to stay informed of government actions.

As far as multiplying honoraria, redesigning the backs of quarters, and moving on purely housekeeping issues, well, they don't accomplish much, but they fall within the background noise of parliamentary life. So be it, and let's take a few more than one hundred hours to consider the sweeping nature of the bills that do have substance.

The Five Point Test

2006-11-05T19:22:00.000-08:00

I recently did an article for Carolina Journal on the major accomplishments of North Carolina's delegation in the 109th Congress; in short, there weren't many, at least not in terms of legislation authored. Of course, several offices told me there were many things that went on other than new bills written by their Representative “X” (either D or R,-NC). Okay, I'll grant it. Still, when half the bills authored by our Congressmen and -women involved tariff relief for unpronounceable imported chemicals, one has to ask the question.

As we go to the polls this week to select the 110th Congress (God bless the Republic), I am proposing a new feature for this column. Let's call this “The Five Point Test”. What I intend to do is simply look at the recent action on the House floor and subject it to the lens of the Constitution's purpose statement:

We, the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

That's the goal of the whole American exercise in self-government, as the Founders defined it, and the Constitution is by application the blueprint for it. History doesn't confirm Jefferson's maxim about that government which governs best (i.e. least); rather, it says that government does best when it stays within its chartered purposes.

In our country, the founding document claims six purposes, the first of which was achieved by the passage of that document in 1789, replacing the fatally flawed Articles of Confederation. The remaining five purposes define a government which administers law and justice, protects the nation and its people from violence foreign and domestic, and stays out of the way of business and personal freedom as much as possible. When government expands beyond those bounds, someone or something is being encroached upon, and guaranteed, someone else is being taxed to pay for it, too.

Is this simplistic? Perhaps. If it's so simple, though, why do we seem to have such a problem applying it? When the new Congress raises its collective right hand in late January, let's start asking the question.

On the Subject of Sheepskin

2006-10-11T15:40:00.000-07:00

John Hood's editorial today, "Not Just More of the Same", is right on target. If a student has decided school's of no use by the time he turns 16, two more years of compulsory attendance are unlikely to light a fire for learning.

It reminded me of an interesting conversation I had recently. I just got backfrom the Uniting Church & Family Conference in St. Louis. This is sponsored by an organization, the National Council of Family Integrated Churches, which promotes a return to simplicity in the church, where families worship together and serve together, rather than fracturing into a dozen splinter groups segregated by age, gender, or interests. In a time of megachurches and programmatic ministries, it's a refreshingly iconoclastic movement.

One side conversation I engaged was on the subject of seminary training. Is it necessary for a healthy pastoral ministry that the preacher possess a masters of divinity? I would say not necessary, though it can be helpful; it depends on the kind of ministry that candidate has in mind. I have always appreciated a pastor who could open up the Greek and Hebrew of the original scriptures, and much mischief has resulted from preachers with plenty of zeal and not enough doctrinal wisdom to stay out of the quagmires of error.

Yet it is also quite true that many young seminary students would benefit more from practical experience in life than entering the halls of academic theological study. In my own life, the theological studies gained relevance when I passed through phases of life -- marriage, the birth of my children, the death of parents, sickness, health, and all the rest. A freshly minted M.Div in the hands of an unmarried 24-year-old can be a dangerous thing.

My friend in the discussion took that position to say that seminaries were probably not a positive good. They promote credential seeking, he said, which doesn't amount to wisdom or godliness. Better they should be trained under a local minister's discipleship.

But there is another path. The church we enjoyed for nearly ten years had connections with a theological school sponsored by a local Reformed Baptist church in New Jersey. Trinity Ministerial Academy gave many young men a rigorous doctrinal training but did not grant degrees. The instructors were first rate men with years of pastoral experience, but when you completed your time at TMA, all you had to show for it was wisdom, knowlege, and practical guidance.

And that, after all, should be the purpose of all education. I confess to a love for certificates, but they're just paper. At best, they are a pat on back for diligence (or successful skulduggery) navigating a required course of study. Frequently they are used by employers as substitutes for truly knowing a candidate for a job. As George Leef at the Pope Center for Higher Education Policy would point out, they are also used to restrict entry into fields of work, such as law, which can be learned as well by practical study as the classroom experience.

So what if we kept the school, but did away with the diploma? And the student only came to learn something, and only left when he had it? Isn't that how the new round of certifications go, as computer professionals pick up their classes with Cisco, Nortel, Microsoft, and Oracle?

An iconoclastic thought, to be sure, but some idols do need breaking. Or at least, a good looking over.

A personal note

2006-09-23T17:56:00.000-07:00

One of the mildly disappointing things seen on the Internet is the on-again, off-again blogger. We've probably all stubled across an interesting piece of commentary, but exploring the surrounding posts, find it hasn't been updated in months.

It was my full intention to make Five Points a regular, at least weekly, column online. That was in May when I opened for business. However, since that time there's been a major shakeup in the family economy, which is to say I resigned from a corporate job at a Fortune 500 company and helped found a business with three other family members. All the transition, coupled with an ongoing commitment to service with a nonprofit organization, ministry with a local church, and as much writing for print media as I can work in, put something of a squeeze on this particular outlet. My apologies!

As the new business begins to stabilize into a routine, I hope to have more time for, shall we say, more regularly occasional postings here, so feel free to stop by again sometime.

The Cost of Compulsion, the Value of Volunteers

2006-05-30T15:12:00.000-07:00

This past weekend I had the privilege of addressing over two thousand homeschoolers in one place, at the 22nd Annual North Carolinians for Home Education Conference in Winston-Salem. As many as that is, and it is impressive to see, it is only a fraction of the groundswell that home education is in this state. If all the parents and children in the 34 thousand homeschooling families across North Carolina were gathered together, they would populate a city the size of Fayetteville. That is significant.

At the same time as that conference was opening, the General Assembly -- to be specific, the North Carolina House -- was filing a bill to raise the compulsory attendance age from 16 to 18 years old. The long session last year already passed a change to upgrade truancy from a Class 3 to a Class 1 misdemeanor, meaning penalties could reach six months imprisonment or could even be raised to the level of a felony. Playing hooky isn't what it once was.

There are careers based on the debates which these two philosophies represent, but I find it interesting that the proposed change in compulsory attendance -- wisely avoiding the phrase "compulsory education", by the way -- carries a price tag of $41 million for the 2006-2007 school year. I seriously doubt that a student who has thrown in the towel on his own education by age 16 is going to gain much more from sitting in school another two years.

On the other hand, parents who have volunteered to fund their own children's education, whether by homeschooling or enrolling them in private or religious academies, are saving taxpayers over $980 million per year, according to the state's Department of Administration, which oversees "non-public education" here. Those options are not only for the well-to-do, either; last year I spoke with the headmistress of a Christian school which charges less than $1800 per year for their students, and even less for members of the sponsoring church.

As I concluded an op-ed in Carolina Journal once, perhaps the state should be looking at ways to encourage more of these parents who are making the choice to direct their children's education and cover their own expenses. In a $7 billion education budget, $41 million just disappears; but in a state budget of $17 billion, a non-expenditure of nearly a billion simply because citizens exercise their freedom is an idea worth promoting.

A nice idea that leaves out the critical part

2006-05-23T04:56:00.000-07:00

I read this morning where a private individual in Arizona has gathered enough petitions to place an initiative on the November ballot. His idea is to take unclaimed lottery prizes and award $1 million to someone who actually casts a ballot in a subsequent election.

I'm appalled that fewer than ten percent of registered voters turned out for this month's primaries in North Carolina, but while I'm eager to encourage greater interest and participation in the democratic process, I am leery of offering a cash incentive for voting. I am reminded of the story of a new junior college which was established several years ago; incoming students were polled for their preference of school colors and a mascot.

They were uninterested. Just pick them and let us know, they told the administration.

Oh, no, said the school's leaders. That's not how we're going to go about it. You, the students, need to decide. So they did.

On the opening day of football season, the school's team appeared in pink and white uniforms. Their mascot was an artichoke. Officials later admitted it was absolute murder trying to find a supplier for pink football jerseys.

Come to think of it, the school was in Arizona.

So in one sense, if voters aren't interested in exercising their franchise, there may be undesirable consequences to focusing on the mechanics of casting a vote without any expectation that the voters even know what's on the ballot. There is much more at stake than picking a series of lottery numbers, and while we need more citizens to act the part and make the effort to participate, efforts to recruit that participation have to include the critical need for informed voters -- not just those who want a chance at a million-buck payoff.

2006-05-17T02:48:00.000-07:00

Losing traction on immigration

Peter Drucker related a conversation he had with General Motors CEO Alfred P. Sloan at the start of Drucker's first big consulting assignment. The executive called him into the office and said,

I shall not tell you what to study, what to write, or what conclusions to come to. That is your task. My only instruction to you is to put down what you think is right as you see it. Don't you worry about our reaction. Don't you worry about whether we will like this or dislike that. And don't you, above all, concern yourself with the compromises that might be needed to make your conclusions acceptable. There is not one executive in this company who does not know how to make every conceivable compromise without any help from you. But he can't make the right compromise unless you first tell him what right is.*

This is where the debate on illegal immigration is spinning its wheels. There is no question that we have millions of uninvited residents who entered the country illegally. It is obvious that many businesses benefit from their labor, particularly in unskilled work and service industries, and that consumers likewise benefit. Ultimately, it is difficult to fault a person for wanting to live in our country and seek a better and more prosperous life for himself and his family. Yet it is undeniable as well that by definition, these millions are here in violation of our law, and the failure to control our borders and points of entry is a critical weak link in our national security. This is an era when the next attack on our people and institutions will not involve waves of missiles, bombers, and uniformed armies, but will come at the hands of individuals and irregular units smaller than a platoon. A sophisticated radar net and surveillance satellites are no more effective for preventing that sort of attack than France's Maginot Line was against Hitler's Panzers.

Before we talk about economic impact, cultural issues, and the history of immigration cycles, we need to focus our debate first and foremost on the true problem -- unauthorized and uncontrolled passage of our borders -- and settle on the desired state at that point of breakdown. Until we determine what "right" looks like, the necessary political judgments -- i.e., compromises -- will be impossible to nail down with any accuracy.

Charles Krauthammer recently said that the solution to the larger problem will be both some sort of program to assimilate these workers, however that program is organized, but first, we have to stop the ingress of new illegal residents. Placing more agents and more effective barriers along the boundary is a necessary step, and having the means and will to return those caught in the newly placed nets is part and parcel of it. For those who are already here, returning to their homeland now should be a doorway which latches behind them.

However, doors have knobs and locks have keys, and how we manage future immigration as well as the dozen millions who have already moved here and integrated themselves into our economy is a separate and subsequent question.

When the ship is taking on water, argument whether to pump to the left side of the ship or the right is premature until the leaks below the waterline have been addressed. Once the situation is stabilized, it may well be that the additional ballast is a help and not a threat. We will not be able to sort that out on the immigration issue until we take care of the primary problem.

-----
* Peter F. Drucker, "The Effective Decision," Harvard Business Review, January-February 1967; reprint 67105.

2006-05-11T09:16:00.000-07:00

The Man On The Ten-Dollar Bill

Greek dramatists believed that every protagonist has a tragic flaw, usually a fatal pride or hubris. Ron Chernow illustrates this in his biography of America’s most brilliant founder, Alexander Hamilton. Were it not for a tragic personal pride and ambition which would not allow him to back down from a useless challenge, Hamilton might have lived to provide many more years of insight and wisdom to a government still in a state of rapid change.

More than any but Franklin, Hamilton was the self-made man of the Constitutional era. He was born illegitimate on a West Indian island and never truly put it behind him; the experience of poverty and prejudice gave him a drive and the ability to educate himself on any matter of importance, whether clerking a mercantile business as a teen-ager or creating a national bank as treasury secretary. Throughout his life, Hamilton honestly did become "the smartest man in the room" — even Thomas Jefferson hesitated to engage him in debate — and he did it by close application, attention to details, and hours and hours of dedicated study.

As a member of the first administration, Hamilton was possibly the strongest force shaping the precedents that were established. Chernow quotes that if Washington was the father of his country, Hamilton was the father of its government, from his leadership in The Federalist Papers and the fight for constitutional ratification, on to his role as the first treasury secretary. His audacious, interlocking programs converted the ruined finances of the Confederation into a manageable federal debt, a customs service, and a national bank. His expansive view of "good" debt and federal authority, though, made him an easy target for political opponents as national politics began to polarize into Federalist and Republican factions.

His personal life provided more fuel for propagandists, though in fact, Hamilton was completely upright as a Cabinet official, and even in the midst of an adulterous affair and a subsequent blackmail scandal, he never lost his deep affection for his quiet, devout wife Eliza. Always jealous of his public reputation, he initiated the steps to a duel at least seven times, including a challenge to James Monroe over disclosure of the extramarital affair. Still, Hamilton began to rethink the code duello in his middle age; it is one of a train of ironies that he still allowed himself to be drawn into the final confrontation with Vice President Aaron Burr.

Hamilton was a remarkable man; gifted with a blinding intellect, eloquence, and a generous spirit, he also possessed traits that could -- and did -- drive him to achievement or destruction. Even in view of his tremendous contributions to our Republic, Alexander Hamilton could be held up as both good and bad example for succeeding generations. He was just like all of us -- just more so.

The full review of Ron Chernow's Alexander Hamilton appears in the May 2006 issue of Carolina Journal, online here

2006-05-07T15:06:00.000-07:00

Introduction

This is the introductory post of my new weblog, Five Points. Welcome aboard!

The title reflects two fundamental philosophies in my life, as a Christian first and an American as well. Coincidentally, they both break down into five succinct headings; I don't believe the number is significant beyond that one correspondance.

As servant of the living God and a follower of Jesus Christ, I am joyfully walking in the pathway trod by the leaders of the Protestant Reformation, particularly the spiritual descendents of the Swiss Reformation. Obviously this refers to the so-called "Five Points of Calvinism", which I'm the first to say is a response to a particular and specific theological controversy of the 17th century. It's not a complete statement or creed at all. However, it's often referenced as shorthand for a much broader view of the relationship between man and his Maker, the interaction of that Creator and the world He subsequently redeemed, and the continuing role each play in the world today. With that, I concur, and praise the God who is Sovereign over the affairs of men.

For what it's worth, it's something of a family tradition, this Calvinistic bent. My ancestors include a Puritan clergyman in the Massachusetts Bay Colony; French Huguenots who landed in the South Carolina low country around 1690; and Scots and Scot-Irish Presbyterians who arrived after the unpleasantness of the 1770's. (For good measure, my gggg-grandfather Henry Young was one of the early Methodists in South Carolina; I don't know if he would have sided toward Wesley or Whitefield. There are some German Lutherans and near as I can tell, Swiss Zwinglians from Zurich mixed in ... so we return to the Swiss Reformation, eventually).

To make it more interesting, I'm of a Baptist persuasion, so my view of Reformed theology follows the London Baptist Confession of 1689 rather than the Westminster Confession a few years previous ... just like John Bunyan, William Carey, and Charles Spurgeon. I'll address this in later posts, and some already exists on my other weblog, The Inundated Calvinist.

The Other Five Points, though, are not recognized nearly so often as a list -- in fact, in some ways they are nearly ignored. These points are the continuing role of the federal government as delineated in the preamble to our Constitution. When the Articles of Confederation proved inadequate for the government of our wide-flung states, even in that early time, the new structure was enacted "to form a more perfect union" with five continuing purposes for that government -- to ...

establish justice,
ensure domestic tranquility,
provide for the common defense,
promote the general welfare, and
secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity

Ronald Reagan said that our government is instituted to protect us from each other; it is hopeless to think that government should protect us from ourselves. I believe that much of the inefficiency and overreach of our present government has grown out of a willing ignorance of these five basic functions; I'll look forward to dealing with them in future posts, as well.

Thanks for visiting Five Points; I hope we'll meet again on a regular basis.