Issues

Have you ever stopped a candidate for public office and asked them where they stand on an issue? They often respond with vagarities such as reform and values. What do these answers actually mean? What IS "comprehensive immigration reform?" What ARE "family values?" These terms mean nothing because every man carries with him a different definition. I cringe each time I here these and other terms casually tossed about when a candidate attempts to answer questions. It is our fault as citizens that we do not stop to ask candidates what they mean when they say and write these words.

I do not run a business, nor do I run an organization, but one thing that I have learned about both is that you need an objective or goal upon which to build a vision for all those involved. Goals cannot be simply to "do better" or "increase sales and customer satisfaction." These goals are meaningless because their end results are subjective. "Raise sales of core products (as defined by the division to be...) by 15%" or "reduce call volume by 25% for the top three issues (based on annual statistics) by proactively utilizing tools such as Web site enhancements and proactive outreach." These are goals that I can sink my teeth into. At the end of the year I have a tangible result. Did I succeed? Yes or no?

Unfortunately, the same standards are not applied to politicians and their policies. Stop and ask a politician what the goal of comprehensive immigration reform is or what the goal of education or healthcare reform. None will be able to present to you a vision of their end product. Why? The reason is, we get suckered into accepting these nonsensical and vague answers. We don't push them for specifics. Just as an example, I took a look at the two main candidates for US Senate in Arizona, John McCain(R) and Rodney Glassman(D). Being a teacher by training, I chose to use education. Please feel free to do a side by side on any issue though. This is what I found in regard to education:

John McCain (http://www.johnmccain.com/issues/post/reforming-education-for-a-new-generation/)
Once you get through a lot of quotes and such, John McCain's objectives are as follows:

• John McCain will continue to fight for school choice for all who want it, an expansion of Opportunity Scholarships and alternative certification for teachers will all be part of a serious agenda of education reform. We will pay bonuses to teachers working in our most troubled schools because we need their fine minds and good hearts to help turn those schools around.
• We will award bonuses as well to our highest-achieving teachers. And instead of measuring teacher achievement by conformity to process, we will measure it by the success of their students. Moreover, the funds for these bonuses will not be controlled by faraway officials.
• Under these reforms, we will put the money and the responsibilities where they belong – in the office of the school principal.

Rodney Glassman (http://www.rodneyglassman.com/issues/education/)

• Ensure Arizona receives the financial assistance necessary to keep teachers in classrooms and deliver a top-notch curriculum.
• Improve Arizona’s capacity to recruit, train, and retain the best teachers.
• Bring our tax dollars back home to expand Arizona’s resources for science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.

I challenge anyone to demonstrate for me how either of these "solutions" will address the fact that year over year our kids are falling further and further behind in terms of learning basic facts and skills. Neither do. If you put both of their education agendas together, you will be getting more money for the "best" teachers.

This is a problem.

What is the objective that either of them are shooting for? Funding, and if they get more funding, they are successful. Unfortunately, that does not make our kids any better educated. You do not need the latest gadgets to get a good education, you need a willing mind. Somehow all of us managed to to come away from school with pretty good educations and all we had were textbooks.

Next time you talk to a candidate, don't let them slide. What are they shooting for and what are they willing to do to achieve it.

Getting Here

It's hard to really write about how I got to where I am politically. I never had a single "ah ha" moment where everything that I currently believe came together. Like so many Americans, for most of my life I floated somewhere in the moderate morass picking and choosing things from both the Democrats and Republicans that suited my political views. I never really understood politics, especially the conviction with which people spoke so passionately.
Like so many others who have grown up in Pittsburgh, I grew up with Democratic leanings. It was, and still is, the political machine of the region. Rich people were Republicans and that certainly wasn't me growing up. One of the teachers that made a huge impression on me in high school was Mr. Gentile. I took his AP American History class my sophomore year and that ended up being my only AP course. I don't remember him ever using the word socialist to describe himself, but he certainly leaned that way politically. I liked his brash, take no crap attitude and more than anything, I liked the challenge. I was far from the smartest kid in class, quite frankly I'm surprised I was even allowed to register for it. The only thing that I dreaded more than the weekly quiz on Friday was getting the results on Monday because the person with the lowest score was presented with the Spicoli Award. For those of you not familiar with Jeff Spicoli, he was the surfer dude played by Sean Penn in Fast Times at Ridgemont High.
Anyway, I came away from Mr. Gentile's class with some nuggets of wisdom. That was the first place I had heard the phrase "Billy Six Pack" in reference to the people who go home after work and throw back some beers. Mr. Gentile told us that we could do that or we could make something of ourselves, He also introduced the concept of Guns and Butter and how the government plays a balancing act between buying one or the other. Mr. Gentile was a butter man.
Perhaps the biggest influence on me politically was in reading Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I have read the book about a dozen times, and with each read through I still manage to find things I missed or forgot. Written back in the 1950s, it is a cautionary tale of how Rand saw America progressing down a socialist path and its inevitable end. The book is not meant as a play by play prediction and it does tend to be extreme, which is probably the result of a relatively short time line. It opened my eyes to the evils of communism and the communist mantra, "From each according to his ability to each according his need." With each reading, I walk away with an awareness of the world around me and the ever encroaching efforts to separate me from my freedoms.
My political views continue evolving over time, though I always return to asking the questions, Whose judges ability and need? Each day, I see the government attempting to better define that. And the more I ponder the questions, I remember that I am a man of ability and it is my neighbor's need that is thrust upon me in the form of indentured charity. More and more I am living for less so that others can live with more, MY more.
This blog is just the latest step in my personal progress. Whether or not anyone follows what I have to say does not matter because I will continue my path to figuring things out for myself, which is something that everyone must do if they wish to remain free.

Thank you for your time.

Adam

Who You Are Matters

Race
National origin
Gender/sexuality
Sexual Orientation
Religion
Handicap/Disability/Birth defect

Though this is not a comprehensive list, it does include many of the ways that people use to describe and differentiate themselves from other. Personal identification and pride in who you are is one of the most important things people can do throughout their lifetime In some of these classifications a person cannot change, such as race and national origin. Others, however, allow for greater malleability. People change, and that's great because everyday living changes us, we adapt in an effort to find happiness. It is important that as we go through life, whichever phase we may be in, we are okay with who we are. There is nothing wrong with having identifiers in your life because labels allow us to find others who are like us, who can share our experiences, with whom we can relate.

It's important though that we keep the bigger picture in mind, it is important to remember that we are Americans. Being American is what brings us all together in our infinite combination of labels. We are not Jewish Americans or African Americans or White Catholic Americans, we are Americans. It is from our diversity of heritage and culture and gender and sexual orientation that we as a culture draw our strengths. We are Americans. We live in a country where we can celebrate our differences with the knowledge that this country is the reason we are able to celebrate those differences. We are Americans. No matter where we came from or who we choose to be, all of us share that thread of unity.

Being American is not where we came from it's who we are, and that is what matters. I take immense pride in being a citizen of the United States of America. We are truly like nowhere else in the world.

Being an American is more than just being here though. We are different, we are imperfect, but we are Americans. If you have a few minutes, I ask you to watch the video at this link:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROpj9iA4HiU. It is the naturalization ceremony of soldiers and marines who, at the time of the ceremony, were serving in active duty in the Middle East. These people, from literally all over the world, volunteered to serve a country that was not even theirs at the time of enlistment. That's pretty amazing and I am proud to call each and every one of them, my fellow Americans.

Conviction

What follows is an email that I sent to a coworker of mine essentially in response to a conversation we had earlier in the day.

Okay, so I do not think that Ron Paul is a wingnut, quite to the contrary in fact. I do believe that he is viewed by both those in and outside of the Republican Party as an extremist, much the way that Ayn Rand was viewed both in her lifetime and now. He is a man of conviction who says what he means and means what he says, a quality not often seen in politics. Chris Christie may be along similar lines but I do not know where he stands on things outside of the New Jersey budget.

You made the comment earlier today that Republicans, in order to succeed, need to go back to their core values. My question to you is, what are those values? Low taxes? Hands off government? Balanced budgets? Small government? Even Reagan, great as he was, did not manage to remain true to those values. The problem in today's Republican Party is the very same that has haunted the party since Reagan left office, what does it stand for? This question has been raised many times by the media and it almost always comes back to Republicans are the party of "no." They are great are saying what they are against without truly articulating what it is they are for. And for this, I believe that the Republican Party must define itself or die. It's that simple.

Despite how it is portrayed, there is a great diversity of thought within the party. On one side of the spectrum you have John McCain, the great moderate waffler. On the other side you have the libertarian Ron Paul. The colors of the Republican Party's diversity umbrella does not have the bright vivid colors of the Democratic Party. No, the Republicans, for the most part are pastels all kind of blending together.

I got off track a bit there. The point I was trying to make is that the Republican Party is in the midst of an identity crisis. Is it old guard Republicans, Progressive Republicans, Tea Party Republicans, or some variation there of?

The other point I was trying to make earlier is that the vast majority of Republicans care some level of guilt for having the beliefs that they do. The example I used was Rand Paul. He made the statement that he did not agree with everything in the Civil Rights Act. He obvious had a conviction, enough to make such a bold statement, but when the follow-up question came, he got dodgy and retreated which did nothing to help his cause. Now, people are left to wonder, "Well, what did he mean by that?" I do not know what it was that he didn't agree with, but he should have stated his reason and explained why he believed it. Do I believe the Department of Education should be eliminated? Absolutely and here are a couple of reasons why I believe this:

• Since its inception in 1979, American children have fallen further and further behind in regard to what they walk away from school with after twelve years of education.
• The Department is little more than a sinkhole of bureaucratic largess. $X billion are spent every year by this Department and what has our return on investment been? Absolutely nothing. I challenge anyone in this room to give me 3 concrete and positive great things that have been the result of the Department of Education.
• Education is, ultimately, a local issue. It should be left to the individual school districts to determine what and how they should educate their children. Look at the Department itself when it comes to the creation of curriculum. One would think that a primary purpose of the Department would be to establish a list of things all children within a certain grade should know. Our children cannot name the presidents of the United States. Can a typical high school student carry on an intelligent conversation about World War One? Who is Ernest Hemingway? Who was Frederick Douglas?
  

Either eliminate the Department or redefine its purpose so that its stated objectives are results driven. The Department, if spared, should be vastly reduced in size and scope, its chief purpose to aid the states and their children achieve. How much money is wasted absolutely on the federal level and never filters down to the children. Return the money to the states where budgetary controls are better monitored.

Okay, I know that my example with the Department of Education was a bit scattered in thought, but I specifically put down whatever came to mind, as if I were sitting in front of a camera having to defend my argument that the Department of Education should be eliminated. My point is, my premise, to many, is controversial. I made the statement, stood by it and provided reasons why those are my beliefs. Where are the Republicans that do that? No man should be in conflict when it comes to his beliefs. Never. If you cannot speak with conviction, you shouldn't be making a statement. It's just that simple. When people make seemingly random and unsupported statements, that is when they run into trouble. Rand would not be mired in controversy, he would not be wasting precious time and resources if he had simply said exactly what he meant.

Okay. I have to walk the dogs. Feel free to respond if you like. Also, if you want to bring in additional people, feel free to do so.

Let's keep the conversation going.