Religion and Politics

Posted on April 14, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

History suggests you can’t get elected to high office in the U.S. without at least marketing yourself as a practicing Christian. Yet, once elected, Christian principles often take a backseat to Realpolitik. Why do Christian constituents seemingly give a pass to faux politicians like Sarah Palin for subverting the “turn the other cheek” challenge of the gospel by advocating for “a punch for a punch” on children’s playgrounds? Much more importantly, why do Christian constituents give a pass to real live politicians like Barack Obama for greatly increasing the use of drones to kill people in Afghanistan?

We Don’t Know Phil Mickelson Either

Posted on April 12, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

Masterful Masters. Listening to Bones and Mickelson talk it through and then witnessing Mickelson’s shot on 13 from the pinestraw and trees just may have been worth wasting a beautiful afternoon indoors. Unbelievable. Has there ever been a better player-caddy relationship?

Sometimes an announcer make no sense like when Jim Nantz said Tiger’s play on Thursday was so warmly welcomed by the Masters patrons (don’t call them fans) because Americans love the redemptive arc or something nonsensical like that. What the heck does Tiger’s making a few birdies and getting his life together have to do with one another?

Here’s how the press will want you to remember the 2010 Masters. Phil was inspired to win it for Amy, his wife who is battling breast cancer. Watch SportsCenter for the continuous replaying of Phil’s and Amy’s post championship embrace or the Golf Channel or see pictures of it in Sports Illustrated on Thursday. Analysts will laud Phil as the anti-Tiger for days to come. Faithful family man versus filandering “family” man. The joke will be, “Wonder which blonde Tiger would have embraced had he won?!”

The truth of the matter is, we don’t know Phil just like we didn’t, don’t, and won’t ever know Tiger or Kobe or Sandra or name the public figure. Hell, do we truly know half of our friends and acquaintances? Maybe Phil hasn’t always been faithful. With no way to know, why put him on a pedestal for anything other than that filthy shot on 13. That’s not cynicism, it’s healthy skepticism. Cynics assume the worst, skeptics know things aren’t always as they appear, and therefore, question conventional wisdom.

Now Lee Westwood, he seems like an all around great bloke. :) Here’s hoping he breaks through later in the year.

No Guarantee

Posted on April 7, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

The start of a lecture I’m giving to faculty and students at Buena Vista University in Storm Lake, Iowa in a few weeks. Get your tickets before it sells out.

The Makings of a 21st Century Education

Consider the first and last sentences from a January Wall Street Journal article titled “Even-In-A-Recovery-Some-Jobs-Won’t-Return”. “Even when the U.S. labor market finally starts adding more workers than it loses, many of the unemployed will find that the types of jobs they once had simply don’t exist anymore. Harvard’s Mr. Katz warns that past experience suggests. . . conjecture is likely fruitless. ‘One thing we’ve learned is that when we attempt to forecast jobs 10 or 15 years out, we don’t even get the categories right,’ he says.”

Let that sink in. The Harvard expert admits, “we don’t even get the categories right”. So what are college students to do? And what are faculty to do? How should faculty design curriculum, teach courses, and advise students in a “we don’t even get the future job categories right” world?

Dearest Daughters

Posted on March 24, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

Dearest Daughters,

Wondering what all the healthcare hoopla has been about lately? Long story short, Congress just passed a law that will result in significant changes to the ways Americans pay for health insurance, pay for healthcare, and receive healthcare. Many of the changes go into effect in between 2014 and 2018.

Congress has been trying to improve our health care system—which represents one-sixth of our economy—for fifty years. The vast majority of Congressional Democrats voted for the bill and every single Republican voted against it. Democrats are celebrating and Republicans are vowing to repeal the law and win more seats in November’s election and regain majorities in the House and Senate.

Almost every Democrat supported the bill and every Republican did oppose it because they define “fairness” very differently. Their different ways of thinking relates to the “what’s fair” discussion we had a week ago about high school sports. Is it fair for schools to cut kids whose families can’t afford to pay for their children to play club volleyball, soccer, or baseball year-round? Similarly is it fair that people who make little money pay between 0-15% of their income in taxes and people who make large bank pay 28-35% or more?

Most Democrats would say no it’s not fair to cut mostly “non-clubbers” and yes it is fair to have a progressive tax system where the more you make the larger the percentage you pay in taxes. Otherwise, the gap between the “haves” and “have nots,” whether high school athletes or ordinary citizens, will widen so much that the American ideal of equal opportunity will be imperiled, and eventually, our quality of life will be compromised.

Most Republicans would contend that the only fair approach is to cut completely independent of “club status” and institute a “flat tax” so that everyone, regardless of their income, pays 18% for instance. More specifically, Republicans would say it’s patently unfair to penalize kids whose parents have worked hard, saved their money, and want to spend it to help their kids excel at sports? And with respect to taxes, it’s unfair to penalize people who have worked hard in school, excelled in the job market, and earn large bank.

In response many Ds would say people who excel in high school or life do so because of subtle and not so subtle advantages that build from birth, through school, and into adulthood. Put differently, privilege reproduces itself. More simply, well-educated, high earning families tend to raise kids who do well in school and are economically successful afterwards.

In response many Rs would argue that inequities are inevitable, equal opportunity is an unrealistic ideal, and the income gap should motivate poorer people to work harder.

Picture a see-saw with the word “EQUITY” painted in big block letters on the left-side and “EXCELLENCE” on the right. People who most value equity believe people who have not been given equal opportunities in life deserve a little extra help to make the high school team, to balance their family budgets, or to pay for health care. People who most value excellence believe “extra help” makes disadvantaged people dependent upon government assistance, fosters laziness, and results in mediocre high school teams and healthcare systems.

Most Ds in Congress sit squarely on the equity side, most Rs squarely on the excellence side. Many citizens would split the difference either sitting towards “equity” or towards “excellence”. Others who value both equally, would sit right in the middle.

Back to the new law. I have to confess, despite my education, I’ve been perplexed by many of the healthcare debate’s details. The media, like cruddy teachers everywhere, wrongly assumed most everyone was “in the know”. Add in Democrats and Republicans shouting past one another for the cameras and I’m sure I wasn’t alone in my confusion.

I’ve been reading about it since its passage and will try to explain why Ds are rejoicing and Rs are threatening to repeal it. Think about America as a pyramid with 5% of very high earners at the top ($200,000-250,000/year+), 70% in the middle, and 25% of poor people at the bottom (families of four earning $33,000 and less/year). In all likelihood, the law will have the least impact on the middle 70%. In the simplest terms possible, the top 5% will pay more in taxes so that the bulk of the bottom 25% can receive insurance often for the first time and thereby have a tad more economic security.

So back to the see-saw. To R’s the bill focuses far too exclusively on equity at the expense of excellence and fairness for the well-to-do. To D’s the bill focuses on equity in the interest of fairness.

What do you think, help the poorest among us by requiring well-to-do people pay more in taxes? What’s fair? What’s in our best interest?

Peace Out,

Dad

Experience Required

Posted on March 15, 2010 by Ron Byrnes

A pro-business friend whose compensation is mostly commission and bonus-based believes every member of Congress should have to have been a business owner. In his mind I guess, we’re a business not a democracy. At the same time he’s quick to criticize and write-off the successes of Scandinavian countries even though he’s never set foot in one. Similarly, he’s quick to criticize public school teachers who prefer email to telephone communication even though he’s never taught.

Despite those inconsistencies, I’ll concede that when shaping policy, giving advice, or just plain stating opinions about something, direct personal experience makes one more credible.

But how far should we extend that notion? Should we prevent priests from doing marital counseling, preclude men from teaching women’s studies courses, not allow civilians to teach about war? In my thinking, there are meaningful, substantive forms of indirect experience that create a tipping point and conceivably qualify priests, men, and civilians to offer marriage counseling, teach women’s studies courses, and teach about war.

For example, the arts and the humanities—excellent theatre, film, and literature in particular—broaden viewers’ and readers’ perspectives about things with which they have no firsthand experience. I’ve never been to Rwanda, but watching Hotel Rwanda, even if we allow for inevitable artistic license, powerfully introduced me to the genocide citizens of that country experienced.

If perception and insight are a house, maybe the front door represents direct firsthand experience. Film, literature, and history possibly the side or back doors or the windows.

I have above-average knowledge of sub-Saharan Africa because I’ve lived and worked in one African country and traveled throughout three others. But my insights into the continent, and whatever credibility I might have as a writer or speaker on Africa, have been supplemented by non-fiction books, lots of African novels, and a fair number of African films.

The educator in me causes me to think broadly about the ways indirect experience supplements lived experience. I guess it’s the entrepreneur in my friend that causes him to think direct firsthand experience trumps everything else when determining policy, giving advice, or even at times, stating opinions.