Skip to content

Turn off the TV…or put it on mute.

I watched the screen stricken with dread. I might have to wait eight long years–a lifetime–before I see the back of this guy. I am astounded that my middle age may pass away with this man in the White House. Now I’m listening to another lecture. Another humorless, self-righteous, immodest, self-congratulatory speech to tens of thousands of fans hypnotized by a cult of personality. It’s like a rock concert. He’s not even president yet and I can’t stand listening to him. But its not over yet. Joe Biden has a few brief, coherent remarks to make. He’s begun to speak…and speak….and…little by little everything fades out. What did this Biden say?

He said that he would sermonize every day before heading home on the Amtrak to his wife. No, that’s not it. He said he was going to give a sermon only on the days that the president takes a day off from giving speeches. No, that’s not it either.

I’m already counting the days.

Better turn off the TV or put it on mute.

Powell Weighs In…

The most revealing thing about Colin Powell’s announcement today on Meet the Press is not that he endorsed Barak Obama. This election cycle has seen its fair share of defections from one party to another. Joe Lieberman, the Democrats’ choice for Vice President, endorsed John McCain. And it’s no secret that both parties have disgruntled members. John McCain was one of them.

What is revealing about Powell’s announcement is why he waited so long. Was he really undecided until this weekend? The most likely answer is that he wanted to endorse him all along, and was too cautious to do it earlier, when Obama’s polling statistics were weaker than they are now. If Obama were losing would he have made the same decision, or would he have just kept his real feelings to himself?

Powell is bothered that more conservatives will be nominated to serve on the Supreme Court if John McCain wins. Why is he concerned? He doesn’t say. His next point is that he doesn’t like McCain’s campaign. It’s too narrow for him, and he doesn’t like the fact that McCain is trying to get people focused on what little record Barak Obama has. The fact is that Obama’s been involved with individuals whose political views are very far out of the mainstream. It’s a fact. It’s his record. There is a huge disconnect between the image Obama has crafted for this campaign and the last thirty years of his life. Why does Obama run away from it?

Why is it “narrow” for McCain to bring it up? What should John McCain talk about? Should John McCain go through the entire Democratic platform point by point and discuss it on TV? The fact is that Obama’s associations are embarrassing, and, when looked at in their entirety, are revealing. The image Obama has crafted for himself has been purchased with at least a half a billion dollars. The “temperament” that Powell so highly praises is an image that has been purchased. Obama is a commercial. He is a brand. Is it so shiny and glamorous that Powell cannot see through it?

Check it Out! Great Opportunity! No One is Turned Down!

Harvard Dean Says SAT ‘Imprecise’

Here’s a quick quiz:

The SAT is _____________ measure a student’s academic potential.

a) a blunt tool that claims to

b) an imprecise tool that purports to

c) a test created by The College Board, a firm that possesses a monopoly on college admissions tests, which purports to

d) a fatuous waste of time that purports to

For any student who has had to prepare for and suffer through the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT), a recent conference held in Seattle to discuss the value of the test and its proper role in the college admissions process is cause for celebration. Many of the 5,500 conference participants agreed with Harvard Dean of Admissions William R. Fitzsimmons’s presentation, which laid out the findings of a commission he led to study the use and misuse of standardized tests in the college admissions process. According to the article in the New York Times, the commission found that the SAT was “‘incredibly imprecise’ when it comes to measuring academic ability and how well students will perform in college.” According to the commission, one of the reasons the test is imprecise is because test prep courses can often raise students’ scores dramatically, giving wealthy students an unfair advantage over the rest.

But that’s not the end of it.

In my view the test is imprecise because it cannot substantively (as opposed to statistically) distinguish between two students with similar scores–whether they have had equally good test preparation or not. The SAT is very good at identifying two types of students: the very intelligent and the unintelligent. A student who receives a 1600 combined score, whatever their high school grades may be, has intellectual ability. A student who gets a 200 combined score, on the other hand, is probably pretty dumb. But you don’t need to give an idiot the SATs to figure out they’re an idiot, and anyway, most of us score somewhere in the middle. What’s the difference between a student who receives a 1100 combined score and another who gets a 1300? The answer: maybe three or four questions.

More troubling is that the centrality of the SAT in college admissions sends students the message that there is only one right answer (or one ‘best answer,’ which–on a standardized test–is a distinction without a difference) to important questions. This is the most pernicious effect of the test and particularly deleterious because a bright mind should know that only the most trivial questions have a single solution. When, year after year, we reward a new group of students who have a gift for solving problems that have appeared in basically the same form for decades, isn’t it possible that the smart students we are promoting all think alike? Over time, this dynamic perpetuates itself, and could result in a form of “high level mediocrity.”

How did the SAT become so important? One reason could be the self-perpetuating cycle I mentioned above, but I suspect that over the years the SAT rose in importance as our secondary schools fell in quality. This, combined with grade inflation, made it too difficult for admissions people to figure out what a candidate knew. For a while, the SAT must have given them a way to do a reality check. In 2008, however, we know our secondary schools are lacking in some pretty big ways. Instead of encouraging students to memorize vocabulary words and attend costly test prep courses, we should be reforming our schools.

By the way, the correct answer is C.

Who Won the First Debate?

Since the mainstream media decided the Barak Obama won the first debate, I won’t question their judgment in this post. I mean, after all, they know best, right? Still, while most of the United States knows by now that Barak Obama is running against John McCain, I wonder whether either Obama or the mainstream media knows who they are running against. During the debate, it sounded like Obama thought he was running against George Bush. One example: Barak Obama was still arguing with the decision to liberate Iraq. Eventually McCain said, “The next president will not have to make that decision.” Perhaps you can come up with other examples.

The trick of not only to making John McCain into George Bush but running against him is one that could only be accomplished by the Obama campaign and the mainstream media together. The time to have debated the wisdom of liberating Iraq was in 2004. If voters had wanted to change course and end the war, they could have done so then. As it turned out, they didn’t want John Kerry, they didn’t want to end the war, and the voters, in their wisdom, decided that they would give Mr. Bush another go at it. My recollection is that Iraq was the single biggest issue of that election, and the Democrats lost. My point is, that debate is over. No amount of wishing will turn back the clock, and no amount of prayer will transubstantiate John McCain into George Bush.

To me, John McCain came off as incredibly knowledgeable about foreign affairs. Barak Obama came off sounding like he was well-read, -briefed, and -coached. John McCain told us that he had been to nearly every hot spot on the globe; Barak Obama, on the other hand, spent the last few days brushing-up on world affairs in Florida–a hot spot to be sure–but one of a very different kind.

At the first debate, John McCain could not hide his annoyance with his opponent’s naiveté at times. And while I understand why, I do worry that it will make him seem less likable than his opponent, a man who himself seems so detached and unemotional at times that he risks seeming too analytical. Seen from this angle, was Barak Obama’s detachment was an effective counter to McCain’s intensity?

Game Changer

The mainstream media has tried mightily to spin the financial crisis as a positive for Barak Obama. The reasoning goes like this. It’s complicated, subtle, and very profound. But try as hard as you can to follow it. Sen. McCain is really the same as George Bush. In case you missed that I’ll repeat. Sen. McCain is really George Bush in disguise. And since George Bush is disliked by many Americans, and since the financial crisis occurred during George Bush’s presidency, it follows that………….John McCain is somehow responsible for the financial crisis! Amazing, isn’t it? The depth of the learning, the elegance of the logic. And all this from a Harvard Law graduate!

OK. Now, when Barak Obama gave his speech in Denver a few weeks ago (it seems like years ago, though doesn’t it?) his plans for the country were so grand that even my seven year old son didn’t think they’d happen. I don’t know. Maybe the altitude gets to out-of-towners and impairs their judgment to the point that they’ll believe anything. Or maybe they just don’t get it. Either way, Congress, the last two administrations (that means Clinton’s and yes Bush’s), and some of our captains of industry have a lot to answer for in this latest financial crisis. I’ve thought about this and I don’t know what you think, but the root cause of this problem is more than bad loans. At heart it’s a fundamental lack of trust in our elected officials and their political appointees. Right now, the markets and investors don’t trust them, and we’re feeling the pain. Our financial system is based on trust.

The next Administration and Congress will have plenty of time to hold Enron-style hearings and sober committees to “get to the bottom of this,” and although I have complete faith in their ability to do the former, the latter is another story because they are part of the problem. What to do? We need leadership. Leadership is not getting up on stage and shouting “Yes we can,” “Change we can believe in,” “This election is about you,” or “This is our time.” It’s also not about making promises to the effect that the government will take care of everyone’s healthcare, pay for your child’s college tuition, buy you a house, heal the earth, cut your taxes, and pay for your retirement. All of that’s out the window now. The game has changed.

Character is the Most Important Qualification for President

The Republican Convention has done a heck of a job unifying around their candidates.

Rudy’s speech kept me thinking about the central question of this election: what are the qualifications for holding the nation’s highest office?

Rudy derided Obama’s lack of executive experience. For Rudy, executive experience the key qualification and differentiator between the candidates. After all, he did say both men were equally patriotic. And I gathered that for Rudy, executive experience is primarily about leadership. I paraphrase Rudy: “[Obama] has never run a city, he’s never run a state, he’s never run a business, and he’s never run a military unit.” If you left out military unit, who would that describe? Let me see, hummmmmm. Maybe three of the four candidates?

Senators don’t lead people the way an executive must: it’s not their job. It all comes back to the question of what are the qualifications for holding the nation’s highest office. Everyone has their own opinion. My view is that moral character is the indispensable qualification, without which experience and leadership skills are meaningless. I discern a person’s character when I discover what specific political positions they consistently hold and defend. Politicians sometimes like to say that they never violate their principles. That’s good, but it’s not good enough. For me, McCain has the edge as far as character is concerned.

Who’s Qualified to be Vice President?

John McCain’s pick for Vice President has been labeled by some as a cynical attempt to attract the votes of women eager to see a one of their own sex in the White House. Well, if they so on TV then they must be right, but I rather look at McCain’s choice of Gov. Sarah Palin for the challenge it poses to Sen. Joe Biden.

Sen. Biden wanted to be president. In his heart of hearts I believe that he believes he should be running at the top of this ticket now. I also believe that in his heart of hearts he still believes that Sen. Obama is a “nice, clean, articulate young man” who might–in a decade or two–make a fine president. If that is true, it is not hard to imagine what he thinks of Gov. Palin, a recently-elected governor of a sparsely populated state and a self-described “hockey mom.” Sen. Biden, on the other hand, has served for more than three decades, and (what’s more) he takes the Amtrak train home every night to his wife. (I’m sure he does take the train every night except those nights when he does not take the train home. On those nights I trust that he calls from the hotel or sends an email. The Senator, after all, is heavily involved with foreign affairs, and the nation’s business presumably takes him hither and yon.)

Sen. Biden could blow this thing with a few condescending comments about Gov. Palin. Is it so out of the realm of possibility that he could let a phrase or two drop during a debate, a phrase, say, that might not play so well on TV? What if he said something that sounded bullying and condescending like, “Governor, you’re a nice, attractive, and articulate woman; but you’re not really qualified to be Vice President are you?” He could make a fatal mistake even if he’s not as blunt as that (and he’s very blunt); he could also communicate that message in a number of different, subtle ways. It may not be possible to maneuver him into the error, but then it may not be necessary to do so. He will be hoist by his own petard.

If that happens then we will be confronted with a delicious irony because in truth Sen. Biden does have more experience in government than do Gov. Palin, Sen. Obama, and (by the way) Sen. Clinton–an irony larger than that Delaware, which Sen. Biden represents, is one of smallest states, with a population roughly equal to that of Alaska, where Gov. Palin serves as governor. If the presidency were awarded as committee leadership positions are so done in the Senate–on the basis of seniority–then he would be the Democratic nominee. But of course it doesn’t work that way. Perhaps nobody wanted Sen. Biden because he is abrasive, long-winded, and a bit, shall we say, apt to speak his mind. Or maybe people thought he wasn’t qualified.

Deep Thoughts…

If the Democrats can’t win the White House this year, it’s hard to imagine them ever winning it.

Against my better judgment, I watched his speech tonight. Every age has it’s folly. This will be ours. When Obama is through with this country, voters will be running, not walking, to go back to the old, broken Washington politics.

But there’s still hope. My young son watched the speech along with me. After Obama laid out his laundry list of reforms, he said “How’s all that going to happen, Dad?” Good question. I told him, “It’s not all going to happen. He’s stretching a bit to get elected. He’ll be lucky if he gets a small fraction of that done. And then, when the next administration comes in, it could get rid of many of his reforms.”

Healthy skepticism is still alive. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I saw a bit of awe on old Joe Biden’s face as he stood up and applauded, his jowls sagging. Is it possible that he was thinking–somewhere in his mind–”Are you kidding me? I’ve been in the Senate as long as McCain, and I couldn’t do all the stuff Obama wants to do in four years. This man’s never even held a Senate Subcommittee hearing.”

Leave Barak Obama Alone!