The real reason Mike Lee fears Obamacare
I’m not sure if any of you were as annoying a child as I was, but one fun activity I used to engage in was to pick a short, irritating melody and play it on our piano repeatedly and loudly to see how long it would take for my mom to scream at me to knock it off. (Our grandson Silas seems to have picked up that particular genetic trait.)
The very obvious modern parallel to this little story is the Republican obsession with Obamacare, and I have long since passed the point where I wish they would just knock it off. Some adult Republicans like Sen. John McCain agree with me. For the previous three years up to November 2012, the main Republican campaign issue was Obamacare. We had an election, and the Democrats won the White House and the Senate. Not only that, only the blatant gerrymandering facilitated by the fluke Tea Party election of 2010 allowed Republicans to keep control of the House. (Over 1.4 million more Americans voted for a Democrat than a Republican for House of Representatives in 2012.) As Sen. McCain has stated so eloquently, we fought hard, we lost, elections have consequences. It’s the law of the land. After four years of arguing, why are Senator Lee and his fellow Tea Partiers risking serious damage to our nation to continue the fight against Obamacare, instead of coming to the table to help fix the flaws and make it work?
The answer is pretty clear. I’m certainly not the first to talk about this (read here and here). The truth can be gleaned from a subtle shift in talking points you are starting to hear from these warriors. They are starting to roll out old the “bread and circuses” argument. A recent Facebook debate with a conservative friend was a good example. He argued that the subsidies for the less affluent to buy insurance on the exchanges were de facto a bad thing, and worried people would become addicted to more government handouts. (He didn’t have an answer when I pointed out we’re already subsidizing poor folks who can’t pay, but in a system that is inefficient in the extreme.) It's basically the old "creeping socialism" song and dance, another irritating tune I'm really getting sick of.
Yes, although he won’t admit it, what Senator Lee and his fellow warriors really fear is that Obamacare will work and people will like it. And when I say “fear”, I mean dark, petrifying, wake-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night nightmarish terror. As well they should. The Republican Party history of opposing Obamacare gives “doubling down on a bad gamble” a whole new meaning. If this turns out to be the most egregious example of crying “wolf” in the history of the American Republic (and evidence is already starting to come in that it's working), if the American people conclude they’ve been deceived – it’s not an overstatement that the current balance of power in California may be the future of the Republican Party in America. No wonder they’re willing to take the nation down with them to prevent a fair trial of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The mission of the LDS Democrats is to convince our fellow Mormons that Republicans don’t have a monopoly on our most cherished values; that in many ways Democratic values are more consistent with what our religion teaches. I can think of no better example of that message than the obsessive, pathological drive of extremist ideologues to block an imperfect but pragmatic effort to rein in the exploding cost of health care in this country while providing access to hard working American families who cannot now afford it. Let’s close with that timeless quote by our first progressive President, Theodore Roosevelt:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.”
No matter where you stand on the law, the above description certainly fits Barack Obama and his courageous, herculean efforts to fix our broken health care system.
The very obvious modern parallel to this little story is the Republican obsession with Obamacare, and I have long since passed the point where I wish they would just knock it off. Some adult Republicans like Sen. John McCain agree with me. For the previous three years up to November 2012, the main Republican campaign issue was Obamacare. We had an election, and the Democrats won the White House and the Senate. Not only that, only the blatant gerrymandering facilitated by the fluke Tea Party election of 2010 allowed Republicans to keep control of the House. (Over 1.4 million more Americans voted for a Democrat than a Republican for House of Representatives in 2012.) As Sen. McCain has stated so eloquently, we fought hard, we lost, elections have consequences. It’s the law of the land. After four years of arguing, why are Senator Lee and his fellow Tea Partiers risking serious damage to our nation to continue the fight against Obamacare, instead of coming to the table to help fix the flaws and make it work?
The answer is pretty clear. I’m certainly not the first to talk about this (read here and here). The truth can be gleaned from a subtle shift in talking points you are starting to hear from these warriors. They are starting to roll out old the “bread and circuses” argument. A recent Facebook debate with a conservative friend was a good example. He argued that the subsidies for the less affluent to buy insurance on the exchanges were de facto a bad thing, and worried people would become addicted to more government handouts. (He didn’t have an answer when I pointed out we’re already subsidizing poor folks who can’t pay, but in a system that is inefficient in the extreme.) It's basically the old "creeping socialism" song and dance, another irritating tune I'm really getting sick of.
Yes, although he won’t admit it, what Senator Lee and his fellow warriors really fear is that Obamacare will work and people will like it. And when I say “fear”, I mean dark, petrifying, wake-up-in-the-middle-of-the-night nightmarish terror. As well they should. The Republican Party history of opposing Obamacare gives “doubling down on a bad gamble” a whole new meaning. If this turns out to be the most egregious example of crying “wolf” in the history of the American Republic (and evidence is already starting to come in that it's working), if the American people conclude they’ve been deceived – it’s not an overstatement that the current balance of power in California may be the future of the Republican Party in America. No wonder they’re willing to take the nation down with them to prevent a fair trial of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The mission of the LDS Democrats is to convince our fellow Mormons that Republicans don’t have a monopoly on our most cherished values; that in many ways Democratic values are more consistent with what our religion teaches. I can think of no better example of that message than the obsessive, pathological drive of extremist ideologues to block an imperfect but pragmatic effort to rein in the exploding cost of health care in this country while providing access to hard working American families who cannot now afford it. Let’s close with that timeless quote by our first progressive President, Theodore Roosevelt:
“It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly.”
No matter where you stand on the law, the above description certainly fits Barack Obama and his courageous, herculean efforts to fix our broken health care system.
Obamacare Wedding Tax? Not so much.
Post by Rob Taber
A common theme in the last Harry Potter book is how mystery can create terror. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are bad enough, but then not knowing when or how they're going to show up, what powers they have, or what, exactly, they're going to do, makes the good witches and wizards even more terrified.
Which brings us to the Affordable Care Act, and the latest (old) rumor to be circulating around: that Obamacare includes a massive wedding tax that's going to be levied against us Mormons and other upstanding people who are married or desire to be married, leading to a rash of divorce as people do whatever they can to avoid the tax, which will invade our communities and homes, leading to . . . well, I'll let you fill in the rest.
But it's just not so.
Here's what's going on:
1. As part of the marketplace, where insurance companies compete--in a market--for new customers (those of us without employer coverage, Medicare, or Medicaid), our nation is providing subsidies to those making less than 400% of the federal poverty line, so we can put in some of our money, taking responsibility for ourselves without breaking the bank.
2. Because our nation still holds to the traditional view that couples only start living together once they're married, it assumes that once two people are married, they save money by sharing housing and other durable goods. (What economists call economies of scale, just on a household level.) This economic situation is one reason church leaders teach against having children out of wedlock or getting divorced unless there are very serious reasons: it's much more expensive, on a per-person basis, to live as a single person than as a married couple.
3. In an effort to save taxpayer money, the designers of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) decided to take into account this reality of traditional marriage, and provide slightly higher subsidies to individuals than they would receive if they married one another and (presumably) started living together.
4. The Heritage Foundation, designers of the framework for the ACA, but now more of a partisan group rather than a (very conservative) policy shop, picks this effort to cut government spending and labels it a "federal wedding tax." (This is back in January of 2010.) This is the primary article that's circulating among my friends on Facebook. This gets picked up Representative Darrell Issa (R-California) almost two years later, though Rep. Issa, one of the senior Republicans in the house, is yet to champion a bill that would actually spend more taxpayer funds to increase the subsidies for married couples. (There's more on this from ThinkProgress here.)
5. Which brings us to today. With the roll-out of the marketplaces just days away, old bogeymen about the ACA are making the rounds again. It's absolutely fine to debate the proper level of subsidies for single and married adults, but whatever one's position: it's a gross stretch of things to call this a "federal wedding tax" or "Obamacare wedding tax." It's not a tax. It's just our nation trying to pinch pennies by assuming that married couples live together and benefit from this union.
When I was a full-time missionary, I quickly learned to ask people at the end of lessons, "What are your questions?" instead of "Do you have questions?" because everyone had questions but were often too shy to admit it. Whatever your questions about the Affordable Care Act, the marketplaces, no copays for preventative care, no more pre-existing condition denials, etc. go to Healthcare.gov, which was designed to answer them. (If you're just looking for a quick overview with cool graphics, you can go here.)
I'm a big believer in the idea that when folks are in good health, and find it economically feasible to visit a doctor for well and sick visits, they're better able to exercise their agency to the fullest. I think this is crucial for our community and our families. I welcome debate on the best way to reach this goal, with just one rule: don't make stuff up.
A common theme in the last Harry Potter book is how mystery can create terror. Voldemort and the Death Eaters are bad enough, but then not knowing when or how they're going to show up, what powers they have, or what, exactly, they're going to do, makes the good witches and wizards even more terrified.
Which brings us to the Affordable Care Act, and the latest (old) rumor to be circulating around: that Obamacare includes a massive wedding tax that's going to be levied against us Mormons and other upstanding people who are married or desire to be married, leading to a rash of divorce as people do whatever they can to avoid the tax, which will invade our communities and homes, leading to . . . well, I'll let you fill in the rest.
But it's just not so.
Here's what's going on:
1. As part of the marketplace, where insurance companies compete--in a market--for new customers (those of us without employer coverage, Medicare, or Medicaid), our nation is providing subsidies to those making less than 400% of the federal poverty line, so we can put in some of our money, taking responsibility for ourselves without breaking the bank.
2. Because our nation still holds to the traditional view that couples only start living together once they're married, it assumes that once two people are married, they save money by sharing housing and other durable goods. (What economists call economies of scale, just on a household level.) This economic situation is one reason church leaders teach against having children out of wedlock or getting divorced unless there are very serious reasons: it's much more expensive, on a per-person basis, to live as a single person than as a married couple.
3. In an effort to save taxpayer money, the designers of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) decided to take into account this reality of traditional marriage, and provide slightly higher subsidies to individuals than they would receive if they married one another and (presumably) started living together.
4. The Heritage Foundation, designers of the framework for the ACA, but now more of a partisan group rather than a (very conservative) policy shop, picks this effort to cut government spending and labels it a "federal wedding tax." (This is back in January of 2010.) This is the primary article that's circulating among my friends on Facebook. This gets picked up Representative Darrell Issa (R-California) almost two years later, though Rep. Issa, one of the senior Republicans in the house, is yet to champion a bill that would actually spend more taxpayer funds to increase the subsidies for married couples. (There's more on this from ThinkProgress here.)
5. Which brings us to today. With the roll-out of the marketplaces just days away, old bogeymen about the ACA are making the rounds again. It's absolutely fine to debate the proper level of subsidies for single and married adults, but whatever one's position: it's a gross stretch of things to call this a "federal wedding tax" or "Obamacare wedding tax." It's not a tax. It's just our nation trying to pinch pennies by assuming that married couples live together and benefit from this union.
When I was a full-time missionary, I quickly learned to ask people at the end of lessons, "What are your questions?" instead of "Do you have questions?" because everyone had questions but were often too shy to admit it. Whatever your questions about the Affordable Care Act, the marketplaces, no copays for preventative care, no more pre-existing condition denials, etc. go to Healthcare.gov, which was designed to answer them. (If you're just looking for a quick overview with cool graphics, you can go here.)
I'm a big believer in the idea that when folks are in good health, and find it economically feasible to visit a doctor for well and sick visits, they're better able to exercise their agency to the fullest. I think this is crucial for our community and our families. I welcome debate on the best way to reach this goal, with just one rule: don't make stuff up.
Stop Subsidizing Walmart: Raise the Minimum Wage
School grading - harm or help
by Kim R. Burningham
(Note: In this email, Mr. Burningham speaks in his own behalf; the point of view expressed in this blog does not necessarily represent any organization of which he is a part.)
Recent Utah headlines focus on the turmoil of school grading—of interest to every parent, student, and educator. Although I strongly favor the careful use of measurement to help determine strengths, weaknesses, and improvement, I AM NOT A FAN OF GRADING SCHOOLS. In fact, I fear this system may do more harm than good.
In the 2011 session of the Utah Legislature a bill mandated letter grades be given to Utah schools. The Utah State Office of Education, as required by the law, worked to devise the best system of grading they could create: Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS). A representative of the Legislature and the sponsor of the bill attended the meetings where the process was carefully developed. Regrettably, the 2013 Legislature reaffirmed the mandate to grade schools but ignored much of the work of the interim committee.
As a result, school grades as stipulated by the Legislature were announced the first of September 2013. Another set of grades will be announced October 1; the second grades follow the plan created by the interim study committee (UCAS). I believe the UCAS system is preferable to the September 1 announcement.
My bottom line belief, however: the best system is one that measures skills and growth, but does not use a letter grade to label schools.
WHAT SCHOOL GRADING IS: A SYSTEM OF LABELING
Those who have advocated for grading schools believe by labeling schools A, B, C, D, or F, improvement will occur. They have insisted some schools should receive the high grade and some receive the failing grade. Somehow, they conjecture this labeling will incentivize growth.
I strongly doubt it. I believe the labels will simply reinforce weakness where weakness exists, and make the successful more proud. Is that useful?
The September announcement shows the effect. One local newspaper immediately published a list of the top 10 schools and the bottom 10 schools. (Deseret News, September 3, 2013)
The list of low-graded high schools included three schools where fewer than 95% of the students took the test. Beyond that, of the 10 low-graded schools, 8 were alternative schools for struggling students. The other two schools include: a charter school with primarily Native American students and a high school where students come overwhelmingly from economically disadvantaged homes. In this case the struggling students are labeled failures! I doubt the label will help.
High schools ranked best were led by schools which enroll only those with keen interest in science and math (e.g., Utah County Academy of Science and the Northern Utah Academy of Math, Engineering and Science.)
The lowest ranked elementary school was in San Juan County with mostly Native Americans students. The second lowest was a charter school developed for Pacific Islanders. These schools are working to help students with unique needs. How can labeling them as “F schools" help meet their challenges.
The second highest ranked elementary school is a school just a block from my home where the students mostly come from high income families with libraries of books at home and with educated parents. I congratulate that school. I am sure the teachers are doing a good job. But to deny the environment from which the students come as a main contributor to the high grade would be blindness.
What is school grading? It is a system of labeling which will primarily reinforce existing strengths and weaknesses of the students.
All schools need to be carefully measured, yes. But the challenged schools particularly do not need to be labeled with an “F.”
WHAT SCHOOL GRADING IS NOT: A SYSTEM WHICH WILL RESULT IN IMPROVED STUDENT PERFORMANCE
If we are interested in helping struggling schools do better, the better way is to provide them with additional resources, strong teachers, reduced class sizes, early learning.
Unfortunately, changes in these areas are not happening! The National Center for Education Statistics just released (September 4) their annual report. When it comes to resources, Utah is at the bottom of the list again. At $6,878, Utah has the lowest per-pupil spending in the country where the average is $10,029; Alaska is highest at $25,132; Tennessee next lowest at $7,571. Among the nation’s l00 largest school districts, four Utah districts (Granite, Davis, Alpine, and Jordan) have the lowest per-pupil spending.
Strangely, Florida is frequently cited by supporters of school grading as a positive example. True, Florida instigated grading of school over a decade ago. Floridians, however, had the wisdom to expend large sums of money to help support their school reform efforts. Funding for education in Florida as a whole increased 69% between 1999 and 2006 (the same time grading was implemented) or $7.7 billion dollars! Some of the increase can be attributed to inflation, but the figure is approximately 3 times the increased percentage of dollars going to education compared to Utah funding. In 2008, Utah’s per-pupil spending was at $5,765.00; Florida was at $9,035.00. (Tom Gallagher, Florida’s chief financial officer, “Governor Bush Rewards Academic Performance with $157.6 million to High-Performing Schools, August 28, 2006.)
Class size is another way Florida supported their school reform effort. Compare the average third grade class size in Utah of 24.5 students with Florida which limits class sizes to 18 in grades K-3. (Mark Peterson, correspondence regarding Florida’s program, January 11, 2011.)
Some advocates use Florida’s 4th grade reading scores as evidence of increased student achievement. True, Florida improved their 4th grade reading scores on the NAEP test. Importantly, however, scores in math and science do not reflect the same improvement. More likely, reading scores improved in that one grade because of another reform effort: 3rd grade students in Florida who could not read well were held back for a year in large numbers. In fact, between 14 and 23% of 3rd grade students (largely black and Hispanic) were held back for poor reading performance. (Madhabi Chatterji, “Review of Closing the Racial Achievement Gap,” Columbia University, November 2010.) Who could be surprised then that 4th grade scores increased, both because 1) those who scored lower did not participate that year, and 2) had an additional year of training before being tested again.
In short, the claim of Florida improvement (if it really exists) resulting from school grading is a bad case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning (one event caused another just because they happened at similar times). In the first place, the improvement is questionable, and where it may have occurred it more likely it occurred because of a different cause: the retention of many 3rd grade students.
Bottom line:
School grading is a system of labeling.
Such labeling alone cannot be shown to reap improvement.
Instead, improvement comes from other efforts.
And finally, labeling may be harmful.
I urge you to contact political leaders who believe that school grading may help education. When you do, suggest some other alternatives that you believe are more likely to strengthen the education of our children!
Kim R. Burningham
(Note: In this email, Mr. Burningham speaks in his own behalf; the point of view expressed in this blog does not necessarily represent any organization of which he is a part.)
Recent Utah headlines focus on the turmoil of school grading—of interest to every parent, student, and educator. Although I strongly favor the careful use of measurement to help determine strengths, weaknesses, and improvement, I AM NOT A FAN OF GRADING SCHOOLS. In fact, I fear this system may do more harm than good.
In the 2011 session of the Utah Legislature a bill mandated letter grades be given to Utah schools. The Utah State Office of Education, as required by the law, worked to devise the best system of grading they could create: Utah Comprehensive Accountability System (UCAS). A representative of the Legislature and the sponsor of the bill attended the meetings where the process was carefully developed. Regrettably, the 2013 Legislature reaffirmed the mandate to grade schools but ignored much of the work of the interim committee.
As a result, school grades as stipulated by the Legislature were announced the first of September 2013. Another set of grades will be announced October 1; the second grades follow the plan created by the interim study committee (UCAS). I believe the UCAS system is preferable to the September 1 announcement.
My bottom line belief, however: the best system is one that measures skills and growth, but does not use a letter grade to label schools.
WHAT SCHOOL GRADING IS: A SYSTEM OF LABELING
Those who have advocated for grading schools believe by labeling schools A, B, C, D, or F, improvement will occur. They have insisted some schools should receive the high grade and some receive the failing grade. Somehow, they conjecture this labeling will incentivize growth.
I strongly doubt it. I believe the labels will simply reinforce weakness where weakness exists, and make the successful more proud. Is that useful?
The September announcement shows the effect. One local newspaper immediately published a list of the top 10 schools and the bottom 10 schools. (Deseret News, September 3, 2013)
The list of low-graded high schools included three schools where fewer than 95% of the students took the test. Beyond that, of the 10 low-graded schools, 8 were alternative schools for struggling students. The other two schools include: a charter school with primarily Native American students and a high school where students come overwhelmingly from economically disadvantaged homes. In this case the struggling students are labeled failures! I doubt the label will help.
High schools ranked best were led by schools which enroll only those with keen interest in science and math (e.g., Utah County Academy of Science and the Northern Utah Academy of Math, Engineering and Science.)
The lowest ranked elementary school was in San Juan County with mostly Native Americans students. The second lowest was a charter school developed for Pacific Islanders. These schools are working to help students with unique needs. How can labeling them as “F schools" help meet their challenges.
The second highest ranked elementary school is a school just a block from my home where the students mostly come from high income families with libraries of books at home and with educated parents. I congratulate that school. I am sure the teachers are doing a good job. But to deny the environment from which the students come as a main contributor to the high grade would be blindness.
What is school grading? It is a system of labeling which will primarily reinforce existing strengths and weaknesses of the students.
All schools need to be carefully measured, yes. But the challenged schools particularly do not need to be labeled with an “F.”
WHAT SCHOOL GRADING IS NOT: A SYSTEM WHICH WILL RESULT IN IMPROVED STUDENT PERFORMANCE
If we are interested in helping struggling schools do better, the better way is to provide them with additional resources, strong teachers, reduced class sizes, early learning.
Unfortunately, changes in these areas are not happening! The National Center for Education Statistics just released (September 4) their annual report. When it comes to resources, Utah is at the bottom of the list again. At $6,878, Utah has the lowest per-pupil spending in the country where the average is $10,029; Alaska is highest at $25,132; Tennessee next lowest at $7,571. Among the nation’s l00 largest school districts, four Utah districts (Granite, Davis, Alpine, and Jordan) have the lowest per-pupil spending.
Strangely, Florida is frequently cited by supporters of school grading as a positive example. True, Florida instigated grading of school over a decade ago. Floridians, however, had the wisdom to expend large sums of money to help support their school reform efforts. Funding for education in Florida as a whole increased 69% between 1999 and 2006 (the same time grading was implemented) or $7.7 billion dollars! Some of the increase can be attributed to inflation, but the figure is approximately 3 times the increased percentage of dollars going to education compared to Utah funding. In 2008, Utah’s per-pupil spending was at $5,765.00; Florida was at $9,035.00. (Tom Gallagher, Florida’s chief financial officer, “Governor Bush Rewards Academic Performance with $157.6 million to High-Performing Schools, August 28, 2006.)
Class size is another way Florida supported their school reform effort. Compare the average third grade class size in Utah of 24.5 students with Florida which limits class sizes to 18 in grades K-3. (Mark Peterson, correspondence regarding Florida’s program, January 11, 2011.)
Some advocates use Florida’s 4th grade reading scores as evidence of increased student achievement. True, Florida improved their 4th grade reading scores on the NAEP test. Importantly, however, scores in math and science do not reflect the same improvement. More likely, reading scores improved in that one grade because of another reform effort: 3rd grade students in Florida who could not read well were held back for a year in large numbers. In fact, between 14 and 23% of 3rd grade students (largely black and Hispanic) were held back for poor reading performance. (Madhabi Chatterji, “Review of Closing the Racial Achievement Gap,” Columbia University, November 2010.) Who could be surprised then that 4th grade scores increased, both because 1) those who scored lower did not participate that year, and 2) had an additional year of training before being tested again.
In short, the claim of Florida improvement (if it really exists) resulting from school grading is a bad case of post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning (one event caused another just because they happened at similar times). In the first place, the improvement is questionable, and where it may have occurred it more likely it occurred because of a different cause: the retention of many 3rd grade students.
Bottom line:
School grading is a system of labeling.
Such labeling alone cannot be shown to reap improvement.
Instead, improvement comes from other efforts.
And finally, labeling may be harmful.
I urge you to contact political leaders who believe that school grading may help education. When you do, suggest some other alternatives that you believe are more likely to strengthen the education of our children!
Kim R. Burningham
Thoughts on War, Syria, and 9/11
Today is the one-year anniversary of this website. A year ago today I wrote the first post reflecting on the significance of September 11th for me, both as a Mormon and an American. In it, I noted that as Mormons we're inclined to consider the chronic abuse of the Mormon people when reflecting on the massacre of 9/11/1857. It complicates the situation and grants some understanding to the attackers. I also thought of how things would be if we did the same thing for the attackers of the massacre of 9/11/2001.
Read more
Training: The Role of Faith Leaders in Suicide Prevention
Post by Rob Taber
One of the great, unsung projects is Health & Human Services' Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In addition to working on responsible fatherhood and anti-obesity initiatives, it hosts trainings to provide faith leaders with evidence-based resources on public health issues, including mental health.
On September 17th, they're hosting a one-hour webinar for faith leaders on suicide prevention. From the release:
"The HHS Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention’s Faith Communities Task Force present this webinar for faith leaders who are often on the front line for people (and their families) dealing with spiritual, mental, or emotional distress or illness. Studies show that persons in need are more likely to go to a faith leader than a therapist, at least initially. Moreover, faith communities, through their traditions and teachings and also their commitment to care for one another, are resources for people (and their families) dealing with distress or illness. Local faith leaders are also often connected to wider community resources that can be of help. Therefore, faith leaders play an important role in addressing this preventable public health issue that affects the lives of millions of people each year. Over 38,000 suicides (2010) and one million suicide attempts (2009) create ripple effects among families, friends, co-workers, and communities.
"This webinar will provide information that faith leaders need to know in suicide prevention (e.g. warning signs, how to help). It will also offer ways faith leaders can help educate their communities about suicide and mental health issues and provide support for persons whose loved ones have completed or attempted suicide. In addition, it will help faith leaders understand and strengthen the resources they have in their own faith tradition that promote mental and spiritual health and/or can help in suicide prevention."
As we Latter-day Saints are all faith leaders of one sort or another, if you want to watch the training, sign up here, and please pass it along to anyone you think might be interested. These webinars tend to be excellent, evidence-based trainings, and sadly under-attended. So if you want to know more, sign up!
One of the great, unsung projects is Health & Human Services' Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. In addition to working on responsible fatherhood and anti-obesity initiatives, it hosts trainings to provide faith leaders with evidence-based resources on public health issues, including mental health.
On September 17th, they're hosting a one-hour webinar for faith leaders on suicide prevention. From the release:
"The HHS Center for Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships and the National Action Alliance for Suicide Prevention’s Faith Communities Task Force present this webinar for faith leaders who are often on the front line for people (and their families) dealing with spiritual, mental, or emotional distress or illness. Studies show that persons in need are more likely to go to a faith leader than a therapist, at least initially. Moreover, faith communities, through their traditions and teachings and also their commitment to care for one another, are resources for people (and their families) dealing with distress or illness. Local faith leaders are also often connected to wider community resources that can be of help. Therefore, faith leaders play an important role in addressing this preventable public health issue that affects the lives of millions of people each year. Over 38,000 suicides (2010) and one million suicide attempts (2009) create ripple effects among families, friends, co-workers, and communities.
"This webinar will provide information that faith leaders need to know in suicide prevention (e.g. warning signs, how to help). It will also offer ways faith leaders can help educate their communities about suicide and mental health issues and provide support for persons whose loved ones have completed or attempted suicide. In addition, it will help faith leaders understand and strengthen the resources they have in their own faith tradition that promote mental and spiritual health and/or can help in suicide prevention."
As we Latter-day Saints are all faith leaders of one sort or another, if you want to watch the training, sign up here, and please pass it along to anyone you think might be interested. These webinars tend to be excellent, evidence-based trainings, and sadly under-attended. So if you want to know more, sign up!
Living the 1963 Dream
Growing up my parents always expected me to be knowledgeable of current events. We held regular discussions during family meals and it was a ritual to sit in front the television and watch the nightly news. As a voracious reader I gravitated to any newspaper or magazine that came into our home. I would also listen in on my parent’s conversations with other adults. As a young child in Chicago living in the 1960’s I was initially shielded from the de-humanizing effects of segregation. I went to integrated schools and occasionally had white friends.
September 06, 2013
Is There a Middle Ground on Gun Laws?
Although I did not grow up in a home with guns, I was exposed to them at an early age. From the annual Boy Scout summer camp to visits with extended family, I had frequent opportunities to use guns, and as an adult, have thoroughly enjoyed periodic recreational shooting as well as have taken weeks of firearms aptitude and safety courses. While I do not currently own a gun, I plan to purchase a handgun and a long gun in the near future, both for personal recreation and for family protection.
I believe that the Second Amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. I was pleased when the Supreme Court overturned a ban in 2008 on handguns in Washington D.C. (D.C. vs. Heller) as I thought the D.C. law was overly restrictive and infringed on an individual’s right to protect their family in the home. I want to be sure that I always have the personal right to own and bear firearms. Furthermore, I am convinced that an assault weapons ban would be largely ineffective in reducing gun violence and my fellow liberals’ push for such a ban is misguided. I do not favor wide-scale bans of handguns, semi-automatic rifles, or shotguns and oppose any confiscation of lawfully-owned guns. I understand gun activists’ fear of confiscation because, while many may think confiscation could never happen in our country, most are surprised to learn that local police actually confiscated guns from law-abiding citizens (even from some who were in their own homes) in New Orleans during the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster at precisely the moment when a law-abiding citizen would want a gun for personal protection.
Higher Ed and the Obama and Romney Campaigns
Post by Rob Taber
This morning I read Thomas Frank's cri de coeur on the unraveling of the American university system: spiraling costs for students, loss of power for the faculty, budget cuts to state schools, universities more focused on pleasing donors/alumni than on educating students, and, to butcher Oscar Wilde, a "bureaucracy [that's] expanding to meet the needs of the bureaucracy." All in all, a familiar tale for those of us working in higher ed.
This year, I am employed by the University of Florida's Writing Program, teaching first year students the basics of college and professional writing. I see what I do in the classroom as very, very important. Also, because the Writing Program is housed in the same building as UF's central administration, I walk past the offices (some very modest) of the bureaucrats who support the work I do in the classroom. I depend on IT to make sure the computers and Internet work, HR to do the paperwork for my health insurance and pay, the Counseling Center to be there for students in need.
However, as I reflect on Frank's piece and the need for universities to reorganize themselves around their central mission and purpose (and not to shuffle things around to match up with the mush of a mission statement in an unread strategic plan), I can't help but think of the 2008 Obama campaign, compared to the camp from Romney's 2012 effort, and how organizational leadership sets the tone.
In chapter 2 of The Audacity to Win (1st edition), David Plouffe describes how early on in 2007, he and the rest of the top brass in the Obama campaign decided very early on that no one in the campaign would earn more than $12,000 a month, that they would focus on the individual elections in each primary state rather than national trends, that new media would be its own department, and no group was too small to organize. The result was a cost-conscious organization focused on delivering the field operations proven to make a difference.
Those who volunteered at an Obama field office in 2008 or 2012 might remember seeing a poster with the words "Respect, Empower, Include, Win." Those who volunteered a fair amount or found a paid position might also recall strict bounds on spending money or deviating too far from the mission. The organization had a purpose, and was happy to hear ideas on what you, personally, were going to do to achieve it, as long as it didn't involve spending much (if any) of the campaign's money.
Unfortunately, some higher ed initiatives, no matter how well-intentioned, and including some that claim to be about accountability, remind me of the Romney 2012 campaign. Part of Governor Romney's appeal was his experience as a technocratic businessman, who would be able to run things much better than the community organizer currently in the White House. However, even during the campaign, some journalists and conservative commentators questioned his dependence on high-priced consultants. After the election, this criticism grew into a chorus.
I recognize that some organizations' leaders need consultants to tell them things they should recognize within themselves or hear from the subordinates. But however tempting expensive solutions and programs may appear, web-based transformations in education (like flip teaching), just like the advanced door-knocking strategies generated by the Obama campaign, are tools available to help the people doing the work, not replacements for the people involved. The laborer is worthy of their hire. Respect. Empower. Include. Win.
This morning I read Thomas Frank's cri de coeur on the unraveling of the American university system: spiraling costs for students, loss of power for the faculty, budget cuts to state schools, universities more focused on pleasing donors/alumni than on educating students, and, to butcher Oscar Wilde, a "bureaucracy [that's] expanding to meet the needs of the bureaucracy." All in all, a familiar tale for those of us working in higher ed.
This year, I am employed by the University of Florida's Writing Program, teaching first year students the basics of college and professional writing. I see what I do in the classroom as very, very important. Also, because the Writing Program is housed in the same building as UF's central administration, I walk past the offices (some very modest) of the bureaucrats who support the work I do in the classroom. I depend on IT to make sure the computers and Internet work, HR to do the paperwork for my health insurance and pay, the Counseling Center to be there for students in need.
However, as I reflect on Frank's piece and the need for universities to reorganize themselves around their central mission and purpose (and not to shuffle things around to match up with the mush of a mission statement in an unread strategic plan), I can't help but think of the 2008 Obama campaign, compared to the camp from Romney's 2012 effort, and how organizational leadership sets the tone.
In chapter 2 of The Audacity to Win (1st edition), David Plouffe describes how early on in 2007, he and the rest of the top brass in the Obama campaign decided very early on that no one in the campaign would earn more than $12,000 a month, that they would focus on the individual elections in each primary state rather than national trends, that new media would be its own department, and no group was too small to organize. The result was a cost-conscious organization focused on delivering the field operations proven to make a difference.
Those who volunteered at an Obama field office in 2008 or 2012 might remember seeing a poster with the words "Respect, Empower, Include, Win." Those who volunteered a fair amount or found a paid position might also recall strict bounds on spending money or deviating too far from the mission. The organization had a purpose, and was happy to hear ideas on what you, personally, were going to do to achieve it, as long as it didn't involve spending much (if any) of the campaign's money.
Unfortunately, some higher ed initiatives, no matter how well-intentioned, and including some that claim to be about accountability, remind me of the Romney 2012 campaign. Part of Governor Romney's appeal was his experience as a technocratic businessman, who would be able to run things much better than the community organizer currently in the White House. However, even during the campaign, some journalists and conservative commentators questioned his dependence on high-priced consultants. After the election, this criticism grew into a chorus.
I recognize that some organizations' leaders need consultants to tell them things they should recognize within themselves or hear from the subordinates. But however tempting expensive solutions and programs may appear, web-based transformations in education (like flip teaching), just like the advanced door-knocking strategies generated by the Obama campaign, are tools available to help the people doing the work, not replacements for the people involved. The laborer is worthy of their hire. Respect. Empower. Include. Win.
Pray for the President
As the pressure over the tragic events in Syria has heated up the last few weeks, I have been overwhelmed with feelings of empathy and compassion toward President Obama. One can only imagine the pressure and strain he is under as he struggles to find a way to deal with the senseless killing of hundreds of innocents by a ruthless dictator. It has been pointed out that there are no easy answers, that the situation is hopelessly complex, and members of the chattering class have overwhelmed us with opinions of how America should respond.
President Obama has already faced and dealt with more than any American leader since Roosevelt, and he has borne these burdens while being relentlessly attacked and vilified by his political opponents. I don't know how he can stand the strain.
As the President and members of Congress debate our response to the use of chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria, I think now is a good time to heed the wise counsel of the First Presidency on the occasion of President Obama's re-election. We should pray for the President and members of Congress to have the inspiration to do the right thing. We should pray for him personally, that he will have the strength to bear the unbearable burdens that have been placed on his shoulders. And we should pray that our fellow Americans will have compassion for this good man, and regardless of personal opinions, that the nation can support him in these trials once the President and Congress have decided on a course of action.
We read daily in the news of our leaders and the struggles they face and sometimes forget they are human beings just like us, with fears and hopes and physical and psychological limits of how much they can bear. Let us have compassion for our President and pray for him.
President Obama has already faced and dealt with more than any American leader since Roosevelt, and he has borne these burdens while being relentlessly attacked and vilified by his political opponents. I don't know how he can stand the strain.
As the President and members of Congress debate our response to the use of chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria, I think now is a good time to heed the wise counsel of the First Presidency on the occasion of President Obama's re-election. We should pray for the President and members of Congress to have the inspiration to do the right thing. We should pray for him personally, that he will have the strength to bear the unbearable burdens that have been placed on his shoulders. And we should pray that our fellow Americans will have compassion for this good man, and regardless of personal opinions, that the nation can support him in these trials once the President and Congress have decided on a course of action.
We read daily in the news of our leaders and the struggles they face and sometimes forget they are human beings just like us, with fears and hopes and physical and psychological limits of how much they can bear. Let us have compassion for our President and pray for him.