Worried About the Economy? Care About Education.

It's obvious that the primary focus of the 2012 presidential election has been the economy. The crises of 2008 had global ramifications that are still being felt today, by way of slowed production, layoffs, little to no investment, tentative bank loaning, weak consumer spending, and a general mistrust of the market. As the race comes to a close and the debates wrap themselves up, the public has been offered a glimpse at the specifics of each candidate's policies, rather than generalized statements of what they plan to do should they reach office. Included in this glimpse are figures regarding the federal budget, what they plan do with their trillion-dollar responsibilities, and how to put America back to work.

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both promise to revive our economy and pull us out of the sluggish recovery that, though is making steady progress, is still not propagating at a satisfactory pace. Both candidates believe they know how best to handle the recovery, with most of the dialogue involving regulations and taxes. Both plans have their merits and drawbacks, but serve only to assuage the problem of economic recovery in its present form. These policies are necessary and have a profound impact on domestic and foreign markets, not to mention the accounts and wallets of citizens and businesses alike. But in order to foster a prosperous America, the candidates need to champion a nation of prosperous Americans. This is done through establishing economic sustainability -- not just recovery.

Sustainability of any system is achieved through ingenious design of that system. Our economy is not currently based on any principle of sustainability. Our schools do not properly prepare students for the work environment in which they will be placed, which then leads to a lack of sufficiently skilled individuals to fill the roles needed by businesses. Moreover, our schools do not prepare students to become the adept leaders necessary to create the businesses that can utilize said skilled individuals. What we are left with is a job market that is not only saturated with under-trained individuals, but is stagnant in the creation of businesses in the fastest growing industries.

The formula is simple: More School = More Money

If we as a nation do not forge innovative businesses, then the gap in our production will be filled by those of other, hungrier nations -- and this is already happening. Our brightest and most talented aren't going to stay at low paying jobs for the sake of national security: they're going to move to countries that offer the jobs they want for the pay they want. As a nation, we can't rely on politics and policy to guarantee economic prosperity. We need to prepare our citizens for the competition of a post-industrialized, rapidly digitizing society.

The task, then, is to educate our citizens. They will constitute all facets of this sustainably prosperous economy -- from production to consumption, to innovation and beyond, and we will do this by fostering an environment that will adequately prepare them. This challenge is placed on the shoulders of none other than our long burdened, often blamed -- and more often ignored -- system of education.

This brings us back to the election. What does each candidate bring to the table in terms of developing a sustainable economy through education?

Mitt Romney plans to focus on small scale innovation and competition through the use of charter schools and vouchers. Charter schools are schools that receive public funding but operate with their own unique ideologies and practices. The idea behind them is to find an educational methodology that is effective, that can then be adopted by other schools and eventually entire districts. Vouchers allow students and families to decide which school they wish to attend, should the school be capable of accepting them. The voucher is basically a subsidy that represents public money invested in each student. The logic behind this is that families can essentially vote for which schools they think are best.

Barack Obama is also seeking innovation through competition, but by very different means. His highly controversial $850 million Race to The Top initiative rewards federal dollars to states that outline and seek reform. Moreover, the $8 billion Community College to Career Fund coupled with the $1.1 billion Career & Technical Education programs are massive investments aimed at aligning community college curricula with the needs of growing businesses around the country. 

The candidate's disparate ideologies come to the forefront when we view the election from this educational perspective. Romney wants to keep education a state and local matter, with his emphasis on choice and the utilization of the voucher (which can be used for public, private, or charter schools). The notion of choice is a good one, but there is little to no proof that these initiatives will spur tangible change in how our schools prepare students for an economically prosperous future. Obama, however, is embracing a big-government strategy to tackle the problem from the top down. When the problem at hand is the structure, the structure is what needs to be improved. 

Mitt Romney's educational plan does not address the large scale, structural improvement that is necessary. More importantly, he is not concerned with the long term economic health of the United States. This is underscored by his budget proposal. Should Romney be elected, federal funding for education (as well as veterans' health care, biomedical research, law enforcement, and environmental protection)  would be cut by 32% in 2016, and 53% in in 2022. Gutting federally funded social services may work wonders on the budget, but it also works wonders on pushing the poor even further below the poverty line, evaporating veterans' benefits, and destroying nutrition programs the poor and elderly depend on. Reigning in the budget is necessary. Shooting your nation in both feet while accomplishing it is not.

Instead of increasing defense spending (which he plans to do), Romney's plan needs to address the issue of creating a workforce that can excel globally -- and that begins with a comprehensive public education. Rather than ensure our students are receiving effective instruction from quality teachers, Romney wants to remove certification requirements to become a teacher. So, we ensure quality instruction by removing qualification standards? Brilliant. Romney's stance on federal investment in college students through Pell Grants has changed so many times it's difficult to imagine what his final treatment would be should he reach office.

"Education is an investment in our future." Every letter of that statement is absolute, unassailable truth. At a time when our nation faces uncertainty amidst immense global economic competition, how can a glaring issue such as the inadequacy of our school system be so thoroughly ignored by a presidential candidate? Easy: Mitt Romney doesn't have a grasp of the problem, let alone the scale of it. Barack was handed a pile of flaming turds when he took office, and he has done incredible things to bury and quell the stench of them. We need another four years of leadership from someone who is aware of our problems, and knows how to solve them. If we help him clean his hands and get back to work, there'll be nothing but flowers and fruit sprouting from those piles.

Make the right choice.
Vote Obama.

http://www.apartmenttherapy.com/roundup-obama-a-71559

Speak and Be Heard vs. Speak and Be Killed

The recent violence and deaths over the Innocence of Muslims trailer is a festering wound in the broad, ever tenuous West - Islam relationship. A glaring, bloody reminder that fundamental cultural beliefs make easing any tension a difficult and dangerous proposition. No one should ever die because of a film, let alone something so ignorant, poorly composed, and misguided. Nonetheless, protests sanctioned by the Pakistani government left 19 people dead and dozens injured, and these come after riots in over 20 countries erupted after the trailer was aired by the Egyptian television station Al Nas TV on September 11th, 2012. Violence over this topic is nothing new (see: South Park, Kurt Westergaard, Charlie Hedbo), but a reaction on this scale is unprecedented.

Although depicting Muhammad is not explicitly banned in the Koran, it is a law that is enforced through a hadith, or a collection of sayings that are attributed to the Prophet Muhammed. The ban is not something that all traditions of Islam follow down to the letter. A belief that many Muslims abide by, though, is being critical of their Prophet. The issuing of fatwas showcases the seriousness with which some Muslims enforce the laws of their sacred texts. To some Muslims, it isn't that big of a deal to visually depict Muhammed, while others consider the action blasphemous; some sects of Islam call for a penalty of death to be paid by those who cast Muhammed in a negative light.

In the past, there have been mixed reactions to the Prophet's depiction: in 2001 South Park aired an episode staring Muhammed, and subsequently used the image in the show's introduction many times over, with basically no uproar. In 2005 the Dutch newspaper Jyllands-Posten ran 12 editorial cartoons that were critical of Islam; in 2010, an attempt was made on one of the cartoonists life - Kurt Westergaard's - which failed. The zealously defended taboo of speaking negatively about this figure illustrates a vast cultural difference, which at it's core, is alien to many Westerners.

The rift is illuminated by our First Amendment, which grants everyone (including the ignorant and misinformed) with an opinion legal protection to express that opinion. Any hamburg-brained dolt can spout nonsense about anything they want, just as intelligent, talented individuals can offer insightful advice. Everyone can say anything about anything. This idea is one of the foundational pillars of American culture. It guarantees an evolution of ideas, a progressive replacement of what does not work, with what does. But not everyone is interested in a progressive evolution. Some, as we've seen, are willing to give their lives while taking others to combat change.

We can speak for change, we can speak for stagnation, but some speak through a third lens, one that is perilous, that spreads like a perfectly designed virus. Ignorance. The most curable of diseases that plagues our info-saturated world, and yet one that we allow to infect at a disgusting rate.

No government should be supporting potentially dangerous activism, but let's consider for a moment: would the uprisings have been so violent if those involved understood the cultural importance of expressing whatever you want? Or if the film's director (or whoever dubbed the audio over with the most inflammatory statements) recognized how potentially upsetting their work would be?

Fueling hatred for a common enemy is an age-old state-building tactic, and there is definitely some of this in play. Movies are emblematic of the West, and when a symbol such as this is used to fan hatred of an already reviled subject, then the opportunity for a violent outburst is provided a platform. What's better than using a symbol of Western affluence - the Movie - to undermine the West? Effective politics? Yup. Morally contemptible, backwards, and reckless? Absolutely.

The cultural divide seems wider than the thousands of miles that separate the involved countries. But the fact that something like Innocence of Muslims was able to reach Muslim audiences speaks to an opportunity to begin a collaborative reconciliation. If something negative and inflammatory can be a showcase of marginalized Western perspectives, then something positive and constructive can be enshrined as a testament to our dedication to the idea of the individual voice.

The forum for education and debate is now set. It's tragic that it was opened with curtains of blood and violence, but the opportunity to frankly discuss what divides us is here. Conflict is an obvious answer to a difficult problem, but it will never provide an ultimate solution. Can personal expression be made compatible with the depiction taboo? Can West meet East palm to palm, and not fist to fist?

Yes. An antidote for ignorance exists. The point of the (dubbed) video and the sanctioned protests were to fuel animosity amongst the ignorant and those seeking an outlet for generalized frustration over things beyond their control. There is no better way to trump these malignant designs than to adopt this moment as an opportunity to grow, rather than burn.