Let's Get Back to the Issues that Matter!

Bill Neinast

IN PERSPECTIVE

The six bullet points on a resume’ with a job application are:

  “Man of Faith

  “Husband and Father

  “Committed Conservative

  “Pro-Life Leader, Endorsed by Texas Alliance for Life Pac

  “Defender of the 2nd Amendment--”A” Rating from the NRA

  “Proud Graduate of Texas A&M University”

If you assume that this application is for a church pastor’s position, you are wrong.  This is ¼ of the top of a one-page vote solicitation from Ryan Sitton.  He wants your help in getting him on the November ballot as a candidate for a commissioner’s seat on the Texas Railroad Commission.

He gets around to that in a short paragraph below the bullet points that reads, “But what qualifies him the most to serve as Railroad Commissioner is his experience as an oil and gas engineer who has worked in the energy industry his entire professional career.”

Of the four endorsements on the ad, only two deal exclusively with his qualifications to be a Railroad Commissioner.  The other two, both of which are at the top of the endorsements, emphasize his pro-life credentials.

Sitton may be the best qualified person to ever seek a seat on the Railroad Commission.  That determination cannot be made, however, from the ad that is the basis of this column.

Who is a man of faith?  In what religion does he have faith?  Is someone with faith in another religion less qualified than Sitton just because of their differences?  Is one without faith in any religion totally disqualified?

“Husband and Father” is code speak that he is not homosexual and is opposed to same sex marriage.  Does this mean that homosexuals need not apply?

A “committed conservative” means what today?  Is he a Tea Partier?  A far right Republican?  A middle of the roader who can work with individuals with different views? What is this committed conservative’s opinion on fracking?  What does he think about the Keystone Pipeline?  What is his position on liquifying natural gas for export?

How does a pro-life and pro-gun ownership stance relate to making rules for drilling oil and gas wells?  Does this mean he would deny a drilling permit if Planned Parenthood had an acre or two of land in the 650 acres designated as the pool for an oil/gas well?

An over riding concern about this particular type of campaigning is that it is endemic in today’s Republican Party.  No matter what office is being sought, the “base” must be wooed first.

The courting involves convincing voters that the candidate is more conservative than his or her opponent.  Today, that means the candidate is more opposed to abortion, same sex marriage, and “amnesty” for undocumented visitors than the opponent.  Important issues like balanced budgets, elimination of the deficit, freedom from government intrusion in private matters. and similar concerns about Big Brother have to take a seat way back in the campaign.

This type of fratricide over who is the most conservative wrecked the last two Republican presidential campaigns and, because of idiotic statements about abortion by three Republican senatorial candidates, probably kept Republicans from winning control of the Senate.

Capturing the base, as discussed above, controlled the campaigning in the Republican runoff election yesterday.  There was also the usual mix of character assassination of opponents.  Discussions of real issues were rare.

Fortunately, there is light at the end of the tunnel.  Dr. Monica Wehby, a pediatric neurosurgeon and pro-choice Republican, won the primary for an Oregon U.S. Senate seat. 

Wehby told a GOP forum that she was personally pro-life but did not want the government involved in a woman's decision on whether to have an abortion. She believes that abortion is a personal decision.

Her pro-choice stance did not keep her from out polling  four other Republican candidates.  Her opponents included a state representative and a former Republican county chair, one of whom was endorsed by the Oregon Right to Life organization.

Current polls indicate that she has an excellent chance of  winning the general election in November to take the seat of Democrat Senator Jeff Merkley 

This apostasy also had a nod of approval from another Republican currently in the headlines as a potential presidential candidate.  Dr. Ben Carson, also a neurosurgeon, said of Wehby. “She has a very good value system.  Now she is criticized by some because she's pro-choice. Personally, she's pro-life and does everything just like I do to try to preserve life, but she's pragmatic also and she knows that there’s no way you're going to win in Oregon with that stance." 

But win she did, even over allegations that she had “stalked” two former boy friends.

So here’s the perspective. 

Maybe, hopefully, Republican candidates will get back to campaigning on issues instead of who is the most conservative.  

Maybe Dr. Wehby will teach them that they can win without the open support of the “base.”  By following in the doctor’s footsteps, they may learn that a discussion of real issues attracts more independents and “moderate” Republicans.

Those independents and moderates will more than offset the ultra conservative Republicans upset because there is no “conservative” candidate.  The ultra conservatives may stay away from the polls, but they will not even think of voting for a Democrat.

Let’s get back to the issues that matter.

Time to reclaim Education in the US from the Bureaucrats and Central Planners

Bill Neinast

IN PERSPECTIVE by Bill Neinast

Education is a recurring topic in the national and local news.

Nationally, the subjects are the declining academic rankings in international comparisons and the CORE curricula.  Locally, the topics are homework and CSCOPE lesson plans.

A recent letter to the editor in The Banner-Press concerning too much homework gave credence to the concern about declining standards.  There were 23 grammatical and syntax errors in the eight paragraph letter.  Maybe there is not enough homework instead of too much.

The letter brought back memories of my days as a professor of state and federal government at Blinn College 30 years ago. I was appalled then at the lack of basic English grammar skills in my college students. 

Twenty years ago, I asked Dr. Wilfred Dietrich, Chairman of the English Department at Blinn, if the students’ grammar had improved since I left.  His answer, “Bill it’s gotten worse.”

Here is an example.  An end of semester research paper was required of each student.  The grade on the paper would be a substantial part of the student’s final grade.  

Written instructions for the paper were distributed on the first day of class. Although the subject was government, the students were told that one point would be deducted for each grammatical error and misspelled word. 

I suggested that they do their research and writing early in the semester, lay it aside for a week or so, and review it for clarity.  About a week before the paper was due, ask a friend to review it.  The friend might find errors that the author had skimmed over because of familiarity.

In every class, a substantial majority appeared to have been researched and written the night before they were due.

A copy of one of those papers is still on my desk.  The nine pages with very wide margins at the top, bottom, and both sides has 88 grammatical and spelling errors.  I gave the author 50 for content, and that was a gift, then deducted 88 for the errors.  Her research paper grade was a -38.

  That was then.  This is now when some college freshmen are required to take remedial courses in English, math, and other courses in order to progress at the college.

Why is there such a constant slide to lower standards and ranking?

One reason may be the federal and state mandates for standardized test.

I did not take a single final exam during my last two years of high school.  In 1944 the Somerville School District established programs that exempted students with final course grades of 90 or higher from final exams.  The administrators believed that anyone with semester grades in that range obviously knew the subject.

Last week, I discussed this no final exam policy with someone about 15 years younger than me.  She said that was also the policy in her school in the late 1950s.

Those schools graduated students who went on to earn college degrees without the need for remedial courses.  Among those students are Robert Oppenheimer and Edward Teller who developed the atomic bomb and Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and Hillary Clinton.

In those days, teachers were allowed to use whatever method he or she thought was necessary to get the students to the level of understanding  desired by the teacher.  There was also no “social promotions.”  A student who did not rise to the level required by his teachers would be held back for another try.  Today, in some schools, teachers are not permitted to give even one failing grade.

This summary leads to one conclusion.  Federal and state politicians got into the act and violated a basic law of human activity.  If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

The system seems to have been working fine until money began moving local control higher and higher.  Politicians and judges began to believe that it is not “fair” for some school districts to have more money than others.  So the state legislators said “We’ll fix that by moving money from one district to another. Now that we are controlling who gets what, we have to know that the money is being spent wisely.  The only way we can do that is to have every student in each grade take the same tests. That way we will know what teachers are doing well and teaching the students what we think they ought to know.”

So began the standardized, state-wide tests.  When the bureaucrats in Washington saw how this was placing more authority in their state underlings, they decided they wanted a piece of the pie.  Therein was born federal funds for local school and standardized national testing.

So here’s the perspective.

American education is in the pits and has been there for decades.  In the mid 1990s, I visited with a Polish high school exchange student in Somerville.  She said she was bored to death in the local schools.  They were studying algebra in high school that she had learned in grade school in Poland.

Shortly after that conversation I was having my computer repaired in Austin.  Upon overhearing one of his telephone conversations, I realized that he too was from Poland.  In our following conversation, he stated that he was returning to Poland with his family because the education system here was so inferior to that in his homeland.

The more we engage in standardized tests and curricula, the deeper we sink in ratings.  

Is it time to return to the system working beautifully before the bureaucrats decided to fix it?