What makes me Laugh?

A President who was raised by Communists, who has never held a job that wasn't funded by donations (community organizer) or other people's tax money, who now lives opulently off of the American public, who has become wealthy through the deeds of others on his behalf, going around the country making speeches about how to grow the economy!

Who Should Prepare Lesson Plans for Public Schools?

Bill Neinast

IN PERSPECTIVE

There was an interesting discussion at the Brenham Independent School District Board of Trustees meeting last week.  The discussion was over who should prepare lesson plans.  Should it be the teachers or unknown bureaucrats of unknown lineage in unknown hideaways?

The wrong question, however, was being debated.  The question should be why instead of who.  Why are lesson plans required?

Not too long ago, public schools were expected to prepare children for life by teaching the three Rs--reading, righting, and rithmetic.  The schools were funded with taxes on property in the district and controlled by local property owners.

Students passed or failed on the judgment of their teachers and there were no “social promotions” to keep failing students from “losing self esteem.”

Graduates of that system were able to communicate among themselves orally and in writing and were able to cipher (youngsters may have to find the meaning of that word in a dictionary, if any such are still around) well enough to make change even when the computer operated cash register is down.  Those graduates were able to construct huge military bases almost over night, to build the largest, most deadly military force in history, invent the computer and nuclear weapons, and on and on.

After the big war, however, things began to change in the education community.  Learning the three Rs was no longer sufficient.  Now every student had to be prepared to earn a college degree.  Every student meant every child of school age.  

Mentally disabled or learning challenged children had the right to be in the class rooms of their age group and they had to be taught at the same level.  This was the genesis of the dumbing down in education where instruction had to be geared to the lowest level in the class room.

Concomitant with this move to teach to the lowest level was the curtailment of teachers’ authority to maintain discipline and decorum in the class room.  To  publicly humiliate or punish a student might hurt his or her self esteem.

Then it was noticed that some city schools were more modern and nicer than the rural schools with smaller tax bases and that the city teachers were being paid more than their country cousins.

That was not “fair,” so more money had to be funneled into those poor school districts.  The only source for that money at the time was the state government.

So the big guys in Austin who are very magnanimous with other people’s money stepped in to equalize the system.  Big Mistake!  With money comes control.  

Government bureaucrats are not going to ladle out money without the authority to direct and supervise how that money is spent.  And how will they know if the money is spent wisely?  By testing, of course. 

The old testing or teachers’ judgment is no longer reliable.  Only smart bureaucrats isolated from the classrooms can develop tests to discern if the students have really learned whatever it is that they were being taught. 

If too many students from one school fail the tests from on high, it is obvious that neither the teachers nor their supervisors are doing a good job.  So to incentivize   them, we will prepare and require more tests.

These tests then changed character very quickly.  They were no longer viewed as tests of students knowledge, but were tests of teachers ability to impart knowledge.  Failing grades are now the fault of teachers, not of students.

When teacher employability, promotion, and salary became dependent on the grades of their students on tests developed by personnel outside their schools, instruction had to change.  School text books became largely irrelevant if they did not relate directly to those foreign tests.

So teachers can no longer teach to the texts, they have to teach to the tests.  This is a big difference.  The teachers can have a text book in front of them and know how to impart the knowledge in that text to their students.  Those foreign made tests looming at the end of the semester, however, might emphasize things in the text different from what teachers think is important,

So forget what’s in the text, just make sure the students know what bureaucrats think is important.  In other words, teachers must teach to the tests.

The best way to do that is to follow lesson plans developed by bureaucrats on the same plane as the bureaucrats who draft the tests.

That is why the question should be why rather than who.

So here’s the perspective.

Local control of schools in Texas is a fiction.  To keep funds rolling in from higher sources, local schools must bow toward Austin every morning and pray for guidance on how the bureaucrats want the students taught.

We asked for it. We got it.  We must live with it.  There is no turning back. Government bureaucracies are the most intransigent things on earth and no school wants to bite the hand that feeds it.

If a bet is ever proposed on what is more permanent, the pyramids of Egypt or government bureaucracies, put your money on the bureaucracies.

The Mushy Foreign Policy of the United States under Obama

IN PERSPECTIVE

by Bill Neinast

Commentator Charles Krauthammer and Power Line blogger Attorney Paul Mirengoff characterize President Obama’s foreign policy the same way.  They call it mush.

That may be a bit harsh, as mush is defined as a soft, wet, pulpy mass.

  Conversely, there may be some basis for the observation.   What can be deciphered from the conflicting signals emanating from the administration is a mess rather than a mass.

The difficulty in discussing the Obama foreign policy is determining the content of the policy.  The bed rock of foreign affairs is to protect the country from foreign invasion or control and to protect or promote our vital interests.

Currently, the primary vital interest of the country is the preservation and protection of access to energy, particularly from the Mid East.  Today, that interest is inextricably tied to the threat of foreign control or invasion, like the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York, from radical Muslims.

How much energy, i.e. oil, we have to import depends on how much of the need can be satisfied from domestic sources.  Because of significant improvements in recovery techniques in old fields and the development of new fields, experts in the oil patch believe that we can be close to self sufficiency in a few years.

Reaching that goal of self sufficiency, however, requires opening federal land for development, removing restrictions on improved methods of hydraulic fracturing (fracking), authorizing and completing the Keystone Pipeline, ending the war on coal, etc.

Each of these required actions is vehemently opposed by radical environmentalists who believe we should live and commune with nature as the earliest humans did.  As this group is a  major supporter of the class warriors, the chances of Obama crossing them is slim at best.

This means that we will have to continue to rely on oil from the Mid-east many years into the future.  This means, in turn, that we will continue to bow and kiss the rings of the Muslim potentates controlling that oil.

Dealing with the threat or possibility of a Muslim “invasion” is even trickier.    During his first months in office and before he had even a clue as to the complexities of foreign affairs, Obama made his apology throughout much of the world. 

He figuratively beat his chest and said, “We’re sorry.  We’re sorry we provided a shield for you through the years and funneled trillions of American taxpayer dollars into your coffers.  Forgive us and we will relinquish our spot as leader of the pack.”

If those speeches did anything, they established the United States as a severely weakened player on the international football field.

Heeding this new posture of the formerly strong country in North America, the Muslim Brotherhood openly took up arms against Hosni Mubarak.

Mubarak was the dictator of the largest Muslim country on the planet, but he was a staunch friend of the United States and was in the forefront of maintaining peace with Israel.  Barak’s response was to throw Mubarak under the bus by suggesting that he resign and to welcome the rise to power of the Muslim Brotherhood through the “democratic election” of Mohammed Morsi. 

When millions of Egyptians began to protest the movements of Morsi toward a Muslim dictatorship under Sharia law, Obama’s response was to suggest negotiations.  Then when the Egyptian military comes to the aid of the protestors,   we take no action to keep the Muslim Brotherhood in check, but suggest negotiations instead.

The Suez Canal is in Egypt.  Keeping that vital link in the supply line of oil from Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries in friendly hands seems to have no apparent effect on the Obama team’s involvement.

Similarly, in Libya when the rebels attempting to overthrow Mummer Gadaffi, a recognized enemy of the United States, requested assistance, Obama suggested a no fly zone, but then “led from behind” and let France and England do the work.

Possibly the worst wiggle in our Mid-east policies, however, was Obama’s bluster of establishing a “red line” in Syria.  Threatening involvement if President Basher al-Assad used chemical weapons against those intent on deposing him.  

The use of those weapons has finally been acknowledged by Obama, but where is his promised reaction?  

So here’s the perspective.

Say what you will about President George W. Bush.  There is no question, however, that he said what he meant and did what he said.

Other countries knew exactly what the United States wanted and that it would do what its leaders said under Bush.  

Today, the rest of the world has no clue as to what we expect or whether we will do what we say.

That’s a heck of a way to run a country.

GOOD LUCK, MR. GORSKY

ON JULY 20, 1969, AS COMMANDER OF THE APOLLO 11 LUNAR MODULE, NEIL ARMSTRONG WAS THE FIRST PERSON TO SET FOOT ON THE MOON.

HIS FIRST WORDS AFTER STEPPING ON THE MOON, "THAT'S ONE SMALL STEP FOR MAN, ONE GIANT LEAP FOR MANKIND," WERE TELEVISED TO EARTH AND HEARD BY MILLIONS.*

BUT JUST BEFORE HE RE-ENTERED THE LANDER, HE MADE THE ENIGMATIC REMARK

"GOOD LUCK, MR. GORSKY."

MANY PEOPLE AT NASA THOUGHT IT WAS A CASUAL REMARK CONCERNING SOME RIVAL SOVIET COSMONAUT. HOWEVER, UPON CHECKING, THERE WAS NO GORSKY IN EITHER THE RUSSIAN OR AMERICAN SPACE PROGRAMS .

OVER THE YEARS, MANY PEOPLE QUESTIONED ARMSTRONG AS TO WHAT THE - 'GOOD LUCK, MR. GORSKY' STATEMENT MEANT, BUT ARMSTRONG ALWAYS JUST SMILED. ON JULY 5, 1995, IN TAMPA BAY, FLORIDA , WHILE ANSWERING QUESTIONS FOLLOWING A SPEECH, A REPORTER BROUGHT UP THE 26-YEAR-OLD QUESTION ABOUT MR GORSKY TO ARMSTRONG.

THIS TIME HE FINALLY RESPONDED BECAUSE MR. GORSKY HAD DIED, SO NEIL ARMSTRONG FELT HE COULD NOW ANSWER THE QUESTION. HERE IS THE ANSWER TO "WHO WAS MR GORSKY":

IN 1938, WHEN HE WAS A KID IN A SMALL MID-WESTERN TOWN , HE WAS PLAYING BASEBALL WITH A FRIEND IN THE BACKYARD. HIS FRIEND HIT THE BALL, WHICH LANDED IN HIS NEIGHBOUR'S YARD BY THEIR BEDROOM WINDOW.

HIS NEIGHBOURS WERE MR. AND MRS. GORSKY. AS HE LEANED DOWN TO PICK UP THE BALL, YOUNG ARMSTRONG HEARD MRS. GORSKY SHOUTING AT MR. GORSKY,

"SEX! YOU WANT SEX?! YOU'LL GET SEX WHEN THE KID NEXT DOOR WALKS ON THE MOON!"

It broke the place up.

NEIL ARMSTRONG'S FAMILY CONFIRMED THIS IS A TRUE STORY. Do pass it on, it's too choice not to be shared

For all Liberals, all History begins Tomorrow AKA the Stupidity of Political Correctness

Bill Neinast

IN PERSPECTIVE

The light flicker of common sense early last week was quickly snuffed out by the end of the week.

The flicker of hope was the announcement by the Suffolk, Virginia, School Board that it was canceling the zero tolerance policy that eliminated the discretion of administrators in some cases of “misconduct.”

This sensible action was a response to the two day suspension of Driver Elementary School second grader Christopher Marshall on May 3. 

Marshall’s misconduct?  He pointed a pencil at a classmate and made machine gun noises.  The classmate, who was also suspended, then pointed his pencil at Marshall and mimicked a rifle shot.   

In my school days, that every day occurrence was called playing war, cops and robbers, or cowboys and Indians.  No one was ever hurt and many who played those games went on to become The Greatest Generation in defeating Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.

The Virginia incident was just one act of craziness in a string of lunacy. 

In January, an elementary school student was sent home for building a gun out of legos. In February, school administrators in another Virginia district suspended a youngster for bringing a toy gun to school.  In the same month, a Colorado grade schooler was suspended for pretending to throw an imaginary grenade and trying to save the world from evil.

The same thing happened in Massachusetts and Colorado in March. In the latter case, a seven year old was suspended because his teacher thought the breakfast pastry he was eating was shaped to look like a gun.  The boy claimed that he was merely shaping his strawberry pastry into a mountain, but the teacher believed it looked more like a gun and took him to the principal’s office.

Calmer, saner heads began to realize the absurdity of the actions about 18 months ago. The first to return discretion to administrators may be the Philadelphia public school system.  In September, 2011, that district removed the "zero tolerance" policy from its student code of conduct.

Other districts began to follow Philadelphia’s lead and the Suffolk, Virginia, board joining the crowd was that flicker of hope welcomed last week.

On Friday, however, political correctness (PC) stormed right back in.  This was the absurdity of the Paula Dean saga.

Dean was born in Albany, Georgia, in 1947 and now lives in Savannah.  Hearing just two words out of her mouth will convince anyone that she was bred, born, and reared in the South.

Through grit and determination, she built a successful business empire of a TV  cooking show and a restaurant chain and has published a number of cookbooks.

Recently, she was sued by a former restaurant employee for failure to promote or  improper termination.  In giving a deposition in that case, she was asked if she ever used the “N” word.  Without hesitation, she answered, “Yes, some years ago.”

Dean’s acknowledgment that she had used a common word of her day that is now taboo went viral on the internet, and her TV contract is not being renewed because of her “insensitiveness.”

This craziness is due to the PC crowd’s disdain for history.

History is a record of facts.  As some facts are unpleasant, those hooked on PC urge that they be ignored.

This is the history or facts of Dean”s early years that some wish to ignore.  

Humanity was considered to be composed of four races:  Caucasoid (white + south west Asian people), Negroid (black people), Mongoloid (east Asian + indigenous American people), and Australoid (Aboriginal Australian + south Indian people).  

The terms  Black and African-American had not been invented. Both white and black southerners called members of the Negroid race either coloreds or niggers.  With the rare exception of someone saying Negro, there was no other reference recognizable for them.  Colored was normally used in reference to a group or organization, such as the Colored Methodist Church.

The fact that this now maligned word was common in every day conversations  is best illustrated by the American literary classic, Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn.  The book first published in 1885 is a scathing look at entrenched attitudes, particularly racism. 

Nonetheless, and despite the fact that both Huck Finn and the tenor of the book, is anti-racist, because the word nigger is used more than 200 times, the unedited book is anathema in public schools today.  Youngsters must not be capable of learning the real history of the country.

With that history, asking anyone who was reared in the South during Dean’s young years if she ever used the word nigger is like asking anyone six years old or older if he or she ever used the word Mom or Dad.

Even worse than asking the question, is firing or refusing to renew the contract of someone who admits to using that word when it was common among both whites and blacks and is still in use in the black community.

So here’s the perspective.

This is not an argument to accept the use of words of any kind that are considered offensive to others.  It is an argument, however, that punishing someone today for using a word 60+ years ago when it was a common expression is equivalent to suspending grade schoolers for pointing their pencils at each other.

So let the hackles rise over repeating or acknowledging facts, but let common sense reign when someone admits living through those facts. 

The Difference Between the Good Guys and the Bad Guy!

Is who acts as the human shield. God Bless the US Military! 01:28 PM - 23 Jun 13  Reply  Retweet  Favorite

Do you live in a Country run by Idiots?

Food For Thought

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for being in the country illegally ...you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but the government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If you have to show identification to board an airplane, cash a check, check in at the doctor's office, buy liquor, or check out a library book, but not to vote who runs the government ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the government wants to ban stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines with more than ten rounds, but gives 20 F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If, in the largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not a 24-ounce soda because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman can be stripped searched by the TSA but a woman in a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If a seven year old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher’s "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested “homes”... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government intrusion, while not working is rewarded with EBT cards, WIC checks, Medicaid, subsidized housing and free cell phones ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If the government's plan for getting people back to work is to incentivize NOT working with 99 weeks of unemployment checks and no requirement to prove they applied but can’t find work ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.

If being stripped of the ability to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government ... you might live in a country founded by geniuses but run by idiots.