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?

Moe, Larry & Curly!

Bill Neinast

IN PERSPECTIVE

Moe, Larry, and Curly are familiar names to senior citizens.  They were the Three Stooges of slapstick comedy fame on the vaudeville stage and in film during the first part of the last century.

Today, when Barack, Joe, and John are mentioned, the Three Stooges come to mind.  This modern day, real life version, however, is much too real to be laughed off

Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and John Kerry are the foreign affairs team of the U.S.  Although they are the laughing stock of the world, particularly of Russia and Iran, the consequences of their actions and utterances are too serious to be regarded as vaudeville.

The best description of this country’s current foreign relations is that it is abysmal.  No one in the triumvirate exhibits any awareness of geography, history, or geopolitics.  

 Unfortunately, this view of the world as you wish it were rather than the real world is prevalent among the lackeys and stooges in the ranks of media commentators.  They are the ones who harrumphed or shook their heads in disbelief when Mitt Romney stated during a debate with Obama that Russia is “our number one geopolitical foe.”

Romney recently restated that belief.  On March 17, he wrote in The Wall Street Journal:

“Able leaders anticipate events, prepare for them, and act in time to shape them. My career in business and politics has exposed me to scores of people in leadership positions, only a few of whom actually have these qualities. Some simply cannot envision the future and are thus unpleasantly surprised when it arrives. Some simply hope for the best. Others succumb to analysis paralysis, weighing trends and forecasts and choices beyond the time of opportunity.

“President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton traveled the world in pursuit of their promise to reset relations and to build friendships across the globe. Their failure has been painfully evident: It is hard to name even a single country that has more respect and admiration for America today than when President Obama took office, and now Russia is in Ukraine. Part of their failure, I submit, is due to their failure to act when action was possible, and needed.”

The current debacle of Russia expanding its borders, Iran moving full speed ahead on developing nuclear weapons, Syria maintaining its stockpile of chemical weapons (which are Saddam Hussein’s cache that some claim he never had), Iraq and Afghanistan refusing to allow American service personnel to remain in country under U.S. jurisdiction, is the sole responsibility of Barack, Joe, John, and, as noted by Romney, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton..

That may be an unfair criticism of Joe, John, and Hillary.  The basic cause is Barack.  He naively believes that the sheer force of his intellect and suave personality will cow any world leader into adoring agreement or submission.  His words, in his opinion, are more powerful than any weapons made by man.  In reality, however, as Romney noted, “We give.  Russia Gets.”

The way the rest of the world now views us, the former leaders of the free world, proves Barracks’s belief in his invincibility is as erroneous as his repeated promise that, “You can keep the insurance and doctors you have if you like them.”

If he had the understanding of world affairs of Mitt Romney and knew American history, he could have taken a page from President John F. Kennedy’s history and gotten serious attention from Russian President Vladimir Putin over Ukraine.

 JFK told tSoviet Union Premier Nikita Khrushchev to keep his missiles out of Cuba.  To make sure the Soviets knew that we meant business, JFK quarantined Cuba with the U.S. Navy and began moving combat troops into Florida.  Very quickly, the Soviet ships carrying missiles to Cuba reversed course and the missile sites being built were abandoned.

Obama could have replicated that strategy in Ukraine. A replay of meaning what you say, would have been to quickly arrange for joint military maneuvers with the Ukrainian military.  Several U.S. Army and Marine battalions could have been airlifted to the Ukrainian military bases in Crimea.  The troops would have raised American flags to fly beside the Ukrainian flags in their new encampments.

As those flags were unfurled, the applause and nods of approval from the heads of various NATO nations might have gotten Putin’s attention as quickly as the JFK’s troop movements gave Khrushchev second thoughts.

Instead of acting JFK tough, however, Obama talked softly to the bully.  He said, “We are going to impose economic and travel sanctions like we are so effectively doing in Iran.”  The Russians’ reaction, when they got through laughing, was to impose similar sanctions on Americans like Speaker of the House John Boehner and other congressional personnel.

So here’s the perspective.

Comparing President Obama to one of The Three Stooges was not the best comparison to make.  A much better comparison might be to call him “Neville” after a former Prime Minister of Great Britain.

An appreciation of this comparison requires a review of the history of the Sudetenland, a German speaking province of France in the 1930s.  That history reads like a screen play for the Ukraine of 2014.   

When reading the chapter on British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain meeting Hitler in Munich in1938 and agreeing not to oppose Hitler’s absorption of the Sudetenland into Germany, visions of Ukraine dance over the pages.

On 30 September 1938, Chamberlain returned to London with the Munich Agreement in hand and announced that he was, “bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.”  Instead of peace, however, the world exploded into WWII.

Sound familiar?  So is it Barack, Mo, or Neville?

The Difference is Perspective between a Strong America and a Weak America. Elections have Consequences!

Who rules us?

Red Lines, not really effective unless you are willing to enforce the Terms

IN PERSPECTIVE

 by Bill Neinast

Blame President Obama if you have problems reading this column.  My computer  keyboard is shaking so much that it is difficult to keep my fingers in position.

You must have noticed it too.  The earth is shaking hard enough to jiggle every thing on it.  The President is the cause.

He has drawn another red line in the sand against Iran and warned Russian President Vladimir Putin that there will be consequences if he interferes in Ukraine.

The new threats from this man, just like the earlier ones from him, have the leaders of every nation in the world shaking in their boots.  The shivers are so hard that the whole earth is quivering.  That is the shaking you are feeling in your chairs.

Wait a minute, however.  There is really another cause for that shaking.  That is the rumble of the Russian tanks and other heavy military equipment rolling into Crimea.  Putin must not have heard Obama say there “would be costs” if he moved into Ukraine.

Those vehicles are all waving Russian flags.  Actually, those are not the national flags of Russia.  They are new caricature flags of Putin thumbing his nose at Obama.

This would be laughable if it were not so serious.  This is not a civil war or civil uprising like those in Egypt, Syria, Turkey and other countries in that area.  This is a threat of international war--one country invading another.

In response, Obama is showing his typical ineptness in foreign affairs.  There is, of course, no option for a direct military intervention by the U.S.  An experienced manager of international affairs or even one with a modicum of knowledge of history would react to this situation with something other than warnings of “cost.”

Instead of a 90 minute telephone conversation between Obama and Putin there should have been a highly publicized conversation between Obama and Ukraine’s interim Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk.  In this conversation, Obama could have committed the U.S. to strong and continuing support of the new democratic regime in Ukraine.

As proof of that support, a page from WWII history books could have been resurrected.  Obama could have suggested a renewal of the Lend-Lease Program under which the U.S. provided much needed military materiel to Russia and other allies in the war with Germany.  Now, of course, the support would go to Ukraine.

Obama could have made a show of promising Yatsenyuk things like some of our super effective fighter planes, drones, etc.  If there were no Ukrainian pilots capable of handling those modern fighters, a modern day Claire Chennault probably could be found to organize a replica of the Flying Tigers that helped the Chinese battle the Japanese air force before the U.S. entered WWII.

He could have added that he was also ordering the largest U.S. Navy fleet that could navigate the narrow, treacherous Bosporus or Istanbul Straits into the Black Sea.  This fleet was not to threaten direct military action, but would be the symbolic “big stick” of Theodore Roosevelt.  It would also be available for logistical support for the Lend-Lease materiel, hospital and medical assistance, safe haven under the U.S. flag for Ukrainian officials, etc.

Finally, instead of saying that the U.S. was suspending "upcoming participation in preparatory meetings" for the G8 summit scheduled for June in Sochi, Russia, Obama should have said that the U.S. would not participate in the June meeting if Putin invaded Ukraine.  He should have noted that, instead of such a meeting, he would be meeting with our NATO and EURO allies to plan financial aid to replace the Ukrainian treasury looted by Putin’s friend Viktor F. Yanukovych, Ukraine’s humiliated fugitive president now in Russia.

These actions probably would not have any more effect on Putin than Obama’s 90 minute plea with him or the threat of “costs.”  It would, however, have shown a president with the back bone of his predecessors.

Several years ago, pundits and comics humiliated and made fun of President George W. Bush as the Decider.  This was based on Bush’s own statement that he was the Decider, meaning he was the one who made the decisions in the White House.

When will those pundits and comics begin doing the same with Obama by calling him what he is, the Ditherer.  The only decisions he is known to make with speed and finality are the locations and times of his next golf games and which sycophants are to stand behind him while he makes a televised campaign appearance.

His relations with Putin since “hitting the reset button” on Russian relations shortly after taking office and agreeing not to place defense missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic are aptly described by Michigan’s Congressman Mike Rogers, Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.  He says, “Putin is playing chess; Obama is laying marbles.” 

So here’s the perspective.

President Obama’s foreign policy was summarized in a cartoon last week.  The drawing by Gorrell at 1014 Creators.com is entitled “Major Foreign Policy Triumphs of the Obama Administration.”  It is simply a blank sheet of paper.

A Smile for Your Day -

Potty Mouth Disease

IN PERSPECTIVE

By Bill Neinast

The Turner Classic Movie channel was the source of a relaxing evening last Wednesday.  The movie of the night was the 1946 classic, “The Best Years of Our Lives.”

Channel surfers 50 years old or younger probably would not have stayed on the channel as long as five minutes.  The dialogue was in a foreign language without English subtitles and the youngsters would not have been able to follow the story.

Occasionally something that sounded like English could be heard.  Every third word, however, was not followed by an expletive or description of a normal body function.  For more than two hours, no scatological terms beginning with a “D,” “S,” or “F” was heard.  Who among today’s youngsters could understand such simple, straightforward English?

The English used was not the only quaint feature of the movie.  The women were always fully clothed and wore dresses with hats and gloves when they went shopping.  The men were never seen in a shirt without a collar and most of the time they wore ties and coats.  Also obvious in their absence were baseball or “gimme” caps worn either with the bill in front or in back. 

The single car garages were entered on two strips of concrete with grass medians instead of solid expanses of concrete driveways serving two and three car garages.  One homeowner was even seen mowing his lawn with a small push-type reel mower.

There were also several scenes of military aircraft grave yards.  The movie was made less than two years after the end of WWII and scenes of those hundreds upon hundreds of bombers and fighters parked wing to wing awaiting demolition left a vivid impression of the tremendous service of the Greatest Generation.

“The Best Years of Our Lives” was viewed in juxtaposition with “August: Osage County.”  That recent movie was shot in modern English.  Unfortunately, Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts were cast as what can best be described as potty mouths.  They could not open their mouths without a flood of obscene words.

The worst part of that movie was sitting in an audience with youngsters under 50 years of age who considered the dialogue to be “good old’ English.  They have never known any other way of talking with others.  For some reason, each clause has to be emphasized with an expletive.  That is one of the tragedies of the modern American experience.

As mentioned in this column previously, the “worst” words or language I ever heard from my father’s mouth were “dang it” or “doggone.”  With that simple English, he was able to create and run a small business that vaulted him into, and kept him in, the upper class.

I am reminded, also, of a high school football game in Somerville in the mid 1940s.  I played left end for the Somerville Yeguas.  In one interscholastic meet, one of the players said, “damn,” or something similar.  The referee immediately whistled the game to a halt, called the 22 players on the field together, and gave a lecture on how there was no need for “real men” to lace their conversations with profanity.  

Today’s referees probably cannot recognize any words or comments as profane.  If they do, they would not dare take the foul mouthed individual to task.  To do so would risk both his job and reputation. Today, anyone who cannot converse with all those “aids” for emphasis is just another panty waist.

How and when we began to accept this tawdry language, even from the mouths of children, is hard to determine.  Some current movies with a WWII indicate that foul language was also the norm during that conflict.  My time in the service indicates that was not the case.

Although I did not enter active duty until the Korean conflict, many of my colleagues were WWII vets.  They used the English of my father, that is a severe “dangit‘ on rare occasions.

“The Best Years of Our Lives” was a portrayal of a genteel society.  Today’s “August: Osage County,” is at the opposite side of the scale.  It portrays a coarse society.

Genteel is defined as polite, refined, or respectable.  In the last century, the word was used in such senses as “of good social position,’‘ having the manners of a well-born person,’‘ or being “well-bred.”

Conversely, coarse is defined as crude or vulgar. 

So here’s the perspective.

Step into any gathering of youngsters today and listen to the conversation.  In a matter of seconds, you will realize that you are in the center of a coarse, crude, or vulgar crowd. In some instances, the females are bigger potty mouths than their male companions. 

Could the difficulty in finding genteel conversations be a reason for routinely watching the first half of the evening TV news being devoted to violent crime?

Perspective My Friends!

RIP Republicans!

Class Warriors

Bill Neinast

IN PERSPECTIVE

Last week’s column was a play with words.  Under discussion was the news media’s unabashed preference for “progressive” movements toward total government control under socialist principles in lieu of “radical” beliefs in individual responsibility and freedom under smaller governments.

Fair, another word, also fits into this discussion.  This is another favorite of liberal or “progressive” class warriors.  Oddly, however, it rarely stands alone.

In progressive terminology, there is always a modifier like “un” or “not,” as in unfair or not fair.  So to be fair, let’s define the basic term.  The simplest definition is that fair is just or appropriate in the circumstances or is in accordance with the rules or standards.

For progressive class warriors, the distribution of wealth of this country is unfair.  In their opinion, the only way that wealth can be distributed in a fair way is to tax it. Bring in the tax money from the greedy wealthy, give 50% or more of it to bureaucrats to study how to distribute it fairly, then pass the remainder to those who pass muster with the bureaucrats.

Under this philosophy, the wealthy never pay their fair share of taxes.  The better off among us indulge themselves with money that should go to the government in taxes.

Rarely will this group acknowledge that those whom they disdain often do a better job of distributing their wealth in a fairer way than could ever be done by bureaucrats.  This better sharing of wealth is frequently illustrated in this paper.

Just last week, for instance, there was an account of the Ed Kruse family’s gift of over 100 acres of expensive land to the city of Brenham for development into a multi-use public park.  How much of that property would end up in a park to be used by citizens from all walks of life if it first had to go through bureaucratic hands?

This gift is just the last of a long list of Kruse benevolence, including Brenham Blue Bell Aquatic Center, an athletic field at Texas A&M, and support of Texas Lutheran University.

A few days later, the $200,000+ donation of Gary and Sandi Applet to construct a permanent home for the Washington County Healthy Living Association.  This association is better known as the Senior Citizen Center, and has been moving from pillar to post for several years.

The new, permanent center will be built on four acres of land previously donated for that purpose to the city of Brenham by the John Kenjura family.

About the time that the Kenjuras were donating land to the city, Dr. Wilfred Dietrich donated the quarter million dollar Dr.Bobbie M. Dietrich Memorial Amphitheater at Hohlt Park to the city of Brenham.  Then, just a few months ago, Wilfred received the Distinguished Service Award from Sam Houston State University in recognition of his gifts of endowed scholarships at seven universities.  As Wilfred noted, “all of us know the act of giving gives a greater pleasure than receiving.”

Not to be forgotten are Leon and Mimmie Toubin and their gift of a lot in the business district of Brenham for the construction of the historically significant Toubin Park telling the story of The Burning of Brenham.  The Toubins are also single handily preserving Brenham’s Jewish Synagogue, the oldest Orthodox Jewish Synagogue in the state, and the Jewish section of Prairie Lee Cemetery.

These are just five local families who are giving generously on a continuing basis to help or comfort all of their neighbors without regard to circumstances. There are countless others quietly assisting in different ways.  Consider, for example, the numerous lists of benefactors adorning the entry halls of Scott and White Hospital, Brenham.

All of this in just one small city in one of the 254 counties in Texas.  How much is it replicated in other small towns and counties around the nation?

Many, if not most, of the donors of this largesse are among that group disdained by “progressives” as unfair because they do not pay their fair share of taxes.  They are, however, among that 53% of taxpayers who pay taxes to pay the salaries of bureaucrats to decide how the taxes will be spent.  Only part of what is left over after all the bureaucratic decision making winds up helping the “less fortunate.”

So here’s the perspective.

Progressive class warriors are fighting a losing battle.  They are striving to make the world fair.

That is not possible.  The world is not fair and never will be.  It is not fair that some are born in wealthy countries like the U.S., much of Europe, and Japan while others are born in countries impoverished for various reasons.  It is not fair that some are born with natural athletic abilities while so many others are just klutzes.  It is not fair that some are born with healthy bodies and minds while others are never able to care for themselves.  It is not fair that some are born and reared in loving, two-parent  families while others have to endure an abusive single parent household.

This list could go on and on.  Enough has been written, however, to paint the picture.

There is no amount of taxes or wealth controlled by any government that could change this picture.  Trying to change it by taking more money out of the pockets of philanthropists through taxes might result in even more unfairness, as too much would go to making government even bigger.

Let’s leave it to those who some believe are not paying a fair share of taxes to decide which group or program would benefit most from their largesse.

Responsibility Starts with Ourselves!

Spending Away the Civilization!

Great insight by Peter Morici (Twitter @pmorici1) a a widely published columnist and a professor at the Smith School of Business, University of Maryland School.  Sign up to read more of his stuff if you like this!

"If growth continues at 1, 2 or even 3 percent, then the weight of the baby boom retiring on federal entitlements will push federal deficits through the ceiling in the next decade.

"Higher taxes won’t help much. If tax rates are too high, successful people work less and take their skills elsewhere. Technology companies and financial institutions--where the real fortunes are made these days--can park their patents and profits in Ireland or some other low-tax jurisdiction.

"Sooner or later, Washington won’t be able to continue borrowing. Just as unions and banks will now tussle over whether pensioners or bondholders should have first claim on Detroit’s remaining revenues, Washington can dicker with Beijing over whether the Social Security checks should go out or the Middle Kingdom gets all the interest due on its holdings of U.S. bonds.

"At that point, we can auction off the Grand Canyon and spend the Fourth of July remembering what a great civilization we spent away."
 

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.

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.