To unsubscribe please send an email requesting removal at
ModernPatriot@hotmail.com
Invite your friends to receive the best political cyber-newsletter in Oklahoma. Tell them to subscribe by sending a subscription request to
Cadman12@swbell.net
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
M
odern
P
atriot
C
hronicles
An Eleventh Commandment Free Zone
Vol. 2, Issue 2
January 18, 2003
By Craig Dawkins
Some Call It Affirmative Action
Education Leaders Make Terrible Economists
Haney Copyright Seems Wrong
MPC Readers Comments
Copyright@2002, All Rights Reserved.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Surveys! Surveys! Survey! Surveys! Surveys!
Is it racist to offer Affirmative Action programs based solely on race?
Yes or No
Go to
www.ModernPatriot.net
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Did Will Rogers Predict Brad Henry?
"The trouble with practical jokes is that very often they get elected."
- Will Rogers
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Setting the Record Straight
In my last newsletter, I incorrectly identified the State Committee meeting as the "Executive Committee." Sorry for the error.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Some Call It Affirmative Action
"By maintaining separate systems of admission -- dependent on skin color -- we are turning a moral policy of color-blindness and equality into a perverse system of numeric equality, converting the theme of racial unconsciousness into a policy of racial consciousness." - Former Education Secretary William J. Bennett
When President Bush weighed in against the University of Michigan's race based admissions program, he threw favor to the side of fairness. Those who argue for preferences based solely on race should be ashamed of their display of bigotry. Legions of left wing apologists denigrate the entire minority population when they maintain that minorities won't be able to compete if racial preferences are set aside. These apologists want to make all minorities wear a carefully woven crown of inferiority.
It's obvious that the Left in our country doesn't want to correct the underlining causes of academic under performance. If students of inner-city public schools have an unfair disadvantage in gaining entrance to colleges and universities, do something about the root cause. How about offering those students alternatives? Alternatives like school vouchers, school choice and tax credits have been debated for years. Those defending racial preferences are solidly against this idea. Why? Because it might work.
If school choice was shown to work, it would place academic responsibility on parents and students rather than big government bureaucrats and programs. It would also negate the need for any kind of racial preference. I can't imagine Rev. Jesse Jackson celebrating such an event. The Left doesn't really want a society where there is no need for quotas or Affirmative Action. Liberals need money to fund their agenda. Liberal policies toward education and Affirmative Action set up an enormous revenue flow for their causes. They have rigged the education system against the people they purport to help then take credit for saving them.
The vicious cycle begins with telling people who are poor and relatively uneducated, that all their troubles in life are caused by the rich wealthy majority. Then you insure that these people receive the absolute worst education possible. You do this by removing discipline, quality core subjects, rigorous standards, teacher creativity and any discussion of a supreme being from the curriculum. You de-emphasize subjects like math and science so that it will be impossible for graduates to access a modern job market which increasingly relies heavily on new technologies.
Then you tell these people that they can't expect to perform as well as the rich wealthy majority because the college entrance tests they are forced to take are biased against their culture and are designed to keep them from passing. It's a culture thing right? And to prove that it's racist, you show them that their test scores are lower than other racial, ethnic and social groups. And then you reinforce that it's not their fault. It's the rich wealthy majority's fault. Then you tell them that you are their friend and want to fight for them in the cause of righteous freedom.
For this cause you go to the education lobby, teachers unions, Planned Parenthood, education bureaucrats and some ambitious politicians offering money, access and votes. In return they recognize you as an important leader and vow to do more for those downtrodden poor and relatively uneducated people you represent. So you broker a deal that provides more teachers in order to lower the student/teacher ratio. (Of course it's for the children right?) Then you get the school district to give full unfettered access to Planned Parenthood so that they can hand out free condoms and free literature on how, when, and where to have an abortion. Then you call up the ambitious politicians and congratulate them on the new votes you're going to bring them. Of course you remind the ambitious politician that you will be calling in the future for additional needs.
The education lobby is happy with this because there will be more dollars spent in the school district on buildings, books and materials. The leaders of the teachers unions are overjoyed because they will receive additional union dues which they will use to lobby the politicians. Planned Parenthood is excited because they get free access to students telling them that they should all have sex responsibly drowning out any hope for abstinence. And the added benefit of increased funding for abortion clinics. The ambitious politicians are licking their chops at the prospects of moving up due to having more teachers to rally and vote for them.
Meanwhile the reading levels, math proficiency, writing skills and test scores remain pathetically low. The percentage of students who have no mastery of subject skills remain unimproved. So instead of looking at why this might be the case, you simply ask for more money, continue to blame the rich wealthy majority and cite racism as the cause that ills the poor and relatively uneducated people. But you're still not finished.
Due to the obvious explicit racism that exists against the poor and relatively uneducated people, you call the ambitious politicians and let them know that you want them to use the government to force private and public institutions to lower their requirements so that the poor and relatively uneducated people can have a "fair chance" to access their institutions. Only you make one caveat to your request. Only brown, yellow, and black skinned people will be offered this "fair chance." All other skin colors must be excluded.
Then you name this new initiative Affirmative Action.
Addressing the real underlying causes of academic underachievement would just be too costly for special interests in the education industry. Creating a climate where education entrepreneurs could improve academic performance through competition and creativity would hurt arguments for Affirmative Action. Bringing an end to the perceived need of racial quotas isn't what the Left has in mind for America. Dividing America seems to be the Left's only real agenda.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Education Leaders Make Terrible Economists
Anyone still breathing knows the economy is in a mild recession. Fundamental economic policy during a recession dictates a need for lower taxes, a lowering of interest rates given low inflation, and increased government spending. This happens automatically on the federal level but is somewhat restricted for states due to their inability to create money. Recent calls by the education establishment to raise the state sales tax by 1% is a self defeating request.
A 1% increase in the sales tax rate would have a stifling effect on economic growth. The education establishment doesn't understand that it needs a good Oklahoma economy more than it needs a sales tax increase. Policies like this, which are recommended by the education lobby, need to be rejected. A growing economy "lifts all boats" and will do so for the schools. But proposing tax increases is ABSOLUTELY not the answer.
But since when do educators make good economists? All they know is they NEED MORE MONEY. What else is new?
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Haney Copyright Seems Wrong
When Kelly Haney's "The Guardian" statue was selected to sit atop the new capitol dome I was suspicious. Not that his work isn't excellent. It's certainly nice work. But the competing statues were nice as well. Now I read that Senator Haney waived a $50,000 artist commission (out of the kindness of his heart I'm sure) and gave it to the state as a "gift from his family."
While giving the State of Oklahoma the authority to use the image of the sculpture any way it wants, Haney retained a copyright. Now Haney sells the statue on his website (
www.KellyHaney.com
His "gift" to the state is about the cheapest and most magnificent marketing plan in history. His "gift" was raised to the top of the dome arguably forever. It will be maintained by the State of Oklahoma and Haney gets to sell replicas for the rest of his life. And the sculpture was judged while he was a sitting State Senator. I'm sure there was no pressure on the selection committee on this one…..
I guess one might call this a windfall.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
MPC Readers Comments
Let's Support Gary Jones
Thanks for your observations on the recent Republican State Committee meeting. As the parliamentarian who spoke opposite my good friend Tom Prince, I appreciate your remarks on sticking to the rules. While Tom and I do not always agree, we often work together for the benefit of the party. Tom has contributed countless hours as the party's legal counsel, and when he and I agree on a point, you can depend on it.
Chairman Odilia presided with dignity and impartiality. While pursuant to Robert's Rules she could have made the ruling herself, she exercised the chairs prerogative to refer a ruling directly to the assembly. Any ruling would likely have been appealed anyway, so she preserved her own impartiality as well as some time.
My longtime friend Lynn Windell, for who I have the highest regard, noted two precedents, to which I take exception. In the early eighties when Nancy Apgar took over as Chair, her longtime friend Mary Helen Swanson VOLUNTARILY gave up her post as Vice-Chair, making it inapplicable as a precedent. Then when Quineta Wylie replaced Clinton Key, Quineta herself was at the time already Vice-Chair (not Kay Dudley), leaving a vacancy for Vice-Chair, not a forced exit. I was nearby both times and would remember if there had been any such issues.
Having observed numerous contested chair races since 1963, I have long since quit trying to predict them. We truly have a wealth of talent. Bryan ran a very impressive race and has time on his side. Tim is a man of principle and certainly did show class.
From what I have heard about Gary's auditor campaign, I think we are going to be impressed with him as Chair. Let's get behind him and prepare to take control of the State House, maybe even Senate, in 2004! After all, it is now, in the off-year, that most elections are won!
Bill Stemmons
Professional Registered Parliamentarian
www.secondthemotion.com