On Running Out of Hills

On Monday, I tweeted that I wouldn't talk about the effort to defund Obamacare.

Well, it turns out that was not entirely true, due to all the infighting it has triggered.

As I have written previously, both sides in the debate have valid points.  However, I have found myself more firmly planted on the side of the defund fight as time has gone on.  This is not because defunding the law is feasible, however.  It is because fighting the law in the first place is the right thing to do.

Something I have noticed since November is that many conservatives are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the Republican party.  With weak presidential candidates and a propensity give up on a fight when winds shift ever so slightly in the wrong direction, many do not believe the Republicans are willing to fight for what they believe it.

This fight is energizing the conservative base.  Even if it is only a handful of senators, like Cruz and Lee, leading the charge, they are salvaging support that was otherwise waning by showing the voting public that there are still people in Washington who care about them.  Even if the fight is going to be lost, the public knows there are people out there not just paying lip service to the idea of ending the economy destroying leviathan that is the ACA.

They are not merely talking.  They are inspiring those who might otherwise not have hope.

That has been what this fight has always been about.  It has not been about winning the fight; not every fight in history has been fought because victory was a prospect.  Many battles have been fought simply because they are right.  It is because fighting is sometimes necessary, regardless of the outcome.  In this case, this fight has far more to do with telling conservatives and anyone who will listen that the battle will not be won as we are.  It is a call for reinforcements.  More people are needed, both in Washington and in the average American community, calling out this travesty of a law for what it is.

That will not come if we refuse to do anything until "we've won."  How will we win over hearts and minds without action?

Now, of course, there are liable to be short term consequences for picking a losing fight.  That goes without saying.  However, this goes back to the idea of choosing a hill to fight/die on.  Conservatives have been told, time and again, that various issues have not been worth fighting over.  The right has been looking for someone to take a stand since President Obama was elected and, each time, the fight has been passed over or given up before any effects have been achieved.

Put in other terms, the Republicans have given up hill after hill.  At what point do we run out of hills to fight on...or people to fight on those hills at all?

Many on the right are starting to feel backed into a corner, as this fight is demonstrating.  They are being told that they're being irrational, that they are foolish, even being subtly implied that they are being ignorant.  They are being told this fight is not worth it.  Just like every single time before.  However, in failing to fight before, those who oppose this action do not realize they have brought this very moment upon us.  When one limits a person's options, those have to start taking questionable action to try and make a difference, instead of sitting on their hands doing nothing.

If we are here to turn the country around, would it not only help our cause to show that we mean it?  Is it so unfathomable to believe that a tactical defeat now could result in a strategic victory later?

Must we keep cowering to every media caricature of our beliefs?

On Education

I see many a leftist talk about education and its "problems."  Of course, hearing that often entails having to listen to their solutions, from more money to more teachers.  The problems and solutions are always simple, more of some commodity is needed in schools and, thus, more resources are thrown haphazardly at the problem, in hopes of fixing it.

Of course many of these liberals likely haven't attended a school in decades.

It has not been so many years that I have forgotten my own school days and I recall back then that something was seriously wrong.

In my high school, there were three "tiers" of classes: Applied, Academic and Honors.  According to the catalogue, applied courses were the basic, grade-level requirement courses, designed for lower achieving students.  The academic courses were considered the "college" track, more challenging and designed to prepare students for higher education.  Honors courses were for the highest achieving students.

Personally, I took the academic courses, except in history.  Generally speaking, they were challenging enough, their ease often more dependent on how rigorously the teacher drove the students than the overall course content.  The problem seemed to lie in the honors and applied levels.

I was qualified throughout high school to sign up for honors classes, but I never did.  There were many reasons to, chief among them that I was never quite sufficiently challenged in academic courses and most of my friends were brilliant enough to be in honors.  But then I would see the workloads of my friends.  In English alone, they would read books on a near weekly basis and write at least one, if not more, papers as well.  The focus seemed to be on the quantity of the work done than the quality of the work done.

Instead of studying topics in an in-depth fashion, like I became accustomed to in university, they simply seemed to do more and more work.  The focus seemed to be in the wrong place.  Rather than challenging the honors students with content beyond grade level, they simply received grade-level assignments in greater amounts.

On the flip side, applied courses seemed nowhere near grade level.  Elective courses frequently gave me the opportunity to interact with applied students and when I did and found out the work they did, something was equally wrong.  One student I knew would often do his homework in our Java class and he seemed to be doing exercises or reading books barely fit for a middle schooler, let alone juniors and seniors in high school.

Even more disturbing?  Any given semester, applied classes were nearly half of the courses offered in each subject.

In other words, half of each graduating class was learning below grade level.

This problem even extends into college.  Well over a third of my time spent there (and thus, money), went into "general education" courses.  These courses ranged from statistics, biology to physical education.  I went to college to learn about english and history, not to learn about subjects I neither cared for nor needed.  And in many of those courses, the professors were perfectly content to curve grades based on the highest score, despite the fact that it skewed both how the outside world perceived the class and how students perceived how well they did.

Is more money the solution to the highlighted problems?  Or is the solution instead examining how education is approached in this country?

Instead of stressing the idea of students passing, perhaps we should instead focus on them learning.  School should be a place where students appreciate being challenged, instead of seeking the easiest path to graduation.  It should be where students figure out where their true talents lie, no matter if its academic, a trade or nothing at all.  We must banish this idea that college is for everyone.  It is not.

College, likewise, should entirely be about immersing the students in their preferred field, with a handful of extra (not required) options to learn about.  I don't need a remedial math class when I want to learn about the english language or the Ming Dynasty.  It's simply a waste of time.

The problem is not money; it is how today's students are conditioned to view their education with so little worth.