The press release directly violates ethics commission rules that state: "A person shall not use or authorize the use of public funds, property, or time to produce, print, publish, broadcast, or otherwise disseminate materials designed to influence the result of an election for state office or a ballot measure."

But perhaps Keating feels he has an "easy out" on this issue. After all, he vetoed the only full-time ethics commission investigator in Oklahoma. Isn't this the same man who promised to clean up Oklahoma politics?

Yes, it is the same man. It is also the same man who conveniently hopped on a plane owned by the state of Oklahoma and "stopped by" the Democratic National Convention in order to join other Republicans in smearing Democrats. Although this wasn't illegal since the governor was already up north to promote business, there is no doubt in my mind that the people of Oklahoma would rather see Keating doing his job rather than engaging in pure partisanship of this kind.

But Keating has consistently shown disregard for ethics, the truth and the people of Oklahoma during his gubernatorial reign of terror. So perhaps this shouldn't be so shocking.

What prompted this breach of ethics? A recent report was overflowing with good news about Oklahoma's economy and showed that our employment rate exceeded the national average by a full percentage point. Keating, a consummate nay-sayer, immediately responded that the growth wasn't fast enough, that Oklahoma was losing and that it was all the Democrats' fault because they hadn't passed right to work or addressed workers compensation. Of course Keating ignored the fact that right to work actually hinders positive growth. Apparently he has never looked at statistics from the U.S. Census Bureau which show that workers in "right to work" states earn 16 percent less in weekly pay, poverty rates in these states are 15 percent higher than in free bargaining states and 90 percent of right to work states have average incomes below the national average. In fact, not one has an average income above the national average.

Unfortunately, this kind of disregard for fact seems to be a habitual occurrence in Keating's administration.

For example, over the summer I was pleased to receive a response from Keating regarding one of my columns. In the column I had stated it was an indication of how right-wing his administration had become when it went so far as to criticize George Bush's "Goals 2000" educational program as extreme liberalism.

Keating responded that "Goals 2000" was not a Bush program but a Clinton program, which apparently makes it devoid of any merit. Although I appreciate Keating's response, in this case he ignored simple fact. I have read dozens of articles spanning several years that prove "Goals 2000" originally named America 2000 is a Bush creation.

The question this raises for me is: how can a humble college student like myself, educated by teachers who have "dumbed me down" according to Keating, seem so much more well informed than the governor of our state? Perhaps it is because my teachers taught me that when something is fact you acknowledge it as the truth. You don't contradict it unless you have evidence to support your claim.

Maybe that's a lesson Keating should learn. And while he's at it maybe he could learn a couple of other lessons some of my old high school teachers were quick to deliver, mainly that it's against the rules to steal school stationary and make signs to get your friends elected to student government, and it's decidedly a bad judgment to borrow the drivers' education car, drive across country and heckle the opposing team.

In case you're wondering, the mammal was a sheep named Dolly, and the Congressman was a Republican named Steve Largent.

Once again, perhaps I'm being too hard on Largent - after all, what can you expect from a guy who both said that Americans did "just fine" without Federal aid during the Great Depression and who fought his little heart out to make sure that bear-baiting remained on the good side of the law. But his latest demand - that Congress finish the job it started two years ago when it set out to lynch the National Endowment for the Arts - has even upset many fellow Republicans.

Two years ago, under the "Contract With America," a deal was made which slashed NEA funding by 40 percent, and then promised to eliminate the agency altogether on Oct. 1, 1997.

Some, like Largent, wanted to kill the agency two years ago but they faced opposition from Democrats and moderate Republicans. So a plan, not a law, was made to end the agency in two years while cutting its funding immediately. The moderate Republicans knew that the compromise was as good as it would get. Rather than cause a split in the party over part of the budget, they consented, hoping for something better in two years' time.

Now that time has come and most Democrats, and many Republicans, do not want to shut down the NEA. But Largent is adamant. He wants the agency ended, and hotly opposes President Clinton's plan to allow an increase in the NEA's budget - bringing the total budget to $136 million.

That's right, the whole fight is over $136 million dollars, about as much money as the U.S. government paid Pillsbury to promote their famous "Dough Boy" in Third World Countries last year - literally! The total budget of the NEA is a fraction of a percent of the total U.S. budget. The military, on the other hand, is the single largest benefactor of government money - but Largent consistently votes to increase militaryspending.

In fact, the U.S. spends more on it's military than the next 10 biggest spenders in the world combined - and nine of them are our allies. We spend more than 30 percent of the world's total military budget, but the Cold War is over.

So, where do you think budget-balancers like Largent should look for savings? I'm sure Largent would argue the military produces jobs and valuable training - and he would be right.

But the fact is, the NEA also provides jobs - and at a far lower cost per job than the military. NEA programs also provide other valuable services and programs like the Harlem Boys Choir, which is valuable not only for aesthetic reasons, but also because it keeps kids off the street, teaches them discipline and gives them somewhere they can belong and something in which they can take pride.

Those who gripe constantly about the cultural decline of America brought about by violent, brain-numbing television, should be pleased that the NEA provides funds for local theater groups and quality books. And, of course, the NEA provides funds for both small and major museums. But are these things really essential?

If you are one of those rare individuals who believe human beings are meant only to work, sleep and eat, you probably don't believe they are essential. But if you like having fun, or believe that art has some intrinsic value of its own, as I do, then you probably think the NEA is a darn good investment. And, even if you don't like fun or art, you surely must realize that a culture needs heritage and history if it is going to survive.

If you won't admit to that, you must admit that programs which keep kids off the street are a good investment. And, if art is cheaper than guns, more power to art!

Luckily, I think that most people, when they consider all these benefits, will realize that the NEA is a good deal.