Do you know what the big education news is in Indiana?
The ISTEP. Not the test itself, but when it should be administered.
Apparently there's a big lobby working in Indy to change the testing schedule from the fall to the spring. Supposedly it's better to do the testing in the spring because all of the students have been in school for several months and the material should be reasonably fresh. Those who want it changed think the teachers are having to scramble at the beginning of each school year to "cram" the material with their students to prepare for the test. All so they can get good scores for their school and the praise and other goodies that come with them.
The whole thing is ridiculous, as far as I'm concerned. The ISTEP isn't a GRE or MCAT or LSAT. It's not even close to the SAT or PSAT or any AP exam. The ISTEP is fundamental basics covering the 3 R's. And the tests are so simple only the severly learning disabled should have any trouble passing.
But Indiana kids don't pass. The failure rates are frighteningly high, which means that Indiana kids can't handle basic reading, writing, math and science. The numbers are somewhere between one-quarter and one-third of students fail. And the worst schools are in the larger cities - Indy, Gary, Ft. Wayne, Muncie, etc., where the failure rate is approaching half.
Whether they take the test in the fall or the spring is a stupid argument. The kids can read or they can't. They can perform simple computations or they can't.
The whole controversy is badly misplaced. How about discussing why so many can't read, write, or perform simple math? Why are the poor schools and city schools doing so badly? What can be done to improve those schools?
This is the frustrating thing about politics. Apparently the majority of the population is so shallow and stupid that they can be sidetracked on a stupid issue like when to give the ISTEP test without even understanding there's a major underlying problem making Indiana one of the worst states in the nation for education.
Reminds me of Forrest Gump. "Stupid is as stupid does." Sure seems to apply to our education system.
Monday, February 27, 2006
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
Free Speech Isn't Free
I saw a little article about somebody who got fired from a job because he was overheard expressing an opinion against gay marriage. Unless he expressed it directly to a gay person and threatened to beat them up over the issue, it seems to me he has a cause of action against his company.
It got me thinking about all the politically incorrect things I believe that would probably get me fired, if I worked for a university or a company with liberal Human Resources policies (like Cummins here in Columbus).
Here are the things I believe that could get me fired or otherwise persecuted if I happened to say them out loud.
1. Gay Rights: They don't have any special rights, nor do they deserve any. I don't support throwing them in jail, but there is no reason to pretend that their behavior merits special protections. They can do disgusting things with other consenting adults behind closed doors, but I don't have to hear about it. And I don't have to hire an openly gay employee any more than I should be forced to hire anyone I consider of questionable morality. Why should gays receive health benefits at work for their "domestic partner" when hetero couples or non-sexual partners and roommates can't? Want to call me a "homophobe"? Wrong term. I'm more of a "homopitier", because I feel sorry for anyone who is brainwashed into joining the lifestyle and making their sexual behavior their single defining characteristic.
2. I support the Iraq war. Actually, I had some reservations when the debate was happening before the congress actually approved the war. But I firmly believe that once our country votes to commit troops to war, we all must do whatever possible to help make sure the war ends quickly and in victory. In fact, I think political opposition has caused the Bush Administration to soften their execution of the war, which I firmly believe causes us to lose more soldiers to the bombs planted by the "insurgents". We should be enforcing martial law, sealing Iraq's borders, finding and confiscating all unauthorized weapons and bombs, and forcing peace as we transition control to the new Iraqi government. I also believe that we should present Iraq with a bill for our liberation services, to be repaid in preferential oil options, free military base leases for, say, 50 years, etc.
3. I believe that men and women are inherently different by design. And that there are certain things that, in general, are best done by men, just as there are other things best handled by women. Of course, I recognize that there are exceptions to every rule. So, fine: If women want to fight side-by-side with men in the military, they must meet all the same physical requirements as men. And there are plenty of other examples, but here's the one that would really get me in trouble in this PC world: There is no better way to raise children than to have their mother stay home with them. Day Care is harmful to child development, and having the father stay at home would be better, but men just aren't as good at nurturing children. It's all how we're wired, and that won't change just because we might wish it so.
4. The government has no business telling anybody against whom they may or may not discriminate. Affirmative Action is nothing more than a program to give rich black kids preference in university admissions and government jobs. My opinion is that you either outlaw all forms of discrimination or butt out. People are discriminated against every day for all sorts of reasons: She has an irritating personality. He looks like a hated ex-husband. She's too fat, so she must be lazy too. His pants are too short. I hear she's an awful gossip. He's a total klutz. Her hairstyle is hideous. He's got a bad acne problem. She just got married, so she'll probably just take off on maternity leave right after her health benefits kick in.
5. Abortion isn't a right, it's infanticide. No need to expand on that one.
The funny thought I just had - if somebody reads this entry who's on the opposite side of the philosophical fence, they might get so angry they might want to shoot me. But, too bad, that would mean they'd have to buy a firearm, but they can't because guns are offensive. So I'm safe from physical attacks and workplace harrassment. I could get some blog comment harrassment, but that would just be kind of fun to read. Unless it's vulgar, but I'd just click "Delete".
It got me thinking about all the politically incorrect things I believe that would probably get me fired, if I worked for a university or a company with liberal Human Resources policies (like Cummins here in Columbus).
Here are the things I believe that could get me fired or otherwise persecuted if I happened to say them out loud.
1. Gay Rights: They don't have any special rights, nor do they deserve any. I don't support throwing them in jail, but there is no reason to pretend that their behavior merits special protections. They can do disgusting things with other consenting adults behind closed doors, but I don't have to hear about it. And I don't have to hire an openly gay employee any more than I should be forced to hire anyone I consider of questionable morality. Why should gays receive health benefits at work for their "domestic partner" when hetero couples or non-sexual partners and roommates can't? Want to call me a "homophobe"? Wrong term. I'm more of a "homopitier", because I feel sorry for anyone who is brainwashed into joining the lifestyle and making their sexual behavior their single defining characteristic.
2. I support the Iraq war. Actually, I had some reservations when the debate was happening before the congress actually approved the war. But I firmly believe that once our country votes to commit troops to war, we all must do whatever possible to help make sure the war ends quickly and in victory. In fact, I think political opposition has caused the Bush Administration to soften their execution of the war, which I firmly believe causes us to lose more soldiers to the bombs planted by the "insurgents". We should be enforcing martial law, sealing Iraq's borders, finding and confiscating all unauthorized weapons and bombs, and forcing peace as we transition control to the new Iraqi government. I also believe that we should present Iraq with a bill for our liberation services, to be repaid in preferential oil options, free military base leases for, say, 50 years, etc.
3. I believe that men and women are inherently different by design. And that there are certain things that, in general, are best done by men, just as there are other things best handled by women. Of course, I recognize that there are exceptions to every rule. So, fine: If women want to fight side-by-side with men in the military, they must meet all the same physical requirements as men. And there are plenty of other examples, but here's the one that would really get me in trouble in this PC world: There is no better way to raise children than to have their mother stay home with them. Day Care is harmful to child development, and having the father stay at home would be better, but men just aren't as good at nurturing children. It's all how we're wired, and that won't change just because we might wish it so.
4. The government has no business telling anybody against whom they may or may not discriminate. Affirmative Action is nothing more than a program to give rich black kids preference in university admissions and government jobs. My opinion is that you either outlaw all forms of discrimination or butt out. People are discriminated against every day for all sorts of reasons: She has an irritating personality. He looks like a hated ex-husband. She's too fat, so she must be lazy too. His pants are too short. I hear she's an awful gossip. He's a total klutz. Her hairstyle is hideous. He's got a bad acne problem. She just got married, so she'll probably just take off on maternity leave right after her health benefits kick in.
5. Abortion isn't a right, it's infanticide. No need to expand on that one.
The funny thought I just had - if somebody reads this entry who's on the opposite side of the philosophical fence, they might get so angry they might want to shoot me. But, too bad, that would mean they'd have to buy a firearm, but they can't because guns are offensive. So I'm safe from physical attacks and workplace harrassment. I could get some blog comment harrassment, but that would just be kind of fun to read. Unless it's vulgar, but I'd just click "Delete".
Tuesday, February 21, 2006
Academic Intolerance
There was a discussion I tuned into for a few minutes today about the fact that the vast majority of University professors are left-wingers, and there are a great many radically so. Apparently the person I was listening to was David Horowitz, who wrote the book called The Professors.
So I went to Amazon to check it out. Here's the gist of the book:
From the Inside Flap
Coming to a Campus Near You: Terrorists, racists, and communists— you know them as The Professors.
It's no surprise that so many in academia are so radical. It was pretty much true way back when I was in College, although I wonder if it hasn't gone even further over the top. We’ve already heard plenty of stories about the fact that students can and are ostracized and even kicked out of liberal schools for simply expressing views in support of the Bush Administration and theIraq
Some people have tried to suggest that Horowitz is in favor of suppressing these profs' free speech rights. Not having read the book, I can't say whether or not they are right, but I have a feeling they're not. Because if he shares the view of most more conservative or moderate thinkers, he's not proposing that we make anybody shut up, but that we begin to let our universities - especially our State Universities that live on tax money - know that college should be about the exploration of knowledge and ideas, and not indoctrination of students by a bunch of leftover 60's communists and anarchists who somehow conned themselves into tenure.
My favorite professor at Ball State was a gregarious guy whose classes were always interesting and even entertaining. He was my Honors Humanities prof, and enjoyed creating lively debates in the classroom about various topics. To do this, he would sometimes bring in guests who held particularly radical points of view on the topic for the day. Or, in the absence of a guest, he would take it on himself to espouse a point of view deliberately chosen as most likely to be opposite of that of the majority of the class.
Spirited debates took place, with people in the classroom taking sides and expressing a variety of opinions on the topic. Sometimes the professor's arguments would evoke emotional responses from some class members, but at the end of class he would "come clean" and tell us that he really didn't personally hold those opinions, but wanted to present a controversial viewpoint for the sake of the discussion.
What I'm eventually getting to is this: Any professor worth his/her salt who engages their students in debate on the issues of the day must hold to some basic principles, regardless of their personal views. The discussion must be relevant to the course - it's obviously inappropriate to waste valuable classroom time in a math course debating, say, affirmative action.
The professor must not only permit, but encourage divergent opinions on the topic. Although the arguments made can be judged on their merits with good support, logic and reason. And the professor must never punish a student for offering an opinion in conflict with his own.
Finally, if public universities are employing terrorists and criminals, they are certainly more than justified in terminating such people. We're not talking about protecting free speech if there's an actual criminal on the faculty.
The sum of my argument on this topic is this: We should indeed do more to hold universities accountable for hiring and maintaining quality faculty that represent excellence in their instructional abilities. So it's OK to employ a Marxist professor of Political Science who lets his views be known in class, as long as he does not punish or suppress open disagreement and honestly presents the pros and cons of other non-Marxist models. But, if the professor is a rapist, drug abuser, and openly advocates the violent overthrow of the American government, they should be terminated.
So I went to Amazon to check it out. Here's the gist of the book:
From the Inside Flap
Coming to a Campus Near You: Terrorists, racists, and communists— you know them as The Professors.
We all know that left-wing radicals from the 1960s have hung around academia and hired people like themselves. But if you thought they were all harmless, antiquated hippies, you’d be wrong. Today’s radical academics aren’t the exception—they’re legion. And far from being harmless, they spew violent anti-Americanism, preach anti-Semitism, and cheer on the killing of American soldiers and civilians—all the while collecting tax dollars and tuition fees to indoctrinate our children. Remember Ward Churchill, the University of Colorado professor who compared the victims of the September 11 terrorist attacks to Nazis who deserved what they got? You thought he was bad? In this shocking new book, New York Times bestselling author David Horowitz has news for you: American universities are full of radical academics like Ward Churchill—and worse.
Horowitz exposes 101 academics—representative of thousands of radicals who teach our young people—who also happen to be alleged ex-terrorists, racists, murderers, sexual deviants, anti-Semites, and al-Qaeda supporters. Horowitz blows the cover on academics who: — Say they want to kill white people. — Promote the views of the Iranian mullahs. — Support Osama bin Laden. — Lament the demise of the Soviet Union. — Defend pedophilia. — Advocate the killing of ordinary Americans.
David Horowitz’s riveting exposé is essential reading for parents, students, college alums, taxpayers, and patriotic Americans who don’t think college students should be indoctrinated by sympathizers of Joseph Stalin and Osama bin Laden.
The Professors is truly frightening—and an intellectual call to arms from a courageous author who knows the radicals all too well.It's no surprise that so many in academia are so radical. It was pretty much true way back when I was in College, although I wonder if it hasn't gone even further over the top. We’ve already heard plenty of stories about the fact that students can and are ostracized and even kicked out of liberal schools for simply expressing views in support of the Bush Administration and the
Some people have tried to suggest that Horowitz is in favor of suppressing these profs' free speech rights. Not having read the book, I can't say whether or not they are right, but I have a feeling they're not. Because if he shares the view of most more conservative or moderate thinkers, he's not proposing that we make anybody shut up, but that we begin to let our universities - especially our State Universities that live on tax money - know that college should be about the exploration of knowledge and ideas, and not indoctrination of students by a bunch of leftover 60's communists and anarchists who somehow conned themselves into tenure.
My favorite professor at Ball State was a gregarious guy whose classes were always interesting and even entertaining. He was my Honors Humanities prof, and enjoyed creating lively debates in the classroom about various topics. To do this, he would sometimes bring in guests who held particularly radical points of view on the topic for the day. Or, in the absence of a guest, he would take it on himself to espouse a point of view deliberately chosen as most likely to be opposite of that of the majority of the class.
Spirited debates took place, with people in the classroom taking sides and expressing a variety of opinions on the topic. Sometimes the professor's arguments would evoke emotional responses from some class members, but at the end of class he would "come clean" and tell us that he really didn't personally hold those opinions, but wanted to present a controversial viewpoint for the sake of the discussion.
What I'm eventually getting to is this: Any professor worth his/her salt who engages their students in debate on the issues of the day must hold to some basic principles, regardless of their personal views. The discussion must be relevant to the course - it's obviously inappropriate to waste valuable classroom time in a math course debating, say, affirmative action.
The professor must not only permit, but encourage divergent opinions on the topic. Although the arguments made can be judged on their merits with good support, logic and reason. And the professor must never punish a student for offering an opinion in conflict with his own.
Finally, if public universities are employing terrorists and criminals, they are certainly more than justified in terminating such people. We're not talking about protecting free speech if there's an actual criminal on the faculty.
The sum of my argument on this topic is this: We should indeed do more to hold universities accountable for hiring and maintaining quality faculty that represent excellence in their instructional abilities. So it's OK to employ a Marxist professor of Political Science who lets his views be known in class, as long as he does not punish or suppress open disagreement and honestly presents the pros and cons of other non-Marxist models. But, if the professor is a rapist, drug abuser, and openly advocates the violent overthrow of the American government, they should be terminated.
Monday, February 20, 2006
The Good or Bad Old Days
There's a tendency to look at the past as somehow better. I remember when I was still a kid, there were lots of adults that talked about the "good old days". And back then, I wondered just what was so good about them.
The generation before mine lived through the Great Depression, WWII, and Korea. I suppose I'm sort of the tail end of the VietNam generation, but that war was basically over by the time I was 16. So when were their "good old days"? I'm thinking they were after V-E Day and V-J Day, up through the 50's and the first half of the 60's, which seem like idyllic times.
For me, what do I consider good about my own "good old days"? Here are some of them.
No crime. We kept our doors unlocked and the keys in the car and our bicycles outside the house, school, or library. Nothing ever was stolen. (Well, a delinquent kid down the street stole some stuff, but he got caught and had to spend a day shoveling rabbit manure to pay it back.)
Intact families. I remember my parents feeling very sorry for "broken families". The few kids I knew living with a divorced parent were messed up; if not actual delinquents, definitely in need of counseling.
Freedom. I rode my bicycle everywhere. Of course, my permitted range was controlled, but as I got older the range got expanded, until I was basically free to ride my bike anywhere in town. Today it's just the neglectful parents that give their kids that kind of freedom.
Friends. For me, the "good old days" were when I had friends. But before you start thinking I'm just feeling sorry for myself, let me explain what I mean by "friends". Friends were people you were so comfortable with that you could stop by their home or they yours at any time for any reason. They were sort of like a part of a big extended family. If that sort of thing happens anywhere today, it's either not happening here or the whole town is conspiring to keep it secret from me.
Simplicity. We never had much, but never needed much. The TV only got 3 channels, until PBS showed up to make if 4. Even then, the ABC station never really came in very well, so it didn't quite count. There were no computers or video games. Our lives were simple. We got our work done and then played until dinner. My mother was the best cook in the galaxy, and our entire family was almost always present for dinner (until we got to high school, which began to change that). Then before bedtime we might watch one or two television shows, unless it was summertime, when everything on TV was a rerun and it was more fun to go back outside to play. But when the TV was on, the adults-only content of today just wasn't there: Now you think it's safe to watch a family-oriented show, when suddenly it's wrecked by a bawdy "Desperate Housewives" commercial.
Innocence. Expanding on the theme that started above in "Simplicity", I never knew the first thing about promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, transgenders, etc. And today I wish I'd never found out. From a "good old days" perspective, I suppose this is the number one thing I want back: my innocence. And it's sad to see such cynicism in my own children, who found out about such things way too early.
So yes, I do sort of look back longingly at lots of things from the past, but I suppose Billy Joel got it close to the mark with "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems."
The generation before mine lived through the Great Depression, WWII, and Korea. I suppose I'm sort of the tail end of the VietNam generation, but that war was basically over by the time I was 16. So when were their "good old days"? I'm thinking they were after V-E Day and V-J Day, up through the 50's and the first half of the 60's, which seem like idyllic times.
For me, what do I consider good about my own "good old days"? Here are some of them.
No crime. We kept our doors unlocked and the keys in the car and our bicycles outside the house, school, or library. Nothing ever was stolen. (Well, a delinquent kid down the street stole some stuff, but he got caught and had to spend a day shoveling rabbit manure to pay it back.)
Intact families. I remember my parents feeling very sorry for "broken families". The few kids I knew living with a divorced parent were messed up; if not actual delinquents, definitely in need of counseling.
Freedom. I rode my bicycle everywhere. Of course, my permitted range was controlled, but as I got older the range got expanded, until I was basically free to ride my bike anywhere in town. Today it's just the neglectful parents that give their kids that kind of freedom.
Friends. For me, the "good old days" were when I had friends. But before you start thinking I'm just feeling sorry for myself, let me explain what I mean by "friends". Friends were people you were so comfortable with that you could stop by their home or they yours at any time for any reason. They were sort of like a part of a big extended family. If that sort of thing happens anywhere today, it's either not happening here or the whole town is conspiring to keep it secret from me.
Simplicity. We never had much, but never needed much. The TV only got 3 channels, until PBS showed up to make if 4. Even then, the ABC station never really came in very well, so it didn't quite count. There were no computers or video games. Our lives were simple. We got our work done and then played until dinner. My mother was the best cook in the galaxy, and our entire family was almost always present for dinner (until we got to high school, which began to change that). Then before bedtime we might watch one or two television shows, unless it was summertime, when everything on TV was a rerun and it was more fun to go back outside to play. But when the TV was on, the adults-only content of today just wasn't there: Now you think it's safe to watch a family-oriented show, when suddenly it's wrecked by a bawdy "Desperate Housewives" commercial.
Innocence. Expanding on the theme that started above in "Simplicity", I never knew the first thing about promiscuity, homosexuality, abortion, transgenders, etc. And today I wish I'd never found out. From a "good old days" perspective, I suppose this is the number one thing I want back: my innocence. And it's sad to see such cynicism in my own children, who found out about such things way too early.
So yes, I do sort of look back longingly at lots of things from the past, but I suppose Billy Joel got it close to the mark with "The good old days weren't always good, and tomorrow's not as bad as it seems."
Thursday, February 16, 2006
Funny or Sad?
This week in the news has lots of noise and fury but very little substance. Particularly with the Cheney hunting accident, it amazes me that the press doesn't seem to realize how stupid they look. But that's why I'm not sure whether to keep laughing at them or to start crying, because this is the most baldly obvious example of who our mainstream news reporters really are.
In case you've been in a cave or deserted island since last weekend, the Veep shot a hunting partner with birdshot in Texas on Saturday. The victim was rushed to the hospital for treatment, and last word was he had a mild heart attack due to a piece of birdshot that got too close to his heart, but has been treated and is apparently fine. The local Sheriff was informed and is satisfied that it was an accident, and that's about all there is to the story.
But it's created this gigantic furor in Washington among the press and the Democrats. Why? Because the Washington press didn't get in on the story immediately after it happened and had to find out by reading the local news accounts from the Corpus Christi newspaper. They're so ticked off about the whole thing that they're making absolute fools of themselves, yelling like lunatics at the White House spokesman.
That was funny enough to watch, but then it got funnier when the Democrats started in on the whole "culture of secrecy and cover-up" at the White House. Led by people like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, who apparently never heard the one about people in glass houses throwing stones.
But then they really got offended when Cheney went public at Fox News, which of course as far as they are concerned is just a tool of the Republicans. But who can really blame him? Let me see if I can come up with the questions he would have received from any one of the ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN anchors:
How many other people have you shot?
Were you drunk when you shot him?
Is it true that you shot your friend as a warning to anyone that might testify against you in the Valerie Plame case?
So will you finally resign now? Huh? Huh?
What were you trying to cover up by not talking with the press on Saturday?
Isn't this really just another example of your cavalier attitude toward guns and violence?
Aren't you lying about this incident just like you have continually lied about Iraq?
Do you still beat your wife?
Do you still abuse your dog?
You get the idea. Ever wonder what the press would have said if Bill Clinton had been involved in the same accident? Suppose Bill really was drunk at the time? How would the press coverage been different, do you think?
And that's why it might be more sad than funny. Not to mention that there are lots of really important stories out there right now that the press doesn't seem to care about, because they're more focused on their mission to destroy the President & VP.
By the way, so Mike Davis had apparently already worked out a deal for his resignation by the time I wrote yesterday's post. Let the speculation on Steve Alford begin. I've even already heard somebody suggesting that maybe the university could bring back Bob Knight. Either way, this season's a bust for the Hoosiers. They got beat by a mediocre Penn State team last night in pretty much the same way they lost most of their last 5 or 6 games.
By the way, if you wonder why I care, maybe I shouldn't. I never went to IU (I went to Ball State undergrad and South Carolina graduate). But I've been following Indiana basketball since I was a kid, and was hooked when a guy from my High School, John Ritter, was a 4-year starter for the Hoosiers under Knight. And Indiana is the team that represents the state, and residents of Indiana are rightfully proud of the state's long tradition in basketball. Which was wrecked by the switch to High School Class Basketball, but that's another topic for another day.
In case you've been in a cave or deserted island since last weekend, the Veep shot a hunting partner with birdshot in Texas on Saturday. The victim was rushed to the hospital for treatment, and last word was he had a mild heart attack due to a piece of birdshot that got too close to his heart, but has been treated and is apparently fine. The local Sheriff was informed and is satisfied that it was an accident, and that's about all there is to the story.
But it's created this gigantic furor in Washington among the press and the Democrats. Why? Because the Washington press didn't get in on the story immediately after it happened and had to find out by reading the local news accounts from the Corpus Christi newspaper. They're so ticked off about the whole thing that they're making absolute fools of themselves, yelling like lunatics at the White House spokesman.
That was funny enough to watch, but then it got funnier when the Democrats started in on the whole "culture of secrecy and cover-up" at the White House. Led by people like Harry Reid and Hillary Clinton, who apparently never heard the one about people in glass houses throwing stones.
But then they really got offended when Cheney went public at Fox News, which of course as far as they are concerned is just a tool of the Republicans. But who can really blame him? Let me see if I can come up with the questions he would have received from any one of the ABC, NBC, CBS, or CNN anchors:
How many other people have you shot?
Were you drunk when you shot him?
Is it true that you shot your friend as a warning to anyone that might testify against you in the Valerie Plame case?
So will you finally resign now? Huh? Huh?
What were you trying to cover up by not talking with the press on Saturday?
Isn't this really just another example of your cavalier attitude toward guns and violence?
Aren't you lying about this incident just like you have continually lied about Iraq?
Do you still beat your wife?
Do you still abuse your dog?
You get the idea. Ever wonder what the press would have said if Bill Clinton had been involved in the same accident? Suppose Bill really was drunk at the time? How would the press coverage been different, do you think?
And that's why it might be more sad than funny. Not to mention that there are lots of really important stories out there right now that the press doesn't seem to care about, because they're more focused on their mission to destroy the President & VP.
By the way, so Mike Davis had apparently already worked out a deal for his resignation by the time I wrote yesterday's post. Let the speculation on Steve Alford begin. I've even already heard somebody suggesting that maybe the university could bring back Bob Knight. Either way, this season's a bust for the Hoosiers. They got beat by a mediocre Penn State team last night in pretty much the same way they lost most of their last 5 or 6 games.
By the way, if you wonder why I care, maybe I shouldn't. I never went to IU (I went to Ball State undergrad and South Carolina graduate). But I've been following Indiana basketball since I was a kid, and was hooked when a guy from my High School, John Ritter, was a 4-year starter for the Hoosiers under Knight. And Indiana is the team that represents the state, and residents of Indiana are rightfully proud of the state's long tradition in basketball. Which was wrecked by the switch to High School Class Basketball, but that's another topic for another day.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
How Not to Deal with Pressure
Mike Davis is feeling the pressure, and isn't dealing with it very well. After missing Saturday's game against Iowa (a loss, but close) with the flu, there's been speculation that it was more of a "blue flu", where he skipped the game in a sort of snit or quasi-protest.
When he returned, he showed that there may be at least a little truth to the speculation, expressing disgust at the lack of fan support for the Hoosiers and throwing out a line that maybe Indiana needs to have "one of their own" running the show.
Now I can certainly appreciate the stress Mike's been under. He's under a well-known ultimatum from IU's Athletic Director this year; "win or else". And although the early season had the Hoosiers looking pretty good, they have stumbled badly over the past month or so. And not just because of DJ White's injury, because let's face it, DJ only played a few games, and contributed in even fewer, before his foot injury put him out for the year.
What has happened is fairly obvious to anybody who's watching and knows a little about basketball. To beat Indiana, all you have to do is pack in your defense and double-team Marco, while keeping somebody close to the team's best 3-point shooters. You can rattle and frustrate Marco, evidenced by the fact he fouled out in something like 3 of the last 4 or 5 games. And you can disrupt their offensive rhythm and get into the heads of the shooters, who will start forcing bad shots when they are behind.
The IU basketball team is the same group of guys that looked so good early in the season. The only differences are that, A) The rest of the Big Ten has found their weaknesses and they haven't adjusted, and B) The team in general has lost their swagger and are playing desperately instead of confidently.
Mike Davis, if you want some advice, here it is: Forget about the criticism and calls for your firing and work on bringing back the Indiana basketball team we saw earlier in the season. Indiana fans don't care who you are, where you came from, if you're a black man or a green midget. They just want to win. And they really know their basketball. Watch the last few games and see what I saw, recognize how teams are playing you, and adjust your offense to overcome that. Find ways to instill mental toughness and re-establish confidence in your players. Finally, just accept the simple fact that, if you turn the season around you'll keep your job; if you don't, it's time to update your resume. So stop blaming others and just coach. If you give it your best and fail, learn from it and move on. If you succeed, enjoy it and build on it.
That is, if it's not already too late.
When he returned, he showed that there may be at least a little truth to the speculation, expressing disgust at the lack of fan support for the Hoosiers and throwing out a line that maybe Indiana needs to have "one of their own" running the show.
Now I can certainly appreciate the stress Mike's been under. He's under a well-known ultimatum from IU's Athletic Director this year; "win or else". And although the early season had the Hoosiers looking pretty good, they have stumbled badly over the past month or so. And not just because of DJ White's injury, because let's face it, DJ only played a few games, and contributed in even fewer, before his foot injury put him out for the year.
What has happened is fairly obvious to anybody who's watching and knows a little about basketball. To beat Indiana, all you have to do is pack in your defense and double-team Marco, while keeping somebody close to the team's best 3-point shooters. You can rattle and frustrate Marco, evidenced by the fact he fouled out in something like 3 of the last 4 or 5 games. And you can disrupt their offensive rhythm and get into the heads of the shooters, who will start forcing bad shots when they are behind.
The IU basketball team is the same group of guys that looked so good early in the season. The only differences are that, A) The rest of the Big Ten has found their weaknesses and they haven't adjusted, and B) The team in general has lost their swagger and are playing desperately instead of confidently.
Mike Davis, if you want some advice, here it is: Forget about the criticism and calls for your firing and work on bringing back the Indiana basketball team we saw earlier in the season. Indiana fans don't care who you are, where you came from, if you're a black man or a green midget. They just want to win. And they really know their basketball. Watch the last few games and see what I saw, recognize how teams are playing you, and adjust your offense to overcome that. Find ways to instill mental toughness and re-establish confidence in your players. Finally, just accept the simple fact that, if you turn the season around you'll keep your job; if you don't, it's time to update your resume. So stop blaming others and just coach. If you give it your best and fail, learn from it and move on. If you succeed, enjoy it and build on it.
That is, if it's not already too late.
Valentine's Day
So if you're curious about the origins of Valentine's Day, check this.
I find the passage about the birds intriguing, given the fact that I observed the very acts in my backyard before going to work this morning.
On an unrelated topic, remember that divergence in the path I was writing about? Well, it just diverged again into a third option. Now I'm totally confused.
I find the passage about the birds intriguing, given the fact that I observed the very acts in my backyard before going to work this morning.
On an unrelated topic, remember that divergence in the path I was writing about? Well, it just diverged again into a third option. Now I'm totally confused.
Friday, February 10, 2006
Decisions
I've reached one of those metaphorical crossroads in my business, which became quite obvious in conversations I had today.
There are two distinct paths laid out before me. It's time to decide which path to follow. The one to the right looks fairly easy; it looks like a nice paved, flat, easy road that holds promise of easy money and relatively low stress. The one to the left doesn't look like it's so well paved, there could be potholes and maybe even cliffs I could fall off if I'm not careful, and there's a heavy fog concealing the path several yards ahead.
The easier path is so clear that I can predict with a fairly high degree of certainty where it will lead. And that path isn't bad at all, leading to a pretty good and steady income, at least for the next couple of years. That path will help me realize some financial goals and needs and is relatively risk-free.
So you might be thinking, "Sounds like a no-brainer. Take the easy path!" I wish it were so easy. Because the other, somewhat obscured path can lead to great things for me. Although I can't predict with any degree of certainty where that path will lead, I do know that if I can navigate it successfully, I won't just do "pretty well", but could find the means to fulfill my dreams. But with great reward comes risk. If I fall off that path along the way, even though it probably won't kill me, it will definitely be excruciatingly painful.
Ultimately it's a choice between taking the sure thing that's relatively secure and comfortable, or aiming higher for my dreams despite plenty of risk and danger.
Note that I speak in metaphors because I don't feel comfortable posting the actual situation I find myself considering. I'm glad it's Friday, because I want a weekend to think things over, then come back Monday and proceed with my chosen direction.
There are two distinct paths laid out before me. It's time to decide which path to follow. The one to the right looks fairly easy; it looks like a nice paved, flat, easy road that holds promise of easy money and relatively low stress. The one to the left doesn't look like it's so well paved, there could be potholes and maybe even cliffs I could fall off if I'm not careful, and there's a heavy fog concealing the path several yards ahead.
The easier path is so clear that I can predict with a fairly high degree of certainty where it will lead. And that path isn't bad at all, leading to a pretty good and steady income, at least for the next couple of years. That path will help me realize some financial goals and needs and is relatively risk-free.
So you might be thinking, "Sounds like a no-brainer. Take the easy path!" I wish it were so easy. Because the other, somewhat obscured path can lead to great things for me. Although I can't predict with any degree of certainty where that path will lead, I do know that if I can navigate it successfully, I won't just do "pretty well", but could find the means to fulfill my dreams. But with great reward comes risk. If I fall off that path along the way, even though it probably won't kill me, it will definitely be excruciatingly painful.
Ultimately it's a choice between taking the sure thing that's relatively secure and comfortable, or aiming higher for my dreams despite plenty of risk and danger.
Note that I speak in metaphors because I don't feel comfortable posting the actual situation I find myself considering. I'm glad it's Friday, because I want a weekend to think things over, then come back Monday and proceed with my chosen direction.
Tuesday, February 07, 2006
Life Paradox
Ever noticed how happiness and fulfillment in life never means that life is easy?
Suppose you have more money than you could ever spend, don't have to work, and could just hang out in your mansion or yacht all the time. To most of us, that sounds like a pretty good life, right? Sure, having the financial security to be able to do whatever I want would be great. And it might be fun for awhile to hang out in some monstrous mansion on the ocean, walking on the beach or swimming in my private pool.
But it would get boring within a couple of weeks. No challenges, no stimulation, no reason to get out of bed in the morning. If 100 million dollars dropped out of the sky tomorrow, I'd have quite a celebration. I'd buy a new home, a new car, and take a vacation. But then I'd come back to work and invest some of that money in my business, then see how far I can take the business.
Growing up in the 70's, the popular wisdom was "Don't worry about the money, just follow your passion." Sounded pretty good at the time, and so many of my friends and I did just that. We went to college to study music, art, history, and other liberal arts programs just because we bought the philosophy.
Then we graduated and faced the "real world". My complaint from those days is well remembered today; "Why didn't anybody tell me?". They didn't tell me that even though money isn't everything in life, it sure helps. How demoralizing to be struggling to make a subsistence-level living on my $10K teacher's salary, while seeing almost every low-level factory worker making 50 to 100 percent more for sweeping the floor or screwing widgets on dohickeys.
That's why I like sports. Sports is a metaphor for life. For example, let's say you're a member of a basketball team; high school, college or professional level are all relevant. You join the team with great dreams and expectations, as well as a love for the sport. You've spent lots of time in the driveway honing your shooting and dribbling skills, and it's paid off in a coveted spot on the team.
But it's difficult to be on that team - far more difficult than you ever expected. The coach is a jerk and a sadist. Practices are like torture sessions. Some of your teammates are arrogant jerks that you would never willingly hang out with otherwise. But you persevere, and somehow the practices become a little more bearable as you start to develop strength and stamina.
Then the season starts. You're on the bench, watching with increasing frustration as your teammates lose games that you know are winnable, if only the jerk coach would let you on the floor. You have a choice at this point; you can either sulk about the unfairness of being kept on the bench and give minimum effort at practice, or you can step up your dedication in practice and do extra work to help the team and develop your own skills.
Eventually, you get a chance on the court. If you make the most of that chance by playing solid fundamental basketball, hitting the open teammate for scores, rebounding, or sinking a few shots yourself, the coach is likely to try you again. And your court time begins to increase over time, and the wins begin to come - not because of your talent and contribution, but because the whole team is beginning to develop as an effective unit.
There are a select few key games that allow you and your team to test yourselves against the best. Somehow the team comes together and puts personal differences aside in order to achieve their shared goals. Maybe at first you just have to take some satisfaction in being competitive with the best, but one day you beat a team you really shouldn't have.
Then the tournament comes, with each successive win getting you and your team that much closer to the championship. If you can win through to the championship, the satisfaction of that achievement will remain for the rest of your life as a proud achievement nobody can take away from you. Even if nobody else really remembers that magical season, you know what a huge effort and sacrifice it took to achieve.
That's the essence of life. It's not just about you, but about those you journey beside. About the trials, difficulties, disappointments, sacrifices, and obstacles you endured along the way. And even if you didn't achieve the ultimate victory, you can feel good about the fact that you gave it everything and tasted success along the way.
Here I am at the age where I can look back and see a mixed bag of success and failure. And I realize that the successes were never mine alone and the failures were as much mine as anyone else's. But the biggest realization is that it's not over; I still have challenges I must face and give my all toward the next big victory or disappointing defeat. Either way, I'll persevere until I accomplish that next big victory, then begin working on the next season.
Suppose you have more money than you could ever spend, don't have to work, and could just hang out in your mansion or yacht all the time. To most of us, that sounds like a pretty good life, right? Sure, having the financial security to be able to do whatever I want would be great. And it might be fun for awhile to hang out in some monstrous mansion on the ocean, walking on the beach or swimming in my private pool.
But it would get boring within a couple of weeks. No challenges, no stimulation, no reason to get out of bed in the morning. If 100 million dollars dropped out of the sky tomorrow, I'd have quite a celebration. I'd buy a new home, a new car, and take a vacation. But then I'd come back to work and invest some of that money in my business, then see how far I can take the business.
Growing up in the 70's, the popular wisdom was "Don't worry about the money, just follow your passion." Sounded pretty good at the time, and so many of my friends and I did just that. We went to college to study music, art, history, and other liberal arts programs just because we bought the philosophy.
Then we graduated and faced the "real world". My complaint from those days is well remembered today; "Why didn't anybody tell me?". They didn't tell me that even though money isn't everything in life, it sure helps. How demoralizing to be struggling to make a subsistence-level living on my $10K teacher's salary, while seeing almost every low-level factory worker making 50 to 100 percent more for sweeping the floor or screwing widgets on dohickeys.
That's why I like sports. Sports is a metaphor for life. For example, let's say you're a member of a basketball team; high school, college or professional level are all relevant. You join the team with great dreams and expectations, as well as a love for the sport. You've spent lots of time in the driveway honing your shooting and dribbling skills, and it's paid off in a coveted spot on the team.
But it's difficult to be on that team - far more difficult than you ever expected. The coach is a jerk and a sadist. Practices are like torture sessions. Some of your teammates are arrogant jerks that you would never willingly hang out with otherwise. But you persevere, and somehow the practices become a little more bearable as you start to develop strength and stamina.
Then the season starts. You're on the bench, watching with increasing frustration as your teammates lose games that you know are winnable, if only the jerk coach would let you on the floor. You have a choice at this point; you can either sulk about the unfairness of being kept on the bench and give minimum effort at practice, or you can step up your dedication in practice and do extra work to help the team and develop your own skills.
Eventually, you get a chance on the court. If you make the most of that chance by playing solid fundamental basketball, hitting the open teammate for scores, rebounding, or sinking a few shots yourself, the coach is likely to try you again. And your court time begins to increase over time, and the wins begin to come - not because of your talent and contribution, but because the whole team is beginning to develop as an effective unit.
There are a select few key games that allow you and your team to test yourselves against the best. Somehow the team comes together and puts personal differences aside in order to achieve their shared goals. Maybe at first you just have to take some satisfaction in being competitive with the best, but one day you beat a team you really shouldn't have.
Then the tournament comes, with each successive win getting you and your team that much closer to the championship. If you can win through to the championship, the satisfaction of that achievement will remain for the rest of your life as a proud achievement nobody can take away from you. Even if nobody else really remembers that magical season, you know what a huge effort and sacrifice it took to achieve.
That's the essence of life. It's not just about you, but about those you journey beside. About the trials, difficulties, disappointments, sacrifices, and obstacles you endured along the way. And even if you didn't achieve the ultimate victory, you can feel good about the fact that you gave it everything and tasted success along the way.
Here I am at the age where I can look back and see a mixed bag of success and failure. And I realize that the successes were never mine alone and the failures were as much mine as anyone else's. But the biggest realization is that it's not over; I still have challenges I must face and give my all toward the next big victory or disappointing defeat. Either way, I'll persevere until I accomplish that next big victory, then begin working on the next season.
Friday, February 03, 2006
Paranoia
This whole business of NSA wiretapping got me curious, so I set about trying to find out about the "real" story. Here I am, shaking my head, because the story is either a non-story about eavesdropping on known Al Quaeda terrorists overseas who are making calls to people who happen to be in the US, which is perfectly legal, or Bush is some sort of evil dictator wiretapping all sorts of Americans for unfathomable reasons.
Among those who seem absolutely certain that Bush is somehow listening in on their conversations are the likes of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, and Julian Bond. Now I of course can't possibly say whether or not they are being monitored, but based on their public statements I'd say it would be prudent for the FBI to be keeping tabs on them. Oh yeah, perfectly legally with warrants and all that.
The weirdest of all was one I heard today from some bombastic leftie who is convinced that Bush is a reincarnation of Hitler. He claimed (or maybe a better term is "screamed") he could prove that the administration is wiretapping the Mormons. The Mormons? Huh? Sure has me scratching my head.
For those who have already gone off the deep end on this topic because of some premature and speculative press stories that have now been outrageously inflated beyond reason by the Bush-hater crowd, I suggest you Please Take a Breath!
Tell you what. As soon as you find a legitimate story from a "real" news outlet about somebody being detained for calling Bush a Nazi (or any expletive you wish to substitute) in a cellphone conversation with a non-Al Quaeda friend, please feel free to alert me right away. If the story turns out to be true, I'll be happy to agree that the pres has gone too far. But until then, I'm going to assume Bush and Negroponte and Goss are all telling us the truth. And I find nothing at all objectionable about what they have reported they are doing, not to mention am rather unhappy that classified information about this program was leaked, most likely by Democrat congress members (Jay Rockefeller, anyone?) who should know better.
Among those who seem absolutely certain that Bush is somehow listening in on their conversations are the likes of Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Belafonte, and Julian Bond. Now I of course can't possibly say whether or not they are being monitored, but based on their public statements I'd say it would be prudent for the FBI to be keeping tabs on them. Oh yeah, perfectly legally with warrants and all that.
The weirdest of all was one I heard today from some bombastic leftie who is convinced that Bush is a reincarnation of Hitler. He claimed (or maybe a better term is "screamed") he could prove that the administration is wiretapping the Mormons. The Mormons? Huh? Sure has me scratching my head.
For those who have already gone off the deep end on this topic because of some premature and speculative press stories that have now been outrageously inflated beyond reason by the Bush-hater crowd, I suggest you Please Take a Breath!
Tell you what. As soon as you find a legitimate story from a "real" news outlet about somebody being detained for calling Bush a Nazi (or any expletive you wish to substitute) in a cellphone conversation with a non-Al Quaeda friend, please feel free to alert me right away. If the story turns out to be true, I'll be happy to agree that the pres has gone too far. But until then, I'm going to assume Bush and Negroponte and Goss are all telling us the truth. And I find nothing at all objectionable about what they have reported they are doing, not to mention am rather unhappy that classified information about this program was leaked, most likely by Democrat congress members (Jay Rockefeller, anyone?) who should know better.
Thursday, February 02, 2006
No Smoking
Apparently, Columbus went smoke-free yesterday. The Republic did two or three stories on it today that were kind of fascinating, from a sociological viewpoint.
There are two local restaurant owners who fought the ordinance from the time it was proposed. They both cater to smokers and believed that the ban, which exempts bars and private clubs, would drive their business away to those other establishments. The Republic reporter went to some of the bars and clubs to check that out, but was told business was about the same.
As someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, I have the advantage of what I think is a pretty unbiased view of the whole issue. I agree that it seems a little unfair to exempt establishments from the ban just because they serve alcohol. But on the other hand, the exemption is based on the theory that restaurants are for families who generally would rather not have somebody at the next table blowing smoke at their kids, while bars are adults-only establishments that exist for the primary purpose of letting adults pickle their livers and pollute their lungs to their hearts' content. And private clubs are by definition outside of the public domain, and their members are presumably self-selected patrons that either smoke or don't mind others smoking in their club.
Good old Indiana has one of the highest smoking rates in the country, with our resident Hoosier Hicks viewing the habit as some sort of birthright. For the government to step in and tell these people they can't smoke somewhere is to them the equivalent of some sort of Nazi tyranny.
From a personal perspective, I'm happy for the ban. It's good to know that I can get a meal at just about any restaurant in town without any fear of having the meal ruined by a chain smoker 5 or 10 feet away. And I strongly support smoking bans in the workplace, having had the experience working in a smoke-filled room for a few years in the 80's to early 90's. I remember the constant stench of cigarette smoke permeating my clothing, the blue haze that was noticable whenever I entered the cubicle farm on my way to my pitiful workspace, and the unending scratchy throat and sinusitis from being forced to work in that environment 8 to 10 hours every day.
I find it interesting that smokers mostly are oblivious to how their smoke affects others around them. Ever been around a smoker and noticed how they blow the smoke up or to the side, as if that somehow is all they need to do to keep it from bothering you? Ever been with a smoker on a flight or in a no-smoking building, and noticed that they have the cigarette in their mouth and lighter at the ready as they quicken their pace to leave the building? These observations give proof to the addictive qualities of nicotine.
But for me, there are other observations that are really disturbing. At the county fair every summer, I'm almost guaranteed to see a young pregnant woman (or girl) puffing away on a cigarette. I want to go rip it out of her mouth and tell her the awful things her habit is doing to her baby. Driving around Columbus, I occasionally see a young mother with two or three very young toddlers to infants trapped in the car with her as she puffs away on her cancer stick. I have to resist the urge to force her off the road and take the children away.
I suppose there's no particular cohesive point I'm trying to make with this post. Only that after thinking about it, I've decided that smoking in public places is not some sort of civil liberty to be protected. That people are free to smoke if they want, but there's nothing wrong with enacting laws that keep the smoke away from their co-workers and co-diners. And that parents that smoke constantly at home and in the car around their kids are doing more harm to those children than they ever imagined, and maybe it's time to do more education to convince them to at least take it outside.
There are two local restaurant owners who fought the ordinance from the time it was proposed. They both cater to smokers and believed that the ban, which exempts bars and private clubs, would drive their business away to those other establishments. The Republic reporter went to some of the bars and clubs to check that out, but was told business was about the same.
As someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight, I have the advantage of what I think is a pretty unbiased view of the whole issue. I agree that it seems a little unfair to exempt establishments from the ban just because they serve alcohol. But on the other hand, the exemption is based on the theory that restaurants are for families who generally would rather not have somebody at the next table blowing smoke at their kids, while bars are adults-only establishments that exist for the primary purpose of letting adults pickle their livers and pollute their lungs to their hearts' content. And private clubs are by definition outside of the public domain, and their members are presumably self-selected patrons that either smoke or don't mind others smoking in their club.
Good old Indiana has one of the highest smoking rates in the country, with our resident Hoosier Hicks viewing the habit as some sort of birthright. For the government to step in and tell these people they can't smoke somewhere is to them the equivalent of some sort of Nazi tyranny.
From a personal perspective, I'm happy for the ban. It's good to know that I can get a meal at just about any restaurant in town without any fear of having the meal ruined by a chain smoker 5 or 10 feet away. And I strongly support smoking bans in the workplace, having had the experience working in a smoke-filled room for a few years in the 80's to early 90's. I remember the constant stench of cigarette smoke permeating my clothing, the blue haze that was noticable whenever I entered the cubicle farm on my way to my pitiful workspace, and the unending scratchy throat and sinusitis from being forced to work in that environment 8 to 10 hours every day.
I find it interesting that smokers mostly are oblivious to how their smoke affects others around them. Ever been around a smoker and noticed how they blow the smoke up or to the side, as if that somehow is all they need to do to keep it from bothering you? Ever been with a smoker on a flight or in a no-smoking building, and noticed that they have the cigarette in their mouth and lighter at the ready as they quicken their pace to leave the building? These observations give proof to the addictive qualities of nicotine.
But for me, there are other observations that are really disturbing. At the county fair every summer, I'm almost guaranteed to see a young pregnant woman (or girl) puffing away on a cigarette. I want to go rip it out of her mouth and tell her the awful things her habit is doing to her baby. Driving around Columbus, I occasionally see a young mother with two or three very young toddlers to infants trapped in the car with her as she puffs away on her cancer stick. I have to resist the urge to force her off the road and take the children away.
I suppose there's no particular cohesive point I'm trying to make with this post. Only that after thinking about it, I've decided that smoking in public places is not some sort of civil liberty to be protected. That people are free to smoke if they want, but there's nothing wrong with enacting laws that keep the smoke away from their co-workers and co-diners. And that parents that smoke constantly at home and in the car around their kids are doing more harm to those children than they ever imagined, and maybe it's time to do more education to convince them to at least take it outside.
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
Gotta Comment
I've been trying to avoid politics here lately, but just had to comment on last night's State of the Union.
I was kind of surprised how he came out early and tweaked the Dems on their obstruction of the war efforts. But I couldn't help imagining the Bush supporters all cheering while all the Bush enemies yelling "shut up!". Somehow I sort of doubt he made any converts there, even though I sort of enjoyed it.
He seemed to find a bunch of proposals that nobody could really disagree with on principle. It could be a brilliant move politically, if it's followed up by introducing that legislation in congress right away (like this week), then letting the Dems respond with their normal angry obstruction. They don't look very good when they try to block Bush even on his good ideas, just because they came from him.
The cheering from the left side last night when Bush mentioned that they had blocked his efforts to reform Social Security made them look infantile and irresponsible. But a bipartisan commission isn't going to solve the problem. They'll meet for a long time and eventually come out with some proposal which will be mostly meaningless and dismissed before it's even presented. I don't see anything happening with Social Security unless a solid and practical proposal is developed by someone and sold to the majority of Americans.
The energy technology stuff is all well and good, but even in the best of scenarios is decades down the road. Even though he has been blocked on every attempt to open up more domestic oil resources, it's still the right thing to do whether the environmental lobbies like it or not.
The healthcare stuff sounded good, but it didn't sound to me as if Bush was prepared to do much more besides health savings accounts and tort reform. Those may be a start, but the system's in dire need of a lot more reform than just those two items.
Then the Democrat response was something I wasn't sure I wanted to watch, but I'd never heard Kean speak before, so I stayed for his speech. And was very impressed. The guy is smooth and a terrific orator. It was kind of surprising that he came out as a marked departure from the normal Democrat message of the last 5 years or so, stressing bipartisanship and common sense instead of trashing Bush at every turn. But on the other hand, he presented no real new ideas; in fact, his whole speech was centered around the "There's a better way" theme, which basically said Democrats would do a better job than Republicans doing pretty much the same things.
So I also heard Cindy Sheehan got invited to attend the speech by some stupid Democrat congressman. Apparently, she got arrested before it even started for getting her disruptive protests ready. If there's one thing we all know about Cindy, it's all about her. I think it's way past time for everybody to just ignore the dingbat.
It all makes for an interesting sort of theatre.
I was kind of surprised how he came out early and tweaked the Dems on their obstruction of the war efforts. But I couldn't help imagining the Bush supporters all cheering while all the Bush enemies yelling "shut up!". Somehow I sort of doubt he made any converts there, even though I sort of enjoyed it.
He seemed to find a bunch of proposals that nobody could really disagree with on principle. It could be a brilliant move politically, if it's followed up by introducing that legislation in congress right away (like this week), then letting the Dems respond with their normal angry obstruction. They don't look very good when they try to block Bush even on his good ideas, just because they came from him.
The cheering from the left side last night when Bush mentioned that they had blocked his efforts to reform Social Security made them look infantile and irresponsible. But a bipartisan commission isn't going to solve the problem. They'll meet for a long time and eventually come out with some proposal which will be mostly meaningless and dismissed before it's even presented. I don't see anything happening with Social Security unless a solid and practical proposal is developed by someone and sold to the majority of Americans.
The energy technology stuff is all well and good, but even in the best of scenarios is decades down the road. Even though he has been blocked on every attempt to open up more domestic oil resources, it's still the right thing to do whether the environmental lobbies like it or not.
The healthcare stuff sounded good, but it didn't sound to me as if Bush was prepared to do much more besides health savings accounts and tort reform. Those may be a start, but the system's in dire need of a lot more reform than just those two items.
Then the Democrat response was something I wasn't sure I wanted to watch, but I'd never heard Kean speak before, so I stayed for his speech. And was very impressed. The guy is smooth and a terrific orator. It was kind of surprising that he came out as a marked departure from the normal Democrat message of the last 5 years or so, stressing bipartisanship and common sense instead of trashing Bush at every turn. But on the other hand, he presented no real new ideas; in fact, his whole speech was centered around the "There's a better way" theme, which basically said Democrats would do a better job than Republicans doing pretty much the same things.
So I also heard Cindy Sheehan got invited to attend the speech by some stupid Democrat congressman. Apparently, she got arrested before it even started for getting her disruptive protests ready. If there's one thing we all know about Cindy, it's all about her. I think it's way past time for everybody to just ignore the dingbat.
It all makes for an interesting sort of theatre.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)