Poor Education? Blame the Students!

There is an old adage; "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink it". So too you can put a kid in a classroom but you can't make him learn anything.

Critics have been blaming the teachers, school administrations, society--everybody except the ones who refuse to buckle down, get themselves motivated, and learn what they need to learn. There are many examples of kids from other countries excelling in our school environments so why can't our kids do the same and learn?

In order to solve a problem you need to identify the problem. Why are our kids deciding not to learn and fail and drop out of school? For some reason they choose the course to failure. Does our society fail to provide good examples to motivate our kids to learn? Or are there too many distractions competing with education. Maybe the kids themselves are competing amongst themselves for attention? After school jobs, dating, cars, iPods, you name it there are many distractions that are much more interesting than school work.

So it may be something other than money, school administrators, teachers, etc. that is to blame for failure in educating our kids--it might be the kids themselves who are to blame.

Dems Playing Politics? Oh My!

Bush claims that the Democrats are playing politics regarding the flap over the firing of Attorney Generals. The claim appears to match one of Websters definition of "politics", namely being "artful and devious". However the Democrats have a point in demanding that Carl Rove and Company testify under oath, with transcripts, in public--it is called "accountability": a concept new to this White House. Of course the White House doesn't want transcripts made--they want to fall back on the old argument of not remembering what was said during the "interview", if by chance they were caught up in a lie.

I for one want to see "Ol' Teflon Carl" pinned down and made to tell the truth for a change. I'm still waiting to see him fired for "leaking" out the identity of a CIA agent, as promised by Bush. Actions speak louder than words--something to remember in the choice for candidates in the upcoming Presidential election. The candidates are well versed in saying what people want to hear. Their real test should be their actions. Have they represented the average American? Or have they been representing those who line their pockets or get them votes?

We voted in an Administration that has done very little for the average American, got us into a questionable war, cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of lives, and besmirched the U.S.;s good name--for why? Because WE were bewitched by words not deeds. The Press is partly, but not totally, to blame. It is about time that we "pick" our own candidates rather than have "stars" paraded before our eyes like models on a runway. Why should Parties dictate to the American public who they vote for? How about writing in who we want for President? It seems a little arrogant that someone announces themselves as being "worthy" to be our President.

I nominate David Gergen to be a candidate to run for President. Who better suited to be President?

Army Strong?

The government propagandists portray joining the military as one of the ultimate "rites of passage", when in reality it is anything but a "rite of passage". The only thing the modern military has going for it (all branches) is its ties to tradition. Tradition to a time when serving meant serving to preserve ideals and democracy and above all the security of our country.

Now it is serving of those in U.S. leadership who are pursuing obscure ideologies; or as I wrote previously, the new religion called "Democracy". Invading Iraq was an attempt at planting Democracy smack dab in the middle of Islam, much in the fashion the Crusaders tried to rescue the Holy Land from the heathens. Iraq was to be the shining example for all of Islam to follow. At least that is what appears to be the case after listening the Bush and Chaney.

Joining the military is the path to becoming a hero, a savior of the U.S. and the world. We are fighting "them" over there so we don't have to fight them here. No one has defined what that means, though everyone seems to make sense of that statement. Since the military is trained and designed to fight conventional armies, not terrorists and guerrillas, I have to ask who is strong enough to fight us on our soil--conventionally or otherwise?

Actually the risks are rather low fighting in Iraq. In four years we've only had about 25,000 casualties and only 3200 killed. I expect we'll be fighting insurgents for 50 years or more, if we stay there that long,judging by Israel's war with the Arabs. We aren't any more popular than they are and we are as much usurpers as they are.

But getting back to the "Army Strong" thing. When you join the military you give up your civil rights. If some yahoo of higher rank than you wants you to put yourself in harm's way you don't have a right to appeal. You do it, and if you live through it, then you can appeal.

You are at the mercy of any tom, dick, and harry of higher rank than you. There is only the military way--common sense and logic is not the military way. There might be the illusion of "brotherhood"; but that is all propaganda. The enemy is the least of your worries. Stupidity is your biggest threat. "Friendly fire" isn't so friendly. The Brass is really not on your side--they'll bust you in a second if you inadvertently or otherwise break one of their rules.

So don't be fooled by government propaganda. They will tell you, or anybody, anything to fill their quotas.

Family Values at the US-Mexican Border?

I wonder who President Bush is using as his propagandist? "Fellow Americans should be aware that "family values" don't stop at the U.S.-Mexico border". Maybe Bush should be reminded that criminals, drugs, trespassers, and terrorists don't stop at the border either and that he has a duty by law to protect Americans. So far he is assuming what is desirable for Americans, against their wishes and best interests. What arrogance!