"FIZ ED" RECONSIDERED

What is it about physical education class that has created such distaste throughout the general public? Did we come to despise the militarism and the grouchy coach or ex-coach as he threw out a ball and sat on the bleachers and laughed as the weaker, less athletic kids took a beating from the "jocks?" Was the dread of that experience fed by what occurred in the locker room as we hastily showered and returned to the regular classroom wet, sweaty and humiliated? The list of why that experience has come to be perceived as less than positive or beneficial is dependent only on the recollection of millions of citizens who suffered through "that mandatory class" as they matriculated.

What should physical education classes offer students? How about teaching healthful dietary habits? How about encouraging young people to enjoy the benefits of being physically active? How about being given the opportunity to learn there is more, far more, to be gained than dodging a ball aimed for the head. How about learning that one does not have to aspire to becoming the admirable, lovable, popular jock in order to achieve and maintain health?

With the current concern about health care, it seems we are focused on dealing with the symptoms instead of concentrating on avoiding the contributory pitfalls of poor health. How can our negative attitudes concerning the health of our children be addressed and corrected?

Perhaps daily physical activity classes should be made mandatory for students from K-12. Many school corporations, at least in Indiana, have succumbed to the pressures of the naysayers and have relegated physical education to a one semester class to be "served" sometime within the last four years of secondary education. Of course, this scaling back is often explained as being necessary due to budgetary constraint. There is a limited amount of money and physical education, art and music have become considered unimportant frills of the curriculum. In effect, we have agreed a strong mind in a weak, uncreative body is acceptable.

I do not question the importance of the core curriculum. Certainly students must be taught, and learn, history, biology, science, math and languages. It seems, however, if we are to fully address health concerns, we should seek measures that will curtail and prevent obesity, diabetes and hypertension as young people grow older. What must be changed for that to take place?

Teachers of health education should be encouraged to present healthful dietary information. Schools that allow sugary soft drinks and salty snacks should re-evaluate what they are encouraging. School lunch counters should offer wholesome, balanced menus and avoid the fast foods that may reinforce poor eating habits.

Adequate time within the daily schedule must be allowed for students to participate in non-competitive physical activity. Replace dodge ball, basketball and competitive events with less demanding and potentially more beneficial activities such as walking and flexibility exercises. Each school day could have at least a thirty-minute time allotment for students to enjoy a break from sitting in a classroom. All but those with serious physical impairments could benefit from this low-impact activity. A few minutes of walking outside when the weather permits and inside when appropriate would allow more sedate students an opportunity to experience the cumulative effect of regular, moderate exercise.

Why have we allowed the school day to become so short? Why shouldn't the day be lengthened for thirty or forty-five minutes? Again, many will answer, it's a matter of resources, money and...the teachers' union. I'm sure a curriculum director could arrange the proposed extra time, if motivated. Certainly any well-meaning professional teacher could understand the necessity of a slightly longer school day if it promised benefit for their students.

It seems we are overlooking a crucial component if we truly want healthier citizens. We need to get the young people moving, using their bodies so those strong minds can work better and longer. We need to move away from the "fiz ed" of yesterday and adopt the sound, sustainable practices that will lead to a better future for our children. Our children will begin to reap the benefit of better, more healthful lives when we insist physical education offer more than what we experienced.

The Savvy Vehicle Buyer

"The Savvy Vehicle Buyer," written by Dan Turpen, published by CreateSpace, is scheduled for release April 4, 2009. To review or purchase, go to www.createspace.com or Amazon Retail Sales.

As a retired automobile sales manager, the author provides information for vehicle buyers of all experience levels. Whether you are buying that first vehicle or your tenth, information presented in this book will save you money.

Questions buyers often fail to ask are presented, plus strategic questions buyers must avoid answering when posed at the wrong time by the wrong dealership employee. Vehicle pricing, negotiation skills, research and financing information for new and used vehicle purchases are discussed.

Learn why leasing is often far more expensive than customers are often led to believe. Learn why and when a service contract on your vehicle may be a sound purchase. Discover why some dealerships may sell only after-market, off-brand, service contracts and not those backed by the vehicle manufacturer. Learn about warranties provided by manufacturers and when you may want to consider an extended service contract. Learn why a "reimbursement" service contract can become a nightmare for the contract owner. Read why credit life insurance or credit disability insurance included on your finance contract may or may not be a wise choice for you. Learn about those "after-market" products you should avoid.

Read this book and discover how to exert and maintain control throughout your next vehicle purchase. Learn when you must say "no" and when to wait for the salesperson to speak. Learn when it strategically important for you to remain silent. Learn about that one "sneaky" fee they won't tell you about until the "paper shuffler" assumes you are so anxious to drive away in your new vehicle that you won't negotiate further. Get a copy of this book, 80 pages, and you will drive your next money-saving vehicle deal.

Incompetent U.S. Congress Allowed AIG Bonuses

Members of the U.S. House and Senate who voted for the "bailout" had to suspect AIG and other recipients of public money would likely grant employees substantial bonuses. Why didn't Congress include language in their bill that prevented such greed? After all, if greedy people themselves recognize any trait in others, it's the penchant for greed.

Now members of Congress are singing the blues just for the folks back home. Now they are "going to do something" about that bonus money AIG gave employees. Now Congress wants to play the role of hero. Now Congress is screaming for responsible behavior all too late. We, the people, are about to be bamboozled once again by Congress.

The money is gone and not likely to be recovered. The pitiful role being played by Congress now is that of crybaby. Now Congress is stomping, acting and appealing to the electorate. Once again, Congress, that clever lot, is attempting to shift blame for their incompetence.

The strategic time to clarify how those billions would be used was before the measure was passed by Congress. Are we to believe our Congress is so clueless that nobody suspected AIG might mis-manage bailout bucks? Any responsible lender would ask how a borrower intends to use loan proceeds. Consider an individual business owner going to a lender to borrow money to prevent failure. Wouldn't it be prudent for that same lender to demand clarification concerning how the money would be used? Imagine a failing small business owner posing the argument that it will be necessary to give a substantial portion of the borrowed money, as bonuses, to employees in order to keep them in the failing organization. Bonus money to the same employees who helped bring that business close to financial ruin? Seems as though a failing business might be better off without those who brought about the problems.

Many members of Congress now find themselves bobbing and weaving as they try to insulate themselves from possible adverse public reaction. Congress is playing the same old game with the people with this attempt to divert attention from their obvious incompetence. Congress shouldn't expect to fool "all the people all the time."

The AIG leadership is acting according to our national cultural value of greed. If anyone thinks recipients of thousands or millions of dollars feel badly about this deal, think again. Those flush executives believe they are getting what they deserve, what they have earned. Incompetent crybaby members of Congress should get exactly what they deserve also. They should be voted out of office if they voted for the bailout without demanding stipulations and limits on how the taxpayers' money was to be used. They can yell and scream, pose, strut and call for "claw-back" but they aren't fooling anyone. They just look and sound like the playground bully who just got whupped, while spluttering, "Coulda, shoulda, woulda!"

Someone To Blame

Former President Richard Nixon resigned from office because he didn't have a viable option. If he had remained in office, he would almost certainly been impeached. The man made mistakes. He did not act in the best interests of the nation when he allowed and encouraged underlings to perform illegal, mischievous acts on his behalf. Nixon fell on his sword and left town. He didn't wait to be convicted; Nixon convicted himself.

Some politicos and pundits weren't finished, however, with Nixon. For years afterward, Nixon's name would be exhumed anytime anything within government went awry. Too often, it seems, it brings satisfaction to those in power to blame someone for the sour music they have written themselves.

Now we have Pres. George W. Bush serving as scapegoat for the current economic mess. State governors who stood by and allowed careless overspending seem to focus on the recent President as sole cause for their plight. Congressional leaders who sat on a high perch and did nothing to halt banking, finance and investment companies from operating far outside sound economic principles find it convenient to shift blame away from themselves. Local leaders who conduct public policy based on the philosophy that government must be involved in all aspects of private life don't seem willing to admit culpability for the economic crisis they helped create.

The old familiar admonishment of saving for a cold, rainy day evidently isn't given due consideration by many elected officials today. Now that tax revenue, at all government levels, is projected to be decreased for several fiscal quarters, that proverbial rainy day is right outside our door. Now those spendthrifts are dealing with revenue shortfalls that necessitate curtailment of of pet programs that, while "nice," aren't crucial and often without constitutional authority. What is the response at the local government levels? Shift the blame to someone else. Blame George Bush or the state governor!

Local leaders do not seem to grasp they were the ones who didn't conduct spending within the means of the people. Instead of standing up and admitting error, falling on their sword, they insist they must remain in town. Their solution usually revolves around clever language to disguise another tax increase. After all, goes their reasoning, the proposed increase is so paltry it may go unnoticed. Why would any right-thinking citizen, they ask themselves, object to paying just a little more money for additional taxes? After all, the additional program will be used for yet another "wouldn't it be nice" program. Wouldn't it be "nice" if the people begin to insist our elected officials conduct public policy affordable by the people?

Presidents Nixon and Bush made mistakes. So have other men who have held that office. It isn't reasonable to expect perfection from any leader, in any office. To affix blame for constructive purposes, to identify past error to avoid future error, should be bi-partisan in scope. Playing the old shill game with blame becoming the hidden pea is another partisan political ploy too many office holders use to hide their selfish motives and irresponsible behavior.

Some Things Can't Be Given Away

Have you tried to give anyone something they don’t want or appreciate? A few years ago, my wife sacked a few tomatoes and assorted peppers and headed across the street to bequeath a small portion of home-grown bounty to our neighbor. After being told, “No thanks, we don’t eat much produce,” by the lady of the house, my gift-toting wife returned home astonished by that unexpected response to an offer to share what is considered valuable in her hierarchy of edibles. It’s tough to give someone something they don’t want.

I recall agrarian peasants of Quang Ngai Province, Vietnam, who had the same regard for American soldiers and our gifts as the neighbor lady demonstrated for garden produce. Those rural people simply didn’t want what we were offering. Many Vietnamese farmers were content with life as long as they remained safe from war, had betel nut to chew or an adequate supply of whatever it was they smoked that brought euphoria to their demeanor. What’s important to one person may not matter to the neighbor across the street or someone in a different part of the world.

Apparently Vietnamese peasants didn’t understand what U.S. policymakers were talking about when democracy was discussed. I don’t think they had much interest in any form of government as long as they could do those things that held meaning for them. Capitalism was a remote concept to people who were concerned with feeding their families and working their paddies. Our notion of democracy was equally theoretical and vague. It’s a waste of time to wrangle about philosophical and political matters with a hungry man. Talk of personal freedom or a free-market economy didn’t generate excitement or loyalty toward anything America had to offer.

Many Vietnamese accepted and benefited from material goods Americans gave away, but bangles and beads didn’t gain their confidence or allegiance. After years of death, destruction and deficit spending, the hearts and minds of Vietnamese people remained where they had been before Americans were sent to save them from their brothers and sisters who lived in North Vietnam.

When Iraq is compared to Vietnam there is one common thread that may yield disappointment and eventual failure for America as we try to give the Iraqis a chance to live as free people. It seems Iraqis display the same lack of excitement concerning our assistance, our gift, in gaining their freedom as did the Vietnamese. If freedom is desired by the majority of Iraqis, where’s their passion? Where are their freedom fighters? Where is the underground movement to resist invasion by terrorists who are sworn enemies of freedom? When will the actions of Iraqis begin to reflect an appreciation for our sacrifice to help them achieve freedom from madness? When will we have reason to feel good about what we have offered Iraq?

It seems if the Iraqis were excited about establishing a freer order, now would be the strategic time to stand and be counted on the side of justice. What will happen when American warriors are no longer being killed in Iraq? When Iraqis are finally called to govern and defend themselves, we’ll know if our costly gift has been accepted or rejected. I remain fearful of that verdict.

Have we tried to give something that isn’t wanted? There are transferable possessions that lend themselves to being given away but freedom can’t be included on that menu. In the end, for freedom to gain a foothold, those who could free themselves must express and defend their will to live free. We cannot and will not “make” the Iraqis a free people. Only the Iraqis can achieve and ensure freedom for themselves. The Iraqis must determine what they are willing to sacrifice to implement and maintain a free society. Just like all people who have chosen freedom over oppression, the Iraqis will be called upon to defend what has value for them.

The U.S. and allies have sacrificed lives of young soldiers and spent billions of dollars in an attempt to offer a mode of living that may not be meaningful to the beneficiary. If freedom matters to them, it’s time for the Iraqis to become fervent about their prospects for liberty. It’s time for the Iraqis, from all social and economic classes, to assume responsibility for their future. It’s time for the Iraqis to embrace the gift or say, “No thanks,” and accept bondage of another fanatical Islamic regime.

Something From Nothing?

Why do we believe what we believe? Can we prove, empirically, what we believe is true? If one searching for truth can't comprehend an offered belief, then confusion, doubt and resignation to acceptance of popular theories, without further examination of logic, may result.

Not unlike humankind throughout the ages, I've been contemplating ideas concerning creation. How was this vast realm of the cosmos brought into being? When I pause to to admire the beauty and wonder of our planet, I find it difficult to believe everything came about without the will and power of something beyond my ability to fully comprehend.

Contemplation led me to read "A Short History of Nearly Everything" , Broadway Books, 2003, by Bill Bryson. Throughout this book, the reader is likely to discover fascinating information presented by Bryson. The author offers information that seeks to explain how we came into being. Bryson galvanized my interest when he wrote, page 10, "And so, from nothing our universe begins."

What is nothing? If there was nothing, what was there? What is darkness? What is cold or hot? What was the source, the initial energy, the proton, the spark, the dust that began the universe? Where is "where" if there is no where? Doesn't something coming from nothing fly in the face of scientific logic? I cannot fathom how anything can come from nothing. It seems something has to present to bring about anything.

The quandary Bryson generated led me to read "Cosmos", Random House, 1980, by Carl Sagan. On page 246, Dr. Sagan states, "Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened---the Big Bang, the event that began our universe." Something, at some time, happened. But how did that something happen?

On page 257, Dr. Sagan poses questions that crystallize my quest: "If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course, ask where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable why not save a step and decide that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude the universe has always existed?"

Rick Gore, writing in the June 1983 edition of National Geographic, stated on page 710, "Conclusion: Our observable universe began at a finite time in the past in a hot explosion---the big bang."

I have not read any serious scientific offerings that do not refer to the Big Bang as the origin of the universe. When we attempt to understand what was going on before the bang, we find ourselves left to our own beliefs. Scientists cannot tell us what they cannot fathom. When asked what caused those variables to come together at a precise moment, theoreticians, brilliant as they are, cannot answer that question.

Perhaps the answer comes down to a matter of belief. Perhaps, "In the beginning..." is the most reliable explanation. Science can take it from there to explain the natural world and bring about further advances to mankind.

Intelligent Design verses Evolution is a long-standing, hotly debated subject in many Letters to the Editor columns and in assemblies of civil government. School boards often grapple with curricular matters concerning textbooks that present the "Big Bang" as explanation for creation. It seems logical there was a "bang". We just don't know, for sure, who or what brought it about. Perhaps the "bang" material should be given credence up to the point where it cannot explain how the miraculous event occurred. Tell it like it is, without embellishment. We should not attempt to explain what isn't knowable. "Big Bang" advocates should not be offended when they are asked about the origin of that spark that brought the universe into being. Fair question.

What have I learned from search of this material? I remain temporally in awe of stars and planets. What wonder they behold and present to even the casual observer. The learned people who pursue these questions as their life's work through physics, astronomy, mathematics, biology and related sciences are to be admired by the lay reader. Do I believe it "all" came "from nothing" as my references explained? No. It is not reasonable for me to posit nothingness as the source for anything. There had to be something to bring about something. From where did the spark that caused the "bang" originate from? Many may continue to denigrate Intelligent Design studies and, thus, disregard the most logical answer to the question of creation. As Albert Einstein stated, "God Almighty does not throw dice."

Investigate the Investigators

Senator Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.) stated he is contemplating steps to investigate agencies of the Bush Administration to ferret-out criminal activity. Efforts to uncover those who consider themselves above the law deserve the support of working-class Americans. While Sen. Leahy is formulating his strategy to comb through departments that catch his eye, perhaps he will turn his attention to members of Congress who beg scrutiny for our financial crisis.

Who investigates Congress? Did members of the Senate and House act in the best interest of America by writing laws and regulations that contributed to our banking and financial woes? Whom do we hold accountable for regulations that enabled mortgages to be written on inflated property values? What piece of legislation permitted borrowers to sign for payments beyond their financial means? Who voted for laws that, in effect, encouraged fraud? What were members of banking and finance committees doing if not overseeing the laws and regulations they created? Did they not see what was going on with lending and with the re-sale of bundled mortgages? Why didn't members of Congress exercise closer supervision over Treasury and, subsequently, the SEC? Americans should not accept the mealy-mouthed excuse from Congress that "it was the bureaucrat's faulty implementation of our sound, well-intentioned policies." Political bi-partisanship, while a worthy goal, should not be used as crutch to conceal wrongdoing. Americans deserve to know what went wrong and who is responsible for decisions and policies that brought us to the brink of economic catastrophe. Perhaps Rep. Barney Frank, (D-MA), and his fellow-members of the House Financial Services Committee, should lead the way by conducting an internal investigation of themselves.

To blow the whistle that would prevent someone from buying his or her dream house would not be popular with the electorate in some quarters. To say "no" is not politically correct even when acquiescence may lead to personal and national financial ruination. Many borrowers who now find themselves in a financial bind probably wish, all too late, someone had put the brakes on irresponsible practices. Sure, greedy borrowers share responsibility for their calamity. These same people, however, are paying the price for negligence as they suffer loss and foreclosure. Many Congressional officeholders, it seems, embrace measures that enhance re-election regardless of consequences. To curtail reckless mortgage activity by predatory lenders might have received adverse publicity back home. The desire for a reputation as a progressive leader led too many to goose-step to the tune of liberalism. As a result, greed for political power trumped what was best for Americans. Apparently, some members of Congress believe sound lending parameters must include those financially ineligible. What makes economic sense in Washington often proves to be irrational and reckless to Americans who go to work each day. The most costly toxic entry on our economic ledger may be the U.S. Congress.

If we are to seek transparency and accountability from one government branch or department, it seems reasonable we should be obligated to seek the same clarity from all concerned. Members of Congress are not to escape accountability for what they did or failed to do. We should be suspicious of finger pointing when that finger is pointing in one political direction. Too many members of Congressional banking and finance committees were mute while they idly allowed evisceration of sane financial regulations. Those same members now wear the stench of foreclosures, bankruptcies, collapsing markets, public suspicion and raging unemployment on their crisp white shirts and custom-tailored frocks. These people should be so ashamed of themselves that they would cower at any hint of seeking re-election.

Sen. Leahy should be encouraged to hold hearings to uncover wrongdoing in Washington. Investigate the Bush Administration but do not ignore the possible culpability of Congress. Congress needs to clean its own house and expose members who are incompetent, lazy, stupid or those who do not care about anything except keeping their job.

Americans deserve to know who is at fault for conditions we now suffer. Americans should demand accountability and the truth and not listen to those who bluster, pose and try to shift the blame for fraud to the unknowable realm. We, the people, should not allow Congress room for excuses. We must demand answers from our government. Elected and appointed employees, along with Wall Street schemers, need to understand the American people can always find money to build a new wing on federal prisons to house criminals who once wore white shirts.