March 20, 2007.  I don't usually write about politics and world affairs because there are certainly enough pundits, and they represent every inch of the opinion spectrum, from one extreme to the other and everything in between.  Still, I must comment on how inept our government has been regarding Iraq, from bad planning or lack of it before the invasion up to the present situation.  No metaphor is more apt than that of the man who, having dug himself into a hole, keeps digging deeper.

Nobody should accuse me of exercising 20-20 hindsight here.  Before the invasion, I said it was a terrible mistake, even though most of the people I knew thought it was necessary.  Before the invasion, I had no doubt that the original military victory would be swift, but I predicted that "all hell would break out" afterwards.  Since I knew little about the Middle East, I hoped that our government had information that I didn't – information that would justify this foolishness.  Unfortunately, as we now know, our leaders had no such information – only an agenda that they sold to the people and to Congress, who bought it the way gullible people buy the claims of the modern snake oil salesmen on television.   We were conned.

At the time, I also predicted that the consequences of the invasion would be bad, probably destabilizing Iraq and possibly the whole region.  I was wrong:  I never imagined that the aftermath would be as disastrous as it has been because I did not think our government could mismanage the aftermath of the original military action as badly as it did.  I thought that there must be some competent people in positions of power to gradually restore order in what I viewed as the inevitable chaos.  Wrong again – having dug the hole, the administration not only kept on digging but repeatedly denied that it was in a hole.  I expected that the reconstruction of Iraq would take a long time; I did not expect Iraq to implode as drastically as it has and that, four years into this war, we would be witnessing the destruction of Iraq.

Now that they've been hit upside the head by the two-by-four of a misconceived and mismanaged international disaster, the peace marchers are taking to the streets.  Where were they when I said that this was a serious blunder?  Now that it's obvious, even some government officials are quietly suggesting that our troops have become referees (and victims of) a civil war – finally using the correct term to describe what accounts for most of the continuing violence.  I predicted on this site (on January 4, 2006):   "Iraq will descend gradually into civil war.  Nevertheless, neither the press nor our government will call it a civil war until they have run out of euphemisms.  They will still try to change the facts by spinning them." Where were the pundits then?

In today's newspaper, the lead story reports about the continued bloodshed and bombing in Iraq (with the second lead describing local peace marches).  Meanwhile, the Iraqi prime minister makes promises of stability, and the White House keeps saying that, if we only send more troops and get Congress to spend billions more, there's light at the end of the tunnel.  That's not a tunnel, folks; that's a deep hole, and you're still digging.  Sometimes, I find it hard to sleep at night when I think about the lives being thrown away.  I don't see how the people who are perpetuating this fiasco can sleep at all.

March 22, 2007.  One of my students missed four consecutive weeks of class (the class meets once a week) out of the first seven weeks (the semester comprises fifteen weeks).  He had done no visible work since the first in-class paper.  The week before spring break, he resurfaced with some barely credible excuse, which he offered only when asked.  I cut him a huge break by telling him that he could make up missing papers during the break and e-mail them to me, and he signed up for a conference after the break to further discuss make-up work.  He did not e-mail the papers, and he did not show up for the conference – yet he appeared at the next class, offering no excuses or explanations, and handed in a paper handwritten in pencil.  This young man (he's 20 years old) has obviously not recognized that behavior that may be tolerated in high school is not acceptable in college.  He has also somehow navigated two decades of life without learning the first thing about responsibility or courtesy.

Last night, I read the paper he handed in.  It began, "In the Bibel [sic] it says . . . ." and contained at least a dozen more misspellings.  Many of the supposed sentences were fragments of the type that suggest that he doesn't really know what a sentence is.  The essay did show a spark of intelligence, making me all the more convinced that it was dashed off in a hurry.  Out of curiosity, I dug out the information sheets that students filled out at the first class.  Under the question about course of study, he had written:  "Education.  I want to teach english" (yes, he did lowercase english).

Great galloping delusions!  Well, he won't get to be an English teacher if I can help it.  However, I may not be able to prevent it.  The odds of his passing English 101 this time are rather slim, but I know that it is possible for him, next time around, to find a really easy professor who will buy his BS and pass him with a C.  He can do the same for English 102, and that (plus some other easy English class) will make him eligible for teacher certification in English if he takes the required education courses.  His spelling will remain atrocious, and he may never learn what a sentence is, but he can be an English teacher.  That's how the system works.

If it were not for the damage that he can do, I might wish that he would become a teacher.  Then he would be on the receiving end of students who cut classes and conjure up excuses, who do little of the assigned work, and who don't show up for student-teacher conferences.  Then again, perhaps that's what he hopes for.  The fewer students who attend class and do the work, the less he will have to do.  Maybe that's why he wants to be an English teacher.

March 28, 2007.  I admire an original turn of a phrase, especially one that makes me smile.  Thus, when a columnist recently referred to the federal government as "a government unencumbered by adult supervision," I appreciated the phrasing.  My appreciation isn't partisan.  I think the phrase aptly summarizes the foolishness in Washington regardless of who is in power.  Americans tend to vacillate about whether we want big government or small government, but I think we'll agree that what we really want is responsible government – and we aren't getting it.

From assorted scandals to pork-laden legislation to ridiculous discussions of matters of little consequence, elected officials often behave rather much like children who could benefit from some adult guidance and common sense.

Sometimes it seems to me that our entire society is becoming "unencumbered by adult supervision."  The desire to remain forever young is understandable, and the wish to be always young in spirit is commendable.  However, we seem to have entered a phase in which everyone wants to remain immature, with all the associated lack of responsibility and unaccountability.  Millions of chronological adults now seem to be trying to prolong adolescence until they are 30 or older.  If 50 is the new 40, it appears that 21 is becoming the new 13.

I could give examples to support this cynical view, but I don't have time at the moment.  In a few hours, I shall be off to class to teach a group of students whose average age is about 23 though many of them act as if they were still 12 years old.

April 1, 2007.  If you have any prescription medication, you may not want to read the blurb that comes with it describing side effects.  To cover themselves legally, the drug manufacturers include every remotely possible side effect.

What tickles me is that some of these warnings are rather silly.  For instance, I've seen sleeping pills labeled, "May cause drowsiness."  Well, I hope so.  A salve that a dermatologist recently prescribed for a skin rash that I have lists as possible side effects, "rash and itching."  Since I'm using it on a rash, how will I know if it's causing a rash since one is already there?  Since it is supposed to treat itching, do I really want something that has itching as a possible side effect?

Warnings on medicines also attempt to make their use idiot-proof.  Drops for ear wax removal are labeled, "Do not use in eyes."  Curiously, there's no warning about not putting the drops in one's nose or using them as seasoning on food.

Because any idiot can sue, I expect that someday almost everything will come with novel-length book of warnings about what not to do with a product.  For example, someday all microwave ovens will have warnings about not inserting explosives or putting small, live pets in there to dry.  We'll also have a host of useful suggestions, such as shoes labeled, "For best results, wear on feet."