To read the tribute to SFC Marcus Muralles, please click here
Wednesday, August 03, 2005
Staying Fit is a Bad Thing?
I guess it is, according to the DNC. According to a "fact sheet" they put out after the White House announcement that President Bush is in "superior" physical condition, the President's personal priorities and national priorities are... at odds.
BUSH ROLLING BACK ATHLETIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN
Well, that's the end of the "fact sheet." Now let's look at a few comparisons, shall we?
When President Clinton was in office, he tried to be a jogger (that one time he jogged into a McDonalds to get a Big Mac). His lack of a fitness program resulted in open heart surgery last year. He was a partier, even while in office.
In contrast, President Bush is needled on a regular basis for his lifestyle- he's a teetotaler, goes to bed early, and he exercises six days a week.
We know that kids pay attention to who's in the White House, and, in some way, emulate that person. They were obviously paying attention to President Clinton because after his time in office, when teens were asked about... um... well... oral sex, they said that it wasn't sex.
When it comes down to it, who would you rather have your children looking up to- the junk food junkie or the fitness freak?
The White House this weekend announced that President Bush received good news during his annual physical. Doctors pronounced the President to be in "superior" physical condition, which media reports attributed to his rigorous, six day a week exercise routine. While President Bush has made physical fitness a personal priority, his cuts to education funding have forced schools to roll back physical education classes and his Administration's efforts to undermine Title IX sports programs have threatened thousands of women's college sports programs.Last school year, in the boys' PE class, they learned how to dance. If that's the kind of physical education our schools are offering, feel free to cut away!!!
"President Bush's has dropped the ball when it comes to fully funding physical education in public schools and women's athletic programs at the college level," said Democratic National Committee spokesman Josh Earnest. "His personal habits indicate that physical fitness is not just fun and games for him. Don't our kids deserve the same opportunities to be physically fit? President Bush should stop running from his responsibility and make sure that all American children have access to physical fitness programs."Last time I checked, all American children do have access to physical fitness programs. It's not their fault that the PC, touchy-feely crowd have added so much other crud to the school day and so many constraints on what they can do that kids are reduced to silly games during PE. Get rid of the junk, and you'd have time to play dodgeball. Oh, wait... can't play that- too mean. Kickball? Softball? Nope- no competition- it's hurts their self-image. Oh, well... a waltz, anyone?
BUSH IN SUPERIOR HEALTH, BUT AMERICA'S YOUTH NOTThey're right- there are a lot of chubby kids in our country. But don't blame the President. Blame it on parents who don't boot the kids out the door and say "play! run! do SOMETHING!" Blame it on parents who buy processed junk food for the little cherubs to snack on instead of healthy snacks. Blame it on parents who don't take the time to make healthy meals and instead hit fast food drive-throughs (or "family restaurants with portions large enough to feed a small army). Blame it on parents who park their rears in front of the tube or the computer instead of providing a positive example for their kids.
Doctors gave President Bush a clean bill of health in his annual checkup this weekend and White House spokesperson Dana Perino proclaimed him to be "in superior health." However, America's youth are not so lucky. While obesity has been declared an epidemic in this country, Bush's education policy is putting children at risk with cuts in physical education and school athletic programs.
BUSH CUTTING PHYSICAL EDUCATION PROGRAMSSimple question. How much does a kick ball cost? Maybe a basketball, a volleyball, some nets? Not $18.4 million. What could they possibly be spending it on?
Bush's 2006 Budget Cut Physical Education By 25 Percent. Bush's 2006 budget request cut physical education funding for students in kindergarten through twelfth grade by $18.4 million. The 2006 cut is the "first year of a 2-year phase out of the program in order to redirect resources to higher-priority activities" according to the
Department of Education. (U.S. Department of Education)
School Systems Nationwide Forced To Implement Pay-To-Play Athletic Programs. USA Today surveyed state high school sports associations and found 34 states in which associations say at least some school districts are charging students to play sports. Pay-to-play fees have cropped up or ballooned at schools in Alaska, Ohio, Massachusetts, Michigan, Kansas and other states. The fees grew from $75 to $250 in one Massachusetts school district two years ago. (Indianapolis Star, 5/2/05; USA Today, 7/30/04)OK... I sort of have a problem with this. If possible, the school should pay the majority of the cost for team sports. BUT, that being said... the athletic department budget shouldn't be more than the combined budgets for several other departments. They don't need state-of-the-art weight rooms. They don't need astroturf on the football fields. They don't need brand new equipment every year. And they don't need federal funding to have a sports team. What they do need is to stop being spoiled brats.
BUSH ROLLING BACK ATHLETIC OPPORTUNITIES FOR WOMEN
Bush Weakened Title IX Rules. The Bush Administration's Education Department quietly issued a new clarification of the regulations interpreting Title IX. The new rules allow colleges to demonstrate that they are satisfying the demand for women's sports with an online survey showing that female students have no unmet sports interests. Even if the non-response rate is high in the survey, non-response is to be interpreted as a lack of interest according to the Education Department. (New York Times, 3/23/05)Um... non-response is a lack of interest. If they cared, they would have responded, right?
NCAA President Says Rules Could "Reverse the Progress Made Over the Last Three Decades." "NCAA President Myles Brand joined in condemning the guidelines, saying they could 'reverse the progress made over the last three decades.' He added his disappointment that officials issued the clarification 'without benefit of public discussion and input.'" (Los Angeles Times, 3/23/05)
Bush Recommended Undermining Title IX Rules In 2002 As Well. In June 2002, Bush's Education Secretary Roderick Paige created the Commission on Opportunity in Athletics to review Title IX, the federal law that has expanded athletic opportunities for women and girls for 30 years by barring sexual discrimination. This January the commission came back with recommendations that would ease the regulations of Title IX. A statement by the National Women's Law Center opposed the Bush Commission's proposals, "Some have characterized the Commission's long list of proposed changes as minor and moderate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Make no mistake about it. If accepted by the Bush Administration, the Commission's proposals would dramatically reduce the sports participation opportunities and scholarships to which women and girls are entitled under the law." (Washington Post, 6/27/02; New York Times, 1/31/03; NWLC Statement, 2/5/03, http://www.nwlc.org)The Federal government shouldn't be paying for men's or women's athletics in the first place. In the second place, the NWLC would probably like it if all funding for men's sports was redirected to women's sports, so they're not really what I'd call ojective. Third... if colleges would do a better job marketing women's athletics, then they might have more money for women's sports and no longer need to rely on the government (who shouldn't be funding them in the first place).
CHILDHOOD OBESITY SKYROCKETINGInstead of blaming the President on the skyrocketing rate of childhood obesity, let's blame who's responsible- the parents (with the help of McDonalds, Microsoft and Sony). It's simple math- you give your kids junk food and then let them sit around on the game station of their choice all day, you will have fat kids. Not "big boned." Not "husky." Not "hefty." FAT. Less offensive names doesn't change what it is.
The Rate Of Childhood Obesity Has Skyrocketed In Recent Years. The rate of childhood obesity has skyrocketed in recent years, and more than 9 million children over age 6 are now considered overweight. The rapid rise has alarmed public health experts, because overweight children are far more likely to develop health problems. Currently, the U.S. government estimates that 30 percent of the nation's kids are overweight or on their way to being too heavy. Nearly twice as many children and three times as many teens are overweight now compared to two decades ago. (Washington Post, 10/1/04; USA Today, 6/4/04; Greensboro News & Record, 3/21/04)
Well, that's the end of the "fact sheet." Now let's look at a few comparisons, shall we?
When President Clinton was in office, he tried to be a jogger (that one time he jogged into a McDonalds to get a Big Mac). His lack of a fitness program resulted in open heart surgery last year. He was a partier, even while in office.
In contrast, President Bush is needled on a regular basis for his lifestyle- he's a teetotaler, goes to bed early, and he exercises six days a week.
We know that kids pay attention to who's in the White House, and, in some way, emulate that person. They were obviously paying attention to President Clinton because after his time in office, when teens were asked about... um... well... oral sex, they said that it wasn't sex.
When it comes down to it, who would you rather have your children looking up to- the junk food junkie or the fitness freak?
