There’s been quite a brouhaha today on how the Bush campaign has “politicized” 9/11 in its new ad campaign.
I don’t think that showing an image or two of the momentous event is, in and of itself, “heinous.” [Though it is notable that Bush will show 9/11 body bags in his commericals, yet refuses to allow the media to show body bags coming back from Iraq.] The attacks have shaped the presidency for the past 2 1/2 years and commercials can reflect that.
The real outrage, which the media should be hammering, is Bush’s continued stonewalling of the 9/11 commission. Here we have a candidate trying to portray himself as a “steady” leader who is attempting to weasel out of any accountability whatsoever for his actions. That’s what people should really be talking about.

The NCAA is investigating alleged rules violations by former coach Jim Harrick and his son at the University of Georgia. In response, UGA has released 1,500 pages of evidence. Included in the document dump is this final 2001 exam for a course entitled “Coaching Principles and Strategies of Basketball,” taught by Jim Harrick, Jr. It’s a toughie. This is my favorite question:

How many points does a 3-point field goal account for in a basketball game?

And people say they’re not student athletes.

Looks like they’ve upgraded their weaponry from almanacs:

The FBI is warning that terrorists could potentially use pens filled with cartridges of poison as weapons, according to an FBI bulletin obtained by Fox News.
A pen gun is a small-caliber, single shot weapon that resembles a fountain pen.
In its weekly bulletin to law enforcement agencies throughout the country, the FBI said that bullet cavities of pen guns could be filled with poisonous chemicals or biological toxins, including cyanide, mercury, arsenic and ricin.

But don’t go into hiding in the bunker just yet:

“The FBI possesses no information indicating that chemical pen guns are currently being used or will be used in terrorist operations in the United States; however, law enforcement agencies should remain alert to the potential use of such devices,” the FBI said in the notice.

By the way, are pen guns weapons of mass destruction? Better check the PATRIOT Act.

Executive branch rule making in action:

The administration yesterday announced a major change in federal sex-discrimination rules that would give communities more freedom to offer same-sex schools and classes.
In the first major change in the 30-year-old federal Title IX regulations banning sex discrimination, Education Secretary Rod Paige said states and schools would have “maximum flexibility to … provide the best education possible for their students.”
Instead of narrow exemptions allowing same-sex classes for physical education, sex education and choir, the new rules would “provide educators and parents with a wider range of diverse education options in public as well as private schools that receive federal aid.”
Generally, same-sex schools and classes would be allowed in any situation “if they are part of an even-handed effort to provide a range of diverse educational options for male and female students, or if they are designed to meet particular, identified educational needs of students,” said a department statement about the proposed changes.

I’m not up on the academic literature on how the impact a same-sex environment has on learning; intuitively, I could accept the argument that it may be somewhat helpful. But you have to balance this against obvious risks: (1) potential for waste with the duplication of resources for both sexes; (2) danger that “even-handed” might not be equal–girls, for instance, might be offered a more “domestic” curriculum while guys get trade-focused stuff; and (3) the socialization issues which may arise if youth don’t have sufficient interaction with the opposite sex.
The latter factor resonates on a personal level for me. I attended a small private boarding high school. The school was co-educational, but it had severe restrictions on social interaction between genders. For instance, mixed seating was only allowed one meal per day in the cafeteria, males and females had designated areas on campus which were “off limits” to the opposite sex, and the limited social interaction which was allowed was strictly supervised.
It was quite strange. Suffice it to say I didn’t view sexual segregation as a very healthy way to develop as a teenager. Hence I’m naturally suspect of this whole same-sex educational philosophy.

Sometimes we need reminded of this, but there are some people to the right of President Bush who don’t have their way. For instance, some Texans are still fussing over then-Governor Bush’s 2000 campaign decision to remove Confederate items from the Texas Supreme Court:

Still angry that Bush in 2000 ordered the removal of Civil War memorabilia from the Texas Supreme Court when he was governor � but also the presumed GOP presidential nominee � local members of the Sons of Confederate Veterans are suing the state. And, in a recent flurry of telephone calls and meetings, they are urging their counterparts throughout the South to use the presidential campaign to blame Bush for abandoning Dixie.
. . .
The plaques outside the Supreme Court chamber included images of the rebel flag and quoted Robert E. Lee praising the bravery of Texas soldiers. On June 9, 2000, Bush aides quietly replaced the plaques with a new sign containing no Confederate symbols and stating: “The courts of Texas are entrusted with providing equal justice under the law regardless of race, creed or color.”
At the time, Bush was preparing the battlefield for the 2000 general election and seeking to counter his refusal earlier that year to take sides in a similar flap during the South Carolina Republican primary.
In that campaign, Bush refused to join his presidential rival Sen. John McCain in condemning the flying of the Confederate flag above the State Capitol in Columbia. Appealing to Confederate sympathizers helped Bush win South Carolina, overcoming McCain’s earlier victory in the New Hampshire primary and serving as a turning point in the 2000 GOP nomination race.
After securing the nomination, Bush needed to reach beyond the conservative voters in Republican primaries. Removing the Confederate plaques in a Texas public building did the trick. The NAACP and other anti-Confederate groups around the country praised the move.

Funny that it took the governor five years to become troubled by the Confederate memorabilia. Anyway, the episode reveals Bush political expediency at work.
Eric Alterman was on C-SPAN the other morning and observed that Bush’s conservative agenda was subject to being bent by the political winds with two exceptions: that which benefits (1) wealthy campaign donors and (2) the religious right. I think he’s correct; it’s hard to think of any examples where he’s gone against either of those groups.