Thursday, April 2, 2009
More on the iPod
We've got another day of testing at school today so hang with me; I'll be back to frequent posting soon!
It's not that the testing part is so time consuming, really. There's nothing very difficult about proctoring a test. But after the test, the second half of the day, my sophomores seem to think that they should have "free day" and not have to do classwork. Plus, we are still about 10 or 12 days away from spring break, and we are all ready for that. Trust me, I haven't planned anything so rigorous in the afternoon that they should worry. But neither should they expect to just sit there like rocks for a 40 minute class period. So, that was what took all my energy yesterday afternoon.
"What do you mean we have to work?! Why can't we have a free day?"
At any rate, I'm trying to keep up with the news while all of this is going on. I posted (like almost everyone else) about the iPod thing. The issue with the iPod, it seems to me, is this. It comes on the heels of the gift-gaffe with the Prime Minister (the DVD idea was weak and then they weren't even the right format for European players), and the return of the Winston Churchill bust. But this is the Queen of England. How about we give her something uniquely American? Professor William Jacobson raises China issue, as well. A valid point, to be sure.
I'll give credit where credit is due - the rare songbook was lovely. But why pile the arrogance on top of that with an iPod loaded with BHO speeches? Yes, it also had video of her visits to the US. And the Queen already has an iPod (couldn't his internet savvy people have picked up on that?). I go back to what I said last night. Tacky. But, it was a little better thought out than the Brown gift (by virtue of the songbook), so I'll rein in - a little.
On another note, Michael G. Franc has an article at NRO this morning comparing Obama to Huey P. Long. Here's a sample:
"Long’s critique of the Depression-era status quo strikes familiar chords: The wealthiest 2 percent of Americans owned 60 percent of the nation’s wealth, he argued. Equity dictated that these riches be spread far and wide, so that it might be spent by the poor (thereby stimulating the economy) rather than hoarded by the rich. Sound familiar?"
It's worth reading.
Meanwhile, I'll be holding the fort with my sophomores. Wish me luck.