Indiana Gazette from Indiana, Pennsylvania • 2

Viewpoint You don't know what you're backing By BILL THOMPSON Fort Worth Star-Telegram It's awfully difficult these days to find someone who is willing to defend Bill Clinton. Columnist Molly Ivins gave it a shot the other day. Democratic political consultant Bob Squier put in a pro-Clinton pitch on the "Today" show. Clinton's mother took time out from celebrating her 70th birthday to predict that her son will rise from the ashes. There is no substitute for a mother's love.

But let's face it: Except for Mom, Hillary, some card-carrying Friends of Bill and the occasional renegade opinionizer, Clinton apologists are few and far between. Defending Clinton is a tough job. But not, I submit, because the president and his programs are indefensible. On the contrary, I think the country ought to give Clinton's proposals a try; if Clintonomics doesn't work, we can ship Slick Willie back to Arkansas and try Doleonomics or Kemponomics the next time around. the problem with trying to defend Clinton and his policies is that it's hard' to from one day to the next precisely what it is you're defending.

Should we be gung-ho for Clinton's plan to allow gays in the military? Well, sure until Clinton decides to back off a bit, at least for now. Should we jump on the bandwagon for Lani Guinier? Of course but only till Bill throws her over the side. What about the Btu tax? Should we go to war over that? Absolutely but bring along a white flag, just in case. I'm convinced that the main reason so many columnists and commentators have no use for Clinton is this: If you write a column in support of some position the president takes on Monday, there's an even-money chance he'll reverse himself on Tuesday, leaving you and your support 10 miles up the creek. This is apparently the sort of thing George Bush was talking about when he charged during the 1992 presidential campaign that Clinton would "turn the White House into the waffle To commentators and just plain citizens who demand political consistency and ideological purity from their politicians, Bill Clinton is a nightmare.

The only thing that is 100 percent consistent about Clinton is his yearning for pizza and Big Macs. No doubt about it, Clinton's inclination to change his mind is infuriating to those who believe that a president should choose a position and stick to it until hell freezes over. On the other hand, what's so bad about a quarterback who is willing to dump the prepared play and call an audible at the line of scrimmage? Clinton's detractors call it waffling, indecisiveness, lack of courage. Why couldn't it be seen as adaptability? Look at that headline on the front page of USA Today: "Clinton flexible on tax See? You thought he was wishy-washy. Turns out he's flexible.

What's wrong with being flexible? Somebody wrote of George Bush that he held no principles strong enough to break, which was true. But Bush had a stubborn streak that often passed for principle. This made him look tough sometimes. It also caused the ent to go down with the ship not because it was the right thing to do, but because he was too obstinate to admit he was sinking. Clinton would rather grab the first life raft that comes along and hope that he can survive to fight another day.

Clinton didn't cut and run on controversial appointee Lani Guinier. He simply cut his losses. Adherence to principle is a good thing; stubbornness is self-destructive. It made good sense for Clinton to back away from the gays-in-the-military issue, to dump Guinier, to be "flexible" on his tax plan. Clinton is a pragmatist; he believes it is better to get something done than to get nothing done.

The press and public have been judging Clinton on his day-to-day performance, and he's had some ugly days. But Clinton is making decisions based on the long haul. And that's exactly what he's supposed to do. Modest proposal to save America By ANDREW J. GLASS Cox News Service WASHINGTON By all accounts, the wedding of Masako Owada, the Harvard-educated career gal, to Prince Naruhito, the heir to the Chrysanthemum Throne, proved to be a big hit in Japan.

Can this marriage be used to save President Clinton? Just look at the common threads. Before the royal couple got hitched, the mood in Tokyo was, if possible, even more sour than the mood in Washington today. Japan badly needed a lift. The long-running Japanese boom had run of out of sake. Cops were banging down the doors of Japanese pols and seizing the gold bars that they had taken on the take.

Meantime, even a U.S. Air Force major general feels free to accuse the president (his boss) of having a shady past. Over on Capitol Hill, members of the Black Caucus see Clinton as shifty schemer. More broadly, a new Street Journal poll shows that three out of five Americans rate the president as an underachiever. But the same survey holds out a faint ray of hope for the White House.

People seem ready to upgrade their views of Clinton i if he can show them that he can learn from his early flubs. To grab the brass ring, the president must think big. After all, he got to where he is today mainly because enough folks viewed George Bush a nice guy who, sadly, had run of ideas. Since then, Bill Clinton has shown he's an idea-mad policy wonk whose policies aren't wonking. As Vladimir Lenin might have put it, what is to be done? As it happens, we can look to both Moscow and Tokyo for pointers.

Boris Yeltsin wants to tear up the old Soviet Constitution and start anew. The delegates working on a new draft in the late Moscow spring see themselves as being in the same mold as our Founding Fathers. The American Constitution has worked pretty well for more than 200 years. In all that time, it has only had to be changed 27 times. And only one of those changes, which made it a crime to drink booze, had to be yanked.

Now, for the good of our country, perhaps the time has come to make yet another change. One approach under active study here would have the Clintons move out of the White House into a nice flat at, say, the Watergate housing complex. Of course, the president would get to keep his job. As part of the deal, reporters would stop trying to nail the Clintons, who would then be free to do their thing. Why? Because they would be far too busy covering the new queen who had moved into the White House in their place.

Naturally, as the world's leading democracy, Americans would be asked to elect their new monarch. That campaign should prove to be lively and diverting event. And, after that, just think of all the possibilities. Maybe in time the queen would pick a mate. The audience for their wedding would, no doubt, easily top the 1 billion or so TV viewers around the world who tuned in Crown Princess Masako as "virtual It's a fair bet that the doings of the U.S.

queen and her consort would keep the press corps more than occupied while Clinton went about his duties, much as prime ministers do in other less blessed lands. If, once in a while, the president fell down on the job, it would be no big deal. For, as during the lost Reagan era, the country would once more feel good about itself. Andrew J. Glass is chief of the Cox Newspapers Washington Bureau.

The Gazette wants to be the friend of every want to build up, not tear down; to help, not reference to race, religion or politics. Our cause The Indiana Gazette man, the promulgator of all that's right, to hinder; and to assist every worthy will be the broadening and bettering a welcome guest in the home. We person in the community without of the county's interests. Indiana Gasette 1890 Monday, June 14, 1993 Page 2 Byrd pushes Senate's first charge WASHINGTON In a year when the halls of Congress echo with shouts of "change," at least one member of the Senate's Old Guard wants his colleagues to remember the analogy of the coffee cup and the saucer. Senate President pro tempore Robert C.

Byrd, recently reminded us of the conversation between George Washington Thomas Jefferson to illustrate what's wrong with the institution he has served for more than 33 years. As he relates it, the House of Representatives is the cup, where emotions, like the proverbial coffee, are hot and action can often be swift and reactionary. The Senate is the saucer, where the product has a chance to cool down. "(The Senate) is supposed to be a forum of debate, and a forum in which a subject can be studied, debated, told amended, maybe In killed," Byrd us recently. testimony before the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress last February, Byrd put it even more succinctly: "The Senate has lost its soul." This was supposed to be a watershed year for congressional Democrats, especially committee chairmen, who have spent the past dozen years pitted against Republican presidents.

The Democrats control both houses of Congress, and have one of their own in the White House. Lawmakers were falling over each other to declare an end to "politics as usual." Candidate Clinton won rousing applause at the Democratic National Convention by declaring war on the "brain-dead politics of Capitol Hill." The goblins Washington By JACK ANDERSON DALE VAN ATTA United Feature Syndicate Merry-Go-Round of gridlock were supposed to be defeated at last. Where does Byrd fit into this picture? Senators from both sides of the aisle, as well as current and former staffers, suggest that Byrd is a victim of a crisis of confidence not in the Clinton administration, but in the place he loves more than anything else: the U.S. Senate. In the telegenic, hyperkinetic world of 1990s Washington, Byrd may be at once a reminder of the past and a harbinger of things to come.

Some Byrd intimates describe him as "really unhappy" and "emotionally down" at the beginning of the current legislative session. Like most people who try to psychoanalyze Byrd, our sources insisted on anonymity. No political figure at once elicits the combination of fear and respect that greets any questions about the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Even the greenest Capitol Hill freshmen know that the only thing more powerful than Byrd's control over discretionary domestic spending read, highways is his memory. It's a memory strengthened by discipline and fertilized by decades of self-education.

In the midst of his Senate chores and a reading list packed thick with ancient philosophers, Byrd has also found the time to pen a two-volume account of Senate history. Now he finds himself in a political climate where progress no longer seems to be measured by the quality of the laws that pass, but by the speed with which Congress can get its work done. "The Founding Fathers did not have in mind making this Senate an smoothly operating piece of legislative machinery," Byrd told us. "It was meant to slow down the process." In the course of a 90-minute interview, Byrd returns fre- Rethink what we teach our students By GARY M. GALLES Los Angeles Daily News LOS ANGELES We are in the graduation season, when famous people or generous donors are paid to address a new group of graduates with not necessarily untrue platitudes about the future and their role in it.

While the best of these speakers may both provide some real insight and put on a good show for the new graduates and their families, few of those newly minted degree-holders will remember what was said past their graduation party. Unfortunately, the same thing is also true of much that they have been taught in their years in the classroom. In an era when everyone complains about education and most seem to have a plan to reform it, understanding this issue is crucial. The fact that many students do not know a great deal even after being certified as graduates sometimes results from not being taught enough (such as "Mathematics Appreciation," graded solely on attendance and a term paper about a famous mathematician, satisfying the mathematics requirement at a major university). However, students typically must learn a lot to earn their degree.

The essential problem for most is that much of what was learned was soon forgotten. In considering useful education reforms, we must remember that what students do not retain is of limited social value. Therefore, we must in turn remember that students' desire to learn and remember what they are taught dominates educational results. If they believe what they are taught isn't worth remembering, no content reforms can stem "the rising tide of mediocrity" we were warned about a decade ago in the national report, "A Nation at Risk." Students won't remember such training, however costly and exten- YOU GOT ANYTHING quently to the theme of change vs. continuity.

And as the joint committee hears testimony and studies ways for Congress to reform its process one proposal wants to eliminate the Appropriations Committee altogether Byrd has a prescription that many senators perhaps do not wish to hear. "When I came here, we worked five days a week, and not infrequently on Saturdays. One could expect votes anytime during the week, unless a member died," Byrd told our associate Jan Moller. "We (senators) get paid well, and the people think we're overpaid. We need to spend more time here working.

It's not the quality of life that's important, it's the quality of While Byrd rails against some of the changes his colleagues seek to make in the way his Senate conducts business, he knows that some things will soon be the same as they always were. As soon as the Senate passes Clinton's budget package and the reconciliation period ends, appropriations season will once again be upon us. That's when Byrd takes over the reins. The same senators who have shown up on television time and again preaching fiscal conservatism and railing against the power of the pork barrel will once again be sending him friendly letters begging money for their pet projects back home. The federal credit cards may be maxed out, but that hasn't dampened the Senate's appetite for government dollars to bring home to constituents.

It's a ritual that's as old as the Senate itself. It's a ritual that Robert C. Byrd knows better than anyone else. sive, even if they are forced to pass classes in it to graduate. The sad fact is that many students suffer from what might best be termed academic bulimia learning what is necessary to pass their required tests, then quickly purging themselves of that unwanted information, leaving little to show for a huge educational investment of time, effort and resources.

Having decided that much they are being taught does not merit retention, they do what it takes to look good on their transcripts without cluttering their minds with all the "useless" things they learned in the process. The binge-purge cycle of academic bulimia permeates our educational system. You see it everywhere: in assignment procrastination and last-minute cramming; in constant pleas for ever more information and sample questions about exam material (primarily to establish what is safe not to know); in reviews sessions full of unprepared students trolling for test hints and a "Reader's Digest" condensed synopsis of what the book, had they read it, and classroom discussions, had they listened, would have taught them; in widespread cheating; in a thriving market for purchased "research" papers; in fraternity files of old tests and papers; etc. What can be done beyond blaming students and cursing the intellectual darkness? Before spending billions giving students more to learn and forget, ask why they place such a low value on what they are taught. Any first classroom demonstrates that students begin school eager to learn.

From this auspicious start, our educational system has years to convince students of the value (or lack thereof) of what is being taught. If, as a result, students conclude that most of what they are taught is not valuable enough, then there are two basic possibilities: Either they are right, and the key to better results is a re-examination of what is taught and why; or they are wrong, but the system fails to demonstrate its worth, and the key to improvement is a re-examination of how well we "sell" its importance to students. But both possibilities reflect failures in education, not inherent intellectual disinterest by students. As we continue to search for ways to get better results from our several hundred billion dollar annual education investment, we need to rethink how much of what we force students to master (if only long enough to regurgitate it once) is both valuable enough to be worth remembering, and clearly demonstrated as such in the classroom. If it is not valuable enough, it should not be required of students; if they can't be convinced it is worth Legislators should not bury heads Dear Editor, Five reasons why the legislature should abolish the Pennsylvania Crime Commission: 1.

There is no organized crime in Pennsylvania, 2. There is such no political cor3. Such investigations should not ruption in Pennsylvania, be independent, 4. Politicians can investigate themselves more cheaply, 5. It's always better to blame the messengers.

Hasn't anyone considered the pos- THAT ONLY KILLS OUT-OF-STATE RATS? The Indiana (Gazette remembering, requiring it will be futile. Students are interested in learning, but are unwilling to remember every word teachers say simply because they say it. That is good for education, not bad. After all, questioning the value of what is being taught reflects the sort of intellectual development that is the goal of education. We must do more of the same sort of questioning about what and how we teach, if we are to make substantial improvements.

Like good intentions, more money and more requirements alone are not enough. Gary M. Galles is an associate professor of economics at Pepperdine University in Malibu. He wrote this commentary for the opinion page of the Los Angeles Daily News. Letter sibility that the Crime Commission reports might be "too close for comfort" for some public figures? How ironic that those who control the purse strings are the same ones who could also wind up under investigation.

Why not abolish police internal affairs units at the same time? Four of the Crime Commissioners are lawyers who know that they are always subject to scrutiny by the legislature. They are aware that a serious mistake could cost them not only their positions on the panel, 1 but their legal credentials as well. It might be appropriate for a state or federal grand jury to investigate the contents of the 1992 Crime Commission report, especially at a time when so many legislators seem to be howling for Crime Commission blood. Legislators should take a serious look at the information provided by the Crime Commission. If it's all wrong, then abolish the unit.

But legislators should not act like ostriches when it comes to drug traffic, illegal gambling and racketeering in Pennsylvania. Besides, if they stick their heads in the sand, how else will they know which campaign contributions they can keep? Now that the people of Pennsylvania have voted for judicial reform, let's think about legislative reform. James L. Thompson Altoona, Pa. Rove NE The Poblisbed by THE INDIANA PRINTING I PUBLISHING COMPANY P.O.

Bor 10 Indiana, Pa. 15701 412-465-5545 Estahtished in 1890 R. HASTIE RAY Pablisher 191.3-1970 LUCY R. DONNELLY Publisher 1970-1993 JOE DONNELLY President CoMICHAEL J. DONNELLY Vice- President Co-Publisher HASTIE.

D. KINTER Secretary Assistant Treasure STACIE GOTTFREDSON Treasurer Assistant Secretary JOSEPH L. GEARY General Manager CAROL FLETCHER Director CARL A. KOLOGIE Managing Editor FRANK 8. HOOD Sunday Editor SAMUEL J.

BECHTEL Managing Editor.