Hot times for Canada
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Just a thought
Hey Folks –
Listening to NPR today I heard some guys talking about how Israel had secretly bombed Syria a while back (fairly old news by now) supposedly to obliterate a nookyoular facility the dreaded North Koreans had helped them build. They discussed the questionable evidence that the square building (there was a square building in North Korea too) that disappeared from commercial satellite pictures really was a nookyoular facility, and they suggested that the strike was actually intended to send “a message” to Iran.
But that wasn’t what I was interested in.
What struck me was that here these guys were, discussing that one sovereign nation had “secretly” bombed another sovereign nation, and not really much resulted from it. Is that strange? Apparently, neither Syria nor Israel, or anybody else who knew about it thought to mention it, much less raise hell about it. Hmmmm . . . it got me to thinking.
You know, it used to be that a good ol’ American could vacation in Canada at a discount. One dollar brought a lot more than one funny-looking Canadian dollar – boy!! You could play the slots forever!!
Now, those damned hockey-players are strutting around giving us only 97 of their goofy-looking cents for every one of our red-blooded greenbacks (can you say “Al Kaida-lover”?).
Well, here’s the solution: we should secretly bomb their damned mints off the face of the earth (verifiable only by commercial satellite pictures). Neither the Canadian nor American governments will mention it; things will go along as if nothing has happened, and the Canadian mints will get the message and return the exchange rate to the correct level.
Months from now those same NPR guys can consider whether the square buildings that disappeared from their Google World programs were actual government mints or just Wal-Mart stores.
In the meantime, we can start making our regular trips to Canadian casinos again, enjoying a proper, respectful exchange rate.
If not – if they are stubborn – we can always get Israel to bomb a hockey rink.
- Uke Man
Listening to NPR today I heard some guys talking about how Israel had secretly bombed Syria a while back (fairly old news by now) supposedly to obliterate a nookyoular facility the dreaded North Koreans had helped them build. They discussed the questionable evidence that the square building (there was a square building in North Korea too) that disappeared from commercial satellite pictures really was a nookyoular facility, and they suggested that the strike was actually intended to send “a message” to Iran.
But that wasn’t what I was interested in.
What struck me was that here these guys were, discussing that one sovereign nation had “secretly” bombed another sovereign nation, and not really much resulted from it. Is that strange? Apparently, neither Syria nor Israel, or anybody else who knew about it thought to mention it, much less raise hell about it. Hmmmm . . . it got me to thinking.
You know, it used to be that a good ol’ American could vacation in Canada at a discount. One dollar brought a lot more than one funny-looking Canadian dollar – boy!! You could play the slots forever!!
Now, those damned hockey-players are strutting around giving us only 97 of their goofy-looking cents for every one of our red-blooded greenbacks (can you say “Al Kaida-lover”?).
Well, here’s the solution: we should secretly bomb their damned mints off the face of the earth (verifiable only by commercial satellite pictures). Neither the Canadian nor American governments will mention it; things will go along as if nothing has happened, and the Canadian mints will get the message and return the exchange rate to the correct level.
Months from now those same NPR guys can consider whether the square buildings that disappeared from their Google World programs were actual government mints or just Wal-Mart stores.
In the meantime, we can start making our regular trips to Canadian casinos again, enjoying a proper, respectful exchange rate.
If not – if they are stubborn – we can always get Israel to bomb a hockey rink.
- Uke Man
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
How the Haves and the Have More's would have Us be.
Hey Folks -
Here's what they've been doing to us figuratively ever since the end of WW II.
“I have read in E. P. Thompson’s ‘The Making of the English Working Class’ that the first man who attempted to establish a labor union in England at the end of the 18th century was arrested, tried for sedition, found guilty, drawn and quartered in a public square by attaching draft horses to each of his arms and legs and pulling him apart. He was then disemboweled and his guts were burned. Then they hanged what was left of him. One gathers from this that the propertied classes were slow to accept the idea of organized labor.”
- Robert Hass, Washington Post September 5, 1999.
The propertied classes are slow to accept a lot of things, and they would do us all in if they didn't need us as the objects of their exploitation and the engine of their prosperity.
- Uke Man
Here's what they've been doing to us figuratively ever since the end of WW II.
“I have read in E. P. Thompson’s ‘The Making of the English Working Class’ that the first man who attempted to establish a labor union in England at the end of the 18th century was arrested, tried for sedition, found guilty, drawn and quartered in a public square by attaching draft horses to each of his arms and legs and pulling him apart. He was then disemboweled and his guts were burned. Then they hanged what was left of him. One gathers from this that the propertied classes were slow to accept the idea of organized labor.”
- Robert Hass, Washington Post September 5, 1999.
The propertied classes are slow to accept a lot of things, and they would do us all in if they didn't need us as the objects of their exploitation and the engine of their prosperity.
- Uke Man
Monday, October 29, 2007
Surprisingly, the Chickens come home to roost
Hey Folks -
The cultural myth-enforcers have been listening to themselves so long that when reality intrudes into their happy little world of make-believe they get all confused. Golly how can good, white, upper middle class schools POSSIBLY be ranked with or below the schools of the unwashed?
See their consternation displayed in the article directly below. My response to the reporter comes after that.
- Uke Man
Good schools failing feds' test
No Child downgrades some rated highly by state
Sunday, September 23, 2007
By Charlie BossTHE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
The state says Wright Elementary and Davis Middle School are high-performing.
However, under federal No Child Left Behind standards, these Dublin schools are not.
Now the district has to offer students the chance to go to a "better" school -- one where all students are successful.
Offering transfers when schools do poorly isn't new to urban schools. But rural and suburban schools have been largely untouched by the federal provisions.
"I was surprised," said Michele Compton, whose daughter is a seventh-grader at Davis. "Dublin is known for its excellent standards. When you see that, you're like, 'How can that be?' "
Schools are required to notify families of their choice options. Parents from both Dublin schools received letters last week and must notify administrators by Monday if they want a transfer.
Though Wright and Davis earned a B and A respectively on this year's state report card, some groups of students -- including those in special-education and those with limited English skills -- didn't do well on math and reading tests.
As a result, both landed on the federal "school-improvement list" -- schools that have failed for at least two years to make progress in reading and math tests.
Of 47 central Ohio schools new to the improvement list, 20 are in suburban and rural districts. And they include schools that received A's and B's in top-rated districts such as Big Walnut and Dublin.
An additional 32 schools are at risk and will have to offer transfers next year if they fail to meet targets. Half of those schools earned A's and B's this year.
All schools can be labeled for failing to meet federal goals for certain student subgroups -- which can be defined by race, gender, family income, disability status or other factors.
But buildings that get federal dollars for low-income students face consequences for continuing to miss targets.
Schools say they are working on improvement plans, adding staff members and creating after-school and mentoring programs so test-takers next spring will be ready. The challenge lies in following the federal sanctions and explaining the situation to parents, administrators said.
"The bottom line is, we are complying and we will comply," said Canal Winchester Superintendent Kimberley Miller-Smith. "We just need to have some of the regulations explained to us."
Districts such as Canal Winchester say the transfer option is not possible when there is only one building in the district that serves certain grades of students.
But Mitch Chester, who oversees testing and accountability for the state, said they can send students to high-performing neighboring districts or provide tutoring services for families.
He said charter schools, online schools and vouchers are options for parents.
Miller-Smith said administrators are still working on plans, including one that would allow parents at Indian Trail and Winchester Trail elementaries to attend higher-performing schools in a nearby district.
Both schools landed on the school-improvement list for failing to meet reading and math targets among four groups: black students, students with disabilities, the economically disadvantaged and limited-English speakers.
Tougher still is explaining how a school earning high marks from the state can get low marks under the federal standard, officials said.
"It's confusing to parents," said Paul Mathews, superintendent at Liberty Union-Thurston schools in Fairfield County. "At a certain point … it will become meaningless."
Liberty Union Elementary earned an A but must offer transfers because its special needs and low-income student groups missed goals.
Under the No Child Left Behind Act, schools must show progress until all students are successful in reading and math by 2013-14.mailto:2013-14.cboss@dispatch.com
Dear Mr. Boss,
As a long-standing critic of “Proficiency” testing and, more recently, the “No Child” approach, I’m not surprised that “good” schools are “failing to meet reading and math targets among four groups: black students, students with disabilities, the economically disadvantaged and limited-English speakers.”
The whole Ohio ‘proficiency” scheme is based on faulty notions. Testing was supposedly needed to tell where “bad” schools were so they could be improved; but we already knew where the “bad” schools were – i.e. where large groups of “black students, students with disabilities, the economically disadvantaged and limited-English speakers” were educated – i.e. where those suffering from socially, biologically, economically, and geographically inflicted deficits attend school.
Where the wealthier student population is economically segregated from the rest of us (as in suburban districts) there are only a handful of these “difficult” students compared to the large numbers in urban districts. Under the Ohio system, this small percentage of “failures” is statistically negligible. As a result – under the Ohio system – the schools we always knew were “good” remain “good,” and the schools we always knew were “bad” remain, pretty much, “bad” schools.
To put it another way, the Ohio system overlooks the “failure” of “black students, students with disabilities, the economically disadvantaged and limited-English speakers” unless they are in large groups, as in the “bad” urban districts. The Ohio system is statistically “fixed” so that influential, wealthy suburbanites feel good and disadvantaged urban districts, teachers, parents, and students are goaded into attempting miracles for thousands of students that suburban schools cannot achieve for their hundreds.
The only difference – under the Ohio approach – is that urban schools are held responsible for “failure,” while suburban schools are praised for excellence. The federal policy throws a monkey wrench into that. I find it instructive that those of us who criticized these schemes from the start as being unfair to urban districts and ill conceived have been ignored and negatively characterized. Now that the suburbs face the same problems, it’s a whole new ballgame.
I was astounded that the federal plan actually stuck to its false notion that ALL kids can achieve at the same high levels. I mistakenly expected that they would avoid the coming political storm (hinted at by the headline of your story). More surprising, though, was the apparently ignorant failure to anticipate that its policy would cause such a reaction (remember “busing” and how it never touched the suburbs?).
So, now the basic contradictions are coming to the fore. Whatever the testing programs actually are and do, they are not (and, by the force of wealthy districts, will not be) to address the needs of “black students, students with disabilities, the economically disadvantaged and limited-English speakers”; and they definitely won’t be allowed to make “good” suburban schools look "bad" for much longer.
Clearly, what is happening now as a result of “No Child” policy inadvertently demonstrates the hypocrisy and fallacy of the entire testing approach.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
As they say in Wisconsin, "Praise Cheeses !!"
Hey Folks -
The items below demonstrate a few things. One is that even the president of a statewide organization isn't necessarily very smart. Is stupidity required to join some "Christian" groups?
Mike Harden's satirical prayer (aimed at politicians and politically vocal guest-preachers) may not be reverential, but "sacrilegious"? That's defined as "grossly irreverent." I don't see it that way, even if the letter-writer does.
OK, he can see it that way, but no one is required to show the degree of reverence the "Christian" writer would like, and he admits as much, but then makes, in my opinion, a veiled threat, pointing out - as an example - the dangers to those who "cross" Muslim hardliners.
Then too, maybe his dander is up over his claim that Harden "slandered the personage of Jesus." Well, that's utter nonsense.
One can argue the degree of Harden's irreverence (moderate, gross, whatever), but where does Harden "defame" or "malign" the personage of Jesus? Or does this Christian complainer take only Biblical language literally? The word "Jesus" is used only once, and as a VERB, speaking about ministers "who would wrap themselves in the banner of faith and try to out-Jesus one another."
I can see why Mr. "Christian" wouldn't like this, but making fun of half-witted preachers hardly constitutes slandering the personage of Jesus.
Equally vacuous are the complaints that Harden "made no mention of the constitutional rights and privileges that are afforded to religious societies under our Constitution."
The piece is not about the constitution and religion. It's about politicians and preachers dancing around the arguable requirements of the constitution. It's satire, for God's sake. Can "Christians" read for understanding? must they take everything literally? Or are they just stupid?
Finally, the writer suggests that "Harden just might want to thank God that he is in a free society that allows him to write and speak as he pleases."
Well, he's got that backwards. God isn't (yet) in control of this country. Here, men and women are responsible for creating and maintaining our freedoms. Ironically, God IS in charge in the very countries the writer claims would call for Harden's death. God was in charge in colonial Salem and medieval Europe too, where people like Harden were tortured, burned, hanged and otherwise compensated for so-called "sacriliegeous" behavior.
Praise Cheeses !!
- Uke Man
Statehouse blessed by variety of prayers
Friday, October 19, 2007 3:26 AM
I respond to the Sunday Metro column "Statehouse prayer for every persuasion" by Mike Harden. As one who freely exercises his right and privilege of freedom of press, Harden ought to understand the importance of freedom of religion in this country under our Constitution.
The guest-minister prayer program is a long-standing tradition in our state. It allows for the expression of a variety of religious views representing the various denominations and religious societies in our state.
Our nation, since its inception, has honored prayer before the legislative bodies. It is an acknowledgement that religious freedom is a chief cornerstone that all free peoples enjoy and cherish. Harden's commentary indeed was sacrilegious and made no mention of the constitutional rights and privileges that are afforded to religious societies under our Constitution.
He, of course, has the same rights under our Constitution to believe as he will.
But make no mistake, if he were to write about Islam as he slandered the personage of Jesus, those nations and societies are not so tolerant, as was evidenced by author Salman Rushdie's need to flee for his life or by the backlash in the Muslim community with calls for the death of the Danish artist who created a caricature of Muhammad that many Muslims found offensive.
Harden just might want to thank God that he is in a free society that allows him to write and speak as he pleases.
CHRISTOPHER LONG, President
Ohio Christian Alliance Akron
Mike Harden commentary:
Statehouse prayer for every persuasion
Sunday, October 14, 2007 3:47 AM By Mike Harden
Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted, who is not God, is wrestling with those who claim to have a dedicated phone line to him.
In particular, Husted is washing his hands of playing prayer police for visiting clergy members who want to offer daily supplications to the almighty before a House session.
Husted does not suffer gladly those who would wrap themselves in the banner of faith and try to out-Jesus one another while condemning lap dancing unless the dancer and bar patron are on separate continents.
Ever eager to do my part, I have endeavored to write an all-purpose, inoffensive opening prayer that is both politically correct and in the best interest of politics as usual.
Let us bow our heads.
Our Father (or Mother or otherwise gender-neutral spiritual omnipresence),
Who art in heaven (or Valhalla, nirvana or any other infinite kingdom or vegan paradise where the lion shall lie down with the lamb and the chicken shall range free),
Hallowed be thy name (authorized signature or X as notarized and attested to by no fewer than two witnesses, neither of whom is permitted to be a felon and/or registered lobbyist).
Thy kingdom come (please complete and attach Prayer Amendment 637a if said kingdom differs in a spiritually material way from aforementioned heaven).
Thy will be done (except where precluded by the provisions of any Ohio House or Senate bill, act, resolution, proclamation or group hug),
On Earth (offer not available in Massachusetts, Minnesota or California)
As it is in h eaven (failure to include pertinent copies of Amendment 637a relevant to alternate firmaments could render this prayer null and void).
Give us this day (specify month and year, and make sure to check all applicable boxes)
Our daily bread (tofu, rice cakes or any other staff-of-life equivalent in compliance with the federal free or reduced-price school lunch program. Please note: Goat heads excluded).
And forgive us our sins (except in the case of the Ohio General Assembly, whose sins are already self-forgiven by virtue of sovereign immunity)
As we forgive those who sin against us (unless they are a member of the opposing political party, in which case, oh Lord, we beseech thee to jab them in the eye with a white-hot weenie fork).
And lead us not into temptation (as state legislators, we are capable of finding it on our own).
But deliver us from evil (including the great Satans of lobbyists or lap dancers or lobbying lap dancers).
For thine is the kingdom (domain, province or other spiritual fiefdom against which no financial encumbrances or IRS liens exist)
And the power (though not to supersede that vested in the speaker of the House, minority whip, chairs of all standing committees and subcommittees and sergeants-at-arms)
And the glory (but enough about us, how do you like Speaker Husted's new hairstyle?)
Forever (or until the state of Ohio enacts an equitable public-school-funding formula)
And ever (this clause added by the Ohio Department of Redundancy Department).
Amen.
Retired columnist Mike Harden writes a Sunday Metro column.
mharden@dispatch.com
The items below demonstrate a few things. One is that even the president of a statewide organization isn't necessarily very smart. Is stupidity required to join some "Christian" groups?
Mike Harden's satirical prayer (aimed at politicians and politically vocal guest-preachers) may not be reverential, but "sacrilegious"? That's defined as "grossly irreverent." I don't see it that way, even if the letter-writer does.
OK, he can see it that way, but no one is required to show the degree of reverence the "Christian" writer would like, and he admits as much, but then makes, in my opinion, a veiled threat, pointing out - as an example - the dangers to those who "cross" Muslim hardliners.
Then too, maybe his dander is up over his claim that Harden "slandered the personage of Jesus." Well, that's utter nonsense.
One can argue the degree of Harden's irreverence (moderate, gross, whatever), but where does Harden "defame" or "malign" the personage of Jesus? Or does this Christian complainer take only Biblical language literally? The word "Jesus" is used only once, and as a VERB, speaking about ministers "who would wrap themselves in the banner of faith and try to out-Jesus one another."
I can see why Mr. "Christian" wouldn't like this, but making fun of half-witted preachers hardly constitutes slandering the personage of Jesus.
Equally vacuous are the complaints that Harden "made no mention of the constitutional rights and privileges that are afforded to religious societies under our Constitution."
The piece is not about the constitution and religion. It's about politicians and preachers dancing around the arguable requirements of the constitution. It's satire, for God's sake. Can "Christians" read for understanding? must they take everything literally? Or are they just stupid?
Finally, the writer suggests that "Harden just might want to thank God that he is in a free society that allows him to write and speak as he pleases."
Well, he's got that backwards. God isn't (yet) in control of this country. Here, men and women are responsible for creating and maintaining our freedoms. Ironically, God IS in charge in the very countries the writer claims would call for Harden's death. God was in charge in colonial Salem and medieval Europe too, where people like Harden were tortured, burned, hanged and otherwise compensated for so-called "sacriliegeous" behavior.
Praise Cheeses !!
- Uke Man
Statehouse blessed by variety of prayers
Friday, October 19, 2007 3:26 AM
I respond to the Sunday Metro column "Statehouse prayer for every persuasion" by Mike Harden. As one who freely exercises his right and privilege of freedom of press, Harden ought to understand the importance of freedom of religion in this country under our Constitution.
The guest-minister prayer program is a long-standing tradition in our state. It allows for the expression of a variety of religious views representing the various denominations and religious societies in our state.
Our nation, since its inception, has honored prayer before the legislative bodies. It is an acknowledgement that religious freedom is a chief cornerstone that all free peoples enjoy and cherish. Harden's commentary indeed was sacrilegious and made no mention of the constitutional rights and privileges that are afforded to religious societies under our Constitution.
He, of course, has the same rights under our Constitution to believe as he will.
But make no mistake, if he were to write about Islam as he slandered the personage of Jesus, those nations and societies are not so tolerant, as was evidenced by author Salman Rushdie's need to flee for his life or by the backlash in the Muslim community with calls for the death of the Danish artist who created a caricature of Muhammad that many Muslims found offensive.
Harden just might want to thank God that he is in a free society that allows him to write and speak as he pleases.
CHRISTOPHER LONG, President
Ohio Christian Alliance Akron
Mike Harden commentary:
Statehouse prayer for every persuasion
Sunday, October 14, 2007 3:47 AM By Mike Harden
Ohio House Speaker Jon Husted, who is not God, is wrestling with those who claim to have a dedicated phone line to him.
In particular, Husted is washing his hands of playing prayer police for visiting clergy members who want to offer daily supplications to the almighty before a House session.
Husted does not suffer gladly those who would wrap themselves in the banner of faith and try to out-Jesus one another while condemning lap dancing unless the dancer and bar patron are on separate continents.
Ever eager to do my part, I have endeavored to write an all-purpose, inoffensive opening prayer that is both politically correct and in the best interest of politics as usual.
Let us bow our heads.
Our Father (or Mother or otherwise gender-neutral spiritual omnipresence),
Who art in heaven (or Valhalla, nirvana or any other infinite kingdom or vegan paradise where the lion shall lie down with the lamb and the chicken shall range free),
Hallowed be thy name (authorized signature or X as notarized and attested to by no fewer than two witnesses, neither of whom is permitted to be a felon and/or registered lobbyist).
Thy kingdom come (please complete and attach Prayer Amendment 637a if said kingdom differs in a spiritually material way from aforementioned heaven).
Thy will be done (except where precluded by the provisions of any Ohio House or Senate bill, act, resolution, proclamation or group hug),
On Earth (offer not available in Massachusetts, Minnesota or California)
As it is in h eaven (failure to include pertinent copies of Amendment 637a relevant to alternate firmaments could render this prayer null and void).
Give us this day (specify month and year, and make sure to check all applicable boxes)
Our daily bread (tofu, rice cakes or any other staff-of-life equivalent in compliance with the federal free or reduced-price school lunch program. Please note: Goat heads excluded).
And forgive us our sins (except in the case of the Ohio General Assembly, whose sins are already self-forgiven by virtue of sovereign immunity)
As we forgive those who sin against us (unless they are a member of the opposing political party, in which case, oh Lord, we beseech thee to jab them in the eye with a white-hot weenie fork).
And lead us not into temptation (as state legislators, we are capable of finding it on our own).
But deliver us from evil (including the great Satans of lobbyists or lap dancers or lobbying lap dancers).
For thine is the kingdom (domain, province or other spiritual fiefdom against which no financial encumbrances or IRS liens exist)
And the power (though not to supersede that vested in the speaker of the House, minority whip, chairs of all standing committees and subcommittees and sergeants-at-arms)
And the glory (but enough about us, how do you like Speaker Husted's new hairstyle?)
Forever (or until the state of Ohio enacts an equitable public-school-funding formula)
And ever (this clause added by the Ohio Department of Redundancy Department).
Amen.
Retired columnist Mike Harden writes a Sunday Metro column.
mharden@dispatch.com
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Cord Camera Contest
Hey Folks -
My photo didn't win this week either. Three more weeks and entries to go.
Pee Wee, Popeye, and Dad are confident about their chances, but we'll see.
- Uke Man
see the winners at: http://www.cordcamera.com/
My photo didn't win this week either. Three more weeks and entries to go.
Pee Wee, Popeye, and Dad are confident about their chances, but we'll see.
- Uke Man
see the winners at: http://www.cordcamera.com/
Friday, October 26, 2007
Screw Charity
Hey Folks –
Oscar Wilde said:
“We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the
best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient,
and rebellious. They are quite right to be so.”
That may seem strange if perceived via the conventional wisdom, but Wilde’s wisdom was anything but conventional.
All our lives we have been led to look favorably upon “charity.” In my Catholic grade school we regularly were called upon to donate our nickels to “The Missions” to help the primitive foreigners around the world. So common was the “call” that I told friends the nuns had installed machinery in the hall to, without warning, grasp our ankles, turn us upside down, and shake the lunch money out of our pockets – harvesting salvation for the savages.
Even Mark Twain, a Protestant, and much older now than I, was not exempt:
“ ...the true statesman does not despise any wisdom howsoever lowly may be its origin: in my boyhood I had always saved pennies, and contributed buttons to the foreign missionary cause. The buttons would answer the ignorant savage as well as the coin, the coin would answer me better than buttons; all hands were happy, and nobody hurt.”
----------- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
The idea seemed to be that we, who were “blessed,” would all throw in our “widow’s mite” and help raise up those damned by fortune and/or the invisible hand of the market. It made us feel good; we were doing our part to make a better world (or at least supporting nuns, priests, and ministers in their efforts to get women of color to wear brassieres).
Of course there were philanthropists grander than we: Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Cecil Rhodes – the generous captains of industry. Such giants walk among us today helping the needy with their largess, continuing the selfless practice of their classic role models. So what’s Wilde talking about? Why should the poor be “ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious”? Why are they “quite right to be so”?
The answer is quite simple, actually, but growing up within the conventional Western wisdom, it is obscured and escapes us. It is this:
The reason there are poor people to whom the wealthy can grant charity is that the wealthy exploit poverty and the impoverished in order to become wealthy. They are so successful at this that they are able to grant a bit out of their surplus (after all, how much can they spend on themselves and their loved ones?) to those they have exploited. And just as with my 5th grade self, they can feel good about helping make a better world – except that it is a world they have played a major part in degrading.
So, it should be clear what Wilde is talking about. People reject “charity.” People want to make their own way in the world; and when the hand that keeps them down offers a bone to “help them out” of a situation the “philanthropist” has himself created, an honorable person should be “ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious,” and is “quite right to be so.”
At the same time, charity is not entirely compatible with democracy. The wealthy work overtime – largely through the Republican party right now – to argue against a governmental role in serving the people. The line is that government screws everything up, that everyone should take care of themselves, and anything needing extra attention can be handled by charity.
Why is this undemocratic? Well, instead of the people determining who is assisted, a small group of the privileged decide for themselves and their private interests – one dollar, one vote – and they get a tax break for deciding how the rest of their countrymen will fare. You can bet that anyone not particularly helpful to the elite agenda won’t be visited by the Wealth Fairy.
There’s more I could say, but I’ll save it for a later commentary. Except that, as you can see from the article below, a lot of the charity we might think is dispensed to the poor actually is showered by the rich on themselves (and it comes off their taxes)!!
- Uke Man
Needy get the least of charitable donations
Thursday, October 4, 2007 3:58 AM
By ROBERT REICH
This year's charitable donations are expected to total more than $200 billion -- a record. But a big portion of this impressive sum -- especially from the wealthy, who have the most to donate -- is going to culture palaces: operas, art museums, symphonies and theaters, where the wealthy spend much of their leisure time.
It's also being donated to the universities they attended and expect their children to attend, perhaps with the added inducement of knowing that these schools often practice a kind of affirmative action for "legacies."
I'm all in favor of supporting the arts and our universities, but let's face it: These aren't really charitable contributions. They're often investments in the lifestyles the wealthy already enjoy and want their children to have, too. They're also investments in prestige, especially if they result in the family name being engraved on the new wing of an art museum or symphony hall.
It's their business how they donate their money, of course. But not entirely. Charitable donations to just about any not-for-profit organization are deductible from income taxes.
This year, for instance, the U.S. Treasury will be receiving about $40 billion less than it would if the tax code didn't allow for charitable deductions. That's about the same amount the government now spends on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is what remains of welfare. Like all tax deductions, this gap has to be filled by other tax revenues or by spending cuts, or else it just adds to the deficit.
I see why a contribution to, say, the Salvation Army should be eligible for a charitable deduction. It helps the poor. But why, exactly, should a contribution to the already extraordinarily wealthy Guggenheim Museum or to Harvard University, which already has an endowment of more than $30 billion?
Awhile ago, New York's Lincoln Center had a gala supported by the charitable contributions of hedge-fund industry leaders, some of whom take home $1 billion a year. I might be missing something, but this doesn't strike me as charity. Poor New Yorkers rarely attend concerts at Lincoln Center.
It turns out that only an estimated 10 percent of all charitable deductions are directed at the poor. So here's a modest proposal. At a time when the number of needy continues to rise, when government doesn't have the money to do what's necessary for them and when America's very rich are richer than ever, we should revise the tax code to focus the charitable deduction on real charities.
If the donation goes to an institution or agency set up to help the poor, the donor gets a full deduction.
If the donation goes somewhere else -- to an art palace, a university, a symphony or any other nonprofit -- the donor gets to deduct only half of the contribution.
Robert Reich, author of Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life, was secretary of Labor under President Clinton. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.
Oscar Wilde said:
“We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the
best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient,
and rebellious. They are quite right to be so.”
That may seem strange if perceived via the conventional wisdom, but Wilde’s wisdom was anything but conventional.
All our lives we have been led to look favorably upon “charity.” In my Catholic grade school we regularly were called upon to donate our nickels to “The Missions” to help the primitive foreigners around the world. So common was the “call” that I told friends the nuns had installed machinery in the hall to, without warning, grasp our ankles, turn us upside down, and shake the lunch money out of our pockets – harvesting salvation for the savages.
Even Mark Twain, a Protestant, and much older now than I, was not exempt:
“ ...the true statesman does not despise any wisdom howsoever lowly may be its origin: in my boyhood I had always saved pennies, and contributed buttons to the foreign missionary cause. The buttons would answer the ignorant savage as well as the coin, the coin would answer me better than buttons; all hands were happy, and nobody hurt.”
----------- A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
The idea seemed to be that we, who were “blessed,” would all throw in our “widow’s mite” and help raise up those damned by fortune and/or the invisible hand of the market. It made us feel good; we were doing our part to make a better world (or at least supporting nuns, priests, and ministers in their efforts to get women of color to wear brassieres).
Of course there were philanthropists grander than we: Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Cecil Rhodes – the generous captains of industry. Such giants walk among us today helping the needy with their largess, continuing the selfless practice of their classic role models. So what’s Wilde talking about? Why should the poor be “ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious”? Why are they “quite right to be so”?
The answer is quite simple, actually, but growing up within the conventional Western wisdom, it is obscured and escapes us. It is this:
The reason there are poor people to whom the wealthy can grant charity is that the wealthy exploit poverty and the impoverished in order to become wealthy. They are so successful at this that they are able to grant a bit out of their surplus (after all, how much can they spend on themselves and their loved ones?) to those they have exploited. And just as with my 5th grade self, they can feel good about helping make a better world – except that it is a world they have played a major part in degrading.
So, it should be clear what Wilde is talking about. People reject “charity.” People want to make their own way in the world; and when the hand that keeps them down offers a bone to “help them out” of a situation the “philanthropist” has himself created, an honorable person should be “ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious,” and is “quite right to be so.”
At the same time, charity is not entirely compatible with democracy. The wealthy work overtime – largely through the Republican party right now – to argue against a governmental role in serving the people. The line is that government screws everything up, that everyone should take care of themselves, and anything needing extra attention can be handled by charity.
Why is this undemocratic? Well, instead of the people determining who is assisted, a small group of the privileged decide for themselves and their private interests – one dollar, one vote – and they get a tax break for deciding how the rest of their countrymen will fare. You can bet that anyone not particularly helpful to the elite agenda won’t be visited by the Wealth Fairy.
There’s more I could say, but I’ll save it for a later commentary. Except that, as you can see from the article below, a lot of the charity we might think is dispensed to the poor actually is showered by the rich on themselves (and it comes off their taxes)!!
- Uke Man
Needy get the least of charitable donations
Thursday, October 4, 2007 3:58 AM
By ROBERT REICH
This year's charitable donations are expected to total more than $200 billion -- a record. But a big portion of this impressive sum -- especially from the wealthy, who have the most to donate -- is going to culture palaces: operas, art museums, symphonies and theaters, where the wealthy spend much of their leisure time.
It's also being donated to the universities they attended and expect their children to attend, perhaps with the added inducement of knowing that these schools often practice a kind of affirmative action for "legacies."
I'm all in favor of supporting the arts and our universities, but let's face it: These aren't really charitable contributions. They're often investments in the lifestyles the wealthy already enjoy and want their children to have, too. They're also investments in prestige, especially if they result in the family name being engraved on the new wing of an art museum or symphony hall.
It's their business how they donate their money, of course. But not entirely. Charitable donations to just about any not-for-profit organization are deductible from income taxes.
This year, for instance, the U.S. Treasury will be receiving about $40 billion less than it would if the tax code didn't allow for charitable deductions. That's about the same amount the government now spends on Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which is what remains of welfare. Like all tax deductions, this gap has to be filled by other tax revenues or by spending cuts, or else it just adds to the deficit.
I see why a contribution to, say, the Salvation Army should be eligible for a charitable deduction. It helps the poor. But why, exactly, should a contribution to the already extraordinarily wealthy Guggenheim Museum or to Harvard University, which already has an endowment of more than $30 billion?
Awhile ago, New York's Lincoln Center had a gala supported by the charitable contributions of hedge-fund industry leaders, some of whom take home $1 billion a year. I might be missing something, but this doesn't strike me as charity. Poor New Yorkers rarely attend concerts at Lincoln Center.
It turns out that only an estimated 10 percent of all charitable deductions are directed at the poor. So here's a modest proposal. At a time when the number of needy continues to rise, when government doesn't have the money to do what's necessary for them and when America's very rich are richer than ever, we should revise the tax code to focus the charitable deduction on real charities.
If the donation goes to an institution or agency set up to help the poor, the donor gets a full deduction.
If the donation goes somewhere else -- to an art palace, a university, a symphony or any other nonprofit -- the donor gets to deduct only half of the contribution.
Robert Reich, author of Supercapitalism: The Transformation of Business, Democracy, and Everyday Life, was secretary of Labor under President Clinton. He wrote this for the Los Angeles Times.
Thursday, October 25, 2007
The GOPs of Betrayal
Hey Folks –
If Rudi Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, The Columbus Dispatch could end up in a bind. In its sensational series on pedophilia in the schools, "ABCs of Betrayal," it stated, or elicited statements that declared, among other things, that:
every school “harbors” a child abuser
teachers support child abusers
teachers’ unions support child abusers
supporting child abusers is as bad as being an abuser
those who support due process are as bad as the abuser (they don’t care about kids)
child molesters too often escape punishment or get only a slap on the wrist
Well, in an ABC story we discover that Rudi Giuliani qualifies, in every respect, to feel the ire of The Columbus Dispatch.
He hired an abuser.
He supports the abuser.
He’s as bad as the abuser.
He supports due process for the abuser (he doesn’t care about kids)
His child-molesting friend has escaped punishment.
In my lifetime the Dispatch has never endorsed a Democrat for President. If Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, what ever will they do??
(I think I know. Hint: they don’t care about kids - unless it would help bash teachers and their unions)
- Uke Man
p.s. the story below aired Oct. 23, and as far as I can tell, as of now there has been NOT ONE WORD of it in the Columbus Dispatch.
Giuliani Defends, Employs Priest Accused of Molesting Teens
transcript from the video at: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385
When presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani traveled to Rome in January, he was accompanied by wife Judith and longtime friend Monsignor Alan Placa, an accused child molester. (Foedus Foundation)
By BRIAN ROSS and AVNI PATEL Oct. 23, 2007
Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani hired a Catholic priest to work in his consulting firm months after the priest was accused of sexually molesting two former students and an altar boy and told by the church to stop performing his priestly duties.
Giuliani and the Priest
The priest, Monsignor Alan Placa, a longtime friend of Giuliani and the priest who officiated at his second wedding to Donna Hanover, continues to work at Giuliani Partners in New York, to the outrage of some of his accusers and victims' groups, which have begun to protest at Giuliani campaign events.
"This man did unjust things, and he's being protected and employed and taken care of. It's not a good thing," said one of the accusers, Richard Tollner, who says Placa molested him repeatedly when he was a student at a Long Island, N.Y. Catholic boys high school in 1975.
At a campaign appearance in Milwaukee last week, Giuliani continued to defend Placa, who he described to reporters as a close friend for 39 years.
"I know the man; I know who he is, so I support him," Giuliani said. "We give some of the worst people in our society the presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt," he said. "And, of course, I'm going to give that to one of my closest friends."
The accusations against Placa were made in testimony before a Suffolk County grand jury in 2002.
Tollner, now a mortgage broker in Albany, N.Y., says he was one of three people to testify about Placa.
"This man harmed children. He still could do it. He deserves to be shown for what he was, or is," says Tollner.
Appearing publicly for the first time today on ABC News' "Good Morning America," Tollner says the abuse started when he and Placa were in the high school making posters for a Right to Life march.
"As he started to explain how these posters should be done, I realized that something was rubbing my body," Tollner said. "After a minute or two, I realized that he's feeling me, feeling me in my genital area."
The grand jury report concluded that a Priest F, who Tollner says is Placa, abused the boys sexually "again and again and again."
"Priest F was cautious, but relentless in his pursuit of victims. He fondled boys over their clothes, usually in his office," the report said.
The report concluded that Priest F, and several other priests under investigation from the same Long Island, N.Y. diocese, could not be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired.
Several former students from the same high school say they were asked by the "Giuliani organization" to contact ABC News and vouch for Placa.
"There was absolutely not a hint of rumor of a speculation or a whisper, in four years, or in decades after of any sexual predatoriness on the part of Rev. Placa," wrote Matthew Hogan in an e-mail to ABCNews.com.
Hogan says he recalls that Placa did give "special attention" to his former schoolmate Richard Tollner and remembers seeing Tollner in Placa's office "laughing, on opposite sides of a desk with Mr. Tollner happily animated sitting up on the couch talking."
But Hogan says the school area where Tollner says he was molested "was CONSTANTLY trafficked even on off days and hours."
"I will gladly help take apart in public anything that seriously overlooks the above. I'll be watching The Blotter like a hawk," Hogan wrote.
In addition to the allegations that Priest F was personally involved in the sexual abuse, the grand jury also said that Priest F became instrumental in a church policy that used "deception and intimidation" to keep the church scandal quiet.
Placa served as a lawyer for the diocese in dealing with allegations of abuse against other priests and, according to the grand jury report, claimed he had saved the church hundreds of thousands of dollars in his handling of possible litigation.
Lawyers for alleged victims say Placa would often conduct interviews, in his priest garb, without making it clear he was the church lawyer.
"He was a wolf in sheep's clothing," said Melanie Little, a lawyer for several alleged victims of sexual abuse by other priests in the diocese.
"He was more concerned with protecting the priests, protecting the reputation of the diocese and protecting the church coffers than he was protecting the children," said Little.
Since going to work for Giuliani Partners, the former mayor and the priest have continued to be close.
Placa accompanied Giuliani and his wife Judith on a trip to Rome earlier this year.
Through a spokeswoman at Giuliani Partners, Sunny Mindel, Placa declined requests to comment on the allegations to ABCNews.com.
Mindel also declined to specify what Placa does for the firm or how much he is paid.
If Rudi Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, The Columbus Dispatch could end up in a bind. In its sensational series on pedophilia in the schools, "ABCs of Betrayal," it stated, or elicited statements that declared, among other things, that:
every school “harbors” a child abuser
teachers support child abusers
teachers’ unions support child abusers
supporting child abusers is as bad as being an abuser
those who support due process are as bad as the abuser (they don’t care about kids)
child molesters too often escape punishment or get only a slap on the wrist
Well, in an ABC story we discover that Rudi Giuliani qualifies, in every respect, to feel the ire of The Columbus Dispatch.
He hired an abuser.
He supports the abuser.
He’s as bad as the abuser.
He supports due process for the abuser (he doesn’t care about kids)
His child-molesting friend has escaped punishment.
In my lifetime the Dispatch has never endorsed a Democrat for President. If Giuliani gets the Republican nomination, what ever will they do??
(I think I know. Hint: they don’t care about kids - unless it would help bash teachers and their unions)
- Uke Man
p.s. the story below aired Oct. 23, and as far as I can tell, as of now there has been NOT ONE WORD of it in the Columbus Dispatch.
Giuliani Defends, Employs Priest Accused of Molesting Teens
transcript from the video at: http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3753385
When presidential hopeful Rudy Giuliani traveled to Rome in January, he was accompanied by wife Judith and longtime friend Monsignor Alan Placa, an accused child molester. (Foedus Foundation)
By BRIAN ROSS and AVNI PATEL Oct. 23, 2007
Presidential candidate Rudolph Giuliani hired a Catholic priest to work in his consulting firm months after the priest was accused of sexually molesting two former students and an altar boy and told by the church to stop performing his priestly duties.
Giuliani and the Priest
The priest, Monsignor Alan Placa, a longtime friend of Giuliani and the priest who officiated at his second wedding to Donna Hanover, continues to work at Giuliani Partners in New York, to the outrage of some of his accusers and victims' groups, which have begun to protest at Giuliani campaign events.
"This man did unjust things, and he's being protected and employed and taken care of. It's not a good thing," said one of the accusers, Richard Tollner, who says Placa molested him repeatedly when he was a student at a Long Island, N.Y. Catholic boys high school in 1975.
At a campaign appearance in Milwaukee last week, Giuliani continued to defend Placa, who he described to reporters as a close friend for 39 years.
"I know the man; I know who he is, so I support him," Giuliani said. "We give some of the worst people in our society the presumption of innocence and benefit of the doubt," he said. "And, of course, I'm going to give that to one of my closest friends."
The accusations against Placa were made in testimony before a Suffolk County grand jury in 2002.
Tollner, now a mortgage broker in Albany, N.Y., says he was one of three people to testify about Placa.
"This man harmed children. He still could do it. He deserves to be shown for what he was, or is," says Tollner.
Appearing publicly for the first time today on ABC News' "Good Morning America," Tollner says the abuse started when he and Placa were in the high school making posters for a Right to Life march.
"As he started to explain how these posters should be done, I realized that something was rubbing my body," Tollner said. "After a minute or two, I realized that he's feeling me, feeling me in my genital area."
The grand jury report concluded that a Priest F, who Tollner says is Placa, abused the boys sexually "again and again and again."
"Priest F was cautious, but relentless in his pursuit of victims. He fondled boys over their clothes, usually in his office," the report said.
The report concluded that Priest F, and several other priests under investigation from the same Long Island, N.Y. diocese, could not be prosecuted because the statute of limitations had expired.
Several former students from the same high school say they were asked by the "Giuliani organization" to contact ABC News and vouch for Placa.
"There was absolutely not a hint of rumor of a speculation or a whisper, in four years, or in decades after of any sexual predatoriness on the part of Rev. Placa," wrote Matthew Hogan in an e-mail to ABCNews.com.
Hogan says he recalls that Placa did give "special attention" to his former schoolmate Richard Tollner and remembers seeing Tollner in Placa's office "laughing, on opposite sides of a desk with Mr. Tollner happily animated sitting up on the couch talking."
But Hogan says the school area where Tollner says he was molested "was CONSTANTLY trafficked even on off days and hours."
"I will gladly help take apart in public anything that seriously overlooks the above. I'll be watching The Blotter like a hawk," Hogan wrote.
In addition to the allegations that Priest F was personally involved in the sexual abuse, the grand jury also said that Priest F became instrumental in a church policy that used "deception and intimidation" to keep the church scandal quiet.
Placa served as a lawyer for the diocese in dealing with allegations of abuse against other priests and, according to the grand jury report, claimed he had saved the church hundreds of thousands of dollars in his handling of possible litigation.
Lawyers for alleged victims say Placa would often conduct interviews, in his priest garb, without making it clear he was the church lawyer.
"He was a wolf in sheep's clothing," said Melanie Little, a lawyer for several alleged victims of sexual abuse by other priests in the diocese.
"He was more concerned with protecting the priests, protecting the reputation of the diocese and protecting the church coffers than he was protecting the children," said Little.
Since going to work for Giuliani Partners, the former mayor and the priest have continued to be close.
Placa accompanied Giuliani and his wife Judith on a trip to Rome earlier this year.
Through a spokeswoman at Giuliani Partners, Sunny Mindel, Placa declined requests to comment on the allegations to ABCNews.com.
Mindel also declined to specify what Placa does for the firm or how much he is paid.
Mission Accomplished
Well Folks -
That The Dispatch knew what it was doing with their recent "ABCs of Betrayal" series is clearly shown in a response they received Oct. 23. The writer, and probably a large number of similarly obtuse dolts believe they have had all their Republican/business/Right-Wing prejudices and fears reinforced and justified.
I've included the letter directly below - followed by my never-to-be-published response.
- Uke Man
'Betrayal' series wake-up call for parents
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
To the Editor,
I write as a public-school teacher and former union member turned stay-at-home mom to thank The Dispatch for running the Oct. 14-17 series, "The ABCs of Betrayal." It was well-done, and I hope it serves as a wake-up call to those who don't take this problem seriously.
The majority of teachers are involved in education for the children's well-being. However, when allegations arise in school, plenty of blame seems to fall on the student. No person under the age of 18 does has the ability to discern within an adult relationship. There should be a zero-tolerance standard in place.
If teachers make a mistake once, they should lose their license permanently and should be placed on a mandatory national registry (solely to keep them from entering the classroom again) specific to those who are caught commiting their crime while in service for children, such as pastors, youth workers, day-care workers and parents. Often the victims do not understand what has happened to them until many years later. Shame and fear will silence youth.
The teachers unions are no friend to parents and students. In cases of sex abuse by a teacher, you won't find other teachers or the unions speaking out about it. The children are not paying members to the unions.
The enemy here reveals itself in silence or apathy. Parents should not trust such characteristics. The teachers-union members who stay silent and are not infuriated by such events are just as guilty as the perpetrating teacher. I was not surprised to read that the Ohio Education Association didn't see a cover-up problem.
The Dispatch series should be a call to parents to train their children to determine what is appropriate contact and communication between a teacher and student and what is not. Don't trust the schools to do this for you. Children need to be taught, unfortunately, to not thoroughly trust any adult, and to immediately report any concerns that they have. Never discount a child's behavior or words.
The system should exist on behalf of the child and not to protect a pervert's job. When push comes to shove, the pervert usually wins with a slap on the wrist, at most, and the family loses.
Public schools are becoming invalid as they become unsafe places to send our children. Make no mistake that every district harbors these criminals in their system, whether they know it or not. Radical change is necessary, but without the involvement of quality teachers at the forefront and administrators and parents taking a stand together, it will not happen.
CRYSTAL TRAINI Grove City
To the Editor,
Having read Tuesday’s lead letter to the editor, I bet “Mission Accomplished” banners are hanging all over 34 South Third Street. “The ABCs of Betrayal” has been a resounding success.
At least one reader in the area has been convinced that a significant number of people “don’t take this problem [pedophilia] seriously,” and that instead of 99.9% of teachers caring about “children’s well-being,” only a “majority “ actually feel that way.
You have convinced her (and how many others) that “teachers unions are no friend to parents and students,” and not only the union but “other teachers” as well are unfriendly - supposedly because children don’t pay union dues. Referring to unions and “other teachers,” she asserts that the “enemy” has revealed itself. Pedophilia, if it doesn’t result from, is supported by unions and teachers
She accuses any who would not rush to judgment before the justice system has determined the truth of accusations of being “just as guilty as the perpetrating teacher,” and she doesn’t miss her opportunity to identify the dreaded Ohio Education Association as the “pervert”-protecting union she has in mind.
But it’s not just the unions. She has been convinced that public schools in general cannot be trusted, “that every district harbors these criminals” and she demands radical change.
I’d say that all the educational bogey men of the Dispatch’s political agenda have been chastised, and all of you associated with this series should be proud of yourselves.
Unless your part in getting the letter-writer to teach her children not to trust “any adult” puts a damper on your celebration.
Yours,
Tom Harker
That The Dispatch knew what it was doing with their recent "ABCs of Betrayal" series is clearly shown in a response they received Oct. 23. The writer, and probably a large number of similarly obtuse dolts believe they have had all their Republican/business/Right-Wing prejudices and fears reinforced and justified.
I've included the letter directly below - followed by my never-to-be-published response.
- Uke Man
'Betrayal' series wake-up call for parents
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
To the Editor,
I write as a public-school teacher and former union member turned stay-at-home mom to thank The Dispatch for running the Oct. 14-17 series, "The ABCs of Betrayal." It was well-done, and I hope it serves as a wake-up call to those who don't take this problem seriously.
The majority of teachers are involved in education for the children's well-being. However, when allegations arise in school, plenty of blame seems to fall on the student. No person under the age of 18 does has the ability to discern within an adult relationship. There should be a zero-tolerance standard in place.
If teachers make a mistake once, they should lose their license permanently and should be placed on a mandatory national registry (solely to keep them from entering the classroom again) specific to those who are caught commiting their crime while in service for children, such as pastors, youth workers, day-care workers and parents. Often the victims do not understand what has happened to them until many years later. Shame and fear will silence youth.
The teachers unions are no friend to parents and students. In cases of sex abuse by a teacher, you won't find other teachers or the unions speaking out about it. The children are not paying members to the unions.
The enemy here reveals itself in silence or apathy. Parents should not trust such characteristics. The teachers-union members who stay silent and are not infuriated by such events are just as guilty as the perpetrating teacher. I was not surprised to read that the Ohio Education Association didn't see a cover-up problem.
The Dispatch series should be a call to parents to train their children to determine what is appropriate contact and communication between a teacher and student and what is not. Don't trust the schools to do this for you. Children need to be taught, unfortunately, to not thoroughly trust any adult, and to immediately report any concerns that they have. Never discount a child's behavior or words.
The system should exist on behalf of the child and not to protect a pervert's job. When push comes to shove, the pervert usually wins with a slap on the wrist, at most, and the family loses.
Public schools are becoming invalid as they become unsafe places to send our children. Make no mistake that every district harbors these criminals in their system, whether they know it or not. Radical change is necessary, but without the involvement of quality teachers at the forefront and administrators and parents taking a stand together, it will not happen.
CRYSTAL TRAINI Grove City
To the Editor,
Having read Tuesday’s lead letter to the editor, I bet “Mission Accomplished” banners are hanging all over 34 South Third Street. “The ABCs of Betrayal” has been a resounding success.
At least one reader in the area has been convinced that a significant number of people “don’t take this problem [pedophilia] seriously,” and that instead of 99.9% of teachers caring about “children’s well-being,” only a “majority “ actually feel that way.
You have convinced her (and how many others) that “teachers unions are no friend to parents and students,” and not only the union but “other teachers” as well are unfriendly - supposedly because children don’t pay union dues. Referring to unions and “other teachers,” she asserts that the “enemy” has revealed itself. Pedophilia, if it doesn’t result from, is supported by unions and teachers
She accuses any who would not rush to judgment before the justice system has determined the truth of accusations of being “just as guilty as the perpetrating teacher,” and she doesn’t miss her opportunity to identify the dreaded Ohio Education Association as the “pervert”-protecting union she has in mind.
But it’s not just the unions. She has been convinced that public schools in general cannot be trusted, “that every district harbors these criminals” and she demands radical change.
I’d say that all the educational bogey men of the Dispatch’s political agenda have been chastised, and all of you associated with this series should be proud of yourselves.
Unless your part in getting the letter-writer to teach her children not to trust “any adult” puts a damper on your celebration.
Yours,
Tom Harker
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Photo Contest - Part 3
Hey Folks -
As expected, I didn't make the cut with my first two submissions, but the Uke Man trudges on.
(You can see the twenty winners from the first two weeks at: http://www.cordcamera.com/ - look in the upper right corner for "Give It a Shot" in blue and "View the Photo Contest" in orange)
Here's my third (three to go) submission.
- Uke Man
As expected, I didn't make the cut with my first two submissions, but the Uke Man trudges on.
(You can see the twenty winners from the first two weeks at: http://www.cordcamera.com/ - look in the upper right corner for "Give It a Shot" in blue and "View the Photo Contest" in orange)
Here's my third (three to go) submission.
- Uke Man
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Pay no attention to the smoke behind the curtain !!
My Friends,
The mainstream, left-wing press has been flooding the airwaves with propaganda, claiming there are devastating fires in California!!
Yes!! The Femi-nazis, tree-huggers, Al Gore groupies, and the rest of the Wreck-America crew have been spreading nonsense about “El Nino (El Schmeenyo)” and “Santa Anna Winds” – as if the English language isn’t good enough for American television. Yes, my friends, that’s just what we need – more illegals!!! Blown in on the "Santa Anna Claus" winds !!!
These alarmists are spreading malarkey, my friends!! It's pure balderdash !! These Bush-hating liberals will do anything to con the American people into their socialistic eco- insanity !!
Yes, they will do anything to support the Algorian, Osama-Obama, Hilary-Dilary, global-schmobal-warming fantasy. Just listen to them!! "Ohhhh !! The schmobal warming is leading to terrible-schmerible fires. Lions, tigers, and bears – Oh my!!!"
Well, let me just say this, my friends: THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!! THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!
And - as night surely follows day - my friends, there can BE no fires. It's impossible!!
THERE ARE NO FIRES!! THERE ARE NO FIRES!! THERE ARE NO FIRES!! . . . (My friends)
Yes, some of these addled liberals may be setting fire to their OWN homes. Eco-terrorists may be torching the homes of honest, upright supporters of our president, but you can take it from me – take it to the bank (as they say)
my friends:
THERE ARE NO FIRES IN CALIFORNIA !!
It's just another liberal scam !!
Or I'm not
- Rush Limbaugh
The mainstream, left-wing press has been flooding the airwaves with propaganda, claiming there are devastating fires in California!!
Yes!! The Femi-nazis, tree-huggers, Al Gore groupies, and the rest of the Wreck-America crew have been spreading nonsense about “El Nino (El Schmeenyo)” and “Santa Anna Winds” – as if the English language isn’t good enough for American television. Yes, my friends, that’s just what we need – more illegals!!! Blown in on the "Santa Anna Claus" winds !!!
These alarmists are spreading malarkey, my friends!! It's pure balderdash !! These Bush-hating liberals will do anything to con the American people into their socialistic eco- insanity !!
Yes, they will do anything to support the Algorian, Osama-Obama, Hilary-Dilary, global-schmobal-warming fantasy. Just listen to them!! "Ohhhh !! The schmobal warming is leading to terrible-schmerible fires. Lions, tigers, and bears – Oh my!!!"
Well, let me just say this, my friends: THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!! THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!
And - as night surely follows day - my friends, there can BE no fires. It's impossible!!
THERE ARE NO FIRES!! THERE ARE NO FIRES!! THERE ARE NO FIRES!! . . . (My friends)
Yes, some of these addled liberals may be setting fire to their OWN homes. Eco-terrorists may be torching the homes of honest, upright supporters of our president, but you can take it from me – take it to the bank (as they say)
my friends:
THERE ARE NO FIRES IN CALIFORNIA !!
It's just another liberal scam !!
Or I'm not
- Rush Limbaugh
Monday, October 22, 2007
"They don't give a fuck about you !!"
And the sooner you find that out, the better chance you will have
I bet The Dispatch doesn't like Carlin !! (or the Uke Man)
Hey Folks -
Here's what the fucking jerks at The Columbus Dispatch know and work overtime to keep us from finding out!!
Notice the rag's recent attacks on unions, schools, and Social Security. Carlin says we aren't noticing. Are we??
You MUST hear this: "it's called 'The American Dream' because you have to be asleep to believe it" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKCnbVWZzvw
- Uke Man
Here's what the fucking jerks at The Columbus Dispatch know and work overtime to keep us from finding out!!
Notice the rag's recent attacks on unions, schools, and Social Security. Carlin says we aren't noticing. Are we??
You MUST hear this: "it's called 'The American Dream' because you have to be asleep to believe it" :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKCnbVWZzvw
- Uke Man
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Somebody tell Fat-headed Jay Leno !!
Hey Folks -
It's still OK to make fat jokes; those stupid people just don't get it that all they have to do is eat less. Just like starving people don't get it that all they have to do is eat more.
Actually, there is much more to this question of "obesity" than mean jerks like "funny-man" Leno want to admit. Some of that "much more" comes out in the news item below.
- Uke Man
Genes Might Help Drive Overeating
By Kathleen DohenyHealthDay Reporter 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
WEDNESDAY, Oct. 17 (HealthDay News) -- Chronic overeaters may have their DNA to blame, research suggests.
Scientists from the University at Buffalo say people with genetically lower levels of dopamine, a brain chemical that helps make eating and other behaviors more rewarding, may be driven to consume more food.
"We weren't studying obesity, per se, but motivation to eat. We wanted to understand how the brain regulates motivation to eat," explained study co-author Jennifer Temple, a research assistant professor of pediatrics.
Reporting in the October issue of Behavioral Neuroscience, Temple's team looked at genes associated with differences in brain activity, in particular the influence of a genetic variation linked to a lower number of dopamine D2 receptors on cells. About half the population has this variation, called the Taq1A1 allele.
According to the researchers, people with fewer of the dopamine receptors need to take in more of a rewarding substance -- such as food or drugs -- to get an effect that other people get with less.
Investigating further, the Buffalo team studied 29 obese and 45 non-obese men and women, aged 18 to 40. The researchers took DNA samples from inside each person's cheek to see if they carried the Taq1A1 variation.
"They came to the lab twice," Temple said. "The first visit, we gave them a large portion of six snack foods and told them it was a taste test. They rated the food on taste characteristics. We left the food in the room while they were completing the rating." Participants were told they could eat as much as they wanted, and the researchers took note of their intake.
On the second visit, the researchers evaluated each participant's motivation to eat. To earn a food reward, each person had to click a computer mouse 20 times. "To get more food, they had to click 40 times," Temple said. "We were looking to see how hard they were willing to work for food." The participants could choose food or the chance to read a newspaper as a reward.
"The combination of being very motivated to get food and having the genotype made people eat the most," Temple said. "We had people very high in motivation to get food who didn't have the genotype," she added, but those people still "ate less than people who were both motivated and had the [Taq1A1] genotype."
The bottom line: "A combination of [having] this genotype with being very motivated to consume food or with being obese seems to make people more prone to overeat," Temple said.
The study results do not imply that your genes doom you to obesity, however. "People who had the genotype were heavier, but there were certainly people who had the genotype who were not obese," Temple stressed.
While other research has turned up similar findings, Temple said her team looked at behaviors associated with the genotype. "Others have found that differences in the density of dopamine are associated with obesity," she noted.
In their future work, the team will use brain scans to reveal more about the relationship between the genotype and the drive toward eating.
Eventually, Temple said, the dopamine system may become a target for weight-loss therapies. For instance, drugs that affect the dopamine system, such as drugs now used for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), might help with weight-loss efforts, she theorized.
Another expert, Dr. Samuel Klein, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, said the study "addresses an important and relatively overlooked area in obesity -- the contribution of reward addiction in the regulation of food intake."
Dr. Julio Licinio, professor and chairman of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, agreed. "This really is like another piece of the puzzle, showing there is a genetic component and that those with this genotype are likely to have different weights because of the food reinforcement."
Licinio published similar research last year, in which he found that people with a particular genotype for a receptor for the brain chemical serotonin were more likely to eat red meat than those who lacked it.
It's still OK to make fat jokes; those stupid people just don't get it that all they have to do is eat less. Just like starving people don't get it that all they have to do is eat more.
Actually, there is much more to this question of "obesity" than mean jerks like "funny-man" Leno want to admit. Some of that "much more" comes out in the news item below.
- Uke Man
Genes Might Help Drive Overeating
By Kathleen DohenyHealthDay Reporter 1 hour, 45 minutes ago
WEDNESDAY, Oct. 17 (HealthDay News) -- Chronic overeaters may have their DNA to blame, research suggests.
Scientists from the University at Buffalo say people with genetically lower levels of dopamine, a brain chemical that helps make eating and other behaviors more rewarding, may be driven to consume more food.
"We weren't studying obesity, per se, but motivation to eat. We wanted to understand how the brain regulates motivation to eat," explained study co-author Jennifer Temple, a research assistant professor of pediatrics.
Reporting in the October issue of Behavioral Neuroscience, Temple's team looked at genes associated with differences in brain activity, in particular the influence of a genetic variation linked to a lower number of dopamine D2 receptors on cells. About half the population has this variation, called the Taq1A1 allele.
According to the researchers, people with fewer of the dopamine receptors need to take in more of a rewarding substance -- such as food or drugs -- to get an effect that other people get with less.
Investigating further, the Buffalo team studied 29 obese and 45 non-obese men and women, aged 18 to 40. The researchers took DNA samples from inside each person's cheek to see if they carried the Taq1A1 variation.
"They came to the lab twice," Temple said. "The first visit, we gave them a large portion of six snack foods and told them it was a taste test. They rated the food on taste characteristics. We left the food in the room while they were completing the rating." Participants were told they could eat as much as they wanted, and the researchers took note of their intake.
On the second visit, the researchers evaluated each participant's motivation to eat. To earn a food reward, each person had to click a computer mouse 20 times. "To get more food, they had to click 40 times," Temple said. "We were looking to see how hard they were willing to work for food." The participants could choose food or the chance to read a newspaper as a reward.
"The combination of being very motivated to get food and having the genotype made people eat the most," Temple said. "We had people very high in motivation to get food who didn't have the genotype," she added, but those people still "ate less than people who were both motivated and had the [Taq1A1] genotype."
The bottom line: "A combination of [having] this genotype with being very motivated to consume food or with being obese seems to make people more prone to overeat," Temple said.
The study results do not imply that your genes doom you to obesity, however. "People who had the genotype were heavier, but there were certainly people who had the genotype who were not obese," Temple stressed.
While other research has turned up similar findings, Temple said her team looked at behaviors associated with the genotype. "Others have found that differences in the density of dopamine are associated with obesity," she noted.
In their future work, the team will use brain scans to reveal more about the relationship between the genotype and the drive toward eating.
Eventually, Temple said, the dopamine system may become a target for weight-loss therapies. For instance, drugs that affect the dopamine system, such as drugs now used for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), might help with weight-loss efforts, she theorized.
Another expert, Dr. Samuel Klein, director of the Center for Human Nutrition at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, said the study "addresses an important and relatively overlooked area in obesity -- the contribution of reward addiction in the regulation of food intake."
Dr. Julio Licinio, professor and chairman of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine, agreed. "This really is like another piece of the puzzle, showing there is a genetic component and that those with this genotype are likely to have different weights because of the food reinforcement."
Licinio published similar research last year, in which he found that people with a particular genotype for a receptor for the brain chemical serotonin were more likely to eat red meat than those who lacked it.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Is the Editor at the Columbus Dispatch an idiot or a liar?
Hey Folks -
Whoever wrote the Dispatch editorial directly below must have been on drugs. Certainly he has a screw loose. The blatant insanity of his argument would shame a normal person into silence.
Basically, a woman running for the Columbus School Board, whose openly stated agenda meshes perfectly with the Republican agenda (AND that of the Dispatch), was not endorsed by the teachers’ union and was not funded by the Democratic party; and that infuriated the editor.
The woman’s clearly enunciated agenda supports Republican goals and tactics such as freezing salaries, privatizing (eliminating) union food and transportation jobs, eliminating seniority rights, and judging non-union charter schools superior to unionized public schools. The editorial calls all this “so-called" attacks on labor.
What in the world would the Dispatch consider “actual” attacks on labor? Even the woman’s husband, by her own admission, has said she behaves like a Republican.
The editorial claims it’s “Reprehensible” and "shameful" that Democrats chose not to fund a Republican. They furthermore claim that not supporting a Republican constitutes kowtowing to a union. In other words, not funding the campaign of a candidate focused on harming an important part of the Democratic constituency is “reprehensible.”
I guess the demented editor believes Democrats can best “demonstrate leadership” by funding Republicans.
Yes, a feeble attempt is made to justify this by claiming, “School-board races are nonpartisan, as is appropriate for the job,” but then they contradict themselves by deploring the fact that the Democrats won’t be including the Republican candidate on their Democratic sample ballots.
Ohio Supreme Court candidates are “nonpartisan” contestants, too. But anyone who thinks they are non-partisan races is deranged. The present (Republican) Chief Justice started his political career as a Columbus School Board member, and remember what wealthy Republicans tried to do to Justice Resnick.
As is their editorial practice, any interest other than their personal interest is labeled a “special interest”: “thoughtful voters will appreciate Groce's honesty and her willingness to to put the good of children ahead of the demands of a special-interest group.”
Well, it’s difficult for me to see why Democratic interests are any more “special interests” than are rich Republicans’ interests. Actually, it’s difficult for me to understand how an honest or sane person could have written such a clearly self-contradictory, irrational, and reprehensible editorial.
- Uke Man
Editorial: Reprehensible -
Rejection of school-board candidate is a shameful moment for Democrats, union
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Stephanie Groce was not the loser on Tuesday when the Franklin County Democratic Party kowtowed to the local teachers union and withdrew its endorsement of her for the Columbus Board of Education.
The biggest loser was the county party and its top officeholders, who had a chance to demonstrate leadership by standing on principle for an independent-minded and highly qualified candidate. Instead those leaders caved cravenly.
The other loser was the Columbus Education Association, which nakedly illustrated that the union's top priority is not the welfare of students but the protection of its members against any demand for accountability and fiscal responsibility within the Columbus City Schools.
As the district contemplates asking voters next year to approve an operating levy and, possibly, a bond issue for building new schools, this is a terrible message for teachers to send to taxpayers.
Union leaders are angry that Groce, an incumbent, would consider freezing teachers' salaries and privatizing food service and transportation as ways to help the district live within its means and adjust to the loss of revenue that has occurred as thousands of students have fled to charter schools.
County Democrats used these so-called attacks on labor to justify the political excommunication of Groce.
But Groce is rightly concerned that the district's food service, which runs in the red, and inefficient transportation operations are bleeding money away from the classroom and, therefore, hurting students.
Last year, she suggested that while the district is hurting financially from the transfer of students to charters, it should consider freezing employees' salaries.
She also recognizes that school principals could lead their schools more effectively if they had more say over who teaches within the buildings they govern.
Instead, the current practice, enshrined in the teachers contract, gives greatest weight in teacher-assignment decisions to seniority.
She thinks charter schools offer valuable alternatives to families and that traditional public schools should accept that charters are here to stay and should learn from them.
These aren't positions designed to win the approval of the teachers union, nor of the union that represents nonteaching employees. These are intellectually honest positions that seek to increase the chances that the district will face reality and do everything in its power to help its students succeed in the classroom.
But they interfere with the unions' fierce attachment to the status quo, and for that, Groce is being punished.
Before Tuesday's vote, County Democratic Chairman William A. Anthony Jr. had an opportunity to be a leader by standing against a wholly improper and selfish demand from a Democratic constituency.
He failed utterly. So did the many Democratic officeholders around the county who should have spoken up and didn't.
School-board races are nonpartisan, as is appropriate for the job. Candidates' party affiliations don't appear on the ballot. Still, party-supported school-board candidates' names are included on sample ballots handed out by party volunteers, and party faithful may be swayed by the exclusion of Groce.
On the other hand, thoughtful voters will appreciate Groce's honesty and her willingness to to put the good of children ahead of the demands of a special-interest group. For them, the shameful action taken against her might prove to be a selling point.
On Wednesday, The Dispatch gave its wholehearted endorsement to Groce. For the sake of fiscal accountability and the schoolchildren of Columbus, voters should retain her on the school board.
Whoever wrote the Dispatch editorial directly below must have been on drugs. Certainly he has a screw loose. The blatant insanity of his argument would shame a normal person into silence.
Basically, a woman running for the Columbus School Board, whose openly stated agenda meshes perfectly with the Republican agenda (AND that of the Dispatch), was not endorsed by the teachers’ union and was not funded by the Democratic party; and that infuriated the editor.
The woman’s clearly enunciated agenda supports Republican goals and tactics such as freezing salaries, privatizing (eliminating) union food and transportation jobs, eliminating seniority rights, and judging non-union charter schools superior to unionized public schools. The editorial calls all this “so-called" attacks on labor.
What in the world would the Dispatch consider “actual” attacks on labor? Even the woman’s husband, by her own admission, has said she behaves like a Republican.
The editorial claims it’s “Reprehensible” and "shameful" that Democrats chose not to fund a Republican. They furthermore claim that not supporting a Republican constitutes kowtowing to a union. In other words, not funding the campaign of a candidate focused on harming an important part of the Democratic constituency is “reprehensible.”
I guess the demented editor believes Democrats can best “demonstrate leadership” by funding Republicans.
Yes, a feeble attempt is made to justify this by claiming, “School-board races are nonpartisan, as is appropriate for the job,” but then they contradict themselves by deploring the fact that the Democrats won’t be including the Republican candidate on their Democratic sample ballots.
Ohio Supreme Court candidates are “nonpartisan” contestants, too. But anyone who thinks they are non-partisan races is deranged. The present (Republican) Chief Justice started his political career as a Columbus School Board member, and remember what wealthy Republicans tried to do to Justice Resnick.
As is their editorial practice, any interest other than their personal interest is labeled a “special interest”: “thoughtful voters will appreciate Groce's honesty and her willingness to to put the good of children ahead of the demands of a special-interest group.”
Well, it’s difficult for me to see why Democratic interests are any more “special interests” than are rich Republicans’ interests. Actually, it’s difficult for me to understand how an honest or sane person could have written such a clearly self-contradictory, irrational, and reprehensible editorial.
- Uke Man
Editorial: Reprehensible -
Rejection of school-board candidate is a shameful moment for Democrats, union
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Stephanie Groce was not the loser on Tuesday when the Franklin County Democratic Party kowtowed to the local teachers union and withdrew its endorsement of her for the Columbus Board of Education.
The biggest loser was the county party and its top officeholders, who had a chance to demonstrate leadership by standing on principle for an independent-minded and highly qualified candidate. Instead those leaders caved cravenly.
The other loser was the Columbus Education Association, which nakedly illustrated that the union's top priority is not the welfare of students but the protection of its members against any demand for accountability and fiscal responsibility within the Columbus City Schools.
As the district contemplates asking voters next year to approve an operating levy and, possibly, a bond issue for building new schools, this is a terrible message for teachers to send to taxpayers.
Union leaders are angry that Groce, an incumbent, would consider freezing teachers' salaries and privatizing food service and transportation as ways to help the district live within its means and adjust to the loss of revenue that has occurred as thousands of students have fled to charter schools.
County Democrats used these so-called attacks on labor to justify the political excommunication of Groce.
But Groce is rightly concerned that the district's food service, which runs in the red, and inefficient transportation operations are bleeding money away from the classroom and, therefore, hurting students.
Last year, she suggested that while the district is hurting financially from the transfer of students to charters, it should consider freezing employees' salaries.
She also recognizes that school principals could lead their schools more effectively if they had more say over who teaches within the buildings they govern.
Instead, the current practice, enshrined in the teachers contract, gives greatest weight in teacher-assignment decisions to seniority.
She thinks charter schools offer valuable alternatives to families and that traditional public schools should accept that charters are here to stay and should learn from them.
These aren't positions designed to win the approval of the teachers union, nor of the union that represents nonteaching employees. These are intellectually honest positions that seek to increase the chances that the district will face reality and do everything in its power to help its students succeed in the classroom.
But they interfere with the unions' fierce attachment to the status quo, and for that, Groce is being punished.
Before Tuesday's vote, County Democratic Chairman William A. Anthony Jr. had an opportunity to be a leader by standing against a wholly improper and selfish demand from a Democratic constituency.
He failed utterly. So did the many Democratic officeholders around the county who should have spoken up and didn't.
School-board races are nonpartisan, as is appropriate for the job. Candidates' party affiliations don't appear on the ballot. Still, party-supported school-board candidates' names are included on sample ballots handed out by party volunteers, and party faithful may be swayed by the exclusion of Groce.
On the other hand, thoughtful voters will appreciate Groce's honesty and her willingness to to put the good of children ahead of the demands of a special-interest group. For them, the shameful action taken against her might prove to be a selling point.
On Wednesday, The Dispatch gave its wholehearted endorsement to Groce. For the sake of fiscal accountability and the schoolchildren of Columbus, voters should retain her on the school board.
Friday, October 19, 2007
Kill the goat - that'll do it!!
Hey Folks -
This is probably (but not necessarily) my last posting focused on the Dispatch's sodomy of the teaching profession.
It's possible that the reporters are just reporting on a story they were assigned or dreamed up on their own. If they are certainly guilty of anything it is ignorance of the nuances of school politics, school "discipline," and the accurate presentation of statistics - they may, also, have gotten carried away with the self-righteous "good" they were doing. It's also possible they share their editors' prejudices, but that hasn't been demonstrated.
In an earlier posting here, I said, "The local paper, the Columbus Dispatch, must have decided that the threat of foreign terrorism has decreased to such a level, that – once again – they are reduced to spreading panic and fear by picking on the schools."
Well, before terrorism, the uppercrust concentrated on public schools, Social Security, and Medicare. We've seen plenty on the schools lately. Interestingly, the paper's editorial today goes after Social Security and Medicare. I guess we can quit worrying about Osama bin Laden; the Dispatch will, again, take care of domectically terrorizing Americans.
Anyway, below is the most recent complaint I've sent the paper. I wrote it yesterday (notice the part about brain-dead Cooper Snyder doing his self-serving, sensational, political bludgeoning back in the day. This morning it was reported that all the state politicians are on board and chomping at the bit to "protect the kids" (not from lack of medical care, or from hunger, or from underfunded schools - but from the myriad of evil-doers in the classroom).
- Uke Man
Dear Ms. Richards,
As promised, I am writing to address a general concern I have regarding the “ABC’s” series.
As I’ve said, I have no problem with rooting out criminals.
If the Dispatch series were but one of a long string of such exposés, it would be different. As it is, the piece seems very close to sensational scapegoating. Moreover, embedded in the context of the paper’s long-running, business/Republican-oriented animosity toward public education, taxes, teachers, and their unions; credence is lent to the charge.
See the Thursday, Oct. 18 editorial “Reprehensible” (and accompanying cartoon) in which the editor feigns outrage and surprise that a candidate who walks and quacks like a business-Republican (even according to her husband) wasn’t funded by Democrats and supported by unions.
Some years ago when semi-literate Sen. Cooper Snyder ran an “education” committee at the Ohio State House, the official age of consent was 16. Thanks to “Coop” and others it still is, except for a narrow range of people - which includes teachers (but not state senators).
My point is that if children aged 16 to 18 should be protected from abuse by some adults, they should be protected from abuse by all adults, but it’s easier to pick on educators – and it looks good politically and it need not confront the entire electorate. It also aids the general Republican/Libertarian effort to weaken public schools and public employees’ unions. It sells newspapers too. And it’s easy to bludgeon scapegoats.
I’ll gladly eat my words when the Dispatch runs hard-hitting, multi-day investigative reports on the criminal actions of state legislators who, in regard to school funding, have blatantly ignored both the orders of Ohio’s Supreme Court and their oaths to uphold the Ohio Constitution.
Look what happened to Dan Rather for reporting on Bush’s National Guard “service” – the truth was thrown out along with the reporter - over a matter less important than the truth. The same thing happened to a Cincinnati reporter for taking on the Chiquita Banana millionaire. The criminal behavior of the power broker was ignored and the reporter was run out of town.
Or consider Katharine Graham. She is lionized as a journalistic heroine. What did she do? She owned a newspaper. Reporters uncovered a true story. She published it. Isn’t that what newspapers do? What’s the problem? We have freedom of the press, don’t we? Hmmmm.
So, it’s a lot easier – and safer – to exercise “freedom of the press” when the subject is a relatively powerless scapegoat – and even easier when bashing the scapegoat is part of the publisher’s long-standing agenda.
I don’t think this is your fault. Reporters are under their editor’s thumb. I bet you’d love to report on some of these difficult matters. You won’t be allowed to, however; and that’s a shame. But, then, we know the Golden Rule: those who have the gold make the rules.
Still, they have to live with themselves, and just as virtue is its own reward, moral delinquency is its own punishment. Just look at where ethically ignorant George W. Bush, his morally bankrupt Neocon brain trust, and his self-serving supporters have taken this once honorable and honored country.
Yours - Tom Harker, Circleville
This is probably (but not necessarily) my last posting focused on the Dispatch's sodomy of the teaching profession.
It's possible that the reporters are just reporting on a story they were assigned or dreamed up on their own. If they are certainly guilty of anything it is ignorance of the nuances of school politics, school "discipline," and the accurate presentation of statistics - they may, also, have gotten carried away with the self-righteous "good" they were doing. It's also possible they share their editors' prejudices, but that hasn't been demonstrated.
In an earlier posting here, I said, "The local paper, the Columbus Dispatch, must have decided that the threat of foreign terrorism has decreased to such a level, that – once again – they are reduced to spreading panic and fear by picking on the schools."
Well, before terrorism, the uppercrust concentrated on public schools, Social Security, and Medicare. We've seen plenty on the schools lately. Interestingly, the paper's editorial today goes after Social Security and Medicare. I guess we can quit worrying about Osama bin Laden; the Dispatch will, again, take care of domectically terrorizing Americans.
Anyway, below is the most recent complaint I've sent the paper. I wrote it yesterday (notice the part about brain-dead Cooper Snyder doing his self-serving, sensational, political bludgeoning back in the day. This morning it was reported that all the state politicians are on board and chomping at the bit to "protect the kids" (not from lack of medical care, or from hunger, or from underfunded schools - but from the myriad of evil-doers in the classroom).
- Uke Man
Dear Ms. Richards,
As promised, I am writing to address a general concern I have regarding the “ABC’s” series.
As I’ve said, I have no problem with rooting out criminals.
If the Dispatch series were but one of a long string of such exposés, it would be different. As it is, the piece seems very close to sensational scapegoating. Moreover, embedded in the context of the paper’s long-running, business/Republican-oriented animosity toward public education, taxes, teachers, and their unions; credence is lent to the charge.
See the Thursday, Oct. 18 editorial “Reprehensible” (and accompanying cartoon) in which the editor feigns outrage and surprise that a candidate who walks and quacks like a business-Republican (even according to her husband) wasn’t funded by Democrats and supported by unions.
Some years ago when semi-literate Sen. Cooper Snyder ran an “education” committee at the Ohio State House, the official age of consent was 16. Thanks to “Coop” and others it still is, except for a narrow range of people - which includes teachers (but not state senators).
My point is that if children aged 16 to 18 should be protected from abuse by some adults, they should be protected from abuse by all adults, but it’s easier to pick on educators – and it looks good politically and it need not confront the entire electorate. It also aids the general Republican/Libertarian effort to weaken public schools and public employees’ unions. It sells newspapers too. And it’s easy to bludgeon scapegoats.
I’ll gladly eat my words when the Dispatch runs hard-hitting, multi-day investigative reports on the criminal actions of state legislators who, in regard to school funding, have blatantly ignored both the orders of Ohio’s Supreme Court and their oaths to uphold the Ohio Constitution.
Look what happened to Dan Rather for reporting on Bush’s National Guard “service” – the truth was thrown out along with the reporter - over a matter less important than the truth. The same thing happened to a Cincinnati reporter for taking on the Chiquita Banana millionaire. The criminal behavior of the power broker was ignored and the reporter was run out of town.
Or consider Katharine Graham. She is lionized as a journalistic heroine. What did she do? She owned a newspaper. Reporters uncovered a true story. She published it. Isn’t that what newspapers do? What’s the problem? We have freedom of the press, don’t we? Hmmmm.
So, it’s a lot easier – and safer – to exercise “freedom of the press” when the subject is a relatively powerless scapegoat – and even easier when bashing the scapegoat is part of the publisher’s long-standing agenda.
I don’t think this is your fault. Reporters are under their editor’s thumb. I bet you’d love to report on some of these difficult matters. You won’t be allowed to, however; and that’s a shame. But, then, we know the Golden Rule: those who have the gold make the rules.
Still, they have to live with themselves, and just as virtue is its own reward, moral delinquency is its own punishment. Just look at where ethically ignorant George W. Bush, his morally bankrupt Neocon brain trust, and his self-serving supporters have taken this once honorable and honored country.
Yours - Tom Harker, Circleville
Thursday, October 18, 2007
We don't remember
Hey Folks -
What happened six years ago has not been dealt with. It has been used to obtain advances in a narrow agenda pushed by rich, greedy, pride-filled maniacs.
- Uke Man
We seem to have forgotten an awful lot since 9/11
Sunday, September 9, 2007
By Leonard Pitts Jr.
Sept. 11 falls on a Tuesday this year -- the first time since that other Sept. 11, six years ago.
Do you remember? Can you recall how difficult it was to even conceive of going forward from that moment? The events of that day had so thoroughly lacerated us that it seemed as if, in some small corner of our collective soul, the clock had stopped. In that corner, it would forever be 8:46 on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001.
Do you remember? If so, then the world as it stands six years later must come as something of a shock.
Six years ago, we saw people rushing to the World Trade Center site to search for survivors and recover bodies. Heroes, we said.
Six years later, largely removed from public attention, many of those same heroes are sick and even dying, poisoned by the soot and dirt they breathed.
Six years ago, appalled and infuriated, the world rallied to our side. Candles and cards were left at our embassies. The French newspaper Le Monde declared "We Are All Americans Now." The Masai, a tribe in Kenya, sent us 14 cows, a gift regarded by their culture as sacred. Six years later, our president is trailed by angry demonstrators wherever he travels, and it is headline news when he is actually cheered in Albania.
Six years ago, we vowed revenge on Osama bin Laden, the wealthy Saudi who masterminded the attacks. We would bring him in, said the president, "dead or alive." Six years later, bin Laden is still free, and the president has said he is not particularly concerned about that.
Do you remember?
The terrorist attacks of six years ago this week are sometimes compared with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor 66 years ago this Dec. 7. That is, of course, a reference to the shock, disbelief and anger Americans of both eras felt.
But there is a telling difference between 12/7 and 9/11. From the 1941 attack, there was forged a sense of national mission and purpose. Those feelings of shock, disbelief and anger became the building blocks of a consensus that we would do whatever, spend whatever, sacrifice whatever, until victory was won. After the attacks of 2001, by contrast, we talked national mission and purpose, but it soon became apparent that it was only talk.
Those feelings of shock, disbelief and anger became instead the building blocks of a political machine that duped the nation into a war of choice that had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks, eroded civil liberties under the guise of protecting American lives and branded as traitors those who said, 'Hey, wait a minute.'
Worst of all, it squandered the moment, threw away a historic chance to build a national -- and international -- consensus that could have marginalized the architects of terror, maybe even reshaped the world, more effectively than all the bombs and bullets used to date in Iraq.
This anniversary, then, laments not simply the loss of life, but of opportunity. And perhaps the worst thing is, one senses most Americans are like their president: We don't think about bin Laden that much these days. He is not front-of-mind anymore.
So it is worth pausing here to remember that just six years ago, we were attacked.
Six years ago, people leaped from flaming skyscrapers.
Six years ago, flaming skyscrapers fell.
Six years ago, dust-caked people wandered the streets of New York City.
Six years ago, an airplane tore a hole in the Pentagon.
Six years ago, a hijacked plane crashed.
Six years ago, searing, airless shock was followed by resolve. Clear, cold, iron-fisted resolve.
Six years later, the shock is gone and it seems like the resolve is, too.
Do we remember? You couldn't prove it by me.
Leonard Pitts Jr. is a columnist for the Miami Herald.
lpitts@miamiherald.com
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Guilty - No matter what!!
Hey Folks -
The Columbus Dispatch continues its report on child-molesting teachers.
I have written them regarding this series, attempting to raise their consciousness a bit regarding some nuances they seem to have overlooked. I'm sharing that letter below. Later I plan to compose another letter addressing the issue of the hypocritical double standard that drives them to attack educational criminals (Devil take the innocent) while defending more powerful criminals (Devil take their accusers).
- Uke Man
Dear Ms. Richards,
I do not object to criticism of schools, nor do I object to energetic pursuit of criminals in the schools. I do have some objections to this multiple-day piece “The ABCs of Betrayal,” but I’ll express them in a later letter.
Today, I just want to suggest that some nuances of this issue are being lost in the sensationalism inherent in the topic.
First of all, it often seems the complaint is that allegations are not readily accessible to the world. At other times it seems that the focus is on convictions. If the series recognizes important differences between these two realities, it escapes me. There is, however, a truly tremendous difference.
The Tuesday piece starts, “Parents can learn more about the misconduct of hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects than about the adults entrusted to teach, coach and care for their children.” OK, but are there significant differences between these professions and educators?
How many complaints are made about the former; how many about the latter? If your hairdresser, doctor, or landscape architect is obviously gay or lesbian, how many of their clients are already prejudiced about their character and likely to lodge a questionable complaint? How many hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects are likely to be investigated as a result of anonymous charges filed by disgruntled clients? Should those who are, if any, be exposed to the public before the charges are determined to be verifiable? Are there agencies set up all over the state, one of whose responsibilities it is to take anonymous complaints about mistreatment of clients by hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects?
Is there perhaps a reason why “Parents can learn more about the misconduct of hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects than about the adults entrusted to teach, coach and care for their children.”
Could part of that difference involve the fact that hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects deal mainly with adults and that the results of their practice are pretty clear cut. If your hair falls out, if Doc cuts off the wrong leg, if Joe cuts down the tree he was supposed to trim; that’s pretty clear. If an anonymous tipster claims some obviously effeminate man has been groping children, that’s not so easily demonstrable or true.
Along the same line, an awful lot of people are predisposed to project what they perceive as their children’s failings onto the school system. Johnny got in trouble, was suspended or failed a test or class or year because of the teacher. How many people report their hairdresser to the police on a “bad-hair day”?
Should we tar and feather folks on the basis of allegations? If so, should we tar and feather only teachers on the basis of allegations? I doubt landscape architects would be run out of town as a result of false complaints by a disgruntled, tree-loving client. Can we say the same about teachers falsely accused?
Maybe we should be careful not to ruin an innocent person’s life, wiping out a multi-thousand dollar college investment just because some disgruntled, part-time parent is homophobic, angry at the world, or suffering from a mental illness.
I realize that some folks are willing to execute innocent people to gain the “benefits” of capital punishment, but that doesn’t work for me.
On a different point, are you aware of the kinds of things that qualify as reprimands? Some are pretty insignificant, and I doubt that most of them have anything to do with sex. As a result the statistics appearing in the series are misleading. Even disciplinary matters that might seem somewhat related to the concerns of the series are often the result of local school/social politics, misleading, or easily misinterpreted.
As I said at the start, I do not object to criticism of schools, nor do I object to energetic pursuit of criminals in the schools, but I think that at least part of what the series calls “secrecy” is more likely humane prudence justified by the nature of the situation. If an educator actually IS acting criminally, throw the book at him or her; but I object to an hysterical double standard that sacrifices the innocent.
Yours - Tom Harker
The Columbus Dispatch continues its report on child-molesting teachers.
I have written them regarding this series, attempting to raise their consciousness a bit regarding some nuances they seem to have overlooked. I'm sharing that letter below. Later I plan to compose another letter addressing the issue of the hypocritical double standard that drives them to attack educational criminals (Devil take the innocent) while defending more powerful criminals (Devil take their accusers).
- Uke Man
Dear Ms. Richards,
I do not object to criticism of schools, nor do I object to energetic pursuit of criminals in the schools. I do have some objections to this multiple-day piece “The ABCs of Betrayal,” but I’ll express them in a later letter.
Today, I just want to suggest that some nuances of this issue are being lost in the sensationalism inherent in the topic.
First of all, it often seems the complaint is that allegations are not readily accessible to the world. At other times it seems that the focus is on convictions. If the series recognizes important differences between these two realities, it escapes me. There is, however, a truly tremendous difference.
The Tuesday piece starts, “Parents can learn more about the misconduct of hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects than about the adults entrusted to teach, coach and care for their children.” OK, but are there significant differences between these professions and educators?
How many complaints are made about the former; how many about the latter? If your hairdresser, doctor, or landscape architect is obviously gay or lesbian, how many of their clients are already prejudiced about their character and likely to lodge a questionable complaint? How many hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects are likely to be investigated as a result of anonymous charges filed by disgruntled clients? Should those who are, if any, be exposed to the public before the charges are determined to be verifiable? Are there agencies set up all over the state, one of whose responsibilities it is to take anonymous complaints about mistreatment of clients by hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects?
Is there perhaps a reason why “Parents can learn more about the misconduct of hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects than about the adults entrusted to teach, coach and care for their children.”
Could part of that difference involve the fact that hairdressers, doctors and landscape architects deal mainly with adults and that the results of their practice are pretty clear cut. If your hair falls out, if Doc cuts off the wrong leg, if Joe cuts down the tree he was supposed to trim; that’s pretty clear. If an anonymous tipster claims some obviously effeminate man has been groping children, that’s not so easily demonstrable or true.
Along the same line, an awful lot of people are predisposed to project what they perceive as their children’s failings onto the school system. Johnny got in trouble, was suspended or failed a test or class or year because of the teacher. How many people report their hairdresser to the police on a “bad-hair day”?
Should we tar and feather folks on the basis of allegations? If so, should we tar and feather only teachers on the basis of allegations? I doubt landscape architects would be run out of town as a result of false complaints by a disgruntled, tree-loving client. Can we say the same about teachers falsely accused?
Maybe we should be careful not to ruin an innocent person’s life, wiping out a multi-thousand dollar college investment just because some disgruntled, part-time parent is homophobic, angry at the world, or suffering from a mental illness.
I realize that some folks are willing to execute innocent people to gain the “benefits” of capital punishment, but that doesn’t work for me.
On a different point, are you aware of the kinds of things that qualify as reprimands? Some are pretty insignificant, and I doubt that most of them have anything to do with sex. As a result the statistics appearing in the series are misleading. Even disciplinary matters that might seem somewhat related to the concerns of the series are often the result of local school/social politics, misleading, or easily misinterpreted.
As I said at the start, I do not object to criticism of schools, nor do I object to energetic pursuit of criminals in the schools, but I think that at least part of what the series calls “secrecy” is more likely humane prudence justified by the nature of the situation. If an educator actually IS acting criminally, throw the book at him or her; but I object to an hysterical double standard that sacrifices the innocent.
Yours - Tom Harker
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
Photography Contest
Hey Folks -
I've been submitting photos to the local Dispatch/Cord Camera contest. I've submitted two so far. I thought I'd share; they are below.
As more are submitted, I'll include them here.
I don't plan on winning, but I DO like the pictures.
- Uke Man
I've been submitting photos to the local Dispatch/Cord Camera contest. I've submitted two so far. I thought I'd share; they are below.
As more are submitted, I'll include them here.
I don't plan on winning, but I DO like the pictures.
- Uke Man
Sunday, October 14, 2007
The Country Club Republicans Strike Again
Hey Folks –
The local paper, the Columbus Dispatch, must have decided that the threat of foreign terrorism has decreased to such a level, that – once again – they are reduced to spreading panic and fear by picking on the schools: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/insight/stories/2007/10/14/ben14.ART_ART_10-14-07_G1_1385IIV.html?sid=101 And: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/10/14/Failure_new.ART_ART_10-14-07_A1_JO85A6T.html?sid=101
As you may remember, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Right struggled a bit searching for a new scapegoat. Terrorism had not yet reared its ugly head; so education was thrown into the breach, serving as a temporary – if not completely satisfactory – whipping boy.
With the terrorist attacks, that was dropped or greatly reduced. Obviously, fear and anger are more easily aroused by terrorists than by pedagogues. Unfortunately, it seems, the threat of foreign terrorism has - at last - been reduced to such a level, that once again those wishing to spread panic and fear have had to return to picking on the schools.
Now, don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing the matter with being critical of schools, and there’s nothing wrong with going after criminals in the schools. I have no problem with that.
It’s hypocrisy that drives me nuts.
Whatever one thinks of educators and education, criticisms pale in comparison to those applicable to politics and the politicians of this world; and it pales, as well, in comparison to the shenanigans of the holy “private” sector – which supposedly has the divine right to keep secret anything and everything it does to screw the people.
The newspaper is outraged that every single mundane fact (and/or accusation) about every single public employee isn’t broadcast freely and loudly to the world, but doesn’t seem equally upset that political fund-daddies can remain anonymous or that VP Cheney’s energy advisors can remain anonymous. Neither do the editors seem too aroused over the past drunkenness or pot smoking off the First Family. That’s different; give ‘em a break.
The newspaper is outraged that criminals in schools have/may have psychologically harmed our children, but seem much less aroused about the liars responsible for the DEATHS of our children in an unnecessary war.
Well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. No fucking double standards!!
- Uke Man
The local paper, the Columbus Dispatch, must have decided that the threat of foreign terrorism has decreased to such a level, that – once again – they are reduced to spreading panic and fear by picking on the schools: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/insight/stories/2007/10/14/ben14.ART_ART_10-14-07_G1_1385IIV.html?sid=101 And: http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2007/10/14/Failure_new.ART_ART_10-14-07_A1_JO85A6T.html?sid=101
As you may remember, when the Soviet Union collapsed, the Right struggled a bit searching for a new scapegoat. Terrorism had not yet reared its ugly head; so education was thrown into the breach, serving as a temporary – if not completely satisfactory – whipping boy.
With the terrorist attacks, that was dropped or greatly reduced. Obviously, fear and anger are more easily aroused by terrorists than by pedagogues. Unfortunately, it seems, the threat of foreign terrorism has - at last - been reduced to such a level, that once again those wishing to spread panic and fear have had to return to picking on the schools.
Now, don’t get me wrong. There’s nothing the matter with being critical of schools, and there’s nothing wrong with going after criminals in the schools. I have no problem with that.
It’s hypocrisy that drives me nuts.
Whatever one thinks of educators and education, criticisms pale in comparison to those applicable to politics and the politicians of this world; and it pales, as well, in comparison to the shenanigans of the holy “private” sector – which supposedly has the divine right to keep secret anything and everything it does to screw the people.
The newspaper is outraged that every single mundane fact (and/or accusation) about every single public employee isn’t broadcast freely and loudly to the world, but doesn’t seem equally upset that political fund-daddies can remain anonymous or that VP Cheney’s energy advisors can remain anonymous. Neither do the editors seem too aroused over the past drunkenness or pot smoking off the First Family. That’s different; give ‘em a break.
The newspaper is outraged that criminals in schools have/may have psychologically harmed our children, but seem much less aroused about the liars responsible for the DEATHS of our children in an unnecessary war.
Well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. No fucking double standards!!
- Uke Man
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Herbert has it right! Who's listening?
Hey Folks -
It's later than we think.
- Uke Man
October 6, 2007
Send in the Clowns
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
It’s embarrassing.
The U.S. is going through a transitional period at least as important as the early post-World War II years. New worlds in energy, technology, the economy and global interdependence are either upon us or coming fast.
Yet much of the nation’s top leadership is either wasting its time on complete nonsense or trying with great determination to push us back to the era of top hat and tails.
Among other things, Republicans are trying to figure out what to do about Larry Craig, the loony senator from Idaho who got caught in a public toilet behaving as if he thought the promised land was just one stall away.
Democrats, unable to do anything about George W. Bush’s policy of eternal war in Iraq, found themselves reduced to fulminating in official Congressional proceedings about the latest wackiness from Rush Limbaugh.
Meanwhile, the president and his priceless band of can’t-get-it-right-wingers, are busy vetoing health insurance for children, dreaming up secret torture protocols, funneling lucrative federal contracts to friends and cronies and fulfilling their paramount mission — making the very rich richer.
So much for leadership.
The nation’s failure to deal constructively with the new realities of employment, education, health care, retirement and so on has taken a toll.
The Times’s David Leonhardt, in a column that ran in September, noted that when Americans think about their lives in relation to the past, they are very upbeat. Life for most Americans is better than it was for their parents and grandparents.
“But,” wrote Mr. Leonhardt, “when the discussion is about the future, the national mood darkens. In one typical poll from last year, only 34 percent of people said they expected today’s children to be better off than people are now, down from 55 percent when a similar question
was asked in 1999.”
Americans have every reason to be concerned. A study released last spring showed that men who are now in their 30s earn less than their fathers’ generation did at the same age. The median income for men in their 30s in 1974, in today’s inflation-adjusted dollars, was $40,210. According to the study, which used Census figures compiled for 2004, those annual earnings had dropped to $35,010.
President Bush’s unconscionable veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program comes at a time when the number of uninsured children is rising and employer-based health insurance is going the way of rotary phones and carbon paper. That’s not neglect. That’s willfully doing harm to children.
In the first two or three decades after World War II, there was a broad sense of optimism, a strongly held belief, despite many crises, that Americans could achieve great things. Men and women of talent and vision gave us the Marshall Plan, the G.I. Bill, the interstate highway program, the Peace Corps, the space program, the civil rights movement and much more.
Where is the comparable vision for the early-21st century? Who is rallying America with the clarion call that we can do great things?
From the Republicans, we get the message that the most important thing to hold on to is fear itself. The terrorists are out to get us. From the Democrats, heavily armed with thermometers, barometers and windmills, comes the usual timidity. They behave as if their hearts would stop if they actually took a tough stand.
Meanwhile, there are many millions of Americans who are not doing well, and the nation is not addressing their plight. Thirty-seven million Americans, many of them children, are officially
classified as poor. What is not widely known is that another 57 million are struggling just one
notch above the poverty line. This is spelled out in a new book, “The Missing Class: Portraits of the Near Poor in America,” by Katherine Newman and Victor Tan Chen.
Near-poor Americans live in households with annual incomes of $20,000 to $40,000 for a family of four. They work at jobs that are highly unstable and offer few if any benefits. Many of their children would qualify for insurance coverage under the S-chip program that the president so coldly vetoed on Wednesday.
No wonder so many Americans are turned off to politics.
One of the paramount challenges of the new era is the task of getting a legitimate four-year college degree into the hands of as many American young people as possible. A four-year degree has become a virtual prerequisite for a middle-class quality of life. The overall benefits to the country of such an explosive improvement in educational achievement are incalculable.
But at the moment, the geniuses running the country can’t even figure out how to cover the cost of keeping American children healthy. So we’ve got a way to go.
It's later than we think.
- Uke Man
October 6, 2007
Send in the Clowns
By BOB HERBERT
(a ukethanks to Phyll)
It’s embarrassing.
The U.S. is going through a transitional period at least as important as the early post-World War II years. New worlds in energy, technology, the economy and global interdependence are either upon us or coming fast.
Yet much of the nation’s top leadership is either wasting its time on complete nonsense or trying with great determination to push us back to the era of top hat and tails.
Among other things, Republicans are trying to figure out what to do about Larry Craig, the loony senator from Idaho who got caught in a public toilet behaving as if he thought the promised land was just one stall away.
Democrats, unable to do anything about George W. Bush’s policy of eternal war in Iraq, found themselves reduced to fulminating in official Congressional proceedings about the latest wackiness from Rush Limbaugh.
Meanwhile, the president and his priceless band of can’t-get-it-right-wingers, are busy vetoing health insurance for children, dreaming up secret torture protocols, funneling lucrative federal contracts to friends and cronies and fulfilling their paramount mission — making the very rich richer.
So much for leadership.
The nation’s failure to deal constructively with the new realities of employment, education, health care, retirement and so on has taken a toll.
The Times’s David Leonhardt, in a column that ran in September, noted that when Americans think about their lives in relation to the past, they are very upbeat. Life for most Americans is better than it was for their parents and grandparents.
“But,” wrote Mr. Leonhardt, “when the discussion is about the future, the national mood darkens. In one typical poll from last year, only 34 percent of people said they expected today’s children to be better off than people are now, down from 55 percent when a similar question
was asked in 1999.”
Americans have every reason to be concerned. A study released last spring showed that men who are now in their 30s earn less than their fathers’ generation did at the same age. The median income for men in their 30s in 1974, in today’s inflation-adjusted dollars, was $40,210. According to the study, which used Census figures compiled for 2004, those annual earnings had dropped to $35,010.
President Bush’s unconscionable veto of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program comes at a time when the number of uninsured children is rising and employer-based health insurance is going the way of rotary phones and carbon paper. That’s not neglect. That’s willfully doing harm to children.
In the first two or three decades after World War II, there was a broad sense of optimism, a strongly held belief, despite many crises, that Americans could achieve great things. Men and women of talent and vision gave us the Marshall Plan, the G.I. Bill, the interstate highway program, the Peace Corps, the space program, the civil rights movement and much more.
Where is the comparable vision for the early-21st century? Who is rallying America with the clarion call that we can do great things?
From the Republicans, we get the message that the most important thing to hold on to is fear itself. The terrorists are out to get us. From the Democrats, heavily armed with thermometers, barometers and windmills, comes the usual timidity. They behave as if their hearts would stop if they actually took a tough stand.
Meanwhile, there are many millions of Americans who are not doing well, and the nation is not addressing their plight. Thirty-seven million Americans, many of them children, are officially
classified as poor. What is not widely known is that another 57 million are struggling just one
notch above the poverty line. This is spelled out in a new book, “The Missing Class: Portraits of the Near Poor in America,” by Katherine Newman and Victor Tan Chen.
Near-poor Americans live in households with annual incomes of $20,000 to $40,000 for a family of four. They work at jobs that are highly unstable and offer few if any benefits. Many of their children would qualify for insurance coverage under the S-chip program that the president so coldly vetoed on Wednesday.
No wonder so many Americans are turned off to politics.
One of the paramount challenges of the new era is the task of getting a legitimate four-year college degree into the hands of as many American young people as possible. A four-year degree has become a virtual prerequisite for a middle-class quality of life. The overall benefits to the country of such an explosive improvement in educational achievement are incalculable.
But at the moment, the geniuses running the country can’t even figure out how to cover the cost of keeping American children healthy. So we’ve got a way to go.
Friday, October 12, 2007
The Michael Wagner Show at Victorians'
Hey Folks -
I had a great time last night!!
Met Michael Wagner at Katzinger's Deli to replenish the bodily nutrients, and then we were off to Victorians' Midnight Cafe.
Soon, I was up. I did three songs: "Crazy Over you," "When I Look Into Your Eyes," and "Spam Eatin' Blues"; and then I introduced Michael.
Folks were blown away for the next 45 minutes while Michael presented his original percussive/uke/vocal numbers. It sounded like he had a conga/bongo guy and a steel drum guy on stage with him. No lie; folks were blown away. It was a great time.
A little later Mike Powers, a friend from the Stagecoach BBQ open stage performed, and he called me up to vocalize the Beatles' "Honey Pie." Love that song!!! A lot of fun!!
Mike also did "Those Were the Days," and we all sang along. Alot of nice people were in attendance: Sondra, Martita, Don, Jack, George, BT, Connie, Bill (from public radio), Mike, Dave, Steve, and a host of folks I didn't know.
A great night, and all because my pal Jason in New York City suggested Michael look me up.
- Uke Man
I had a great time last night!!
Met Michael Wagner at Katzinger's Deli to replenish the bodily nutrients, and then we were off to Victorians' Midnight Cafe.
Soon, I was up. I did three songs: "Crazy Over you," "When I Look Into Your Eyes," and "Spam Eatin' Blues"; and then I introduced Michael.
Folks were blown away for the next 45 minutes while Michael presented his original percussive/uke/vocal numbers. It sounded like he had a conga/bongo guy and a steel drum guy on stage with him. No lie; folks were blown away. It was a great time.
A little later Mike Powers, a friend from the Stagecoach BBQ open stage performed, and he called me up to vocalize the Beatles' "Honey Pie." Love that song!!! A lot of fun!!
Mike also did "Those Were the Days," and we all sang along. Alot of nice people were in attendance: Sondra, Martita, Don, Jack, George, BT, Connie, Bill (from public radio), Mike, Dave, Steve, and a host of folks I didn't know.
A great night, and all because my pal Jason in New York City suggested Michael look me up.
- Uke Man
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Amazing Uke Artist - Thursday, 8:00 p.m., Victorians' Midnight Cafe
Hey Folks -
Thanks to a suggestion from my friend Jason Tagg, half of Sonic Uke in New York City, an astoundingly innovative and talented young ukulele man - Michael Wagner - contacted me about playing when he comes through Columbus.
Without a lot of lead time we were still able to get a show up at Victorians' Midnight Cafe, a Bohemian neighborhood cafe/bar on 5th Avenue, just east of Neil Ave. (614-299-2295).
The show is from 8:00 until 9:00 p.m. I'll play a few songs and the rest will be Michael. Don't miss your chance to hear this amazing young man!!!
Check out Michael's site to get an idea of what lies ahead: http://www.myspace.com/newamericanfolk
See you there, Thursday, 8:00, Victorian's Midnight Cafe !!
- Uke Man
Thanks to a suggestion from my friend Jason Tagg, half of Sonic Uke in New York City, an astoundingly innovative and talented young ukulele man - Michael Wagner - contacted me about playing when he comes through Columbus.
Without a lot of lead time we were still able to get a show up at Victorians' Midnight Cafe, a Bohemian neighborhood cafe/bar on 5th Avenue, just east of Neil Ave. (614-299-2295).
The show is from 8:00 until 9:00 p.m. I'll play a few songs and the rest will be Michael. Don't miss your chance to hear this amazing young man!!!
Check out Michael's site to get an idea of what lies ahead: http://www.myspace.com/newamericanfolk
See you there, Thursday, 8:00, Victorian's Midnight Cafe !!
- Uke Man
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Krugman has it right - is anyone listening??
Hey Folks -
The first paragraph of the article below says it all:
Sometimes it seems that the only way to make sense of the Bush administration is to imagine that it’s a vast experiment concocted by mad political scientists who want to see what happens if a nation systematically ignores everything we’ve learned over the past few centuries about how to make a modern government work.
Read the article and think about the uproar over Move On's "Betray us" commercial, Dan Rather's reporting on Bush's Nation Guard "career," Hilary's cleavage, John Edwards' haircut, and Michael Moore's movie; and compare.
What gets covered? What is overwhelmingly ignored?
- Uke Man
September 28, 2007
Hired Gun Fetish
By PAUL KRUGMAN (a ukethanks to Phyll)
Sometimes it seems that the only way to make sense of the Bush administration is to imagine that it’s a vast experiment concocted by mad political scientists who want to see what happens if a nation systematically ignores everything we’ve learned over the past few centuries about how to make a modern government work.
Thus, the administration has abandoned the principle of a professional, nonpolitical civil service, stuffing agencies from FEMA to the Justice Department with unqualified cronies. Tax farming — giving individuals the right to collect taxes, in return for a share of the take — went out with the French Revolution; now the tax farmers are back.
And so are mercenaries, whom Machiavelli described as “useless and dangerous” more than four centuries ago.
As far as I can tell, America has never fought a war in which mercenaries made up a large part of the armed force. But in Iraq, they are so central to the effort that, as Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution points out in a new report, “the private military industry has suffered more losses in Iraq than the rest of the coalition of allied nations combined.”
And, yes, the so-called private security contractors are mercenaries. They’re heavily armed. They carry out military missions, but they’re private employees who don’t answer to military discipline. On the other hand, they don’t seem to be accountable to Iraqi or U.S. law, either. And they behave accordingly.
We may never know what really happened in a crowded Baghdad square two weeks ago. Employees of Blackwater USA claim that they were attacked by gunmen. Iraqi police and witnesses say that the contractors began firing randomly at a car that didn’t get out of their way.
What we do know is that more than 20 civilians were killed, including the couple and child in the car. And the Iraqi version of events is entirely consistent with many other documented incidents involving security contractors.
For example, Mr. Singer reminds us that in 2005 “armed contractors from the Zapata firm were detained by U.S. forces, who claimed they saw the private soldiers indiscriminately firing not only at Iraqi civilians, but also U.S. Marines.” The contractors were not charged. In 2006, employees of Aegis, another security firm, posted a “trophy video” on the Internet that showed them shooting civilians, and employees of Triple Canopy, yet another contractor, were fired after alleging that a supervisor engaged in “joy-ride shooting” of Iraqi civilians.
Yet even among the contractors, Blackwater has the worst reputation. On Christmas Eve 2006, a drunken Blackwater employee reportedly shot and killed a guard of the Iraqi vice president. (The employee was flown out of the country, and has not been charged.) In May 2007, Blackwater employees reportedly shot an employee of Iraq’s Interior Ministry, leading to an armed standoff between the firm and Iraqi police.
Iraqis aren’t the only victims of this behavior. Of the nearly 4,000 American service members who have died in Iraq, scores if not hundreds would surely still be alive if it weren’t for the hatred such incidents engender.
Which raises the question, why are Blackwater and other mercenary outfits still playing such a big role in Iraq?
Don’t tell me that they are irreplaceable. The Iraq war has now gone on for four and a half years — longer than American participation in World War II. There has been plenty of time for the Bush administration to find a way to do without mercenaries, if it wanted to.
And the danger out-of-control military contractors pose to American forces has been obvious at least since March 2004, when four armed Blackwater employees blundered into Fallujah in the middle of a delicate military operation, getting themselves killed and precipitating a crisis that probably ended any chance of an acceptable outcome in Iraq.
Yet Blackwater is still there. In fact, last year the State Department gave Blackwater the lead role in diplomatic security in Iraq.
Mr. Singer argues that reliance on private military contractors has let the administration avoid making hard political choices, such as admitting that it didn’t send enough troops in the first place. Contractors, he writes, “offered the potential backstop of additional forces, but with no one having to lose any political capital.” That’s undoubtedly part of the story.
But it’s also worth noting that the Bush administration has tried to privatize every aspect of the U.S. government it can, using taxpayers’ money to give lucrative contracts to its friends — people like Erik Prince, the owner of Blackwater, who has strong Republican connections. You might think that national security would take precedence over the fetish for privatization — but remember, President Bush tried to keep airport security in private hands, even after 9/11.
So the privatization of war — no matter how badly it works — is just part of the pattern.
Monday, October 08, 2007
Hey!!! Don't pick on the bigoted, racist, anti-Semitic right wing cop !!!
Hey Folks -
A while back I posted on the sad behavior of a Columbus police officer who had naively displayed her unbelievable racism and bigotry on You Tube ( http://www.ukuleleman.net/2007/08/this-psycho-is-columbus-ohio-police.html ).
I also shared the views expressed by "Mr. Studley" of Upper Arlington who published his classism with naive and ignorant pride ( http://www.ukuleleman.net/2007/10/this-pathetic-emperor-thinks-he-cuts.html ).
And, I'm sure, you've been hearing about Jena, Louisiana and the claims that no racism is involved.
Well, no matter how obviously someone shows themselves, there will always be those to make excuses for them. Below are two examples (letters to the Dispatch) of such apologists who see no problem with having racist, hate-filled cops out on the street.
- Uke Man
City overreacted to police officer's videos
Thursday, September 6, 2007
This is my response to the controversy surrounding Susan L. Purtee ("Bigoted videos investigated," Dispatch article, Aug. 29).
The knee-jerk reaction of Columbus Mayor Michael B. Coleman and the Columbus Division of Police to the uproar created by the sisters makes the city look as far to the left as these women appear to be to the right.
I watched a couple of their videos, and while I disagree with the content found therein, I see no grounds for dismissal from the police department.
]I can understand the division's need to express the fact that the views expressed by these two women are not part its mission for Columbus. However, I feel that the city should not dismiss Purtee unless strong, irrefutable evidence can be found that she abused her power as an officer of the law to advance her own cause.
Otherwise, these videos are nothing more than a woman using her free time to express her views in public, and should be treated as such.
These videos are nothing more than an exercise in our constitutionally protected right to express ourselves. Again, although I disagree with their views, it is their right to express them, and they should not be punished for holding an unpopular view.
Also, formal and public punishment for opinions expressed on her own time and in her own way would do little more than give their conspiracy theory more credit than it deserves.
JAKE ANDERSON
Gahanna
Personal info tainted article on officer
Thursday, September 6, 2007 3:51 AM
The Saturday Dispatch article "Woman was rejected by police review board" on police officer Susan L. Purtee, who produced disparaging ethnic and racial videos, was quite a smear job. The sources for most of the information in the article were 15-year-old police department files containing raw data.
While I certainly don't agree with the content of Purtee's homemade videos, it is frightening this type of personal information was made available to a newspaper reporter with a mission.
It sends a strong signal to all current and prospective city employees that details about their personal lives can and will be used against them if they express unpopular views.
Indeed, Reporter Theodore Decker noted that "civic and city leaders have banded together" against Purtee.
Some of the information and opinions in the police evaluation-board files from 1991 and reported in the story deserve special comment.
The evaluation-board entry, "has worked 20 years and has nothing to show for it," could also apply to thousands of hard-working people in central Ohio.
Revealing that Purtee had two divorces, plus the allegation she had married an illegal immigrant thief, was a transparent attempt to disparage her character and judgment.
The story also included information that she ranked 100th out of 116 in her graduating class at St. Francis DeSales High School.
I'm sure some of the city's leaders as well as members of the press would be reluctant to have their high-school class ranks published.
This was obviously a hatchet job written with the intention of lowering the boom on Purtee. The piece was over the top, vindictive and mean-spirited. It demonstrated a lack of class and civility too prevalent in American journalism today.
ED NOONAN
Dublin
Saturday, October 06, 2007
This pathetic Emperor thinks he cuts a fine figure in his fancy clothes
Hey Folks -
As usual, the Columbus D passed over my letter, but they can't stop the blog!!
Below, you will find the letter, actually published, to which I responded. In it Mr. Studley (that's his real name) calls "a war that will never end" the "one sensible basis on which to approach the future." And he isn't shy about patting himself and the "upper-middle-class" on the back for being "the best" - which, in turn (he explains) causes envy on the part of media-maddened "have-nots" around the world (and presumably here as well); who, in turn, cause all the trouble in the world - those jealous have-nots.
Below that letter is my unpublished response. At some point I'll be sending it to Mr. S.
- Uke Man
Americans need strong leadership
Saturday, September 22, 2007
To the Editor of the Columbus Dispatch,
Global issues are Upper Arlington's responsibility. Let's give merit to this statement before going any further.
Communities such as ours are the engine that keeps our country running. Upper-middle-class cities and towns and villages, from the East Coast to the West Coast, are the people who make our country the envy of the rest of the world. Being the best has a downside: jealousy. It may not be the optimum word to describe a large portion of the world's contempt toward the United States.
The underlying principle behind our lack of a harmonious world is simple. There are basically two extremes in the world: the haves and the have-nots. Add in the one-sided, biased media that are force-fed to everyone in the world, and you can't help but see the reason for resentment and hatred toward the United States.
I am a proud conservative Republican businessman who appreciates the freedoms we have and am willing to do whatever I can to keep it this way. I am an Upper Arlington resident, 43 and the father of four children who attend Upper Arlington schools.
Modern technology, as great as it seems, also has a downside. It made 9/11 a reality, something nobody had to worry about prior to computers and jet airplanes. Technologies have made the world totally accessible to good and evil. President Bush, whatever your opinion of him, is right on target with how this worldwide problem must be dealt with.
The people of Upper Arlington and other communities across the United States need to look past the media and realize that, like it or not, because of technology and the ever-increasing world population, the United States will be involved in a war that will never end. This statement sounds negative, but if every intelligent person searches deeply into his soul, and he looks honestly at the world today, this conclusion is the one sensible basis on which to approach the future.
The slanted view that the public gets forced upon it by the media is successfully brainwashing it to make the wrong voting decisions. Like it or not, the world will never be warm and fuzzy: It's just too complex. However, with the United States as a strong leader, I hope we can continue to police the world and prevent rogue extremist countries from starting a worldwide nuclear war.
President Bush, as unpopular as the media have tried to make him, is a man with a backbone who has remained commited to what we all know is right. The liberal media have done their best to take credibility away from the Iraq war; they fail to admit that Iraq is just the first of many rogue-Muslim-extremist countries that will have to be sat on to keep the world safe.
If we don't vote in another strong leader to continue what this administration has put into place, then we may, God forbid, end up with another four-year Jimmy Carter debacle.
The world can't afford to go backward. Please, think before you vote.
MARC J. STUDLEY - Upper Arlington
To the Editor,
Upper Arlington resident Marc J. Studley’s recent letter extolling the virtues of upper-middle-class bedroom communities (home of “the best,” “the engine that keeps our country running,” the focus of “resentment” and “jealousy” ) claims there “are basically two extremes in the world: the haves and the have-nots.”
He knows where he fits and thinks he can keep it that way if “we can continue to police the world.” He supports the Iraq War and calls for the election of another president “with a backbone” like George Bush (who has identified his constituency as “the haves and the have-mores”). This is necessary if we are to continue waging a “war that will never end.”
This “proud conservative Republican businessman” ends by urging us all: “think before you vote.” I wonder how many residents of Upper Arlington wish Studley had thought before he wrote.
Yours – Tom Harker
Friday, October 05, 2007
Good Bye Stagecoach BBQ !!!
Hey Folks -
It's been a great five-year run. The delicious food, the great music, wonderful new friends!!
We had the "CD Party" for our second album at the Stagecoach BBQ, and now it is closed. I guess, as Emily Dickenson said, "nothing gold can stay."
The Uke Man isn't getting any younger, and the passing of this wonderful venue is a sad reminder of my mortality. With the passing of the Stagecoach, the jingle I wrote for it at its founding will pass as well; so, I guess, a part of me will pass as well.
Rest easy, Stagecoach. We'll miss you, but we'll remember you, too!!!
- Uke Man
It's been a great five-year run. The delicious food, the great music, wonderful new friends!!
We had the "CD Party" for our second album at the Stagecoach BBQ, and now it is closed. I guess, as Emily Dickenson said, "nothing gold can stay."
The Uke Man isn't getting any younger, and the passing of this wonderful venue is a sad reminder of my mortality. With the passing of the Stagecoach, the jingle I wrote for it at its founding will pass as well; so, I guess, a part of me will pass as well.
Rest easy, Stagecoach. We'll miss you, but we'll remember you, too!!!
- Uke Man
Thursday, October 04, 2007
Bad News at the BBQ
Hey Folks,
I played at the Stagecoach BBQ tonight - as is my usual practice on Thursday evenings - and had a good time, but the news was broken that as of next Tuesday, the BBQ would be no more. Someone else is taking over and everything (except maybe the Open Stage) will be changing.
We'll see.
I took some pictures as a farewell salute. I'll post them soon.
- Uke Man
I played at the Stagecoach BBQ tonight - as is my usual practice on Thursday evenings - and had a good time, but the news was broken that as of next Tuesday, the BBQ would be no more. Someone else is taking over and everything (except maybe the Open Stage) will be changing.
We'll see.
I took some pictures as a farewell salute. I'll post them soon.
- Uke Man
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Chris Matthews Revealed
Hey Folks -
If you didn't see The Daily Show on Tuesday, Oct. 2, you MUST see this clip!!!
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=104548&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true
I've sat and screamed at Matthews on the tube. He's the kind of guy who just doesn't get it - but that doesn't hold him back; he speaks with authority - sometimes on both sides of an issue, apparently without even knowing it.
His new book, Life's a Campaign, seems to fit that - it suggests that regular folks get ahead by aping politicians; Matthews seems to think that "getting to the top" is what really matters and whether anyone, in the end, believes anything you say is irrelevant. He supports his argument by claiming "Bill Clinton, when he was in college, would get women, girls in bed by listening." He believes life is about "getting jobs," "getting promotions," selling products," "getting the girl of your dreams" - get, get, get, get, get.
Stewart's steadfast humanity never buckled. Matthews' get-ahead-at-whatever-cost philosophy was starkly revealed for what it is, a bankrupt perspective not unlike that of Bush, the Neocons, Wal-Mart executives, Blackwater, pharmaceutical companies, and the rest of that ilk.
- Uke Man
If you didn't see The Daily Show on Tuesday, Oct. 2, you MUST see this clip!!!
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=104548&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=/shows/the_daily_show/videos/most_recent/index.jhtml&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true
I've sat and screamed at Matthews on the tube. He's the kind of guy who just doesn't get it - but that doesn't hold him back; he speaks with authority - sometimes on both sides of an issue, apparently without even knowing it.
His new book, Life's a Campaign, seems to fit that - it suggests that regular folks get ahead by aping politicians; Matthews seems to think that "getting to the top" is what really matters and whether anyone, in the end, believes anything you say is irrelevant. He supports his argument by claiming "Bill Clinton, when he was in college, would get women, girls in bed by listening." He believes life is about "getting jobs," "getting promotions," selling products," "getting the girl of your dreams" - get, get, get, get, get.
Stewart's steadfast humanity never buckled. Matthews' get-ahead-at-whatever-cost philosophy was starkly revealed for what it is, a bankrupt perspective not unlike that of Bush, the Neocons, Wal-Mart executives, Blackwater, pharmaceutical companies, and the rest of that ilk.
- Uke Man
Tuesday, October 02, 2007
M.U.D. Tonight!!!
Hey Folks !!
Tonight (Tuesday) you can tune in to "Midnight Ukulele Disco," a Manhattan Ukulele TV Show put on by my friends Jason & Ted ("Sonic Uke").
All you have to do to enjoy the show is go to: http://www.ukuleledisco.com/live and you can watch the show.
It starts at 9:00, but if you want to interact on the concurrent chat, get there a little early and sign in (type a name and a password).
I'll be viewing and participating. Check in, enjoy, participate. See you there!!!
- Uke Man
Tonight (Tuesday) you can tune in to "Midnight Ukulele Disco," a Manhattan Ukulele TV Show put on by my friends Jason & Ted ("Sonic Uke").
All you have to do to enjoy the show is go to: http://www.ukuleledisco.com/live and you can watch the show.
It starts at 9:00, but if you want to interact on the concurrent chat, get there a little early and sign in (type a name and a password).
I'll be viewing and participating. Check in, enjoy, participate. See you there!!!
- Uke Man
Monday, October 01, 2007
The Bad & the Ugly
Hey Folks -
The first paragraph of the article below says it all:
Sometimes it seems that the only way to make sense of the Bush administration is to imagine that it’s a vast experiment concocted by mad political scientists who want to see what happens if a nation systematically ignores everything we’ve learned over the past few centuries about how to make a modern government work.
Read the article and think about the uproar over Move On's "Betray us" commercial, Dan Rather's reporting on Bush's Nation Guard "career," Hilary's cleavage, John Edwards' haircut, and Michael Moore's movie; and compare.
What gets covered? What is overwhelmingly ignored?
- Uke Man
September 28, 2007
Hired Gun Fetish
By PAUL KRUGMAN
a ukethanks to Phyll
Sometimes it seems that the only way to make sense of the Bush administration is to imagine that it’s a vast experiment concocted by mad political scientists who want to see what happens if a nation systematically ignores everything we’ve learned over the past few centuries about how to make a modern government work.
Thus, the administration has abandoned the principle of a professional, nonpolitical civil service, stuffing agencies from FEMA to the Justice Department with unqualified cronies. Tax farming — giving individuals the right to collect taxes, in return for a share of the take — went out with the French Revolution; now the tax farmers are back.
And so are mercenaries, whom Machiavelli described as “useless and dangerous” more than four centuries ago.
As far as I can tell, America has never fought a war in which mercenaries made up a large part of the armed force. But in Iraq, they are so central to the effort that, as Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution points out in a new report, “the private military industry has suffered more losses in Iraq than the rest of the coalition of allied nations combined.”
And, yes, the so-called private security contractors are mercenaries. They’re heavily armed. They carry out military missions, but they’re private employees who don’t answer to military discipline. On the other hand, they don’t seem to be accountable to Iraqi or U.S. law, either. And they behave accordingly.
We may never know what really happened in a crowded Baghdad square two weeks ago. Employees of Blackwater USA claim that they were attacked by gunmen. Iraqi police and witnesses say that the contractors began firing randomly at a car that didn’t get out of their way.
What we do know is that more than 20 civilians were killed, including the couple and child in the car. And the Iraqi version of events is entirely consistent with many other documented incidents involving security contractors.
For example, Mr. Singer reminds us that in 2005 “armed contractors from the Zapata firm were detained by U.S. forces, who claimed they saw the private soldiers indiscriminately firing not only at Iraqi civilians, but also U.S. Marines.” The contractors were not charged. In 2006, employees of Aegis, another security firm, posted a “trophy video” on the Internet that showed them shooting civilians, and employees of Triple Canopy, yet another contractor, were fired after alleging that a supervisor engaged in “joy-ride shooting” of Iraqi civilians.
Yet even among the contractors, Blackwater has the worst reputation. On Christmas Eve 2006, a drunken Blackwater employee reportedly shot and killed a guard of the Iraqi vice president. (The employee was flown out of the country, and has not been charged.) In May 2007, Blackwater employees reportedly shot an employee of Iraq’s Interior Ministry, leading to an armed standoff between the firm and Iraqi police.
Iraqis aren’t the only victims of this behavior. Of the nearly 4,000 American service members who have died in Iraq, scores if not hundreds would surely still be alive if it weren’t for the hatred such incidents engender.
Which raises the question, why are Blackwater and other mercenary outfits still playing such a big role in Iraq?
Don’t tell me that they are irreplaceable. The Iraq war has now gone on for four and a half years — longer than American participation in World War II. There has been plenty of time for the Bush administration to find a way to do without mercenaries, if it wanted to.
And the danger out-of-control military contractors pose to American forces has been obvious at least since March 2004, when four armed Blackwater employees blundered into Fallujah in the middle of a delicate military operation, getting themselves killed and precipitating a crisis that probably ended any chance of an acceptable outcome in Iraq.
Yet Blackwater is still there. In fact, last year the State Department gave Blackwater the lead role in diplomatic security in Iraq.
Mr. Singer argues that reliance on private military contractors has let the administration avoid making hard political choices, such as admitting that it didn’t send enough troops in the first place. Contractors, he writes, “offered the potential backstop of additional forces, but with no one having to lose any political capital.” That’s undoubtedly part of the story.
But it’s also worth noting that the Bush administration has tried to privatize every aspect of the U.S. government it can, using taxpayers’ money to give lucrative contracts to its friends — people like Erik Prince, the owner of Blackwater, who has strong Republican connections. You might think that national security would take precedence over the fetish for privatization — but remember, President Bush tried to keep airport security in private hands, even after 9/11.
So the privatization of war — no matter how badly it works — is just part of the pattern.
The first paragraph of the article below says it all:
Sometimes it seems that the only way to make sense of the Bush administration is to imagine that it’s a vast experiment concocted by mad political scientists who want to see what happens if a nation systematically ignores everything we’ve learned over the past few centuries about how to make a modern government work.
Read the article and think about the uproar over Move On's "Betray us" commercial, Dan Rather's reporting on Bush's Nation Guard "career," Hilary's cleavage, John Edwards' haircut, and Michael Moore's movie; and compare.
What gets covered? What is overwhelmingly ignored?
- Uke Man
September 28, 2007
Hired Gun Fetish
By PAUL KRUGMAN
a ukethanks to Phyll
Sometimes it seems that the only way to make sense of the Bush administration is to imagine that it’s a vast experiment concocted by mad political scientists who want to see what happens if a nation systematically ignores everything we’ve learned over the past few centuries about how to make a modern government work.
Thus, the administration has abandoned the principle of a professional, nonpolitical civil service, stuffing agencies from FEMA to the Justice Department with unqualified cronies. Tax farming — giving individuals the right to collect taxes, in return for a share of the take — went out with the French Revolution; now the tax farmers are back.
And so are mercenaries, whom Machiavelli described as “useless and dangerous” more than four centuries ago.
As far as I can tell, America has never fought a war in which mercenaries made up a large part of the armed force. But in Iraq, they are so central to the effort that, as Peter W. Singer of the Brookings Institution points out in a new report, “the private military industry has suffered more losses in Iraq than the rest of the coalition of allied nations combined.”
And, yes, the so-called private security contractors are mercenaries. They’re heavily armed. They carry out military missions, but they’re private employees who don’t answer to military discipline. On the other hand, they don’t seem to be accountable to Iraqi or U.S. law, either. And they behave accordingly.
We may never know what really happened in a crowded Baghdad square two weeks ago. Employees of Blackwater USA claim that they were attacked by gunmen. Iraqi police and witnesses say that the contractors began firing randomly at a car that didn’t get out of their way.
What we do know is that more than 20 civilians were killed, including the couple and child in the car. And the Iraqi version of events is entirely consistent with many other documented incidents involving security contractors.
For example, Mr. Singer reminds us that in 2005 “armed contractors from the Zapata firm were detained by U.S. forces, who claimed they saw the private soldiers indiscriminately firing not only at Iraqi civilians, but also U.S. Marines.” The contractors were not charged. In 2006, employees of Aegis, another security firm, posted a “trophy video” on the Internet that showed them shooting civilians, and employees of Triple Canopy, yet another contractor, were fired after alleging that a supervisor engaged in “joy-ride shooting” of Iraqi civilians.
Yet even among the contractors, Blackwater has the worst reputation. On Christmas Eve 2006, a drunken Blackwater employee reportedly shot and killed a guard of the Iraqi vice president. (The employee was flown out of the country, and has not been charged.) In May 2007, Blackwater employees reportedly shot an employee of Iraq’s Interior Ministry, leading to an armed standoff between the firm and Iraqi police.
Iraqis aren’t the only victims of this behavior. Of the nearly 4,000 American service members who have died in Iraq, scores if not hundreds would surely still be alive if it weren’t for the hatred such incidents engender.
Which raises the question, why are Blackwater and other mercenary outfits still playing such a big role in Iraq?
Don’t tell me that they are irreplaceable. The Iraq war has now gone on for four and a half years — longer than American participation in World War II. There has been plenty of time for the Bush administration to find a way to do without mercenaries, if it wanted to.
And the danger out-of-control military contractors pose to American forces has been obvious at least since March 2004, when four armed Blackwater employees blundered into Fallujah in the middle of a delicate military operation, getting themselves killed and precipitating a crisis that probably ended any chance of an acceptable outcome in Iraq.
Yet Blackwater is still there. In fact, last year the State Department gave Blackwater the lead role in diplomatic security in Iraq.
Mr. Singer argues that reliance on private military contractors has let the administration avoid making hard political choices, such as admitting that it didn’t send enough troops in the first place. Contractors, he writes, “offered the potential backstop of additional forces, but with no one having to lose any political capital.” That’s undoubtedly part of the story.
But it’s also worth noting that the Bush administration has tried to privatize every aspect of the U.S. government it can, using taxpayers’ money to give lucrative contracts to its friends — people like Erik Prince, the owner of Blackwater, who has strong Republican connections. You might think that national security would take precedence over the fetish for privatization — but remember, President Bush tried to keep airport security in private hands, even after 9/11.
So the privatization of war — no matter how badly it works — is just part of the pattern.
About Me
- Name: Tom Harker
- Location: Circleville, Ohio, United States
Music and Politics, Politics and Music!!! * * * Everything is political. We’re admonished, “Never discuss religion or politics.” Follow that advice, and we’ll have to quit talking altogether. * * * Well, the Uke Man speaks! * * * Keep track here of my musical shenanigans, my political ruminations, and - from time to time - some other interesting eruptions.
Previous Posts
- Calvin Coolidge, mental midget
- Calvin Coolidge - What a guy !!
- Jesus loves you
- Rich greedy Brazilians again stewing in their own ...
- "Dick & Bush" - Economic Whorehouse to the Elite
- Doing unto others can bite you on the ass !!
- Golfer William Howard Daft
- Bush, the Democrats, & the Golf War
- "Whatever you say, Buffalo Bob!!"
Archives
- December 2004
- January 2005
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
