The Wisconsin teacher sick day ruse: send them to detention

Wisconsin teacher 'sick day' ruse and teaching youth right from wrong
 
I think it's a shame, that we cannot "fire" terrible parents, or fine them, and that money go into a college fund or something useful for their children. Failed parents -- not those whose kids are embarrassed by them, but really awful parents -- deserve to be called out, not humiliated but shown that they need to be trained, or retrained. I am grateful that the worst of the worst -- those who apparently harm their children -- do lose their children to various state services agencies. Sometimes. Blessing and a curse, naturally, that the state then puts the children into an often horribly insufficient foster home system.
 
(Do I need to note this? I shouldn't have to, but, for clarity...) I think it is heartbreaking that children of miserably bad parents are from birth in a cycle of negative and/or impersonal influences. It is also disheartening to see them face life lessons at the hands of teachers who seemingly are less concerned about their influence on youth, the excellence of their job performance, than they are of their ability to relegate those issues to tertiary importance.
 
Wisconsin teachers, and others such as in Indiana, in resistance to what MIGHT be a too-strong retraction of labor union functions, have ceased to be teachers for a few weeks now (and counting?) to express their distaste for the state's new Republican governor, who with a GOP-strong state House is trying to pass the legislation. That legislation is to require the teachers to pay more of their own benefits out of their salary. They don't like that.
 
As in 41 states, in Wisconsin government workers get more benefits than private industry workers, salary and otherwise. Is this a failure of private companies to treat employees reasonably, or is it a practice of government leaders -- politicians and managers, directors, etc. -- of grinning back-patting of those who work closest to them and, overwhelmingly in the case of Democrats, those who shove lots of union dues-gained money into the election campaign coffers)? I choose the latter, because while there's plenty of imbalance in private business, too, at least they are accountable to some things, including a profit margin, where government seems to spend what's no longer there. And I won't even bother to go into the strategic, cowardly abandoning of their posts by state house Democrats, because that's too easy to mock.
 
Aside from all the potential lessons in this tussle, there is the matter of what these teachers, by their example, are displaying for the young they have unceremoniously granted days off while the teachers strike.
 
What's more, these teachers are striking in reaction to what is claimed to be a budget matter, a tightening of the belt as many of us have felt in recent years. The teachers are letting everyone know that their regular pay raises and guaranteed state pensions are more important than healing any budget woes. That budget matter could turn into a mass layoff rather than a spreading of less "freebie" benefits. Then there's this: doctors have been giving the teachers fake -- read that: FAKE -- doctor's notes to protect them from losing pay during the strike. The teachers and the doctors ought to be brought up on professional disciplinary charges.
 
What lesson does that activity teach the young? That so long as you screw the system and look out primarily for yourselves in a crass manner, and you can find conspirators to help you cynically mock the system, don't waste a moment wondering if it's prudent or moral repugnant. Or, in short, "screw everybody else, kids!"
-- jR
 

Egypt bounces Mubarak, and Iran's boss hails 'a new Middle East'

Akhmedthenutjob praises the freedom-loving Egyptian people. Huh. I guess if you present yourself as a fictional character often enough, it gets easier and easier to pretend you're the leader of a country that encourages freedom and liberty of the common people.
 
Meanwhile, the opposition to the sniveling little mullah-puppet, in Iran, is seemingly afraid to protest in parallel to Egypt's peaceable overthrow of a dictator, seeing what happened in Iran's streets in 2009. What with all the cruelty, guns and clubs, and things, when they had their own popular revolt that year. Reportedly, the Republican Guard -- the Imperial Stormtroopers of Iran -- have already warned that a protect would be "crushed".
 
Is that "crushed" as in why a boy secretly passes a cheap Valentine's card to a smiling girl in the third grade, or "crushed" as in the credibility of anything pleasant or democracy-supporting said by Iran's leadership, for instance, at a rally in support of Egypt's new chance for a fresh start at democracy?
 

(The Telegraph - UK)

Despite suppressing its own opposition movement, Mr Ahmadinejad drew parallels between the protests in Egypt and the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran.

"In spite of all the (West's) complicated and satanic designs ... a new Middle East is emerging without the Zionist regime and US interference, a place where the arrogant powers will have no place," he told a rally in Tehran's Azadi Square. ... [Irony doesn't seem to register with him.]

...Iranian opposition groups have called for marches on Tuesday, but Hossein Hamedani, a senior commander of the feared Revolutionary Guard said any attempt to rally would be crushed. Opposition leader Mehdi Karroubi remains under house arrest for trying to organise a protest on Monday.

The BBC said [the] signal for its Persian service was jammed [as of] Thursday in an attempt to block its Egypt coverage.

In Jordan, 1,000 demonstrators called for Prime Minister Marouf al-Bakhit, appointed just last week by King Abdullah II, to step down and anti-corruption marches continued across Iraq.

In the Gaza Strip, a Friday protest inspired by the Egypt demonstrations – and organised on Facebook – against Hamas rule in the Palestinian territory attracted virtually no supporters.

Authorities in Algeria have ringed the capital Algiers ahead of a planned pro-democracy march today. Public transport has reportedly been cancelled and large amounts of tear gas have been imported by police.

-----

I'm still pulling for the Gaza Strip to boot Hamas. But I am also recalling what happened in Lebanon: Hezbollah taking over that country. Fingers crossed.

- jR

Ignatius: The Arab revolution grows up

Egypt is the largest Arab country with about 80 million people. They have been an ally to the U.S. -- challenging as they have been under Mubarak -- for a long time. Coming from the turmoil in the Middle East now and into the coming weeks, perhaps months, my greatest concern is that radical groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood and Al Queda -- or any other extreme Islamist groups -- could advantage of any power struggle, or power vacuum, to come in Egypt. However, I think that all the pieces collectively show us that Egypt today is not the Iran of 1979. The Iran of 1979 is still a warning for us all with regard to Egypt, that we need to assure no repeat of what happened in Iran 31 years ago.

Wanted to share this: Some insightful words from David Ignatius, the very talented writer and author, on the Egyptian crisis. (Emphases -- bold or italics -- are mine.)

Nobody said it better than Hosni Mubarak: "Our eventual goal is to create an equal society, not a society of privileges and class distinctions. Social justice is the first rule for peace and stability in society." But that was in November 1981, a few weeks after he had become president of Egypt.

Over the next 30 years, Mubarak became a symbol not of equality but of a deep corruption -- financial, political and cultural -- that enveloped Egypt and other countries in the Middle East. He grew arrogant like a king, fancying that he could pass on his dynasty to his son; he ignored advice for reform, doing just enough to keep critics at bay; he shamelessly played upon Western fears of Islamic radicalism....

[Syria's] President Assad today is less vulnerable than Mubarak was: [Assad's] regime is at least as corrupt and autocratic, but it has remained steadfastly anti-American and anti-Israel. Hard as it is for us in the West to accept, this rejectionism adds to Assad's power, whereas Mubarak was diminished by his image as the West's puppet.

Washington debate about the new Arab revolt tends to focus on the U.S. role.... But this isn't about us. If ... former ambassador to Cairo Frank Wisner could help broker Mubarak's departure and a stable transition to new elections, so much the better. But Egyptians don't need America to chart their course.

It's encouraging to see that the demonstrators in the streets of Cairo, Amman and Sanaa are not shouting the same tired slogans about "death to America" and "death to Israel" that for several generations have substituted for political debate. And it's reassuring, as well, that the Muslim Brotherhood and other militant groups have so far played it cool. They know that the past "decade of jihad" was ruinous for Muslims and is unpopular.

"This is not about slogans," says Mroueh. "The real issue is life: I want an apartment, I want a job." And it's about the dignity that comes from these essential human needs. In reaching out to the military, the protesters have chosen the right allies for a path of stability and change.

Read the whole piece here (WaPost).

 
- jR
 

Oh, the Corporate Drama: History, other channels, pass on new 'Kennedys' drama

Late in January, History channel dropped a bio-pic on the Kennedy clan. The New York Times had a piece on it, "Dramatizing Camelot"

Concerns about accuracy led the History channel not to run "The Kennedys," a scripted mini-series starring Greg Kinnear.

The article:

The Times article explains that the program "was meant to bring History prestige, as well as to establish a connection to the 'Kennedys' producer Joel Surnow, an Emmy Award-winning co-creator of the Fox series '24' and outspoken political conservative. 


So, what are the great concerns with dramatic work being accurate, when their own documentary history series can be awfully juvenile? 

Accuracy or a balanced story about "us", the population of the United States from the origins of Native Americans to 20th century immigrants' families, did not seem to be a large worry during production of "America: The Story of Us". 

(Admittedly, this is a rant against evident lame media practices, not a deep critique, as I only managed to sit through about half of one episode, a few minutes of another, and I was through with it. Disappointed in it. (If it were a milk product, it would be cheese food product in a spay can, not even flavored cream cheese. Savvy?) 

That docu-series was using real, though a lot of small (or fairly even marginal?), historic events, and not using thespian portrayals, I don't think. It was marketed as a broad-brush telling of our story: Americans. It seemed like a lot of snapshots of us, not THE STORY of us. Should have called it "Some Stories of Us," or "A Story of Us," at least, for clarity (so no one would have expected what they promoted, which was big picture history). 

So, shown by this recent decision, one can assume that, at History, being clumsy with the historic impact of true events in documentary form is not toying with facts. But pushing dramatization is unsavory? For the HISTORY channel? I don't understand the struggle with facts in a drama after they pushed "The Story of Us" so hard. 

So long as it does not have an identity crisis as did the channel formerly known (or, prior to 2003, ACCURATELY known) as Bravo, an arts programming channel. 

Bravo is now one of many, many reality TV havens on the tube. And it is no longer a channel I watch. I had enough of overproduced reality TV segments after 10 minutes of the first season of "Big Brother", after experiencing "Cops", a little "Real Life",  after the first seasons of "Survivor" and "American Idol". 

No more identity-confused stations, please? Maybe at History they're having a hard time convincing themselves that original docudramas belong on History? Why not, so long as I may still enjoy my decent documentaries on there.

- jR

Obama Commented: Present

Obama commented on Egypt's Mubarak vowing to not run again. Wasn't much, seemed suited for a released statement than a live moment.

I guess if this were a vote, and he had to vote for Mubarak or for new, representative government, Obama would have voted PRESENT.

- jR