Not being a fan of Halloween, I have my own kind of "ghost holiday". Rather than indulge in a holiday in which children are told to put on masks, knock on doors and threaten people in exchange for the cheapest wrapped candy imaginable, I've decided that the only spooky fantasy I'll engage in is...adolescent confession.
Recently, I've been adding to my music collection singers and songs which I have had in my head for as long as I can remember. Everything from "It's Not Easy Being Green" to "Pretty Women" from Sondheim's Sweeney Todd. The latter is connected to my escapist admission here. I have been forever in love with Len Cariou. Fine actor, singer and solid hunk even now, he is one of few men whose talent, crisp looks and presence overtake even lesbian me. So, here's my adolescent admission, my escape for the night back into the world in which I still believe in and am overwhelmed by charm, gender aside.
There are really just a few famous men for whom I fall in that hand-on-the-back-of the-head way. I've been lucky to know men and women in my life who have that power over me, too, like Karen Hunter, but I won't embarass others by naming them. It's an odd feeling, watching Len Cariou or Sir Anthony Hopkins or video of the late Jerry Orbach. They have this enormous credibility to me and they are so overwhelmingly large to me, as if they could spread their arms and catch me. I know it's a father fixation as much as anything, but it hardly matters when I see them perform. They're magical because they are so completely and greaselessly confident. Maybe it's their talent and energy-- they're features, voices and frames look as broad as the bottom of a tidal wave and as full of vitality.
So, there. That's my Halloween escape. No pressuring anyone for colored confectioners sugar aged to hardness and wrapped in what my students' call, "Pimp colored" paper. Just memory of lovely presences.
Couldn't we have a holiday in which we taught kids to treasure the people who fill them with awe? They could draw pictures of Spiderman or mom or their coach or their favorite movie star. And just share the shimmer. That's far sweeter.
31 October, 2008
30 October, 2008
Bernie, my opera loving cat
I was listening to a PremiereOpera Podcast (premiereopera.org) and in the middle of Richard Tucker's last "Cielo e Mar," Bernie just stopped chasing his toy and walked toward me and stood still with eyes full of softness.
He's sitting on the window listening to "Thine Alone" now. He keeps giving me these intense looks -- he can't focus on what's outside. He just keeps being moved to radio his feelings out. Last time he heard this, he just stood on the window and blinked at me.
Henry used to purr during opera broadcasts. I wasn't permitted to talk for the first hour -- he'd bat me lightly. Then, he'd fall asleep.
Larry likes the music, but prefers sports broadcasts -- those rivet him. The super bowl was a real highlight, and baseball games on the radio hold him for innings. He does like the music, and he likes it better than Hip Hop, which he has trouble with, but he LOVES sports.
Bernie just went to sit down, ignoring the opportunity to knock over his now empty food dish, as he usually does to indicate breakfast time is near.
THAT'S SOMETHING.
Larry attempted to engage Bernie in a run to the window and Bernie bat him lightly the way Henry would me. I've always thought there was a little Henry in Bernie.
Clearly, Bernie wants to focus on THE MUSIC.
My cat has better priorities than the agency for which I work.
P.S. Later, I noticed BOTH cats sitting still for Franco Corelli.
He's sitting on the window listening to "Thine Alone" now. He keeps giving me these intense looks -- he can't focus on what's outside. He just keeps being moved to radio his feelings out. Last time he heard this, he just stood on the window and blinked at me.
Henry used to purr during opera broadcasts. I wasn't permitted to talk for the first hour -- he'd bat me lightly. Then, he'd fall asleep.
Larry likes the music, but prefers sports broadcasts -- those rivet him. The super bowl was a real highlight, and baseball games on the radio hold him for innings. He does like the music, and he likes it better than Hip Hop, which he has trouble with, but he LOVES sports.
Bernie just went to sit down, ignoring the opportunity to knock over his now empty food dish, as he usually does to indicate breakfast time is near.
THAT'S SOMETHING.
Larry attempted to engage Bernie in a run to the window and Bernie bat him lightly the way Henry would me. I've always thought there was a little Henry in Bernie.
Clearly, Bernie wants to focus on THE MUSIC.
My cat has better priorities than the agency for which I work.
P.S. Later, I noticed BOTH cats sitting still for Franco Corelli.
25 October, 2008
I didn't come to school because I COULDN'T
Recently, there's been talk in the NYC papers about absenteeism. As always, the first people to be placed at fault are the teachers. It's easy to assume that children don't come to school because their classes are uninteresting. The keyword here is "easy". Think about the subject more closely for a minute: we're talking about children. Five, Seven, Ten even Thirteen year olds. These are not individuals old enough to make the decision about whether they go to school. That decision is in the hands of their parents. I should know.
All through elementary school, I missed 60 days of school a year -- on average. There was no kid in the building who wanted to be there more than I did -- a classic child with Asperger's Syndrome, I felt infinitely more comfortable talking with adults, enjoyed studying subjects in obsessive depth and was not terribly interested in the social world of children. School was my haven -- there I could talk with adults about a range of subjects, whether through the venue of class discussion or during recess or my lunch period. It was also one of the only places I received true praise in my entire life: I wrote with authority and with a precocious vocabulary and was rewarded with esteem from my entire Hebrew School. Though I was awkward, heavy and a physical mess, my intelligence was widely acknowledged and my reputation preceeded me at every juncture and in every grade. Even the principals --secular and Hebrew, gave me special attention. When I got into trouble, as I did often, they had long talks with me about what I had done. Sometimes they saw my point of view. When one teacher persecuted me for my untidyness and we therefore developed a combative relationship, the Hebrew principal stopped admonishing me, but simply instructed me to sit in his office for what seemed like a reasonable period of time and then return to class. He knew the woman didn't like me and was cruel to me and he wasn't going to add to that punishment.
My school was the only place in the world where I was thoroughly understood.
Yet, I could not go there much of the year because my mother kept me home. I wasn't ill. Sometimes she was ill. Sometimes she wanted to take off and go to the theater. Sometimes she thought I had stayed up too late studying and needed to sleep. Did she understand that I couldn't start studying until she went to sleep because she wouldn't stop talking to me about her day and her problems. OR, she couldn't stop fighting with me and my grandmother about
1) Why she had been born in the first place
2) Where the people whom she believed came into our apartment when we were asleep or unaware had put her keys, cigarettes, money, favorite pin, etc.
3) Why I didn't have a right to be on the phone for long conversations
4) Just general sexual/physical frustration
5) What she perceived to be, sometimes rightly, my grandmother's judgement of her tastes
There were other reasons, too, but you get the idea. My mother is mentally ill and she involved the entire household in her disease.
Nonetheless, I called people and got the homework assignments and did them. Paradoxically, she even took me to the library to help me complete my school reports. She wanted me to do well in school. That you have to go to school to do so never occurred to her.
And, I did well, even though I didn't go. Whenever I took a test, be it on the given day or the day I returned to school, I did exceptionally well. My reading comprehension was at college level by the sixth grade. I wrote powerfully, however disorganizedly. Moreover, I wrote with passion and always with evidence for my opinions. More than one teacher suggested I go to law school.
Fortunately for me, I did not attend a public school. At a public school, no one would have paid any attention to my reading levels or my academic success. Just being absent would have caused me to be held back. My elementary school wanted to once because of fear of scrutiny by the school system, but gave me provisional rights to go on to the next grade after my mother called and asked how they could keep a child with an 87 average back a grade. Surely there were kids with lower averages being advanced? They saw her point -- they would have seen it anyway. No one at my school thought for a moment that the solution to my problems rested in being retained in a grade.
They knew the solution to my problems was far more complicated. Having watched my mother's mental illness progress over the years, they knew too well that she was out of control. Although as part of my scholarship she was supposed to help out at the school's fundraising bingo nights, they did not press her into service. People preferred when she didn't show up, I suspect. I came to school unwashed and redolent, though wrapped in nice clothes. My bookbag carried roaches as did my coat. My scalp was covered with sebhorreic dermatitis so bad it took me until about a year ago to get it under control. As I got older, I became difficult and angry and acted out irrationally and desperately. My classmates knew I wanted attention and they forgave me all sorts of imbecilic actions. The few who knew my mother or had seen the apartment in which I lived had told the others how bad things were. I retained my academic credibility and had a few close friends. And despite it all, I got into Stuyvesant High School where I maintained my usual B+ average -- the best I could do under the circumstances.
At Stuyvesant, I had a lot of support from my teachers, counselors, the SPARK program -- the family that was my school. Once again, I was exceedingly lucky to be understood.
It wasn't until I got to Barnard College that I enjoyed the pleasure of not being absent from school unless I was furiously ill.
Most students in NYC are not as lucky as I was. But, I'll tell you one thing we have in common: we are not absent because our classrooms are not welcoming. We are absent because the world outside our schools is chaotic. The overage and under-credited students whom I taught at Brooklyn Comprehensive Night High School all pointed to difficulties in their lives which precipitated and aggravated their failure at school. Yes, many of them also pointed to the school's lack of concern for their well-being. No one said that they left school because it was boring. They didn't make it to school because of obstacles out of their control. They may have fought less and less to stay in school because they felt no one cared. No one took the time to find out the whole of their situations.
Most public schools don't have the number of counselors that I had at Stuyvesant and none are as small as the Hebrew school I attended in grades K-8.
When a kid is absent, it's a signal that something is wrong at home. Perhaps the child is legitimately ill. But, persistent absence doesn't happen without neglect and abuse. That's a hard reality to face because it means that those kids who are chronically absent need much more than just an entertaining lesson. They need social workers, counselors and dramatic intervention.
I'd bet that, given the proper care and a safe and secure home environment, most of those absent students could manage through an occasionally boring day. I'd've given my front teeth for a day in which my biggest problem was that I was bored.
All through elementary school, I missed 60 days of school a year -- on average. There was no kid in the building who wanted to be there more than I did -- a classic child with Asperger's Syndrome, I felt infinitely more comfortable talking with adults, enjoyed studying subjects in obsessive depth and was not terribly interested in the social world of children. School was my haven -- there I could talk with adults about a range of subjects, whether through the venue of class discussion or during recess or my lunch period. It was also one of the only places I received true praise in my entire life: I wrote with authority and with a precocious vocabulary and was rewarded with esteem from my entire Hebrew School. Though I was awkward, heavy and a physical mess, my intelligence was widely acknowledged and my reputation preceeded me at every juncture and in every grade. Even the principals --secular and Hebrew, gave me special attention. When I got into trouble, as I did often, they had long talks with me about what I had done. Sometimes they saw my point of view. When one teacher persecuted me for my untidyness and we therefore developed a combative relationship, the Hebrew principal stopped admonishing me, but simply instructed me to sit in his office for what seemed like a reasonable period of time and then return to class. He knew the woman didn't like me and was cruel to me and he wasn't going to add to that punishment.
My school was the only place in the world where I was thoroughly understood.
Yet, I could not go there much of the year because my mother kept me home. I wasn't ill. Sometimes she was ill. Sometimes she wanted to take off and go to the theater. Sometimes she thought I had stayed up too late studying and needed to sleep. Did she understand that I couldn't start studying until she went to sleep because she wouldn't stop talking to me about her day and her problems. OR, she couldn't stop fighting with me and my grandmother about
1) Why she had been born in the first place
2) Where the people whom she believed came into our apartment when we were asleep or unaware had put her keys, cigarettes, money, favorite pin, etc.
3) Why I didn't have a right to be on the phone for long conversations
4) Just general sexual/physical frustration
5) What she perceived to be, sometimes rightly, my grandmother's judgement of her tastes
There were other reasons, too, but you get the idea. My mother is mentally ill and she involved the entire household in her disease.
Nonetheless, I called people and got the homework assignments and did them. Paradoxically, she even took me to the library to help me complete my school reports. She wanted me to do well in school. That you have to go to school to do so never occurred to her.
And, I did well, even though I didn't go. Whenever I took a test, be it on the given day or the day I returned to school, I did exceptionally well. My reading comprehension was at college level by the sixth grade. I wrote powerfully, however disorganizedly. Moreover, I wrote with passion and always with evidence for my opinions. More than one teacher suggested I go to law school.
Fortunately for me, I did not attend a public school. At a public school, no one would have paid any attention to my reading levels or my academic success. Just being absent would have caused me to be held back. My elementary school wanted to once because of fear of scrutiny by the school system, but gave me provisional rights to go on to the next grade after my mother called and asked how they could keep a child with an 87 average back a grade. Surely there were kids with lower averages being advanced? They saw her point -- they would have seen it anyway. No one at my school thought for a moment that the solution to my problems rested in being retained in a grade.
They knew the solution to my problems was far more complicated. Having watched my mother's mental illness progress over the years, they knew too well that she was out of control. Although as part of my scholarship she was supposed to help out at the school's fundraising bingo nights, they did not press her into service. People preferred when she didn't show up, I suspect. I came to school unwashed and redolent, though wrapped in nice clothes. My bookbag carried roaches as did my coat. My scalp was covered with sebhorreic dermatitis so bad it took me until about a year ago to get it under control. As I got older, I became difficult and angry and acted out irrationally and desperately. My classmates knew I wanted attention and they forgave me all sorts of imbecilic actions. The few who knew my mother or had seen the apartment in which I lived had told the others how bad things were. I retained my academic credibility and had a few close friends. And despite it all, I got into Stuyvesant High School where I maintained my usual B+ average -- the best I could do under the circumstances.
At Stuyvesant, I had a lot of support from my teachers, counselors, the SPARK program -- the family that was my school. Once again, I was exceedingly lucky to be understood.
It wasn't until I got to Barnard College that I enjoyed the pleasure of not being absent from school unless I was furiously ill.
Most students in NYC are not as lucky as I was. But, I'll tell you one thing we have in common: we are not absent because our classrooms are not welcoming. We are absent because the world outside our schools is chaotic. The overage and under-credited students whom I taught at Brooklyn Comprehensive Night High School all pointed to difficulties in their lives which precipitated and aggravated their failure at school. Yes, many of them also pointed to the school's lack of concern for their well-being. No one said that they left school because it was boring. They didn't make it to school because of obstacles out of their control. They may have fought less and less to stay in school because they felt no one cared. No one took the time to find out the whole of their situations.
Most public schools don't have the number of counselors that I had at Stuyvesant and none are as small as the Hebrew school I attended in grades K-8.
When a kid is absent, it's a signal that something is wrong at home. Perhaps the child is legitimately ill. But, persistent absence doesn't happen without neglect and abuse. That's a hard reality to face because it means that those kids who are chronically absent need much more than just an entertaining lesson. They need social workers, counselors and dramatic intervention.
I'd bet that, given the proper care and a safe and secure home environment, most of those absent students could manage through an occasionally boring day. I'd've given my front teeth for a day in which my biggest problem was that I was bored.
No Democracy in NYC
From The Village Voice
Michael Bloomberg's Velvet Coup
Is Mayor Mugabe an outrageous comparison?
By Tom Robbins
published: October 22, 2008
Mugabe? OK, it's an outrageous comparison. Forgive me. Mike Bloomberg would never shut down newspapers or use brutal thugs against dissenters in order to hold onto power. He doesn't have to. He buys them.
Mugabe is for the likes of Charles Barron, the radical councilman who embarrassed the city a few years ago by hosting the Zimbabwean tyrant at City Hall. Funny thing, there was Barron at last week's council hearings demanding to be heard on the mayor's bill to gut term limits—a reform confirmed in two separate voter referendums—in order to give himself four more years in office. There was Barron offering the simplest route to continued democracy: Do nothing.
"Why do we have to change anything?" he asked after Mario Cuomo's lead-off testimony supporting Bloomberg's bid. "The people have spoken twice already. Why not just leave things as they are?"
Barron's simple questions were matched only by The New York Times's fearless editorial page. Alone of the city's dailies, the Times refused to bend its principles. By changing the rules at this late date, the Times warned, the mayor "will tarnish his legacy and further weaken the systems of checks and balances that are essential to . . . democracy."
Uh, wait. Sorry, wrong day. That was the Times in August lecturing President Álvaro Uribe of Columbia "lest he become just another strongman" by grabbing a third term in violation of his country's constitution.
Let's see. Here it is. How could I miss it? It's got that tough, right-to-the-point headline: "The Mayor's Dangerous Idea." The mayor "wants to extend his current term of office," the editorial forthrightly states. "This is a terrible idea. . . . The very concept goes against the most basic of American convictions, that we live in a nation governed by rule of law." Bless the good old Times. Others may cut and run in the face of tyranny. It forever stands tall.
Wait! How did that sneak in here? That was the Old Gray Lady taking Rudy Giuliani to the ethical cleaners back in September 2001—that month of true fear and fiscal panic—when he sought a mere three more months to remain in office.
I know it's here somewhere. Oh, right, that one: "It makes a lot of people uncomfortable to legislatively rewrite a law that voters have twice approved at the ballot box. . . . It makes us uncomfortable too. . . . But we have concluded now that changing the law legislatively does not make us nearly as uncomfortable as keeping it." Hmmm. Well, never mind.
Welcome to Bloomville, where up is down and down up, where it's Charles Barron hoisting democracy's flag, while the Times connives with the Post and the News to provide cover for the coup. Where tycoons of business and real estate call the shots while the once-mighty unions fall meekly into line or merely whisper their opposition for fear of offending the once and future mayatollah. Where a cabal of thieves calling themselves council members leap aboard Bloomberg's ship as eagerly as Somalian pirates lurking for booty in the Indian Ocean.
Yes, Bloomville. We may as well give him naming rights, too. He's bought and paid for everything else. We are inside Jimmy Stewart's unwonderful world where muddled old Bedford Falls has come under one-man rule and morphed into an antiseptic version of anything-goes Pottersville.
Could Columbia's Uribe—or any dreaded Latin American strongman—have done any better at mustering proxies to defend his putsch? Consider the elder Cuomo: The ex-governor was as charming as ever, offering a rambling denunciation of term limits and a sterling endorsement of a continued Bloomberg mayoralty. "He is spectacularly well-suited to the task," said Cuomo.
Once the champion of the poor and the forgotten, Cuomo now carries the business card of the city's elite, a group passionately committed to keeping one of its very own in City Hall. Cuomo is of counsel to Willkie Farr & Gallagher, the law firm that serves as the Washington lobbyist for Bloomberg L.P., the mayor's $22 billion corporation. The firm is also defending the company in a discrimination lawsuit brought by 58 female Bloomberg employees. Last summer, it handled the $4.4 billion buyout of Bloomberg's longtime partner, Merrill Lynch.
The ties stem from close friendship: Top Willkie partner Richard DeScherer handles the Bloomberg family foundation and is an executor of the mayor's estate. He serves on Bloomberg L.P.'s executive committee and, oh yes, on the city's sports foundation. How better to help a friend than to send forth the firm's most famous envoy to do battle for one more mayoral term?
The taint of Bloomberg's multibillion-dollar reach—as mayor, businessman, and philanthropist—fell on many of the true believers who testified in favor of the mayor's end run around the 15-year-old term-limits law.
Here was Geoffrey Canada, celebrated Harlem anti-poverty fighter, whose reasoning for giving the council and Bloomberg an added term conveniently mirrored the mayor's own: "The city is facing its worst crisis in memory," he said. Was that the great Geoff Canada talking? Or was it the director of an organization that depends on $18 million in city contracts and the mayor's "anonymous" private donations?
Echoing Canada was George McDonald, president of the Doe Fund. The homeless-assistance group also benefits from the mayor's private giving and holds $25 million in city contracts. McDonald didn't wait for the hearings. On Columbus Day, he dispatched a crew of Doe Funders to the parade to cheer the mayor with signs proclaiming "Now More Than Ever." Newsday's Dan Janison watched these antics. "Must have been an impromptu decision to volunteer for this on a holiday," he noted.
Outside the council chambers, McDonald began sputtering when Henry Stern, former parks commissioner and foe of the mayor's bill, asked him if his city contracts had influenced his thinking. "You're saying I'm corrupt!" McDonald shouted. "We get $10 million from the city, and we do good work!"
Actually, fear was the most corrupting factor in City Hall last week: fear of angering a mayor who may well rule until 2013. Fear paralyzed the city's most powerful unions—the only possible political counterweight. The teachers' union quietly passed a resolution calling for term limits to be submitted for a new referendum—the thrust of a bill proposed by leading council dissenters Bill de Blasio and Tish James. The union never even issued a press release on it. The battlefield was left to the Working Families Party, of which the teachers are influential members. The WFP mounted a valiant campaign with a tiny budget. It had $50,000 for a TV ad buy opposing the mayor. Last year, the teachers' union spent $2.1 million on its Albany lobbying alone.
Labor's loudest voices at the hearings were in mayoral lockstep. Leaders of the building trades talked about how good Bloomberg has been for construction jobs. The uniformed municipal union leaders repeated in tandem the mayor's mantra that regular elections are the real term limits. Unmentioned were recent generous contracts or the ones now pending. AWOL from the scene was the biggest municipal workers' group, District Council 37. The union's city contract is currently being negotiated.
Only plucky Arthur Cheliotes, leader of Local 1180's city administrative workers, stepped forward to defend labor's honor. Cheliotes looked lonely as he waited hours to speak. "The mayor has cleverly gamed the system by not letting term limits get on the ballot this November," he said when he finally testified.
By the way, did you know that dissident labor leaders keep getting killed in Uribe's Columbia?
Michael Bloomberg's Velvet Coup
Is Mayor Mugabe an outrageous comparison?
By Tom Robbins
published: October 22, 2008
Mugabe? OK, it's an outrageous comparison. Forgive me. Mike Bloomberg would never shut down newspapers or use brutal thugs against dissenters in order to hold onto power. He doesn't have to. He buys them.
Mugabe is for the likes of Charles Barron, the radical councilman who embarrassed the city a few years ago by hosting the Zimbabwean tyrant at City Hall. Funny thing, there was Barron at last week's council hearings demanding to be heard on the mayor's bill to gut term limits—a reform confirmed in two separate voter referendums—in order to give himself four more years in office. There was Barron offering the simplest route to continued democracy: Do nothing.
"Why do we have to change anything?" he asked after Mario Cuomo's lead-off testimony supporting Bloomberg's bid. "The people have spoken twice already. Why not just leave things as they are?"
Barron's simple questions were matched only by The New York Times's fearless editorial page. Alone of the city's dailies, the Times refused to bend its principles. By changing the rules at this late date, the Times warned, the mayor "will tarnish his legacy and further weaken the systems of checks and balances that are essential to . . . democracy."
Uh, wait. Sorry, wrong day. That was the Times in August lecturing President Álvaro Uribe of Columbia "lest he become just another strongman" by grabbing a third term in violation of his country's constitution.
Let's see. Here it is. How could I miss it? It's got that tough, right-to-the-point headline: "The Mayor's Dangerous Idea." The mayor "wants to extend his current term of office," the editorial forthrightly states. "This is a terrible idea. . . . The very concept goes against the most basic of American convictions, that we live in a nation governed by rule of law." Bless the good old Times. Others may cut and run in the face of tyranny. It forever stands tall.
Wait! How did that sneak in here? That was the Old Gray Lady taking Rudy Giuliani to the ethical cleaners back in September 2001—that month of true fear and fiscal panic—when he sought a mere three more months to remain in office.
I know it's here somewhere. Oh, right, that one: "It makes a lot of people uncomfortable to legislatively rewrite a law that voters have twice approved at the ballot box. . . . It makes us uncomfortable too. . . . But we have concluded now that changing the law legislatively does not make us nearly as uncomfortable as keeping it." Hmmm. Well, never mind.
Welcome to Bloomville, where up is down and down up, where it's Charles Barron hoisting democracy's flag, while the Times connives with the Post and the News to provide cover for the coup. Where tycoons of business and real estate call the shots while the once-mighty unions fall meekly into line or merely whisper their opposition for fear of offending the once and future mayatollah. Where a cabal of thieves calling themselves council members leap aboard Bloomberg's ship as eagerly as Somalian pirates lurking for booty in the Indian Ocean.
Yes, Bloomville. We may as well give him naming rights, too. He's bought and paid for everything else. We are inside Jimmy Stewart's unwonderful world where muddled old Bedford Falls has come under one-man rule and morphed into an antiseptic version of anything-goes Pottersville.
Could Columbia's Uribe—or any dreaded Latin American strongman—have done any better at mustering proxies to defend his putsch? Consider the elder Cuomo: The ex-governor was as charming as ever, offering a rambling denunciation of term limits and a sterling endorsement of a continued Bloomberg mayoralty. "He is spectacularly well-suited to the task," said Cuomo.
Once the champion of the poor and the forgotten, Cuomo now carries the business card of the city's elite, a group passionately committed to keeping one of its very own in City Hall. Cuomo is of counsel to Willkie Farr & Gallagher, the law firm that serves as the Washington lobbyist for Bloomberg L.P., the mayor's $22 billion corporation. The firm is also defending the company in a discrimination lawsuit brought by 58 female Bloomberg employees. Last summer, it handled the $4.4 billion buyout of Bloomberg's longtime partner, Merrill Lynch.
The ties stem from close friendship: Top Willkie partner Richard DeScherer handles the Bloomberg family foundation and is an executor of the mayor's estate. He serves on Bloomberg L.P.'s executive committee and, oh yes, on the city's sports foundation. How better to help a friend than to send forth the firm's most famous envoy to do battle for one more mayoral term?
The taint of Bloomberg's multibillion-dollar reach—as mayor, businessman, and philanthropist—fell on many of the true believers who testified in favor of the mayor's end run around the 15-year-old term-limits law.
Here was Geoffrey Canada, celebrated Harlem anti-poverty fighter, whose reasoning for giving the council and Bloomberg an added term conveniently mirrored the mayor's own: "The city is facing its worst crisis in memory," he said. Was that the great Geoff Canada talking? Or was it the director of an organization that depends on $18 million in city contracts and the mayor's "anonymous" private donations?
Echoing Canada was George McDonald, president of the Doe Fund. The homeless-assistance group also benefits from the mayor's private giving and holds $25 million in city contracts. McDonald didn't wait for the hearings. On Columbus Day, he dispatched a crew of Doe Funders to the parade to cheer the mayor with signs proclaiming "Now More Than Ever." Newsday's Dan Janison watched these antics. "Must have been an impromptu decision to volunteer for this on a holiday," he noted.
Outside the council chambers, McDonald began sputtering when Henry Stern, former parks commissioner and foe of the mayor's bill, asked him if his city contracts had influenced his thinking. "You're saying I'm corrupt!" McDonald shouted. "We get $10 million from the city, and we do good work!"
Actually, fear was the most corrupting factor in City Hall last week: fear of angering a mayor who may well rule until 2013. Fear paralyzed the city's most powerful unions—the only possible political counterweight. The teachers' union quietly passed a resolution calling for term limits to be submitted for a new referendum—the thrust of a bill proposed by leading council dissenters Bill de Blasio and Tish James. The union never even issued a press release on it. The battlefield was left to the Working Families Party, of which the teachers are influential members. The WFP mounted a valiant campaign with a tiny budget. It had $50,000 for a TV ad buy opposing the mayor. Last year, the teachers' union spent $2.1 million on its Albany lobbying alone.
Labor's loudest voices at the hearings were in mayoral lockstep. Leaders of the building trades talked about how good Bloomberg has been for construction jobs. The uniformed municipal union leaders repeated in tandem the mayor's mantra that regular elections are the real term limits. Unmentioned were recent generous contracts or the ones now pending. AWOL from the scene was the biggest municipal workers' group, District Council 37. The union's city contract is currently being negotiated.
Only plucky Arthur Cheliotes, leader of Local 1180's city administrative workers, stepped forward to defend labor's honor. Cheliotes looked lonely as he waited hours to speak. "The mayor has cleverly gamed the system by not letting term limits get on the ballot this November," he said when he finally testified.
By the way, did you know that dissident labor leaders keep getting killed in Uribe's Columbia?
21 October, 2008
MASTER P: Hip Hop Stereotypes Testimony Before Congress
An interesting proposal. Too bad no one was listening.
20 October, 2008
19 October, 2008
MAYOR BLOOMBERG HAS SQUANDERED OUR MONEY
OPINION OCTOBER 16, 2008 New York Will Survive Without Bloomberg
The mayor never bothered to prepare the city for any lean years.By JASON L. RILEY
"Next to the assumption of power is the responsibility of relinquishing it."
-- Benjamin Disraeli
Citing the financial crisis, twice-elected New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to scrap the city's term-limit law. He's asking the city council to pass a bill that would allow him to seek four more years in office.
Obviously the mayor believes that he's indispensable to Gotham's well-being, which will come as no surprise to any journalist who's met with him. What's passing strange is that so much of the local press seems to share the mayor's inflated view of himself.
The city's two major tabloids, the New York Post and the Daily News, both ran editorials under the headline "Run, Mike, Run" that called for changing the rules so that Mr. Bloomberg could stand for re-election next year. And the New York Times complained that the term-limits law "is particularly unappealing now because . . . it would deny New Yorkers -- at a time when the city's economy is under great stress -- the right to decide for themselves whether an effective and popular mayor should stay in office."
The paper took the opposite view seven years ago, when there was talk of extending the second term of Mr. Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, in the wake of 9/11. "To suggest that the city would be incapable of getting along without Mr. Giuliani . . . undermines New York's sense of self-sufficiency," said the Gray Lady. "While Mr. Giuliani has been a great leader during this crisis, the truth is that no one is indispensable."
How Times change.
With a job-approval rating around 70%, Mr. Bloomberg is almost certain to win a third term if allowed to run again. He's continued Mr. Giuliani's policing policies and kept crime down. The mayor also deserves praise for his aggressive pro-development policies, such as rezoning large swaths of the city where industry is not coming back. Mr. Bloomberg, a nominal Republican who switched parties to run for office, made education the centerpiece of his first campaign, and he's made good on a promise to implement reform. Merit-pay pilot programs have been introduced, the number of charter schools has expanded, and student test scores have improved modestly.
But the argument for extending the two-term limit for Mr. Bloomberg -- a self-made billionaire who got his start on Wall Street -- is that the city needs someone with his financial acumen to help weather the fallout from the banking crisis. The biggest problem with that argument is that Mr. Bloomberg hasn't been very adept at managing the city's finances, even though he's had record revenues to work with.
Between 2000 and 2007, New York's tax receipts grew by 41% after inflation. "That's something that's never happened or come close to happening in the city's modern history," says Nicole Gelinas, who follows municipal finance at the Manhattan Institute. This windfall had everything to do with the Wall Street bull market, and everyone knew that the rate of growth was unsustainable. Instead of using the flush-year surpluses to put New York's fiscal house in order, however, Mr. Bloomberg mostly squandered them.
The four big costs to New York's budget are Medicaid, pensions, debt and health care for public employees. Since the mayor took office seven years ago, those costs are up 57% after inflation. His handling of the city's debt is particularly disappointing, if not irresponsible, since debt-service payments are legal obligations that can't be suspended during economic slowdowns.
Since 1990, debt per person in New York is up by 185%, exceeding inflation by 118 percentage points and exceeding tax revenue growth by 27 percentage points. By most measures, New York has higher per-capita debt (about $7,000) than any other city in the nation. And while the problem obviously predates the current mayor, the future burden has worsened substantially on his watch.
Instead of cutting other parts of the budget and using the city's swollen coffers to service debt and pay for capital projects out of operating spending, Mr. Bloomberg chose to increase borrowing. Between 2000 and 2007, debt grew by 5.7% annually and will continue to grow by 5.9% annually over the next four years. By increasing the city's debt obligations while doing nothing to decrease the city's overdependence on income tax revenue from Wall Street wages and bonuses, Mr. Bloomberg has exacerbated a bad situation.
The mayor's spending record isn't much better. Between 1975, when New York faced its last fiscal crisis, and the Giuliani era, city spending rose by just 9% after adjusting for inflation and population growth. Mr. Bloomberg's 2008 budget is nearly 50% larger than the one he inherited from Mr. Giuliani in 2001. That far outpaces inflation, which rose 21% over the same period. Nor has the mayor shown any sustained interest in working with the state to reform a Medicaid system that costs the city $6 billion per year and is rife with waste and abuse. New York state's per-capita Medicaid spending is easily the highest in the U.S.
Another popular argument for keeping Mr. Bloomberg in City Hall is that his potential successors -- New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, City Controller William Thompson and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn -- are the political equivalent of the Three Stooges. It's true that the city could do worse than Michael Bloomberg. But it's also true that mayoral term limits were approved by New Yorkers twice in referendums in the 1990s, and not by small margins.
There is something deeply undemocratic about legislatively overturning the will of the people without giving voters a say in the matter. And there's something deeply disturbing about a local press corps that lets the political class get away with it.
Mr. Riley is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
The mayor never bothered to prepare the city for any lean years.By JASON L. RILEY
"Next to the assumption of power is the responsibility of relinquishing it."
-- Benjamin Disraeli
Citing the financial crisis, twice-elected New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg wants to scrap the city's term-limit law. He's asking the city council to pass a bill that would allow him to seek four more years in office.
Obviously the mayor believes that he's indispensable to Gotham's well-being, which will come as no surprise to any journalist who's met with him. What's passing strange is that so much of the local press seems to share the mayor's inflated view of himself.
The city's two major tabloids, the New York Post and the Daily News, both ran editorials under the headline "Run, Mike, Run" that called for changing the rules so that Mr. Bloomberg could stand for re-election next year. And the New York Times complained that the term-limits law "is particularly unappealing now because . . . it would deny New Yorkers -- at a time when the city's economy is under great stress -- the right to decide for themselves whether an effective and popular mayor should stay in office."
The paper took the opposite view seven years ago, when there was talk of extending the second term of Mr. Bloomberg's predecessor, Rudy Giuliani, in the wake of 9/11. "To suggest that the city would be incapable of getting along without Mr. Giuliani . . . undermines New York's sense of self-sufficiency," said the Gray Lady. "While Mr. Giuliani has been a great leader during this crisis, the truth is that no one is indispensable."
How Times change.
With a job-approval rating around 70%, Mr. Bloomberg is almost certain to win a third term if allowed to run again. He's continued Mr. Giuliani's policing policies and kept crime down. The mayor also deserves praise for his aggressive pro-development policies, such as rezoning large swaths of the city where industry is not coming back. Mr. Bloomberg, a nominal Republican who switched parties to run for office, made education the centerpiece of his first campaign, and he's made good on a promise to implement reform. Merit-pay pilot programs have been introduced, the number of charter schools has expanded, and student test scores have improved modestly.
But the argument for extending the two-term limit for Mr. Bloomberg -- a self-made billionaire who got his start on Wall Street -- is that the city needs someone with his financial acumen to help weather the fallout from the banking crisis. The biggest problem with that argument is that Mr. Bloomberg hasn't been very adept at managing the city's finances, even though he's had record revenues to work with.
Between 2000 and 2007, New York's tax receipts grew by 41% after inflation. "That's something that's never happened or come close to happening in the city's modern history," says Nicole Gelinas, who follows municipal finance at the Manhattan Institute. This windfall had everything to do with the Wall Street bull market, and everyone knew that the rate of growth was unsustainable. Instead of using the flush-year surpluses to put New York's fiscal house in order, however, Mr. Bloomberg mostly squandered them.
The four big costs to New York's budget are Medicaid, pensions, debt and health care for public employees. Since the mayor took office seven years ago, those costs are up 57% after inflation. His handling of the city's debt is particularly disappointing, if not irresponsible, since debt-service payments are legal obligations that can't be suspended during economic slowdowns.
Since 1990, debt per person in New York is up by 185%, exceeding inflation by 118 percentage points and exceeding tax revenue growth by 27 percentage points. By most measures, New York has higher per-capita debt (about $7,000) than any other city in the nation. And while the problem obviously predates the current mayor, the future burden has worsened substantially on his watch.
Instead of cutting other parts of the budget and using the city's swollen coffers to service debt and pay for capital projects out of operating spending, Mr. Bloomberg chose to increase borrowing. Between 2000 and 2007, debt grew by 5.7% annually and will continue to grow by 5.9% annually over the next four years. By increasing the city's debt obligations while doing nothing to decrease the city's overdependence on income tax revenue from Wall Street wages and bonuses, Mr. Bloomberg has exacerbated a bad situation.
The mayor's spending record isn't much better. Between 1975, when New York faced its last fiscal crisis, and the Giuliani era, city spending rose by just 9% after adjusting for inflation and population growth. Mr. Bloomberg's 2008 budget is nearly 50% larger than the one he inherited from Mr. Giuliani in 2001. That far outpaces inflation, which rose 21% over the same period. Nor has the mayor shown any sustained interest in working with the state to reform a Medicaid system that costs the city $6 billion per year and is rife with waste and abuse. New York state's per-capita Medicaid spending is easily the highest in the U.S.
Another popular argument for keeping Mr. Bloomberg in City Hall is that his potential successors -- New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, City Controller William Thompson and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn -- are the political equivalent of the Three Stooges. It's true that the city could do worse than Michael Bloomberg. But it's also true that mayoral term limits were approved by New Yorkers twice in referendums in the 1990s, and not by small margins.
There is something deeply undemocratic about legislatively overturning the will of the people without giving voters a say in the matter. And there's something deeply disturbing about a local press corps that lets the political class get away with it.
Mr. Riley is a member of The Wall Street Journal's editorial board.
15 October, 2008
No End In Sight
A Must See Especially FOR ANYONE STILL CONSIDERING McCain. Please, please watch this.
YOU MUST READ THIS
There's a wonderful article about Joe Biden on The Huffington Post. The address is below. You MUST read it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-petrow/joe-bidens-tears-remember_b_133902.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-petrow/joe-bidens-tears-remember_b_133902.html
13 October, 2008
12 October, 2008
Paul Krugman warning from 2005
These days Mr. Greenspan expresses concern about the financial risks created by "the prevalence of interest-only loans and the introduction of more-exotic forms of adjustable-rate mortgages." But last year he encouraged families to take on those very risks, touting the advantages of adjustable-rate mortgages and declaring that "American consumers might benefit if lenders provided greater mortgage product alternatives to the traditional fixed-rate mortgage.
If Mr. Greenspan had said two years ago what he's saying now, people might have borrowed less and bought more wisely. But he didn't, and now it's too late. There are signs that the housing market either has peaked already or soon will. And it will be up to Mr. Greenspan's successor to manage the bubble's aftermath.
How bad will that aftermath be? The U.S. economy is currently suffering from twin imbalances. On one side, domestic spending is swollen by the housing bubble, which has led both to a huge surge in construction and to high consumer spending, as people extract equity from their homes. On the other side, we have a huge trade deficit, which we cover by selling bonds to foreigners. As I like to say, these days Americans make a living by selling each other houses, paid for with money borrowed from China.
One way or another, the economy will eventually eliminate both imbalances.
Aug 29, 2005, NY Times. Quote is now posted on The Huffington Post.com
If Mr. Greenspan had said two years ago what he's saying now, people might have borrowed less and bought more wisely. But he didn't, and now it's too late. There are signs that the housing market either has peaked already or soon will. And it will be up to Mr. Greenspan's successor to manage the bubble's aftermath.
How bad will that aftermath be? The U.S. economy is currently suffering from twin imbalances. On one side, domestic spending is swollen by the housing bubble, which has led both to a huge surge in construction and to high consumer spending, as people extract equity from their homes. On the other side, we have a huge trade deficit, which we cover by selling bonds to foreigners. As I like to say, these days Americans make a living by selling each other houses, paid for with money borrowed from China.
One way or another, the economy will eventually eliminate both imbalances.
Aug 29, 2005, NY Times. Quote is now posted on The Huffington Post.com
11 October, 2008
09 October, 2008
The 20,000 Teacher: New York's Greatest Bargain
Where in NY can you hire someone with 16 years of experience and solid performance in their field for 20,000? The New York City Department of Education, that's where.
Principals all over NY are now looking for ATR's to hire -- as ATR's. They want to hire a full-time substitute to be a full-time subsitute, not as a member of their faculty. Then, they take the substitute and give the teacher a full program of classes and assignments, AS IF THEY WERE ON FACULTY. The kids don't know the difference and the parents think that the school has a seasoned teacher on its staff!
You see, to actually hire an ATR as a FACULTY MEMBER you have to pay his/her full salary using your budget. But, YOU CAN GET THE SAME PERSON FOR 75 percent off if you don't hire him/her and then request him/her as an ATR! In this case, RENTING IS CHEAPER THAN BUYING. The rest of the money is paid by the Department of Education. The school only pays that 20,000. And they don't have to take responsibility for this person, either. They don't have to hire him/her back as an ATR for even the next term. So, while the parents think there's seasoned faculty who are PART OF THE SCHOOL, this person is just a rental. And the person knows it. So, he or she can try to be part of the team and some principals and schools will treat the ATR's as such but the odds are good, he or she won't be taken all that seriously as...well...you know, they're just here for a few months or so. There's no reason for a principal to take you seriously. Mine does, but I'm lucky. Most of my colleagues are not so lucky at all, and one retired because of inhumane treatement... Respect and humane treatment shouldn't depend on luck, though. When you're an ATR the school can always trade you in for another. People actually INTERVIEW for ATR positions, that's how much they want to work.
Who ARE the principals responsible for? Those younger teachers who may be full of energy and ideas or who may not know how to handle a class at all. They have no track records. They were hired BECAUSE THEY WERE CHEAP AND MALLEABLE. Sure, they have good grades and great training. I'm sure you'd feel comfortable knowing your insurance plan decided not to retain experienced, proven doctors but hired young kids just out of their residency. As you go under, just think: he got really good grades and wrote killer papers. "Killer" metaphorically speaking. So, of course, you feel really good knowing that the principal of your school goes around hiring "A" students to teach your kids and only rents experienced teachers. After all, with those grades he/she is bound to be a quick study -- unless, of course, you realize that the teacher will be teaching and not writing papers and sitting in class and being graded her/himself. I was a terrific student in graduate school, but I don't walk into my classes with little note cards and fifteen books with me to give my presentations like I did in my seminars.
Plus, these young kids are in the most VULNERABLE positions a teacher can be in. They have no tenure -- no job security. So, they are at the principal's veritable mercy. In case you were hoping of asking one of them to get behind the PTA's drive to cut class size or change any kind of policy, think again. What you have in front of you is someone who has NO POWER to speak up if he/she sees something wrong. And he/she knows that, too.
So, your schools are now staffed by inexpensive young people and veterans rented periodically. All of these people have no real say in how the school is run. That's up to the principal. And this is how the Chancellor and the Mayor want it and they have the ultimate control. They have the ultimate say over what your kids get or don't get. Your teachers will find ways to explain why there are no computers or sports or arts at the school because they have to. They literally don't have a choice. So, you want something changed, you are going to have to fight City Hall. Literally.
Still think the 20,000 teacher is a great bargain?
Principals all over NY are now looking for ATR's to hire -- as ATR's. They want to hire a full-time substitute to be a full-time subsitute, not as a member of their faculty. Then, they take the substitute and give the teacher a full program of classes and assignments, AS IF THEY WERE ON FACULTY. The kids don't know the difference and the parents think that the school has a seasoned teacher on its staff!
You see, to actually hire an ATR as a FACULTY MEMBER you have to pay his/her full salary using your budget. But, YOU CAN GET THE SAME PERSON FOR 75 percent off if you don't hire him/her and then request him/her as an ATR! In this case, RENTING IS CHEAPER THAN BUYING. The rest of the money is paid by the Department of Education. The school only pays that 20,000. And they don't have to take responsibility for this person, either. They don't have to hire him/her back as an ATR for even the next term. So, while the parents think there's seasoned faculty who are PART OF THE SCHOOL, this person is just a rental. And the person knows it. So, he or she can try to be part of the team and some principals and schools will treat the ATR's as such but the odds are good, he or she won't be taken all that seriously as...well...you know, they're just here for a few months or so. There's no reason for a principal to take you seriously. Mine does, but I'm lucky. Most of my colleagues are not so lucky at all, and one retired because of inhumane treatement... Respect and humane treatment shouldn't depend on luck, though. When you're an ATR the school can always trade you in for another. People actually INTERVIEW for ATR positions, that's how much they want to work.
Who ARE the principals responsible for? Those younger teachers who may be full of energy and ideas or who may not know how to handle a class at all. They have no track records. They were hired BECAUSE THEY WERE CHEAP AND MALLEABLE. Sure, they have good grades and great training. I'm sure you'd feel comfortable knowing your insurance plan decided not to retain experienced, proven doctors but hired young kids just out of their residency. As you go under, just think: he got really good grades and wrote killer papers. "Killer" metaphorically speaking. So, of course, you feel really good knowing that the principal of your school goes around hiring "A" students to teach your kids and only rents experienced teachers. After all, with those grades he/she is bound to be a quick study -- unless, of course, you realize that the teacher will be teaching and not writing papers and sitting in class and being graded her/himself. I was a terrific student in graduate school, but I don't walk into my classes with little note cards and fifteen books with me to give my presentations like I did in my seminars.
Plus, these young kids are in the most VULNERABLE positions a teacher can be in. They have no tenure -- no job security. So, they are at the principal's veritable mercy. In case you were hoping of asking one of them to get behind the PTA's drive to cut class size or change any kind of policy, think again. What you have in front of you is someone who has NO POWER to speak up if he/she sees something wrong. And he/she knows that, too.
So, your schools are now staffed by inexpensive young people and veterans rented periodically. All of these people have no real say in how the school is run. That's up to the principal. And this is how the Chancellor and the Mayor want it and they have the ultimate control. They have the ultimate say over what your kids get or don't get. Your teachers will find ways to explain why there are no computers or sports or arts at the school because they have to. They literally don't have a choice. So, you want something changed, you are going to have to fight City Hall. Literally.
Still think the 20,000 teacher is a great bargain?
05 October, 2008
Comments, comments
First, an explanation. I got a nasty, nasty comment on my blog after I made a comment about Randi Weingarten's being "grateful the Mayor stepped up" to run again.
I don't like conflict, I don't need conflict. Maybe there's no connection and it was a coincidence. But there are people who go around attacking teachers regularly on behalf of party lines. We've all read their anonymous emails or their emails under the names of various dead philosophers. Still, no matter why the person wrote it, I want to be clear about two things: I still find Randi Weingarten's personal opinion about the Mayor running again disatisfying. And I will not waste my time on people who write anonymous nasty comments on my blog. No more opportunities for such cowardice will be given. I have a life to lead, a job to protect. I am entirely self-supporting -- I don't want to be begging relatives for help at 40 years old. Ask me why I don't have more savings and I'll show you the receipts for all the things I've bought for school over the years. Just the copying alone has eaten my money away.
1) Personal opinion or not: How Randi Weingarten as someone who leads the UFT CAN WANT BLOOMBERG TO RUN FOR MAYOR AGAIN IS BEYOND ME and IT SHOWS A DISCONNECT BETWEEN HER AND HER UFT MEMBERS. If she PERSONALLY had any feelings for us as UFT Members, SHE COULD NOT HAVE WELCOMED THE MAYOR'S DECISION. But, since her statement is qualified with the word, "personal" I can't technically fault her for speaking on my behalf. So, NOW I AM MAKING CLEAR. WHAT SHE SAID ON HER OWN BEHALF WAS OFFENSIVE TO ME. UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT OF COMFORTABLE WHITE PEOPLE THINK LIKE HER AND I'M RELATED TO SOME OF THEM. SO, I've grown accustomed to people who say they care about my position then voting to put a gun to my head, metaphorically speaking. And yes, Bloomberg in a third term is like a metaphorical gun to my head and you would think that my UFT President would know how much agony and pain this man caused me and other teachers like me. You would think that PERSONALLY and PROFESSIONALLY she would be horrified by his running for a third term. But, she's not. And that no longer surprises me, since she basically fed my school and my job to the Mayor and forced a contract down people's throats which I didn't vote for. Maybe, as a friend said, she is just a bad chess player and didn't see it coming. However, all the qualifiers aside, my students are out of a school and a very good educational team because of Bloomberg. So, no, I don't want him "stepping up". I wish she didn't.
Second, some evil, evil human put a comment on my blog tonight which showed a very close awareness of my family history. This person put that comment there anonymously, but wanted me to know that he or she knows me. This happened coincidentally after I put my comment up about Randi. So, I pulled back out of fear. I can't afford to and can't handle being tortured any more than the circumstances which I am in cause me to be. To be perfectly honest, my personal opinion is that no one WILL HEAR the word, "personally" in the sound bite or read it in the email. Her opinion is seen as UFT opinion. But, she did say the word, so I have to give her credit for it.
I have been working on this post for hours. Here are the facts:
I am entitled to my opinion about my UFT President's opinion.
She is entitled to her personal opinion, though I think giving it to the press is a grey area -- if it's only personal, why say it? Still, she has a right to see things what I think is the wrong way. She does not have the right to misrepresent me or my interests.
I can't help feeling that, however it was said, welcoming Mike back for term three didn't represent my interests.
At the same time, I am afraid that now that I've gone so far as to say something public, I will face difficulties with my union which is just great because I am a stone's throw from losing my job, as are all ATR's.
Mike Bloomberg holds that stone. It's Randi's job to catch it, no matter what her personal opinion is. I would think she'd be sick of the game by now, but that's not my personal business.
My personal business is I want peace of mind.
BOTTOM LINE: I hope a good PRO-SCHOOL candidate "Steps up" and our union does everything we can to get him/her elected.
As an old enemy used to say, quoting The Godfather, "This isn't personal. It's business." It's her business to take care that I don't lose my job, whatever her personal feelings are about the Mayor.
I hope Randi gets that.
I don't like conflict, I don't need conflict. Maybe there's no connection and it was a coincidence. But there are people who go around attacking teachers regularly on behalf of party lines. We've all read their anonymous emails or their emails under the names of various dead philosophers. Still, no matter why the person wrote it, I want to be clear about two things: I still find Randi Weingarten's personal opinion about the Mayor running again disatisfying. And I will not waste my time on people who write anonymous nasty comments on my blog. No more opportunities for such cowardice will be given. I have a life to lead, a job to protect. I am entirely self-supporting -- I don't want to be begging relatives for help at 40 years old. Ask me why I don't have more savings and I'll show you the receipts for all the things I've bought for school over the years. Just the copying alone has eaten my money away.
1) Personal opinion or not: How Randi Weingarten as someone who leads the UFT CAN WANT BLOOMBERG TO RUN FOR MAYOR AGAIN IS BEYOND ME and IT SHOWS A DISCONNECT BETWEEN HER AND HER UFT MEMBERS. If she PERSONALLY had any feelings for us as UFT Members, SHE COULD NOT HAVE WELCOMED THE MAYOR'S DECISION. But, since her statement is qualified with the word, "personal" I can't technically fault her for speaking on my behalf. So, NOW I AM MAKING CLEAR. WHAT SHE SAID ON HER OWN BEHALF WAS OFFENSIVE TO ME. UNFORTUNATELY, A LOT OF COMFORTABLE WHITE PEOPLE THINK LIKE HER AND I'M RELATED TO SOME OF THEM. SO, I've grown accustomed to people who say they care about my position then voting to put a gun to my head, metaphorically speaking. And yes, Bloomberg in a third term is like a metaphorical gun to my head and you would think that my UFT President would know how much agony and pain this man caused me and other teachers like me. You would think that PERSONALLY and PROFESSIONALLY she would be horrified by his running for a third term. But, she's not. And that no longer surprises me, since she basically fed my school and my job to the Mayor and forced a contract down people's throats which I didn't vote for. Maybe, as a friend said, she is just a bad chess player and didn't see it coming. However, all the qualifiers aside, my students are out of a school and a very good educational team because of Bloomberg. So, no, I don't want him "stepping up". I wish she didn't.
Second, some evil, evil human put a comment on my blog tonight which showed a very close awareness of my family history. This person put that comment there anonymously, but wanted me to know that he or she knows me. This happened coincidentally after I put my comment up about Randi. So, I pulled back out of fear. I can't afford to and can't handle being tortured any more than the circumstances which I am in cause me to be. To be perfectly honest, my personal opinion is that no one WILL HEAR the word, "personally" in the sound bite or read it in the email. Her opinion is seen as UFT opinion. But, she did say the word, so I have to give her credit for it.
I have been working on this post for hours. Here are the facts:
I am entitled to my opinion about my UFT President's opinion.
She is entitled to her personal opinion, though I think giving it to the press is a grey area -- if it's only personal, why say it? Still, she has a right to see things what I think is the wrong way. She does not have the right to misrepresent me or my interests.
I can't help feeling that, however it was said, welcoming Mike back for term three didn't represent my interests.
At the same time, I am afraid that now that I've gone so far as to say something public, I will face difficulties with my union which is just great because I am a stone's throw from losing my job, as are all ATR's.
Mike Bloomberg holds that stone. It's Randi's job to catch it, no matter what her personal opinion is. I would think she'd be sick of the game by now, but that's not my personal business.
My personal business is I want peace of mind.
BOTTOM LINE: I hope a good PRO-SCHOOL candidate "Steps up" and our union does everything we can to get him/her elected.
As an old enemy used to say, quoting The Godfather, "This isn't personal. It's business." It's her business to take care that I don't lose my job, whatever her personal feelings are about the Mayor.
I hope Randi gets that.
WHITE PEOPLE DON'T GET IT.
I hate to be blunt, but listen.
The schools in my neighborhood are much the same as the were before Bloomberg, before Giuliani, before Koch. It's a neighborhood which attracts hungry European and now Asian immigrants. They come, they pool their funds, they kick their kids into school and make them fear getting "B's" let alone failing, and they do well. My cat Larry could be teaching English. Those kids are going to find a way to understand the work and their parents will pay tutors with their last dime to do it. I know. I was one of those kids in a neighborhood which is its twin on the other side of Brooklyn.
My students, who are predominantly African-American and Hispanic do not reside in this sheltered world. And sheltered it is. My mother didn't tell me anything about the relationship of college to getting a job. That wasn't the point. You went to college because that's what snobby intellectuals did. Being a snobby intellectual was the apex of existence. Distinguishing between good music, literature, politics and food was what I was told a person lived to do. Mine, like many of the families in my neighborhood, was a family which LIED to itself every day about the hardships of life so that they could find joy within them. Going to the opera by subway and eating cold spaghetti when we got home was a glory -- the music was worth the trouble and the growling stomach.
It's easy for me to imagine how my students feel because I feel the same way. Despite those trips to hear Verdi at The Metropolitan Opera House, I no longer feel the need to even leave my house outside of going to work. The duckets matter: 40 or so dollars to sit in the Family Circle where I will see nothing although I will hear well, and then take the long subway ride home is just not a bargain to me. I can listen at home, read the review, imagine. The bottom line for me and money is always about staples and what I do with my money is about how I will survive. Every time I listen to music, I long to go back to school and get a Ph.D., but I will never do it. No jobs in it.
As Joe Biden hinted in the Vice Presidential debate, fewer people in the US can cloister themselves in the feeling that they will achieve the American Dream. My immigrant neighbors band together in groups larger than ten to buy houses or shares of businesses hoping someday to each have space of their own. They are aging more and more on my street and few people move out. I've noticed beer cans in EVERYONE's garbage these days. They're hard to overlook as the elderly Chinese immigrants in my neighborhood often go from pail to pail, looking for a misplaced can that they can add to their enormous plastic bags. For them, the rewards will not be on earth, but they imagine they will be so for their children who imagine it will be so for their children. At some point, they will tire, too. It's inevitable.
Meanwhile White People don't see what is going on. They continue to stretch their credit and push for that lucky break. It has to be there. Things look the same except that there are fewer and fewer jobs and the economy is shot. They know that, but they don't know what it means in terms of schools and education.
My students see the everyone stretched to their limit and they don't lie to themselves. Sure, they listen to pop and spend away on ridiculous trends in clothing. That's partially what's left of a dream of someday being successful and partially the result of a sense of "might as well, NOW." They know they won't be able to afford the 45 dollar hat when they get older. And a 45 dollar hat lasts forever as far as they can tell. It provides status, pleasure and it looks like what successful people wear. It's the same theory that pushed my JAPPY friends and I to buy Ralph Lauren and Lacoste in the 80's. We wanted to look like the proud and successful second and third generation Jewish immigrants we hoped to be. Now all of those clothes are in a suitcase somewhere. I can't fit into them as I have gained weight and they are very old, anyway. But, it was a way then to keep me in my dreamworld and that illusion kept me in school. It doesn't for my students because many of their heroes didn't finish school and many of their family members did and are suffering economically.
How many times did you hear of a millionaire with a "C" average or who quit school early? You blocked it out because you thought it was a fluke, or like me, you knew you had no business sense so school was your only hope. Imagine that more of the successes you know of fit that category than people in school.
I have always said that had I gone to the general public schools as they are, I would've dropped out of school and become a car thief. I have fast hands and am good at navigating through the dark. There is no comfort in the current public high school. No one even tries to sell the idea of study for its own sake, or of success based on anything but SKILLS. When I was growing up, I never heard that word. I searched for knowledge. Skills, I expected, I would gain in life, afterwards and I would apply what I knew to my work which would somehow make me better. It has been a career of problem solving, much of which I learned in school. A skill.
I no longer write on cover letters that my experience or education will be of use. I talk about my "varied skill sets".
Generally, I don't leave the house or buy anything which does not have to do with the aforementioned "sets".
If I were a student now, I'd be planning to be a nurse. I'd get an A.S. I'd try to get the B.S.N. later, but the priority would be on learning what I could do in all kinds of situations.
My students, I guess, see themselves as constantly facing challenges ahead -- handling things. When I was their age, I wanted to discover ideas, to write precisely and with authority. Sometimes I accomplish those things, but the email would be just as useful if I wrote it without punctuation and shipped it off ASAP.
All self-deprecation aside, though, I have enjoyed my education and all of my work. And the jury is still out on what will be remembered and what I will focus the bulk of my life on. I wouldn't give up a minute of the time I've spent in the theater and I haven't worked on a project yet which wasn't well respected. And, yes, it made a difference that I got that FANTASTIC education -- the quality of my life and work has been enriched by it. I've done some amazing artistic work and I have taught some terrific classes. I've ALWAYS given my students a good education and a few laughs. My students defied the odds. I get calls all the time from kids who are in college who weren't expected to graduate high school. WHO COULD REGRET THAT?
It's NOT FAIR that I got to have this kind of enriching experience very much because I am WHITE. Being WHITE made it easier to balance theater and education because I was given much more leeway than a person of color. I'm white and well-spoken and I am accorded INSTANT RESPECT because of it and THAT'S NOT FAIR. Furthermore, I got that fabulous education largely because I was fortunate enough to have a parent who could afford to send me (on scholarship, but still) to Hebrew School, which got me into Stuyvesant, which got me into Barnard and then to Stony Brook -- both of which came with scholarships. Children don't choose their parents, and those first years of education mean everything. And my Hebrew School existed for MY COMMUNITY -- white, lower-middle class Jews struggling to get ahead. Again, I got shelter and chances to enjoy things my students don't necessarily have time for because of my SKIN COLOR. And that's not fair. I COULDN'T BELIEVE how badly the public schools treat my students when I started my career and I still can't-- it is NOTHING like the way I was treated in Hebrew School or at Stuyvesant. Frankly, I was given MORE CHANCES TO FAIL. It was assumed that eventually I would get it right...because I'm a bright, nice Jewish girl. And I know that.
I don't know how to make WHITE PEOPLE get it until they have lived it. I'm one white lady who knows that our economy has drained our schools not just of their resources, but of their relevance. The crudeness of our greed has made listening to a beautiful voice not a pleasure, but an obstacle. We must now fight the distraction of art and all sentiment to see the bottom line. Keats said famously that "Truth is beauty." Then we no longer seek truth, but the answer of the moment, which is often, ugly indeed
The schools in my neighborhood are much the same as the were before Bloomberg, before Giuliani, before Koch. It's a neighborhood which attracts hungry European and now Asian immigrants. They come, they pool their funds, they kick their kids into school and make them fear getting "B's" let alone failing, and they do well. My cat Larry could be teaching English. Those kids are going to find a way to understand the work and their parents will pay tutors with their last dime to do it. I know. I was one of those kids in a neighborhood which is its twin on the other side of Brooklyn.
My students, who are predominantly African-American and Hispanic do not reside in this sheltered world. And sheltered it is. My mother didn't tell me anything about the relationship of college to getting a job. That wasn't the point. You went to college because that's what snobby intellectuals did. Being a snobby intellectual was the apex of existence. Distinguishing between good music, literature, politics and food was what I was told a person lived to do. Mine, like many of the families in my neighborhood, was a family which LIED to itself every day about the hardships of life so that they could find joy within them. Going to the opera by subway and eating cold spaghetti when we got home was a glory -- the music was worth the trouble and the growling stomach.
It's easy for me to imagine how my students feel because I feel the same way. Despite those trips to hear Verdi at The Metropolitan Opera House, I no longer feel the need to even leave my house outside of going to work. The duckets matter: 40 or so dollars to sit in the Family Circle where I will see nothing although I will hear well, and then take the long subway ride home is just not a bargain to me. I can listen at home, read the review, imagine. The bottom line for me and money is always about staples and what I do with my money is about how I will survive. Every time I listen to music, I long to go back to school and get a Ph.D., but I will never do it. No jobs in it.
As Joe Biden hinted in the Vice Presidential debate, fewer people in the US can cloister themselves in the feeling that they will achieve the American Dream. My immigrant neighbors band together in groups larger than ten to buy houses or shares of businesses hoping someday to each have space of their own. They are aging more and more on my street and few people move out. I've noticed beer cans in EVERYONE's garbage these days. They're hard to overlook as the elderly Chinese immigrants in my neighborhood often go from pail to pail, looking for a misplaced can that they can add to their enormous plastic bags. For them, the rewards will not be on earth, but they imagine they will be so for their children who imagine it will be so for their children. At some point, they will tire, too. It's inevitable.
Meanwhile White People don't see what is going on. They continue to stretch their credit and push for that lucky break. It has to be there. Things look the same except that there are fewer and fewer jobs and the economy is shot. They know that, but they don't know what it means in terms of schools and education.
My students see the everyone stretched to their limit and they don't lie to themselves. Sure, they listen to pop and spend away on ridiculous trends in clothing. That's partially what's left of a dream of someday being successful and partially the result of a sense of "might as well, NOW." They know they won't be able to afford the 45 dollar hat when they get older. And a 45 dollar hat lasts forever as far as they can tell. It provides status, pleasure and it looks like what successful people wear. It's the same theory that pushed my JAPPY friends and I to buy Ralph Lauren and Lacoste in the 80's. We wanted to look like the proud and successful second and third generation Jewish immigrants we hoped to be. Now all of those clothes are in a suitcase somewhere. I can't fit into them as I have gained weight and they are very old, anyway. But, it was a way then to keep me in my dreamworld and that illusion kept me in school. It doesn't for my students because many of their heroes didn't finish school and many of their family members did and are suffering economically.
How many times did you hear of a millionaire with a "C" average or who quit school early? You blocked it out because you thought it was a fluke, or like me, you knew you had no business sense so school was your only hope. Imagine that more of the successes you know of fit that category than people in school.
I have always said that had I gone to the general public schools as they are, I would've dropped out of school and become a car thief. I have fast hands and am good at navigating through the dark. There is no comfort in the current public high school. No one even tries to sell the idea of study for its own sake, or of success based on anything but SKILLS. When I was growing up, I never heard that word. I searched for knowledge. Skills, I expected, I would gain in life, afterwards and I would apply what I knew to my work which would somehow make me better. It has been a career of problem solving, much of which I learned in school. A skill.
I no longer write on cover letters that my experience or education will be of use. I talk about my "varied skill sets".
Generally, I don't leave the house or buy anything which does not have to do with the aforementioned "sets".
If I were a student now, I'd be planning to be a nurse. I'd get an A.S. I'd try to get the B.S.N. later, but the priority would be on learning what I could do in all kinds of situations.
My students, I guess, see themselves as constantly facing challenges ahead -- handling things. When I was their age, I wanted to discover ideas, to write precisely and with authority. Sometimes I accomplish those things, but the email would be just as useful if I wrote it without punctuation and shipped it off ASAP.
All self-deprecation aside, though, I have enjoyed my education and all of my work. And the jury is still out on what will be remembered and what I will focus the bulk of my life on. I wouldn't give up a minute of the time I've spent in the theater and I haven't worked on a project yet which wasn't well respected. And, yes, it made a difference that I got that FANTASTIC education -- the quality of my life and work has been enriched by it. I've done some amazing artistic work and I have taught some terrific classes. I've ALWAYS given my students a good education and a few laughs. My students defied the odds. I get calls all the time from kids who are in college who weren't expected to graduate high school. WHO COULD REGRET THAT?
It's NOT FAIR that I got to have this kind of enriching experience very much because I am WHITE. Being WHITE made it easier to balance theater and education because I was given much more leeway than a person of color. I'm white and well-spoken and I am accorded INSTANT RESPECT because of it and THAT'S NOT FAIR. Furthermore, I got that fabulous education largely because I was fortunate enough to have a parent who could afford to send me (on scholarship, but still) to Hebrew School, which got me into Stuyvesant, which got me into Barnard and then to Stony Brook -- both of which came with scholarships. Children don't choose their parents, and those first years of education mean everything. And my Hebrew School existed for MY COMMUNITY -- white, lower-middle class Jews struggling to get ahead. Again, I got shelter and chances to enjoy things my students don't necessarily have time for because of my SKIN COLOR. And that's not fair. I COULDN'T BELIEVE how badly the public schools treat my students when I started my career and I still can't-- it is NOTHING like the way I was treated in Hebrew School or at Stuyvesant. Frankly, I was given MORE CHANCES TO FAIL. It was assumed that eventually I would get it right...because I'm a bright, nice Jewish girl. And I know that.
I don't know how to make WHITE PEOPLE get it until they have lived it. I'm one white lady who knows that our economy has drained our schools not just of their resources, but of their relevance. The crudeness of our greed has made listening to a beautiful voice not a pleasure, but an obstacle. We must now fight the distraction of art and all sentiment to see the bottom line. Keats said famously that "Truth is beauty." Then we no longer seek truth, but the answer of the moment, which is often, ugly indeed
A question for Palin
She's so passionate about our school building efforts in Iraq. I'm wondering if she can NAME FIVE SCHOOLS WE'VE BUILT THERE.
04 October, 2008
Sekou Sundiata 1948-2007
This feels right for a lot of reasons. Not just about driving. About living. And not just skin color. Skin of teachers, students
02 October, 2008
Biden / Palin Debate Part 4 - Health Care
Ultimate bridge to Nowhere...She is no Jack Kennedy! Squish.
01 October, 2008
Can we "replay" the moment below tomorrow night, Joe B.?
I know it won't make that much of a difference in the election -- Bentsen's smash of Quayle (the Senator, not the bird) didn't help either.
I'd just like to see Sarah Palin put in her place the same way. Who wouldn't?
I'd just like to see Sarah Palin put in her place the same way. Who wouldn't?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)