Category Archives: Politics and Culture

Debating Education: The Narrative is the Message

Politics and Culture, Things that Piss Me off from The NY Times, , , ,

Think back to the 2008 presidential campaigns.  Between the candidates and their running mates, there were four compelling and uniquely American narratives to capture the public’s imagination:

  • John McCain, who as a callow young soldier learned the true meaning of courage during his imprisonment behind enemy lines.
  • Sarah Palin, the soccer-mom plucked from near obscurity with an uncanny ability to connect with small town voters.
  • Joe Biden, the senator whose destiny changed in an instant when a tragic accident took his wife and daughter and almost killed his son.
  • Barak Obama, the culmination of our hopes and dreams.

One of these narratives was of course stronger and more compelling than the others.  It involved race, class, immigration, American dreamers who couldn’t be stopped by an ocean, and the idea that Americans could rise above and overcome the tragedy of history.

Back during that campaign, before the Citizens United decision, before the word “tea-party” became associated with elderly white people in comical hats demanding the government get it’s paws off Medicare, it wasn’t always clear what the ideological differences were between the parties.  Many on the left and right would argue there wasn’t much difference. If you listened to the rhetoric of both sides, both would tell you the same things:  they love their country, war is not a good thing, people need money to live, systems are broken, things used to better once upon a time . . .

We are now in the midst of a debate about the nature and future of public education in which the word “reform” is used by both sides.  Both argue that they have only the best interests of children in mind and both want to wear the mantle of “progress.”  But which side is the right side?  Or for that matter the left?

In the popular film Waiting for Superman, we are told that “reformers” are people like Geoffrey Canada or Michelle Rhee who want to push past the entrenched and all powerful teacher’s unions that are acting out of their own self-interest and not the interests of children.  Reformers are billionaires like Bill Gates and Mike Bloomberg, people who would never consider sending their own children to a public school.  We are told that the problem with education is that bad teachers can’t be fired, and the only hope is a charter school system where schools aren’t tied to neighborhoods, but parents, even poor parents, can choose the best schools to send their kids to.  Questions about the charter schools aren’t discussed; they aren’t even raised.  The film is an uncritical love letter to those who bravely fight the power:  teacher unions.

While the filmmakers did give one union leader a chance to speak, it didn’t allow her to directly answer the particular charges leveled against unions by the filmmakers.  It didn’t talk about resources being taken away from good public schools in order to support the growth of these semi-private institutions, or about public education success stories, the advantages of building strong community-based schools and the way that innovative public schools are working in collaboration with  neighborhood organizations  to strengthen entire communities and engage young people.

Instead, by focusing on the lottery for spots at a few particular charters, and telling the story of a small group of kids going through the selection process, the film presents a simplistic, but compelling narrative.  It builds a story around the idea that if these individual youngsters “win,” they will get into a charter school and have a positive future.  If they “lose” and wind up in public school, they will not.  We can’t help but get caught up in the story and the myth it creates, to the point where even an alert viewer doesn’t have much time to formulate the unasked questions: What are the attrition rates for these schools? What happens to kids who can’t make it in a charter?  What about parental involvement and input?  Are the teachers actually better trained?  What’s teacher attrition like?  What are the procedures and protections if a parent has a concern?  How does allocating resources for these schools impact on local public schools in the districts in which they are located?

A new film is coming which does examine these issues.  The Grassroots Education Movement a group of public school parents and teachers, has put together its own film which is still in its final editing stages, but has already been screened at some community gatherings, and is called, called, The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman. The film takes a clear stand in discussing “real” reform versus the corporate idea of reform (the privatization of the school system).  It shows the ways in which resources have been taken from community public schools and given over to charters.  The filmmakers hammer home their main points about what encompasses true reform and what has actually been shown to make a difference for kids.  They point out that the two “reforms” consistently shown to increase student achievement are smaller class size and more experienced teachers.  These are reforms that unions push for.  They  inform us that the states with the lowest public school achievement happen to be the ones that don’t allow collective bargaining for teachers.   They point out that Finland, often lauded by the corporate reformers as an example of a working school system, is a unionized one.

Ideologically, the film is not simply “pro-union,” but pro-child, community and parent as well, defining true reform as an equitable system in which parents don’t need to arrange hour or longer commutes for their young children in order to secure a good education for them.  It’s a short film, and one devoted to answering the attack on public schools, rather than showing examples of the best ones, or the many ways in which “community” schools not only educate children, but help revitalize communities. (For a decent article about the difficulties of trying to run a great school under the a regime that has been consistently working to undermine and politicize public education, see this article on a Bronx middle school.)

Both Waiting for Superman and The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman are polemics.   The difference is that Waiting for Superman is a slick Hollywood production that manages downplay its bias, while The Inconvenient Truth Behind Waiting for Superman is an impassioned answer to some of the questions the first film doesn’t even raise. In Waiting the narrative is front and center, the ideology covert.  It doesn’t seem like its attacking public school, but the only alternative it offers is a charter system.  Truth is much less narrative driven.  In answering the charges against teachers and unions, the tone can’t help being defensive.  It’s pro-union, pro-grassroots rhetoric while stirring to its constituency, at times feels anachronistic, as though one is listening to a special on the Pacifica Radio network.  Many people tune out when they hear the words “corporate interests” even if, in fact, the battle is about corporate versus public needs.

What Truth, which was not made by a Hollywood director, or even a professional one, fails to do is create the kind of narrative suspense of Waiting.   I watched Waiting at home.  My better-half got bored about half way through and went to sleep.  The next morning he asked, “Who won the lottery?”  He remembered the individual stories and how much seemed to be at stake.  What’s needed is an answer to Superman, that doesn’t just lay out the case and the facts, but tells us a story equally as powerful.  Sometimes the narrative is the message, and in this case, The Truth Behind Waiting for Superman, though valiant in its attempt, fails to capture the narrative.

Meat

Politics and Culture, true story, , ,

“A rat is a pig is a dog is a boy.”    — Ingrid Newkirk, President, PETA

I’ve always had an ambivalent relationship with meat.

Where I’m at now is a belief that if one is not a vegan, one can at least be conscious of what meat is, not celebrate it, and try to limit the damage by both cutting down on consumption and seeking less cruel options when possible.

Back in ancient times before I’d graduated high school, I considered being a vegetarian.  I graduated early, mid-year and needed to do something before college and so I volunteered on a kibbutz, because I was sixteen and a half and it was the only way I could figure out to leave home and go really far away without my parents reporting me as a runaway.

The volunteers were assigned different duties.  There was stacking the dishes as they came off the dishwasher.  I still remember the large cockroaches that sometimes came off with them.  There was spritzing the orange trees with insecticide.  I don’t think they could get the “migrant” workers from Gaza to do it, so they used us.

And there was of course gathering the chickens.  They’d get a shipment of newly hatched chicks, raise them in a giant coup which was of course spacious when the chicks first arrived and then increasingly crowded as they grew.  After a relatively short time, I think about eight weeks, the chickens would be ready to go to market, gathered and stuffed into a truck.  Grabbing them required boots and thick gloves.  There were certain instructions since an injured chicken would not be considered kosher.

At five a.m, a few of us would wade into the packed coup and scoop up chickens by their necks.  They’d squawk and peck, doing their best to defend themselves.  As I made my way through scooping up one or two at a time as others pecked at my boots amid the noise and the shit smell, I mentally referenced IB Singer’s famous line, “In their behavior toward creatures, all men are Nazis.”

I stopped eating meat after that for several years, though I really wasn’t a vegetarian.  I never quit fish.   I’d been fishing a couple of times.  Somehow even seeing fish squirm when taken out of the water, I didn’t feel the consciousness was the same.  A fish was not a dog to me or even a chicken.

In the years that followed there were different meat/non-meat variations. I briefly tried to be an honest vegetarian and give up fish.  I dated meat-eaters and went along for the ride.  At one point, after not having eaten chicken in years, I was staying in a Mexican beach town.  There were a lot of chickens running around.  Often these local birds would wind up being served at the restaurants that lined the beach. It didn’t seem like a terrible life for those chickens — they went around minding their own business, living their lives and every so often one or two of their number would get snatched up and ….  Not much difference than for any of us, and the meat tasted damn fine.

At some point I wound up where I am now:  I eat poultry on occasion, generally if there aren’t many alternatives though possibly at a restaurant if there’s some “free-range” available. Except for duckie.  How I can watch the ducks in a pond and find their antics immensely soothing and then eat these birds as though they were a vegetable is beyond me.  But there you go.  Probably if I knew anything about life on the duck farm, I wouldn’t do it.  But I remain woefully and willfully ignorant on that score.

I don’t as a rule eat mammals, which is not to say that I don’t ever eat them but we’re probably talking about under 5 times in ten or more years.  I won’t eat pig though.  Nothing to do with any religious inclinations or even the taste.   To me a pig is a dog is a boy.  The way they are farmed is extremely cruel and there is good evidence that they are as smart, if not smarter than dogs.  Pigs in some fundamental way seem more like us than any non-primates.  They are almost hairless, social, love to wallow in dirt, will eat anything, defend their young, and aren’t always that great about personal hygiene.  Really, if you’re going to eat a pig where do you stop?  Long pig was the Maori term for human meat, and even if you weren’t planning to go that far, explain to me exactly the difference between a pig and a dog?

But that’s the dilemma isn’t it?  A vegan would argue that we all feel pain, and people love their pets even rabbits and yes, even chickens and ducks.  The emotions we attribute to certain species and not others is not rational or even universal.

Which of course brings me to my menagerie — which I’m not planning to eat, ever, but do have to feed daily.  I’ve got a dog and two cats.   PETA offers information on going veg for your “animal companions.”  While my dog could conceivable live on veggie diet, I can’t imagine she’d like it much, and as for the cats — clearly these little vermin catchers (or would be vermin catchers as they are stuck in a vermin free apartment) were not meant to be vegetarians.  The big guy, a very vocal, Russian Blue, would probably make my life a living hell if I even tried.

Lately, because of several factors including the expense, ecological waste of cans and concerns about quality — I have started to cook meet for my animal companions. Specifically, boiled chicken, maybe with some beef liver or other cheap cut.  The thing about it is, this puts me in touch with meat.  Literally and viscerally.

There’s just no way I can look at a whole, headless chicken and NOT think of it as a dead body.  As for the cow’s liver — you could replace it with a human one and I probably wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.  Cooking meat, the smell of it in my home, picking the meat off the bones, the awareness of it’s constant decay, the need for care and cleanliness lest I containment my entire kitchen, the bloodiness of it, well kind of makes me think.   I understand how and why we (humans) eat meat; I don’t quite get how we continue to be so blind to what it is.  You don’t have to kill it to realize what it is, you just have to touch it, smell it, and see it.

So of course this has made me think more of the ethical compromises we all make.  I wonder how pure even the vegans are.  How many of them insist on going veg with their dogs and cats?  But how can they justify not doing so, and choosing one species above others?  And what about the bees?  Vegans don’t eat honey, but how do they feel about the subjugation of bees used to pollinate crops?  How many insist on not eating fruit or vegetables cultivated with the labor of captive hives?  Why is it okay to have animal companions like dogs and cats but not egg-laying hens?  Chickens developed as domestic animals and they lay eggs, so why is it not okay to “exploit” that if the chickens also get something (a nice roof over their heads) for their trouble?  I do understand objections to milk and cheese.  Good milkers need to give birth to calves, and all those excess calves especially the boy ones aren’t needed.  Plus once a cow reaches a certain age, she’s no good as a milker anymore and retiring her to pasture is an expensive option.

Some might call me a hypocrite because of my half-assed stand on these issues and loads of inconsistencies.   I’m waiting for when biotechnology can bring us real “cruelty free” meat.  I imagine future meat farms that will be vast labs in which meat will be grown organ by organ, and its cultivation involve no pain to anyone.  But that brave new world will no doubt face its own moral issues and questions.  Meantime, I’ll continue to aim for simply paying attention and trying to do less harm.

To Serve Writers

New York Stories, Politics and Culture, writing/blogging/publishing related, , , , ,

I was over snooping around some aspiring writers’ site and it hit me.  People pay big bucks to get opinions on their work.  Back in my Authonomy days, I heard of writers spending hundreds of dollars for “critiques” by professional editing services.  One author published her critique, which basically advised her to dumb it down and sex it up.

Meantime, other writers at that site (owned an operated by Harper Collins UK, a Rupert Murdoch joint), spend an incredible amount of time trying to make it to the “Editor’s Desk” to get some junior editor’s review.  They don’t have to pay anything to get those reviews, but it means clawing your way to the top of a virtual slush pile by reading and often praising other people’s work.  If you calculate labor, it would be cheaper to just pay a freelance editor — though getting the opinion of an “authentic” but anonymous industry “insider” has a definite appeal.  Often what the editor has to say is not so different from what the more honest readers have been pointing out all along.  In some cases, it’s just plan wrong.  (HC panned and turned down at least one romance/mystery that’s been a bestseller in UK’s Kindle store for months and garnered much critical praise.)

Other aspirants pay hundreds for reviews by Kirkus Indies (formerly, Kirkus Discovery).  For $425, or $575 if you want shorter than a 7-9 week turnaround, someone whose name and qualifications you’ll never know will write an “official” review of your tome.  This isn’t exactly like hiring Michoko Kakutani to do the job.  But then again, why would you want to?  The idea behind Kirkus is that if it’s a good review. you can use it as part of your publicity if you self-publish.  People might mistake it for a “genuine” Kirkus review which will boost your sales because they have so much integrity.  They are now apparently working with Amazon’s Create Space to sell this awesome service.  If  the review stinks, you don’t have to publish it, and could theoretically use the critique to make changes or just take up origami or something.

Of course there are other options — creative writing workshops abound and are even available online if you live out in the boonies.  Most community colleges offer classes at reasonable rates.  Things being what they are, these classes may be taught by  “real” published authors.  This would be the best way to go if you’ve never taken a class or haven’t written in a long time, though not all published writers are decent teachers, and your classmates may or may not offer useful feedback.

Some people wind up throwing money away, falling for some slick ad, and going to an “editor” with nefarious credentials.  This might cost thousands.  And despite the “self-publishing revolution”, there are still all sorts making money off the desperate through “author services,” and “subsidized publishing.  Fake agents lurk all over the Internet and publishers who promise that you’ll “never” pay a dime will still somehow extract a few thousand before they’re done.  Best to check out all offers first!

So here’s my pitch.  I have one of those useless MFA’s degrees.  I was “real” published long ago, once.  I’ve taught writing.  I even  had a story edited for publication by an infamous and controversial professional editor.  (His method was basically to  cut the vital organs out of any story that came his way.)  I’m now a member of a collective of “independently published” rogue writers; some of whom are extremely talented (though I make no claims for myself).

I could use some money and I’ll undercut Kirkus and other services.  So how’s this:  I have no publishing connections and don’t work in the industry.  I can’t get my own work agented.   I can critique your work and give you an honest opinion on  plot, pacing, dialogue, writing mechanics and all that jazz.  You couldn’t pay me enough to actually proofread or edit it, but I can offer some tips and tell you whether or not you’re anywhere near ready to even go to an editor.  I can also tell you whether or not I found it compelling.  Believe it or not, the MOST likely reason an agent is going to reject your work, is simply because he or she found it boring.

I won’t promise you that if you do everything I say, you’ll get a contract.  The sad news is, you probably won’t get your novel published (by someone who isn’t you) unless you know someone or made sure to include vampires, zombies or  some kind of Jane Austen parody involving paranormal romance, or unless you’re a celebrity.  If you’re a celebrity, I’ll tell you the truth, which is more than you’re getting from your sycophantic assistant, but I’ll charge you double because you’re worth it, and you wouldn’t believe me if you thought I was cut-rate.

I can tell you if what you wrote is amazing, ordinary or embarrassing.  I could be wrong.  Most likely I am.   It’s entirely possible that you are a genius, and I just didn’t understand your work.  But then again, who am I anyway?  If I don’t like what I tell you,  you can always tell people that I’m a fraud and an idiot.

So let’s say $200 for a five-page crit of up to 300 double-spaced manuscript pages, and  $50 for each additional 100 pages (pro-rated).  Payable through Paypal with a 2-week turnaround.  (Add 20%  for rush jobs.)  Just respond with a comment if you’re interested.  I’ll be waiting to take your money.

Sarah Palin — Whiney Victim

Politics and Culture, Things that Piss Me off from The NY Times, , , ,

According to certain opinion-makers, anyone who suggests that Palin (and others) might consider toning down their rhetoric a bit, is now guilty of “blood libel.” Yes, it’s a pogrom being waged against Sarah — a virtual holocaust of blame for this Princess of Peace. She should lock up her daughters before the Cossacks beat down the doors.

As the wagons circle around the little lady from Alaska, I keep coming back to this clip from those long-ago days when the only Palin we’d heard of was the one who sold dead parrots:

Back then Sarah was tough. She felt women should learn to take the heat, and it did nobody any good for them to whine about the press.

Isn’t it kind of sexist that her honor is being defended so gallantly by male pundits while she hardly says a word? Shouldn’t the lady herself issue a statement? A direct one, not an aside to Glenn Beck as though she’s now too fragile to speak to everyone at once. Why she’d just die! Faint dead away! Delicate flower that she is…

Of course the national conversation shouldn’t even be about Palin, or Beck.  There shouldn’t even be a conversation about turning down the volume or taking away offensive graphics.   The volume part should have happened organically on both sides. Everyone should have just shut up for a while, followed by a few bowed heads and contrite statements about doing better in the future.

After that, the opinion makers should have started talking about the necessary steps to prevent something like this from happening again, and the lawmakers should have gotten busy drafting proposals to that effect. Imagine if Boehner and Pelosi announced bipartisan support for bringing back an automatic weapons ban or at least a plan that would keep weapons out of the hands of the mentally ill?   Can’t you see John and Nancy walking up to a podium together to make an announcement?  They’re calling it Christina’s Bill for the youngest victim.

I’m sorry, I must have been conscious dreaming for a moment.

Wouldn’t it be terrific if instead of trying to repeal the health care bill that finally passed, Congress looked at the laws regarding community mental health organizations and strengthened them?  Came up with consistent policies to be administered on a state and county level for dealing with the people suffering from mental illness? Imagine if we had had guidelines so that Loughner would have been subject to an outreach visit and emergency evaluation back when he was exhibiting bizarre behavior at the community college?  Even follow up care and treatment?

Oh, did I fall asleep at the keyboard again?

Palin may or may not be running for President in 2012. My guess is, that she’s not. She may realize that it’s dangerous out there. But wouldn’t now be the time for anyone who wants to lead, to begin?

UPDATE 1/12/2011 — This post and the previous one were both written during Palin’s time of silent reflection before she released her video in which she herself accused her detractors of “blood libel.” Of course her statement was issued after the conversation had pretty much turned away from her and moved on to more relevant topics such as gun laws, mental health and the political climate in general. Her use of the phrase in this context must be taken as deliberate, incendiary and desperate. It once again propels her onto center stage.

Second UPDATE: It now appears that after statements from the ADL and other Jewish organizations, Sarah has now removed the blood libel video. This is truly perplexing. Clearly, whoever wrote her speech knew what he or she was doing. How could her handlers not have expected this reaction?  Unless of course they did expect it.  The plot thickens, and sickens.

Third Update:  She’s re-realised the video.  Newly edited,  but with the “blood libel” still left in.  And now with what sounds like more references to God.  I officially give up and will leave tracking this woman’s every utterance to the pundits who get paid to do it.

Sarah Palin’s Brave New World

Politics and Culture, Things that Piss Me off from The NY Times, , , , , ,

A few weeks ago while still feeling the sting of Obama’s “tax compromise” with the Republicans*, I made this comment over at Wonkette:

If only it were possible for someone, a persuasive speech-maker perhaps, someone with the type of communication and narrative skills that would propel him or her to high office, to explain to the American people over some kind mass communication device that they are being royally screwed by the Republicans who are clearly working in the best interest of billionaires and not those of millions of working people. Perhaps they could hire Sarah Palin to do the job?

My tongue was of course firmly planted in my cheek.  No one on the left will ever come up with enough cash to equal Palin’s compensation as a right-wing demagogue.   But I wasn’t kidding about her communication skilz.  It doesn’t matter that she makes up words and can’t string a sentence together.  She’s like a bestselling author whose trashy tales are bought by millions of people who don’t normally read books.  Obama might give “better” speeches, but more people read Dan Brown than Cormac McCarthy.

The gunman may be a lone nut with no Tea Party affiliation, but he certainly has absorbed the messages put out by the lunatic-right  —  (1) we are being taken over by the forces of darkness (2) there are plans to change the currency and the only true currency is the gold standard (3) the government take over includes “Death Panels” (4) Obama is a foreign usurper, not a natural born citizen; thus the entire government has no legitimate claim.

Not only have right wing politicians and pundits put these ideas into the air, they have also offered solutions, such as failed-Senate candidate Sharon Angle’s suggestion that “second amendment remedies” are a possibility if the ballot box doesn’t do the trick.  Sarah Palin infamous “crosshairs” map “targeted” Congressional districts including Gifford’s.  Palin’s spokesperson, Rebecca Mansour has stated that there was no connection to guns in the use of crosshairs, but to “surveyor’s maps,” an assertion that is not only absurd on its face, but contradicted by Palin’s own words to her followers, “Don’t retreat. Reload.”

People have the right to put out these messages, but usually it was people on the fringe talking this craziness.  These were not ideas endorsed by former major party candidates for the vice presidency  The fact that a major television network on which political leaders often appear promotes these ideas as well,  is also something we haven’t seen before.

To pretend that this isn’t a change, is naive.  To believe that this isn’t a deliberate attempt to mislead and frighten people is to bury one’s head in the sand.  To think that putting all this in the air won’t lead a few of the more frightened and less rational to act violently is to deny reality and history.  This wasn’t the first event of its kind over the past year, simply the most dramatic.**

Rallies will not restore sanity.  If responsible leaders in the conservative movement had the courage to speak up, maybe they could help. The new Speaker of The House refuses to deal with the “birthers” in his own delegation, insisting he has no right to tell people what to think.  So they will continue to say aloud that the President is a foreign usurper who stole his office, and so will television personalities on Fox News.  Eventually, of course some lunatic who has listened and absorbed the message, will attempt a “second amendment remedy,” while Palin, Beck and all the birthers will deny that their words had any impact.

Some people are proclaiming that the “smoking gun” of the crosshairs map, has finished Palin.  They are wrong.  She’s far from finished.  TLC may have cancelled Palin’s reality show and the map has disappeared, but her supporters are now playing the victim card, accusing liberals and the “gotcha” media of viciously attacking her by linking her to Saturday’s events.  Any rational debate on whether or not words are dangerous is now considered a left-wing attempt to malign a true American.  Her Faceback supporters comment on the liberal haters who are trying to “politicize” a tragedy.  The Wall Street Journal*** has weighed in with an opinion piece in which the writer labels criticism of Palin “blood libel.”  So the mere suggestion that Palin might want to rethink her rhetoric, is akin to medieval Christian villagers killing Jews who they accused of sacrificing Christian children?

Palin was never going to have enough popular support to win a general election, but with Rupert Murdoch’s behind her, her power and influence will continue to grow.  She is a raging fire, burning everything in her path.

_______________________________________________________
*This was before the lame-duck Congress managed to get a lot of stuff done and it became apparent that the administration did in fact have a strategy, even if it involved skyrocketing the deficit.  Why does Obama always make me feel like an abused spouse who gets flowers the day after a smack down?

**Last August during the height of the anti-mosque rhetoric, a Moslem taxi driver was slashed by a drunken passenger.  Other incidents happened in mosques throughout the country.  Gifford’s office had previously had a window busted in.  Other congressional representatives and senators have also received threats due to votes on “Obamacare.”

***The Wall Street Journal is now under the ownership of Rubert Murdoch who also owns the right-wing cable station Fox News which features her as a pundit.  Murdoch also controls Harper Collins, her publisher