Justice vs. Social Justice

Here's the best quote I've ever read about the two. If you have a problem with the source, get over yourself, expand your horizons, and hear the truth of the words:

By the way, there's a huge difference between "justice" (government acts to ensure equal treatment before the law) and "social justice" (government acts to redistribute resources to those it feels are more deserving—and more likely to vote for said government). Conservatives view the latter as distorting market incentives that drive growth and prosperity, and fostering dependency that produces social dysfunction.

Amazingly, The LA Times Supports Prop 75

When the libs do something right, I'm among the first to support and congratulate them. I'm more of an idealogue than I am a party minion--if your logic agrees with mine, I'll support you, no matter who you are. And if you're my best friend and your argument is invalid, you're just wrong--but we'll still be best friends.

So today I'd like to congratulate the Los Angeles Times for officially supporting Proposition 75, the Paycheck Protection Act. For those of you outside of California, it's a proposition on next month's special election ballot that, if passed, will require public employee unions (teachers, police, firefighters, state workers, etc) but not private unions (Service Employees, AFL-CIO, Teamsters, etc), to get members' permission before spending any of that union member's dues money on political contributions. I'll quote a portion of the contents of the LA Times editorial, most of which is included in Dan Weintraub's column:

Proposition 75 opponents argue that this is unfair because there is no similar move to curtail the discretion of business lobbyists to invest shareholder resources in politics. But the analogy is flawed, given that this initiative applies only to public employee unions. It's not private businesses that sit across the negotiating table from public employee unions; it's the taxpayers and their elected representatives, acting as stewards of the public interest. (emphasis mine--Darren)

If this notion sounds almost quaint, it is, because it has become so divorced from reality. At many levels of government, public employee unions, aided by their political war chests, have gained control over both sides of the negotiating process. When public employee unions wield the type of influence they now do in California, too much governing becomes an exercise in self-dealing.

To take one example, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa has acknowledged it will take a "holy jihad" to assume control of the local school district because teachers unions are so powerful in Los Angeles and Sacramento. Although the mayor opposes Proposition 75, his statement illustrates the need for it.

That said, this measure will hardly take public unions out of the political game. They will still be able to raise considerable sums to influence elections, and they will face no restrictions to continue spending on "issue advocacy." Nor are we under any illusion about the partisan motives of many of Proposition 75's backers, who see this as a means of making it harder for Democrats to raise campaign cash.

I'm IT!

Miller's Time (no relation) has tagged me in a new game: Name 7 People Who Should Never Publish Or Speak Another Word Publicly. In no particular order I write:

1. Cindy Sheehan
2. Pat Buchanan
3. Ted Kennedy
4. Markos "Screw Them" Zuniga
5. Rob Reiner
6. Ashton Kutcher
7. Paul Krugman

And now I tag:
Polski3
Coach Brown in Ukiah
Kimberly at Number 2 Pencil
Austin (not the cadet, and he knows who he is. Restart your blog!)

If you have anyone you'd like to add to the list, please feel free to use the comments section. Judiciously.

Math Humor

Great link with some hilarious jokes. OK, they're only hilarious if you're into math, otherwise you won't get them.

And all us math geeks will laugh at you. And at the jokes.

But, first, the SandySmithDisclaimer:

WARNING WARNING WARNING! Some of the jokes at this link contain sexual innuendo and may get your mommie's panties in a wad if she catches you reading them.

And now, the link you've all been waiting for....

Shot Across The Bow: Here's Where I Start Rocking The Boat

In other postings on this blog I've told you about Ed Code Section 38118 and how we violate it daily at my school. We also violate other related ed code sections as well as state court, including state supreme court, rulings on the topic. What follows in an excerpt from an email I just sent to a fellow conservative, an email in which I tried to give a conservative teacher's point of view about a ballot initiative in next month's special election. This email clip was one example of how a particular ballot initiative could, if enacted, be extremely harmful. This is an explosive topic--there will be follow-on posts in the future.

But why would a principal want to fire a teacher?
I'll tell you that, based on experience, far more
teachers will be fired for ideological differences
with the principal than will ever be fired due to
ineffectiveness.  Some of the teachers you most want
working with your own children--those who advocate for
children (especially the kids whom it isn't popular or
easy to advocate for), those who identify problems to
solve, those who believe in firm but fair discipline,
those who believe in direct instruction while the
administrator believes in "cooperative learning" or
holistic learning--these are the teachers who will be
forced from the profession.  Literally.

Prop 74 will be a weapon used to remove those who rock
the boat, not necessarily those who are ineffective.

I'd like to share a personal example.  I'm preparing
to rock the boat in a *big* way.

My school charges illegal fees for students to take
classes or participate in activities.  State ed code,
as well as several state lower court and supreme court
decisions (Hartzell vs. Connell is the most famous),
are extremely clear that charging fees for classes or
sports/cheerleading activities is against the state
constitution and state law.  Yet we do it anyway.  Our
ceramics teacher charges a "lab fee", and students
tell me that those who do not pay not only fail the
course, but their work will not even be graded.  Our
photography teacher charges a similar fee.  Our
computer teacher charges a "materials fee."  Our
cheerleaders tell me they have to pay over $1000 a
year in fees just to be on the team.  There are plenty
of other examples on campus, I use these few just to
make the point.  But then there's this:  making
matters worse, it's often our school's financial
office/controller that collects the money!

This must stop.  Not only is it illegal, it's immoral.
Those who cannot afford to pay are necessarily cut
off from part of the school curriculum.  By charging
these fees we create a stratified education system at
our school, one for the haves and one for the
have-nots.  And at our lily-white school, a large
percentage of the have-nots are non-white.

This is my third year at the school.  For each of the
last two years I've discussed this situation with my
principal.  He's aware of the situation but *he*
doesn't want to rock the boat with the teachers and
coaches involved.

I am preparing to rock the boat.

Proud To Be An American

I remember a day in the fall of 1985. I was an exchange cadet at the Air Force Academy, and one day the brass decided that all of us exchange cadets (6 from West Point, 6 from Navy, 3 from Coast Guard--I don't remember if the 6 from the French Air Force Academy went) should take a tour of the Cheyenne Mountain complex.

Cheyenne Mountain is the epitome of Cold War thinking. A granite mountain was hollowed out and a massive complex built inside. All sorts of antennae sit on top of the mountain. NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command, was in Cheyenne Mountain. What do they do, you ask? Track stuff in space, from the smallest flecks of paint (their kinetic energy can allow them to puncture the shuttle or damage a satellite) to pieces of metal to satellites themselves. They also could track the warheads from intercontinental ballistic missiles--ICBMs, in the parlance of the day.

There were three generals in NORAD, two Americans and one Canadian. Each day one of them was on duty, and it was that general's responsibility to determine, within about 20 seconds, if a launch detected anywhere in the world posed a threat to the United states. I saw the phone--and yes, it was red--that connected that general to someone standing a few feet from the President. I so wanted to call and talk to President Reagan that day!

The electronics in the Cheyenne Mountain complex didn't impress me much. It was certainly nothing like what was shown in the movie Wargames. Looked like 1960's technology--the screens were all black and white! The engineering impressed me, though. There was an artificial lake in there. The wall/dam that enclosed it was only about 3 feet high, but when our guide shone his flashlight across the lake, it went as far back as the eye could see. And the trailers and other buildings in the complex, they were mounted on heavy duty shock absorbing springs.

Because Cheyenne Mountain was built to withstand a nuclear attack. When it was built, Soviet and Chinese missiles weren't accurate enough to target the facility directly. They might get close, but the granite mountain would protect the occupants of the mountain. A huge steel door, oh so thick, would seal off the Cheyenne Mountain complex from the outside world. And if the antennae on top of the mountain survived, NORAD personnel could continue to do their jobs.

It was an impressive facility, all things considered.

But that isn't what impressed me most. While we were in the control room, or whatever it was called, the general in charge that day came in. She was a one-star US air force general.

Did you catch that? I said "she."

When I saw this silver-haired woman general I remember thinking, Only in America would we put a woman in charge of making the most important decision in the world--and not even think a thing about it! I was so proud to be an American that day. Our military is truly a meritocracy and a credit to our republic.

So that's a rather lengthy lead-in to this story. Our military services have had woman generals and admirals for many years now, but none of them has ever been a graduate of the service academies. Part of the reason for that is that women first graduated from the academies only in 1980, 25 years ago. But just a couple weeks ago, a woman West Point graduate became the first from any of our academies to make flag rank--giving me yet another reason to be proud to be an American. Here are some snips from the link above. Pay careful attention to Halstead's own comments:

Rebecca S. Halstead, ...a U.S. Army career officer who has served at the highest levels of command from Fort Drum, N.Y., to the Pentagon, has become the first female graduate of any U.S. military academy to make general.

Only 12 other women are Army general officers (no word on navy and air force flag officers--Darren) and Halstead was the only woman among 39 officers in the group nominated by Bush last year.

Halstead is pleased with the historical mark made by her promotion.

"It is an opportunity for a country girl from a town with no traffic lights to say 'Look, you don't have to come from wealth, you don't have to come necessarily from highly educated families and you don't have to come from the big city," Halstead said. "If you just work hard and have values, you can do anything you want to do."

"For them [fellow West Point graduates] to be genuinely proud of that accomplishment for me and for the academy speaks volumes for the fact that West Point led the way with integration of races and with women," Halstead said.

Congratulations, General.

Update: minor corrections to make it more readable.

Ancient Legal Doctrine Forbids Computer Spyware

Via Instapundit (see blogroll) I learned of this story:

A federal trial court in Chicago has ruled recently that the ancient legal doctrine of trespass to chattels (meaning trespass to personal property) applies to the interference caused to home computers by spyware. Information technology has advanced at warp speed with the law struggling to keep up, and this is an example of a court needing to use historical legal theories to grapple with new and previously unforeseen contexts in Cyberspace....

The lesson here is that companies and individuals must be mindful that even though specific laws may not yet be on the books with respect to new types of online conduct, traditional legal principles may be applied by the courts, with potentially significant consequences. Prudence suggests that attorneys who are expert on Internet issues should be consulted when a company or an individual is not sure that certain behavior on the Web potentially could create liability.

A Political Email From Like-Minded Teachers

This morning teachers at my school in Sacramento received the following email from two teachers in Southern California. How did they get our addresses? Not that I mind, so much, because I agree with their message, but I'd be pretty incensed to get political propaganda email--at my school address--from, say, the CTA. So I think it's wrong of them to reach out this way, but I'm not sure I have a better way for them to get the pro-Prop 75 message out. Bottom line: This was the right thing to do only if you believe the ends justifies the means. And I don't.

But since I agree with the message, I'll repost it here, in its entirety.


From the Desk of: Lillian Perry, Fontana Teacher
From the Desk of: Larry Sand, Los Angeles Teacher

October 12, 2005

Dear California Teacher:

We are also California teachers and are writing to you because we're concerned about what the leaders of our union, the California Teachers Association (CTA), are doing to our union and with our hard earned dollars that we send to them in Sacramento every month.

Here's the bottom line: Our current leadership is on the verge of bankrupting the CTA to fund a political agenda that many of us do not support.

Every year, union leaders in Sacramento take more than $100 million dollars from California teachers' paychecks. This is approximately $300 per teacher per year. Much of this is used to fund a political agenda over which individual teachers have little control. Even worse, this is taken from our paychecks without our permission.

Earlier this year, the CTA leadership decided it still didn't have enough money to spend on politics, so the union leadership decided to take an additional $60 each year from our paychecks for the next three years. This forced assessment gave the union leaders an additional $50 million or more of our money for their political agenda.

According to court documents filed last week, the CTA has at least $34 million in outstanding loans. Now, these same union leaders are trying to borrow ANOTHER $40 million through a line of credit.

When will enough be enough? Where has the money gone?

To dozens of consultants and political firms (getting paid millions of dollars), pollsters, television and radio advertising, direct mail firms and the list goes on and on.

Much of this "Sacramento slush fund" has been used to oppose Prop. 75 - a very simple measure that says the CTA must ask our permission before political campaign funds are taken from our paychecks.

Why would CTA be so opposed, and spend tens of millions of dollars, to having to ask our permission?

Could it be that union leadership is concerned that we might not agree with their political agenda - like spending millions to qualify a measure that would have raised property taxes and millions more for measures that have nothing to do with education?

Proposition 75 will give teachers a choice, a voice and a say. It will bring accountability to the CTA. Please read the measure for your self. If you agree with us, please join us in voting "YES" on Proposition 75.

Prop. 75 is about union democracy, a voice for teachers and guaranteeing us the right to choose how our money is spent. Visit www.organizenotpolitics.org to learn more.

Thank you for your time and consideration.


Paid for by Teachers, Firefighters, and Law Enforcement for Paycheck Protection, Yes on 75, A Coalition of Taxpayer Associations with funding by Robin P. Arkley, II and Frank E. Baxter, 1500 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 113, Sacramento, CA 95833.

[The blue hyperlinks didn't transfer well, so I hope I was able to delete them while also showing where in the text they were--Darren.]

CTA Has Already Spent Its Extorted Money

According to the Intelligence Education Agency, CTA has already spent all the money its $6-$18/month dues increase is supposed to bring in over the next three years. This does not bode well for those of us who want to keep the money we earn, when CTA can raise dues without a vote of the membership.

Moreno (the CTA controller) described a $14 million loan (probably the headquarters mortgage) and an outstanding $20 million line of credit. But the key statement in the declaration is this: "CTA has already spent on the initiative campaign the equivalent of what the temporary dues increase would bring in over three years. CTA is in the process of negotiating a necessary $40 million line of credit."

EIA doesn't pretend to have extensive knowledge of banking and finance, but if the dues increase has already been spent, it seems the union will need further collateral to secure an additional $40 million. Where will this money come from, I wonder?

The answer, of course, is the members.

Who Or What Has Been Taking All My Blog Time?

Boomer :-)

What Does The Public Know About Education

A Republican "operative" sent me this link to a Democrat, but one who's on the right side of education--which simply means she agrees with me :-)

She gives California voters an F for knowing about education spending in this state. If you're interested in facts and not hyperbole, read the entire article. It's not long. Here's my favorite fact:

As a wonderfully sneaky test of awareness, PPIC asked Californians in a recent survey how much of the state budget is spent on public schools. They were clueless. Only one in three knew that public education is by far the biggest item, sucking up half the budget--very roughly, $50 billion of $100 billion.

Ignorant voters insist more money pour into the schools, not knowing California spends more on schools than the entire operating budgets of each of the 49 other states, including New York. (emphasis mine--Darren)

A Good 2nd Income For A Good-Looking Teacher

I often have to remind students that I am a "nice, wonderful, caring, and compassionate teacher, not to mention good-looking." It's that last trait that is the subject of this post.

I don't make an extreme amount of money. I make enough to live comfortably on my single income but I certainly couldn't afford the house I have today without all the equity I "earned" in my last townhouse. So what's a good-looking guy like me supposed to do to make ends meet?

Perhaps he should become a part-time escort, like this teacher in Canada did.

The former teacher, who now works as a waitress in a restaurant, hasn't told her family or partner of her experience.

"Even though I did it, I wouldn't encourage women to work as escorts," she said.

"It's still a dangerous job."

See? Apparently it's ok for us guys. I'm totally cool with this idea; it's been awhile since I've been to Las Vegas.

Math *Content* vs Fluff

I have nothing to add to this article. Nothing, that is, except to exclaim "I CARE!"

Journalistic Ethics and Military Ethics

The topic of journalistic ethics has come up on a maillist of which I am a member. Are American reporters Americans first and reporters second, or does the job transcend the nationality? This is a fairly important topic for current and former military people, what with a war going on and all.

Consider this exchange on the topic from 1987:

Nowhere was this mindset more vividly displayed than in a 1987 installment of the series Ethics in America, hosted by the late Fred Friendly, former president of CBS News. Each program in the series featured a moderator and panel of experts discussing ethical issues in business, medicine, or what have you, and the topic in one episode was ethics in the military. Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree was the moderator, and among the well-known panelists were retired General William Westmoreland and media heavyweights Peter Jennings and Mike Wallace. (Hadley Arkes wrote about the series in the June 16, 1989, issue of National Review. The series is available on video here.)

Ogletree asked the panel to imagine a war between the hypothetical countries of North and South Kosan. The United States was backing South Kosan, and indeed American troops were deployed in the field alongside South Kosanese forces. The North Kosanese offered to allow Jennings and a crew to film them behind their lines. Would Jennings go? Of course, he answered.

Then Ogletree introduced the ethical dilemma: While filming the North Kosanese, you see they are setting up an ambush for an approaching column of American and South Kosanese soldiers. What do you do? Would you stand by and film as the North Kosanese opened fire on the Americans?

Jennings pondered the question. "Well, I guess I wouldn't," he said finally. "I am going to tell you now what I am feeling, rather than the hypothesis I drew for myself. If I were with a North Kosanese unit that came upon Americans, I think that I personally would do what I could to warn the Americans." He went on to say he would warn the Americans even if it meant losing the story, even if it meant losing his life.

But this admirable display of patriotic duty was short-lived, for he was then upbraided by Mike Wallace.

"I think some other reporters would have a different reaction," Wallace said. "They would regard it simply as a story they were there to cover." Wallace was "astonished" at Jennings's answer, and he began to lecture him as he would an errant schoolchild.

"You're a reporter," Wallace scolded. "I'm a little bit at a loss to understand why, because you're an American, you would not have covered that story."

Didn't Jennings have a higher duty, Ogletree asked Wallace, than to roll film as American soldiers were being shot? "No," Wallace said. "You don't have a higher duty. No. No. You're a reporter!"

Properly chastened, Jennings backed down. "I chickened out," he said. He had lost sight of his journalistic duty to remain detached from the story.

After more interplay between the newsmen (the sage and the cub), Ogletree turned to another panelist, George M. Connell, a Marine Corps colonel in full uniform.

Connell looked at Wallace and Jennings as he might a pair of stains on his dress blues. "I have utter contempt," he said. "Two days later they're both walking off my hilltop, two hundred yards away and they get ambushed. And they're lying there wounded. And they're going to expect I'm going to send Marines up there to get them. They're just journalists. They're not Americans."

"Oh, we'll do it," Connell continued, "and that's what makes me so contemptuous of them. Marines will die going to get a couple of journalists."

There was complete silence all around. Even Ogletree was at a loss. Finally Newt Gingrich, then a junior congressman, summed it up perfectly. "The military," he said, "has done a vastly better job of systematically thinking through the ethics of behavior in a violent environment than the journalists have."

What's the right answer? To be honest, I wouldn't expect Jennings, a civilian, to give his life for American servicemen. That's not the job of an ordinary civilian. Wallace's answer was unconscienable, and Ogletree's was brilliant.

On the maillist came this situation:

It is 18 April, 1942. You are navy CAPT Bill Wilson of the light cruiser, USS Nashville as part of Halsey's battlegroup escorting aircraft carriers
Hornet & Enterprise, steaming 600 miles from the coast of Japan. Your entire
mission success and the survival of LTC Doolittle's bomber crews depends upon
your ability to maintain/enforce security. Radios are to be assumed on any ships
you might encounter.

Situation A -- At 550 miles out, Your group encounters small boats clearly
identifiable as Japanese fishing vessels.  You are ordered by Halsey to open
fire upon these ships immediately and sink them. 

Do you fire upon them?

Situation B: -- The vessels are flying the flag of a well-known international
civilian Environmental/Peace group, which has publicly vowed to interfere
with any war activities in the Pacific. You are ordered by Halsey to open
fire upon these ships immediately and sink them.

Do you fire upon them?

Situation C: -- The vessels are flying US flag, are known to carry Press from
an American media organization with leadership having publicly stated their
intent "... to try to find where the Americans are.  `The game of reporting
is to smoke 'em out,...  We don't represent the government.  We represent
history, information, what happened.' "   The vessels are in violation of
wartime orders from the President of the United States to clear the area.  They are
manned by US citizens.   You are ordered by Halsey to open fire upon these
ships immediately and sink them. 

Do you fire upon them?

What would you do? The comment section is open.

Bravo For San Antonio

The New York Times, of all places, reports that San Antonio is stepping up to the plate when it comes to military recruiting.

At a time when the divide is widening between the cities and regions that send their children to war and those that do not, San Antonio remains a ready source of what the military needs most: people.

This metropolis - the home of the Alamo and the site of an Army presence since 1845 - is a top recruiting market for every branch of the military. The Army, in particular, which has struggled to sign up new soldiers during the continuing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, has found the San Antonio area to be a reliable and steady source of recruits.

Now that might not surprise some people--it's Texas, after all. Lot of proud Americans in Texas. But look at part of what the article says about schools:

Many of these veterans are retirees. And because of a Texas program that makes it easier for them to gain jobs as teachers, San Antonio's schools are filled with men and women who served in uniform for 20 years or more.

They are often eager, active links between the battalion's 200-plus recruiters and students, who even in San Antonio's relatively thriving economy - low unemployment and a new Toyota plant on the way - are willing to enlist. Many students see the military as not just a good career but as a prestigious path, one more valued by some than college. "We're strong like that," said Jonathan Garcia, 16, standing outside the Ingram Park Mall one summer day. "If I'm going to die, I might as well die for my country."

In the hallways and courtyards of places like Judson High School, on the city's northeastern edge, a breezy comfort with the military is clearly evident. Since October last year, at least 25 former Judson students have enlisted in the Army, according to recruiting officials, making it one of the military's most productive schools.

It is easy to see why.

When Staff Sgt. Ian E. Davis, a square-chinned infantryman back from Iraq, and Sgt. Adam D. Torres, his soft-spoken recruiting partner, strolled in on the first day of school in August, unannounced and carrying doughnuts, the receptionist, Donna McMillion, greeted them with hugs.

"I appreciate everything you guys do for us - everything," said Ms. McMillion, wearing a pin that said "Too blessed to be stressed."

On most Tuesdays, Sergeants Davis and Torres can be found in one of the school's cafeterias, chatting with students or handing out free Army calendars. In contrast to school districts in California, New York and Washington State that have started limiting recruiters to only a few visits a year, Judson's administrators allow Sergeants Davis and Torres to come and go as they please.

The access is valuable because the student body is of Texan proportions: more than 3,500 on two campuses.

And size is not Judson's only advantage. At the school's Gray Campus, a short drive from the Red Campus, Barbara Meade, a guidance counselor, promised to point students toward the Army. "I have a lot of kids who need to be talking to you," she said to Sergeant Davis. "It's their best option."

The student population is heavily Hispanic, coming from mostly lower- and middle-class families. About 470 students are enrolled in the Air Force Junior R.O.T.C. program. Their day begins with the Pledge of Allegiance to the American and Texan flags.

Among Judson's faculty, connections to the military are as common as master's degrees in education. Its principal, Brad Williams, said 70 percent of the 280-member faculty served in the military, have family members who served, or also work in jobs connected to local bases. The concentrated military presence puts people like Richard McCarson, an assistant principal with a broad chest and a slight Texas drawl, in close contact with teenagers looking for a career. He tells a simple tale in a gruff voice: He was drafted at 19, and, he says, it was the best thing that ever happened to him.

"I was the first person in my family to go to college, and my entire education was paid for by the military," he said, standing in Mr. Williams's office.

Color me envious. And proud that there are still good people in this country who don't look down their noses at those of us who served, who serve, or who want to serve.

But what about those who protest?

This summer, Sergeant Davis said, two mothers paid a call on his recruiting office to denounce the war and the recruiters' efforts. Still, for many people here, the war's needs outweigh political opposition, fear and ambivalence. Many said they believed that those who oppose recruitment are ignorant about the value that military service holds for the individual and the country.

At the Lutheran church, pride trumped all other emotions. Holding snapshots of young men and women in uniform, the parents there described their sons' decision to serve as inherently noble and brave.

"I have cards made up that I give to recruiters for them to pass out to parents," said Beverly Rosen, 42, the mother of Lance Cpl. Ryan Visket, who returned from Iraq in February. "That way, they can talk to someone who has walked in their shoes."

If I were wearing a hat, I'd take it off for San Antonio.

No, This Is NOT A First Amendment Issue

The first person who tries to use the First Amendment to argue this situation is an idiot. The First Amendment applies to government, not to private corporations.

From the major Sacramento newspaper:

In a case that has grabbed headlines and hit the blogosphere on Thursday, Southwest Airlines earlier this week booted a Washington woman off a flight in Reno after she refused to cover up a T-shirt some considered to be in poor taste.

The cotton T in question played off the comedy film "Meet the Fockers," and featured black-and-white pictures of President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice alongside the movie's title - with a strategically misplaced vowel....

Beth Harbin, a spokeswoman for the airline, said Thursday that it was not a case of stifling criticism of the president.

"It could've been a (T-shirt) of Michael Jackson - it doesn't matter," she said. It simply was, she said, that the language is not "appropriate for Southwest Airlines...."

Southwest calls it a "contract of carriage," and Page 10 of the document reads: "Carrier may refuse to transport" passengers whose "clothing is lewd, obscene or patently offensive."

Good for Southwest. I'm tired of encountering foul language in public.

Let's get something straight here, though. I've used foul language in my time. In the army (late 80's, perhaps it's changed now), if we didn't drop a few f-bombs, mention some fecal matter, or discuss sexual organs at least once a sentence, no one heard what we said. But that was within the confines of the army. Out in public we watched what we said, not wanting to offend "the locals" and make a bad name for the military. I still use foul language on the rarest of occasions, but certainly not where anyone but the intended recipient can hear.

So again, good for Southwest!

Teachers Getting Paid To Vote

A San Jose, CA superintendent is offering cash to bribe his teachers to vote, and has a minor financial threat for those who do not. Joanne has the info, along with some comments which state that what this idiot is doing might not be illegal!

Proposition 74

Simply put, this proposition would grant teachers tenure after 5 years instead of the current 2 or 3, and would also make it significantly easier to fire teachers. Here are some comments from an LA Times article:

Some rank-and-file teachers say they recognize the need to simplify the dismissal rules for problem teachers, whom one instructor labeled "lost causes."

But many teachers worry about losing legal protections that insulate them against the whims of principals.

"Yes, we need reform, but it doesn't sound like the governor has a good way to do it," said math teacher Carol Silva, who has spent 23 years at Garfield High School in East Los Angeles.

"I would like to see the procedures streamlined for people who will not change. But to just have two warnings and you're out, I don't like that. It could make it very arbitrary."

The whims of principals. That is a major concern. Read this email from a fellow member of a maillist I'm on and see if Prop 74 isn't just ripe for abuse. I received permission to post this email, but was asked to edit out identifying items.

CA List Members: This particular initiative is quite worrisome to those of us outspoken teachers who have stood up against bad administrators and bad educational policy. Had this initiative been in place some 10 years ago, neither my husband nor I would still be teaching because we would have been fired. Our offense? We were a "detriment to our school community" because we didn't believe in whole language and we said so. Believe me, it was *extremely* hard doing what we did, even with the protections that we had in place at that time.

My participation in the Commission, my husband's in the various state ed panels and committees, and both of our fights locally against bad policy and for good curriculum all would have been negated had this proposition been in place because we would have been silenced.

You might think that CA curriculum has changed, administrators know better and support good educational practices, standards are in place, etc., so good teachers needn't worry and mustn't be protected against the notion of a bad administrator retaliating against good teachers doing and saying the right thing. Well, you would be wrong! There continue to be bad administrators pushing for the wrong thing, and these bad administrators continue to be angry with outspoken teachers for speaking against the wrong thing. Those schools of ed continue to teach that standards, our state assessment and accountability system, state approved standards-based programs,direct instruction, etc., are bad.

My current principal is terrific, but he is not my only administrator.

I know that xxxx will not appreciate this opening of a can of political worms, but I have to ask that before voting CA folks consider what will happen to the good teachers with weak/bad administrators if this passes. Thanks.

And what about budget crises? The most senior teachers might all of a sudden become horrible teachers--because they're the most expensive.

It's my belief that the Governor proposed this, sincerely, for two reasons. First, he wanted to take the teachers' union down a notch, and second, because it makes sense to get rid of "bad" teachers. On the first issue he failed miserably; he struck at teachers and not the union, and gave the union a strong rallying cry. On the second issue he has a good idea but is throwing the baby out with the bath water--streamlining what I call undue process is obviously overdue, because it really does take an inordinate amount of effort to remove bad teachers--but to make it too easy to remove teachers potentially puts good teachers in the crosshairs. Think about those teachers who go out on a limb, advocating for students. Or those who challenge an administration when it breaks the law, whether intentionally or not. Or those who advocate for the state standards against those who are convinced that they know better, and think that whole language, fuzzy math, and group work are the keys to educational Shangri-La.

If this proposition were going in the right direction but didn't go far enough, I'd vote for it as an incremental improvement. But it goes too far--and Governor, I don't support you on this one.

Lunchtime conversation yesterday

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/38/features-hicks.php

"Some would say that this is because the “system” still conspires to exploit, suppress and oppress black and brown people. I say it’s because some continue to look in the rear-view mirror, focused on yesterday’s realities, and serving up excuses and disempowering theories of victimization rather than exploring realistic answers to troubling problems."

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/27/features-cooper.php

That inner search took Hicks to a serious re-reading of the works of Dr. King. This time, he was "bowled over" by the "race-transcendent message" he saw in the writings of the slain civil rights leader. It was, he says, "another one of those ah-ha moments." He found a King who wasn't arguing for a society cleaved into racial categories, divided by competing ethnic identities, but rather a vision of a colorblind democracy. He found himself asking how activists had come from fighting for equal opportunity and rights for all to divisive identity politics.

"I saw how much I had missed," he says. "While I was playing revolutionary and running around with guns calling King an Uncle Tom, I failed to see how much he had accomplished. He was trying to build the American Dream, while I was trying to overthrow it."

Transformed by his re-assessment of King, Hicks began to chafe under the traditional left-wing notion of seeing American blacks and Latinos as primarily victimized peoples. Perhaps, 30 years ago, that was a proper view. But to persist on that track decades after measurable inroads against institutionalized racism had been achieved was in itself a sort of "soft racism," he says. It was not only patronizing, he began to think, but also damaging, to tell young people of color that their futures were de facto limited.

These quotes from Joe Hicks haunt me as I recall yesterday's lunchroom conversation. Yet again I was treated to conversation about "institutional racism", although no one could tell me exactly which institute they were talking about. "Society," perhaps? If so, isn't that just "racism"? Who, exactly, has it in for (primarily) blacks? And how? And why? I don't accept this concept of "institutional racism".

Of course, I was immediately castigated because as a white male (you knew it was coming!) I haven't experienced racism. I had to remind the gentle ladies that racism is only one small part of an over-arching umbrella of prejudice, to which I've been exposed many times. Being a male in Family Court, arguing custody of a child--anyone want to tell me there isn't a prejudice against me there? How about being a conservative in teaching, or a conservative member of a union?

My point about Family Court was that if blacks go into Denny's and are asked to pay beforehand (as happened a few years ago), they can sue, and they're going to win, and rightly so. The law is not stacked against them. When I walk into Family Court, though, it's the law that discriminates against me. And I have nowhere to turn for recourse.

I know prejudice.

But that isn't the point. This discussion about institutionalized racism--it's paternalistic, it's condescending, and worst, it offers no hope. And of course, it's up to the world to prove that it doesn't exist. How do you prove a negative?

So I've been thinking about Joe Hicks' words above. I've been thinking about how people vilify me when I argue using Dr. King's own words--how that makes me a racist, or so I'm told. We've come so far, yet have so far to go. And some don't think we've budged.

And those are the ones who make matters worse.

Update: Wendy McElroy wrote this column about a university event that was not open to white women (and probably men of any color). The entire column reminded me of the aforementioned lunchtime conversation so I include it here. Her closing sentences speak volumes:

It is difficult to be part of the only race for whom racial pride is a social taboo.

This is the ultimate result of people who want to open or close a public door based solely on skin color. They force you to think in racial categories, and that process can become a slippery slope into racism. It is a slide I refuse to make.

Textbooks

Textbooks weren't always as big as they are today.

And I don't just mean history textbooks. Sure, there's more history today than there was when I was in high school, so maybe history books need to be thicker. But English grammar and composition hasn't changed that much since the early 80's, and high school-level math hasn't changed at all.

So why are the books so huge nowadays? Why are teenagers' backpacks tearing from the weight of the books?

I'll tell you why. It's because publishers (and others) think teenagers are stupid. They absolutely *cannot* do problems unless there's a marginally-related picture nearby to draw their attention. They absolutely *cannot* read unless their eyes are focused on the page with a one inch border of empty page around all the type, adding several square inches to each page and cubic inches to each book. And why does every problem have to be about buying CD's? Don't kids buy anything else? Or can't they understand anything but buying things?

The textbook should be a tool. Whether the teacher chooses to amplify what's in the text or to have the text complement classroom instruction, the text should not be a mixture of academics and entertainment. Neither should it insult the students by implying that they're not capable of taking their textbooks seriously.

Instead, we give them books that are easily help up to mockery--if the kids can lift them. Backpacks are too heavy. There isn't enough room in lockers.

Entire forests are being clearcut for these tomes!