Archive for April, 2010

When Bad Proms Happen to Bad People: Constance McMillen, Yet Again

There ought to be a word that describes the avalanche of emotions that runs rampant through the mind when something nasty happens to someone for whom your opinion is low. I admit that Constance (“Is my bow tie straight?”) McMillen possesses many of the traits I find unattractive in a person. If press accounts and television appearances are to be believed, Miss McMillen is selfish and self-centered, publicity-seeking, and scorched-earth in her approach to interpersonal discord. If you read her MySpace blog, you learn that she is also foul mouthed and a lot of other things not mentioned in the steady stream of ACLU press releases issued on her behalf.

So it was puzzling indeed that yesterday I found myself feeling great sympathy for Constance McMillen. It seems that a few weeks ago—on April 2, the day the infamous Itawamba Agricultural High School prom was to have taken place, before Miss McMillen’s legal antics got it canceled—Miss McMillen and a ringer (due to parental wisdom, her girlfriend stayed home) entered the Fulton Country Club where the privately sponsored “alternative” prom was taking place. Or so she thought. Seven other students had the same thought, eight if you count her “date.” Although the “prom” was chaperoned by IAHS faculty, it was clear that the dancing action was elsewhere. As I understand this sad story, the “original” alternative prom was “canceled” by the parents who organized it, on the grounds that it would be a media circus. Some days before the “canceled” prom was to have taken place, however, the not-so-divine Miss M got wind of an uncanceled prom and asked a fellow student how to get a ticket. She was told the prom was taking place at the country club, so there she went and learned the answer to the age-old question, “what if you gave a prom and nobody came?”

Constance and the other guests had plenty of room to boogie.


Meanwhile, on the other side of town...

While the indignity Miss McMillen and the hapless seven experienced isn’t as terrible as what happened to Carrie at her prom, the machinations of the IAHS parents rival Dean Wormer’s putting Delta House on double-secret probation. Miss McMillen should not have sued her school. The school was within its rights to cancel the prom. The parents who pulled this stunt are complete idiots. Splendid role models they for their spawn.

Co-chairs of parents' prom committee

So of course, Miss McMillen has chosen to return to court. The ACLU Amended Complaint states that

Constance has suffered mental and emotional hardship, which has required medical attention. Constance also has been publicly humiliated and disparaged not only directly by Defendants, but also by students, parents and teachers in her community as a consequence of Defendants’ unlawful actions. Indeed, the stress and trauma of these events have required Constance to take medical leave from her classes at IAHS and has caused her to seek transfer out of the Itawamba County School District.

A plague on all their houses. If there is anything positive to say about this sorry tale and its pathetic cast of characters, it is that IAHS students have not ratcheted their animosity of Miss McMillen to the level directed at Phoebe Prince. The sticks-and-stones kind of comments directed at Miss McMillen, according to her Complaint, sound pretty mild and—dare I say it—age-appropriate for the classmates dissing her:

“We wanted a drama-free gathering to celebrate 3 great years and 1 lousy one together, and we wanted to lay low. We also wanted to do it without the main cause of the lousy.” “Heard you got the other prom canceled. Good job.” Other texts said, in words or substance, “You don’t even deserve to go to our school,” and “Are you going to ruin graduation too?” Later that day, another classmate sent a text message that said, in words or substance, “I don’t know why you come to this school because no one likes your gay ass anyways.” (from the ACLU Amended Complaint)

Too bad the actions of their dim-witted parents weren’t similarly age appropriate.

That tux idea is sounding better all the time.


Bookmark and Share

Did He or Didn’t He? Only His GI Knows for Sure: Rahm Emanuel Auditions for a Cameo on “Family Guy”


Bookmark and Share

Profiles in Racism: How Comments in The New York Times Reveal Their Writers’Ugly Thoughts

Way back in the 1980’s I held a tea party. I broke out the Limoges, I tracked down watercress—no easy trick in 1985—for fancy sandwiches, and I spent hours baking the requisite tiny pastries. As it happens, the guest list was all female, friends and colleagues. The centerpiece of the menu was a lethal brew called “Fish House Punch,” which consisted of liberal but delicious amounts of bourbon, dark rum, and apricot brandy. As I recall, the punch also featured lemon juice and strong, cold tea. Like I said, it was a tea party, and take my word for it, a good time was had by all.

Call Me Miss's 1985 tea party.

One-quarter century later, having enjoyed all manner of tea in the intervening years, including formal tea with my delightful niece at the old Ritz in Boston and the even older Claridges in London, I fear that this fusty, anachronistic excuse to eat smoked salmon and quaff Champagne in the afternoon is in clear and present danger of being forever tarnished by the co-opting of “tea party” by latter-day grassroots activists.

I know that today’s partying Salada drinkers borrowed their moniker not from the Ritz’s menu, but from our Patriot forbearers in the mean streets of Boston. Even as I agree with the core principles of the Tea Partiers (fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited government, free markets), though, I cannot warm to this movement.

So I eagerly clicked on “Poll Finds Tea Party Backers Wealthier and More Educated,” in today’s New York Times to educate myself and perhaps pinpoint the reasons for my wariness. It didn’t tell me much that I couldn’t figure out from watching news video of a Tea Party demonstration: men and women generally 45 and up; usually but certainly nowhere near always white; relatively financially OK, judging by their apparel; and moderate to conservative in their outlook, again using sartorial guidelines. But the Times also included this point of comparison between Tea Partiers and everybody else: the partiers are far more likely to have attended college, graduated from college, and gone on to post-graduate study. So much for stereotypes.

What a typical tea party member looks like, according to the NYT.

The Times’ poll did not shed any light on my take-it-or-leave-it attitude toward the Tea Party, so to find an answer I dug deeper into the article and plumbed the depths of the 1300+ comments the poll received. And while what I found still did not resolve my inner conflict, it did surface the pulsating veins of inchoate logic and racial enmity that flow through readers’ disturbingly similar remarks.

For those of you unfamiliar with readers’ comments in the Times, a quick primer: the Times invites readers to respond to some of its articles and opinion pieces, and also lets readers endorse comments by clicking on a “recommend” button. You can get a pretty good sense of which way the public opinion wind of Times readers is blowing on a given issue by reading comments and checking their recommendations.

Let me give you a sample of the most recommended comments the Times received regarding the Tea Party poll. The numbers in parenthesis indicate the number of “recommendations” that comment received.

Now we’re polling these wackos? Making their racist, hating views even more legit in their eyes? (770)

So these yahoos haven’t figured out that there is no such thing as middle-class anymore? It isn’t about money, it’s about hate. I have always observed that there are two kinds of Republicans. Old money Republicans and selfish, conservative, redneck Republicans. The tea party being the latter of the two. They hate themselves and everyone else. Their lives have always sucked and they have had to struggle so to hell with anybody else that needs help. They’re complaining about universal health care because it benefits the poor and unemployed. Well, what do they think the initial purpose of Social Security was? Are they willing to give that back or not accept it all?? Highly doubtful. Almost everything in this country, when initially brought in to law was considered a ‘liberal’idea, including formal education. People tried to shoot that down as well. So as far as tea party folks are concerned; shut the hell up..the Republicans were in charge for 8 years and did nothing but screw us all up. So shut your pie holes and go away. (1103)

These Tea Party folks are all racist hypocrites. All of their anger is rooted in race. Where the hell were they when President Bush massively expanded the size of the federal government, ran the country into huge deficits and recession, and cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans instead of middle-income families, as President Obama has done? Where were they when Bush threw away the surplus left by President Clinton? Only now after the election of an African-American Democrat are these tea-partiers coming out. Of course it’s about race. They just can’t stand watching a person of color lead our country. (771)

At their core, Tea Partiers resent people racially and ethnically different from themselves who — as they themselves do (Social Security, Medicare, home deductions, etc.) — receive government support, only the “bad” kind, i.e. “welfare” (as in Reagan’s “welfare queens” — code for blacks, who are the minority of recipients, by the way).
In the meantime, Tea Partiers give government the go-ahead to spend more on defense than the rest of the world’s governments combined.
Where’s “waste” to be cut? On domestic services, but only domestic services they don’t get or think they won’t need (and in this economy, they should give that a second thought).
This is a White Nationalist movement.
Fifty-seven percent of whites voted against Obama. When Tea Partiers say they want “their” country back, that “their” concerns are overlooked, that “they” aren’t represented in government, they’re speaking for that aging, diminishing demographic. (573)

Whoa. These folks are scary. To me, they are anti-American. Where is the tapestry of diversity which represents this great country? I don’t see one person of color in this group or any young people. It’s also shocking to think that so many of these folks still insist that Barack Obama is a Muslim or that he is a socialist. Frankly, I’ve not seen this kind of anger and ignorance in my lifetime and it makes me terribly concerned about our country’s future. (1612)

So according to the poll, these older white males take advantage of government services and appreciate those services and value those services and don’t mind paying what they do actually consider a “fair” price for those services … they just hate the president. Who happens to be black. This poll just points out to me that they ARE the racists they say they aren’t. (480)

Whew! It’s obvious to me that these folks did not read the same article that I did, or, if they did, simply ignored its findings while composing their comments. Even if you toss out some of the more unhinged rhetoric (“This is a white nationalist movement.”), you are still left trying to fight your way out of yards of complete and utter fabrication: “these older white males….just hate the president.” It seems to me that the real racism—and by that I mean a world view that assumes the intellectual inferiority of blacks—resides in the hearts and minds of those who seems to believe with total conviction that anyone who challenges the president is doing so simply on the basis of his skin tone. These racists—for that is what they are—are oblivious to their own logic, which categorically posits that no black man, not even the President of the United States, can be challenged on the quality of his record, agenda or beliefs. They look no further than the epidermis, either ignoring the president’s well-articulated platform or assuming that the president has only his skin color with which to lead the country.

So much vitriol, so little time.

Never let it be said that I do not search for common ground. Indeed, as dispiriting as I find these comments, I find myself in total agreement with at least one of the writers. The one who wrote, “Frankly, I’ve not seen this kind of anger and ignorance in my lifetime and it makes me terribly concerned about our country’s future.”

Bookmark and Share

The Course I Wish Phoebe Prince and Her Tormenters Had Taken

A week or so ago, a report on abstinence education that originally appeared in the Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine made headlines. Its authors, Drs. John and Loretta Sweet Jemmott of the University of Pennsylvania, had written about the results of their research in the Philadelphia public schools, in which they found that abstinence education reduces sexual activity of teens and “tweens.” The Jemmotts also found that such a curriculum also upped the use of condoms among students who were determined to have adolescent intercourse.

A layperson’s summary, in the form of an interview with Loretta Sweet Jemmott, PhD, appears on the website of the Black AIDS Institute. I encourage you to read Dr. Jemmott’s sensible and accessible comments, which describe a program for kids that neither attempts to scare or shame them nor patronizes them nor treats them like miniature adults (which, come to think of it, is pretty patronizing too). Dr. Loretta Jemmott sounds like a very wise woman indeed.

Dr. Loretta Sweet Jemmott, a voice of reason, intellect and common sense

What made me think about the Jemmotts’study, and take the time to track it down, was when a friend asked me why I hadn’t written anything about Phoebe Prince, the fifteen-year-old who hanged herself to escape relentless torment from a wolf pack of hormone-fueled girls and boys. Phoebe lived with her family in South Hadley, Massachusetts, and she attended South Hadley High School. The family had recently emigrated from Ireland, and Phoebe had all of three months’ exposure to US-style public schools, their unwritten rules and their impenetrable cliques before her suicide in late January. Phoebe Prince is back in the news this week because the members of the wolf pack have been charged in Juvenile Court with an assortment of crimes. If you are not familiar with Phoebe’s sad story, you can read about in many sources, but here is the Boston Globe‘s initial story; it gives a reasonable account and, like all others, describes Phoebe’s torment as “bullying” and her tormentors as “bullies.” If you are interested enough to read examples of their actual indictments, you can find them here, here, and here.

So what do abstinence education and teenage bullying have to do with one another? In Miss Prince’s case, it turns out, quite a bit. Although the news accounts of what the bullies actually said to Phoebe are hard to come by, one gleans that most if not all of the taunts were sexual in nature. She was called names that would make the mildest feminists cringe in anger and despair. She was invited to perform acts that would gross out all but the hypersexual, hypointelligent teens who suggested them.

What did Miss Prince do to deserve her fate? Nothing she did warranted the targeted, organized campaign of hate that was aimed at her. So why did it happen? Because she was pretty and the girls who went after her were jealous? Probably this was part of the story. Because she was just-off-the-boat Irish and ignorant of the rigid rules the define behavior for American teens? Yes, this probably also had something to do with it. These two factors alone might’ve earned her a few cold shoulders, and a chilly reception when she tried out for cheerleader, but they wouldn’t have led to the unrelenting assaults she endured.

Phoebe the freshman made her first mistake by accepting a date from an “older man,” a football captain who was evidently on hiatus from his usual girlfriend, the alpha female in the wolf pack. Had the “date” been a walk from school to the parking lot for a couple of smooches and a few gropes, chances are Phoebe would have been subject to a few insults and some dirty looks in the hall, but eventually would have ceased to be prey for the pack. But apparently there was more to the relationship between the freshman and the football captain. And apparently the football captain—no gentleman he—blabbed about his conquest. From then on, it was an oft-told tale of all-out war: a strange female wanders to alien land and seeks to join the pack by conjugating with the alpha male. Alpha female gathers her troops and retaliates to the death to rid the pack and its territory of the interloper. Phoebe Prince never had a chance.

Phoebe's tormentors practice their taunts.

If only. If only our society didn’t wink at teenagers having sex. If only our society attached more value to the development of reason and intellect than to the development of curves and muscles. If only we didn’t shrug our shoulders and simply let all those hormones rage because, hey, we can’t stop ‘em and besides we remember what it’s like to be sixteen.

If there were ever a morality tale that illustrates why high school kids should not have sex, it is the terrible story of Phoebe Prince, the girl who is presumed to have had sex with the football captain and paid for it with her life. The big-tough-guy captain himself who was so insecure about his prowess that he felt the need to broadcast his most intimate moments to an audience of his adoring fans. And the alpha female, who like many of her kind, confused copulating with something other than the exchange of bodily fluids, and whose hormone-drenched brain cells were washed clean of all but her most primal, basest instincts.

Until I read about Phoebe Prince and her attackers, I never really understood why teens ought to go the abstinence route. If I thought about teenage sex at all, it was only to cluck with disapproval now and then about teenagers having babies they could not, or would not, support. But if a couple of teens wanted to get it on, I figured that’s their business. I was wrong. The lethal consequences of letting kids do what they want, when they want are just too high a price to pay. More power to the Drs. Jemmott.

Bookmark and Share

What Bugs You? Obama, Pelosi, and Tribe. And the New York Times.

If you lived in Boston or thereabouts in the last half of the 20th Century, chances are you or someone you knew listened to Jess Cain on morning drive-time radio. His show was the usual mix of the occasional pop tune, news, traffic reports, and ads. But what made the Jess Cain show so special, and so memorable even after all these years, were his comedy bits. In the terrible years that were the 1960s, his comedic gifts were welcome respite from library bombings by “student activists” on the home front and Napalm bombing by the US in Southeast Asia. Jess Cain’s good-natured humor took on less incendiary subjects–family, sports, work…the everyday stuff of everyday people. He had one bit, with his newscaster Vin Maloney, called “What bugs you?”, in which Vin would ask members of the non-existent “studio audience” that question, and Jess, using a variety of voices, would answer. The routine always ended with Cain’s falsetto cry of “paaannnttty hoezzzzzzzzz!”

I think it’s time to revisit this classic question, and, since you asked, I’ll tell you what bugs me.

It bugs me when elected officials of the same party talk about the same legislation and cannot get their stories straight.

Here’s the March 30 statement of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi regarding the new law affecting student lending, aka the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act:

This legislation contains the largest investment in college aid in our nation’s history by lowering the cost of student loans, expanding Pell Grants, and investing in community colleges and the institutions that traditionally have served minorities. It is fiscally responsible, ending years of government subsidies to banks, making available $68 billion for college loans and deficit reduction.

Repeat after me: "spending" and "saving" are synonyms.

Meanwhile, in another part of town on that very same day, President Obama is busy finding other ways to use that $68 billion:

So using the $68 billion that we’re saving, that had been going to the banks, here’s what we’re going to be able to do. First, we will reinvest a portion of those savings to upgrade our community colleges, which are one of the great, undervalued assets in our education system….we’ll also reinvest part of that $68 billion in savings in Pell Grants, one of the most popular forms of financial aid….third, we’re….making it easier for responsible students to pay off their loans….if you pay your loans on time, you’ll only have to pay them off for 20 years. And you’ll only have to pay them off for 10 years if you repay them with service to your community, and to our country, as a teacher or a nurse or a member of our Armed Forces. Finally, we’ll reinvest some of the $68 billion in savings to strengthen our Historically Black Colleges and Universities and Minority Serving Institutions.

Reinvest here, reinvest there and all of a sudden deficit reduction has been course-corrected to deficit creation.

I get bugged when President Obama, who promised transparency nonpareil throughout his administration, names a former mentor from Harvard Law School to a position that even the Boston Globe concedes is “nebulous.”

Laurence Tribe has traded his professorial title for the prestigious moniker of “senior counselor for access to justice.’’ Temporarily, of course, for where would be the justice in his giving up access to all the perks of tenure his day-job-for-life awards him?

But why settle for one sinecure when you can have two? The Globe goes on to describe Tribe’s new position as one “created especially for him.” And while Senior Counselor Tribe will “suggest ways to improve legal services for the poor, find alternatives to litigation, and strengthen the fairness and independence of domestic court,” he will have to suffer the indignities of a job that in addition to a paycheck provides only “a small staff, a limited budget, little concrete authority, and a portfolio far less sweeping than the one he told friends he had hoped to take on.” I don’t know what they call those kind of jobs inside the Beltway or for that matter the people who accept them. In Massachusetts we call the jobs “patronage appointments” and the people who accept them “hacks.” Or “Democrats.”

The Globe further goes on to describe Senior Counselor Tribe’s new job as “largely invisible,” which takes the notion of transparency to a whole new dimension. “The Justice Department,” says the Globe, “is not allowing [Tribe] to give interviews, apparently in part because of nervousness in the administration that his unabashedly liberal views might draw criticism.”

Senior Counselor Tribe's official portrait.

Perhaps the Justice Department should look a little deeper into Professor Tribe’s liberal credentials, or better yet ask why he needed to travel the 800 miles from Cambridge to Washington to rub shoulders with the poor. Justice might find that Professor Tribe is more than willing to defend the indigent, as long as they don’t have the temerity to show up in his neighborhood.

"OMG! NIMBY!" So said Professor Laurence Tribe.

Back in the late 1980′s the Commonwealth Day School opened its doors to a ninety percent minority student body, in the hopes of giving those students the solid start in life a quality education provides. In a classic case of NIMBY, Tribe and his tony neighbors got up a petition to drive the school and its students back across the river to Boston. Barely a year into its existence, Commonwealth Day lost most of its enrollees when it was forced out of the Brattle Street building it owned. Forced out by “liberals” such as Tribe, who understand all too well that the social engineering schemes they are so fond of imposing on other neighborhoods aren’t really suitable for theirs.

What else bugs me?

Editorial writers who can’t maintain a consistent point of view from one paragraph to the next.

Check out “Before It Ends, Schools ‘Race’ Is a Success,” an editorial in today’s New York Times. Or just read the brief excerpt below:

Critics of the Obama administration’s signature education initiative have been breathing fire since it was announced that only Delaware and Tennessee had won first-round grants under the program, known as Race to the Top. Politicians from some losing states have denounced the well-designed scoring system under which the 16 finalists were evaluated. Others have thrown up their hands, suggesting that retooling applications for the next round is more trouble than it’s worth.

Plenty of states will line up for the remaining $3.4 billion. But even if the program ended today, it already has had a huge, beneficial effect on the education reform effort, especially at the state and local levels.

The editorial praises to the heavens the time-and-resource-consuming frenzy of preparing applications for Race to the Top funds, and claims that none of it was for naught. Please. The end result is a bunch of school systems and states in which educators have “thrown up their hands” at the thought of undertaking a second round of the complex, bureaucratic machinations entailed in putting together a proposal for a fistful of strings-attached federal funds, and the Times thinks this is a good thing?

Or, as the New York Times puts it, SUCCESS!

I have reached the end, but find that I’ve only just gotten started. Stay tuned for the next installment of “What Bugs You?”

In the meantime, what bugs YOU?

Bookmark and Share

Fuzzy Math: What President Obama Could Learn From Community College Students

On Tuesday, March 30, President Obama made remarks at Northern Virginia Community College in Alexandria, on the occasion of the president’s signing the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act.

It was a feel-good moment for those of us who have taught in community colleges, have relatives and friends who attended them, or have ourselves benefited from the practical education and career preparation these two-year institutions provide millions of students. In the upside down world of US colleges and universities, the thousand-plus community colleges dotting the national landscape are the gateway to higher education for millions of students whose access to more prestigious, more selective, and more expensive campuses is virtually non-existent, although you would never know this if you glance at the carefully composed photos on the websites and brochures of such institutions, listen to their presidents wax eloquent about diversity, or spend time in the alternate universe of their “oppression studies” course offerings. Community college students are usually the first in their families to attend post-secondary institutions; they are all colors and ethnicities, and many are immigrants; they are poor and middle-class; most of them hold down jobs, often full-time jobs, while attending class. It was thrilling to know that the President of the United States had set foot on such a campus. Community colleges deserve our support and our respect.

But the initial pleasure in seeing our president, the product of one elite educational institution after another, set foot in such, to him, alien territory, faded as soon as he opened his mouth and made plain how little he respects the learning that goes on in community colleges. For sure enough, in between the metaphorical pats on his back and whimsical descriptions of his courageous victory in the “great battle pitting the interests of the banks and financial institutions against the interests of students,” the president claimed that the new legislation, as it pertains to colleges and universities will:

save American taxpayers $68 billion in the coming years — $68 billion. That’s real money — (laughter) — real savings that we’ll reinvest to help improve the quality of higher education and make it more affordable.

No wonder the transcript of the president’s remarks includes the notation about laughter from the audience. What President Obama said is risible. How is it possible to “save” taxpaxers money that the government turns around and spends (“revinvests”)? You either spend or you save. You cannot allocate the same money twice, as any alumnus of Northern Virginia Community College’s “Principles of Accounting I” will gladly tell you.

No, no Barack. It's carry the one and subtract the seven.

If the president were really interested in helping community college students, he’d return that $68 billion and all other so-called “savings” to them and all other taxpayers, thereby giving all of us the wherewithal to make our own investment decisions.

NOTE to readers: An earlier version of this post first appeared on the terrific The American Thinker website.

Share


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 78 other followers

Latest entry in “Where Are They Now?”

Justice has been served to both partners in the mom-pop crime wave that embezzled a cool $2.5 million from bastion of transparency and accountability Vassar College.

Amy Bishop: Countdown to Court

A judge in Huntsville, Alabama set a trial date of March 19, 2012 for former biology professor Amy Bishop, whose colleagues in the biology department watched in terror as she gunned down three faculty members and severely wounded others in 2009. The motive, apparently, was Bishop's denial of tenure at the University of Alabama, Huntsville.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 78 other followers