I'm Never Too Busy for Hasso Hering

I don't have time for this... but I can't resist.

In the Sunday DH (what is it about Sunday that produces some of the most obnoxious opinion work?), my good friend Hasso Hering has a commentary piece on politics.

Let me preface this post by saying that if this had written by someone with a different history (namely, one that wasn't so antidemocratic), I might have read it differently. However, given the context, it's just silly:

The trouble with politics is that it never quits.

...

But most citizens — at least those with a sense of proportion — have other things on their mind. These are the people with a memory, who remember that elections come around every two years, that this has been going on for more than two centuries and with any luck will continue for a good many years to come.

They also remember that with few exceptions, life in the country continues more or less as it has, except that in many cases things get a little worse as time goes on, regardless of who got elected the last time or the time before that.

How about that last little dig: "...things get a little worse as time goes on, regardless of who got elected the last time..."

I'd consider that evidence that Hering is a cranky old man. I've tried (and failed, sometimes) to stick to criticizing Hering's work on the editorial page and not him personally. However, that sentence just made me laugh: "Go away!" I heard him say. "Get off my lawn, you punk kids! Leave me alone! I want to go back to my idyllic childhood!"

Sorry, Hasso. Life doesn't work that way.

Don't get me wrong - I know that many, many people feel the same way as Hasso. Even I've felt that way at some points in my life - but in the end, I'm aware that such a feeling is some combination of nostalgia for a fondly-remembered past and a meme that won't die regarding the supposed goodness that was the 1950s/The Greatest Generation in Suburbia. In other words, a myth. (Case in point: The 1950s suburban utopia myth is racist; everyone is white & people of color don't exist. Not to mention patriarchal - have you ever watched "Leave it to Beaver?")

The other thing about this editorial is that it comes across, though not all that strongly for me, as Hering complaining about having to pay attention to politics more often than he wants. Of course, he paints it as "everyone" getting annoyed or just tuning out, but if there's one thing I've learned about Hering and his writing, it's that everything is ultimately about him, or that he writes "everyone" when he really means "me."

As I alluded to above, I think there's actually something to the complaint that 'politics' (and here he is really talking about campaigning; politics is always happening, even when it's not in the news) is too ever-present; that's been noted by lots and lots of folks, though they have the good sense to talk about the increasing length of campaigns and how that relates to the amounts of money being spent. Hering's level of analysis here is puddle-deep by comparison: remember, he just wants to be left alone.

Check out this sentence:

But having gone through an election, voters have earned the right to be left alone until the next one. Or so you would think.

Get that? It's the right of citizens to be left alone from the harassment of their elected officials. That's what he's implying right there.

What the fuck kind of model of society is that? I know - one that promotes consumerism and commercialism over genuine participation in the decisions that affect one's life. (Also, conveniently, one that allows cranky old men like Hering to sit on their lawn and complain constantly.) And he is a newspaper editor. It's like having the fox guard the henhouse, or an industry executive running an governmental oversight department...wait....the point is that Hering should not be in journalism if he thinks that less oversight and less democracy is a good thing. He should be writing press releases for the Heritage Foundation.

Finally, he ends this piece with a suggestion:

Maybe what the country needs is a change in the Constitution: Senate terms of eight instead of six years, House terms of four instead of two. That would give citizens a breather, at least on the national level.

...

For now we are stuck with the amendment and the schedule that requires elections whether anybody wants them or not. But not now. Wait till next year, at least.

Right. Because less democracy, and longer terms, is actually a solution to the problem Hering describes (again, no mention of how money or the two-party system affects campaigning). I swear, he must write half this stuff in his sleep. For most opinion writers, being able to get past the obvious and do a little analysis is a good thing, an advantage to being an opinion writer. I wonder why Hasso so rarely bothers?

Oh, and for the record, such a suggestion is both anti-democratic and would be totally ineffective. Rather, it would serve to entrench an already-elite class even more, and raise even more hurdles to citizen participation. Then again, we are talking about Hering here. I should have expected this.

One last thing: Hering refers to uses the term politics in this piece in a very broad and generic way. As I mentioned, he's really talking about campaigning, or at the least the sort of politics that happens when officials or elites are trying to convince the public of something. I would define politics in a much different way, but I'll leave that for another post.

Someone Needs to Lay Off the Meds

Rate Your Students used to be one of my favorite sites, but the farther I get from school, the less interesting I find it.

Normally, I can identify in some way with just about every post and point of view I come across.

There's this one post, however...and it's strange. Really, there are times when I could have written it. However, there's just one bit that pisses me off something awful:

All of this "earnestness" about your profession is making me gag. As an undergrad, I want to know that I'm not the only one fed up with my peers. They can be stupid, slothful, selfish bastards. What is tenure for, if not to call these kids out on their b.s.? These "future leaders" couldn't put together a cogent thought if you held a gun to their head, and everyone is supposed to pat them on the back as long as Mom and Dad's tuition check clears the bank? You have a Ph.D., for chrissakes, so throw it around like it means something.

1. Tenure has little, if anything, to do with treatment of students. It's about research. Readers of RYS will know this.

2. That Ph.D certainly means something, but usually it means one is an expert in their field, not that they've got great classroom skills.

3. This poster is very, very angry. S/he conflates lots of things that I think have no reason to be conflated. For example:

Tell them that you're docking their grade every time they ask if something is going to be on the test, that sitting upright and breathing doesn't earn extra credit points, and that they shouldn't have signed up for college if they didn't intend on reading anything other than highway signage, tv listings, or drive-thru menus.

Tell them that it's not your problem they've made life choices (children, mortgage payments, etc.) that hamper their ability to complete assignments. Remind them of other students who've made different choices (like jumping into the deep end of student loans and Ramen noodles) to be here and aren't asking for favors, so maybe we should all be adults and suck it up.

The lack of care here is pretty shocking. Yeah, I spent a lot of time in college despising folks I had no business looking down on, but I have long felt a sense of compassion for others.

Just to be clear, there's a giant difference between the two paragraphs. Mocking someone because they have "made life choices that hamper their ability to complete assignments" is a shitty thing to do, especially when those life "choices" include having children or having a mortgage. Seriously: who mocks other people for having a mortgage?

I know what's going on here: This person has an immense amount of privilege, and is totally blind to that fact. S/he can't comprehend that there are real and genuine obstacles to succeeding in college. That's kind of sad. I hope the RYS readership nukes them.

Oh, Crap

Now what?

Maybe It's Time To Take That Government Class

In the DH today, there's an article....well, here:

LEBANON — The president of the Lebanon teachers’ union won a preliminary decision this week in an unfair labor practice claim against the Lebanon Community School District.

An administrative law judge for the state Employment Relations Board decided the district was wrong to discipline Kim Fandiño for communicating with a school board member about a motion he had made.

The preliminary ruling also states certain district policies are in violation of the Public Employee Collective Bargaining Act, specifically the ones that forbid employees to contact board members directly and requiring them to discuss work-related matters only with their supervisors.

OK. I agree with this - and it seems obvious in hindsight that this rule serves to (even if this is not its purpose) consolidate Robinson's power by forcing all information through him. That's bad.

Though I understand a potential impetus for such a rule in the first place - in a hierarchical organization, people think a chain of command is a good thing. And in a place with an organizational structure like the LCSD, it's probably a good idea not to intentionally undercut the Superintendent if you're the school board. However, given who is on the School Board at the moment and their recent behavior...

Anyway, there's a bigger reason that this rule needs to go out the window: It restricts the ability of employees to go over their superiors' heads. I think that's necessary - what if someone's supervisor is embezzling? Stealing? Hurting children in some fashion? There's usually good reasons to allow outside-the-lines communication.

And certainly - certainly! - school district employees should be able to talk to the members of the School Board free from harassment, intimidation, or fear. That this is even in question is another indicator that something is very, very wrong. Note: "talking to" does NOT mean "conspiring with to overthrow the Superintendent." The latter is just bad politics - get it done out in the open if you've got something to say.

And making a rule to outlaw such communication is just bad policy - it's policy with a hammer. It doesn't solve the 'problem' in question - the feeling that communication between Board and employees is necessary - and serves as somewhat of a "governance through brute force" approach. And while that may have been, or may be, Robinson's M.O., it's not a good one.

Finally, there is this quote that has me shaking my head:

“People absolutely have a First Amendment, constitutional right to speak with their elected officials without the fear that it will be reported to anyone else inappropriately,” [Fandiño] said. “Anything that would treat a Lebanon school district employee differently from a regular constituent would be inappropriate. That’s what this unfair labor practice confirms.”

She would have been better served not writing up this quote so it sounds so manufactured. And she should have been clearer on the First Amendment angle; as is, it sounds like she's grandstanding to me. She didn't need to jump to the Constitution to prove her point. Remember this is the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I think what's relevant here is not the freedom of speech thing - that's restricted all the time, especially in the workplace (and there are certainly other restrictions on freedom of speech in a school; ask students). I think what might actually be more important is the last clause, the one about being able to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." The gag rule had certainly undermined that.

Note: To be clear, I support radical freedom of speech - no limits in the workplace, and no limits on children in schools (contra the Supreme Court), but taking that on is a whole different thing, and Fandiño is authoritarian enough to not want children to have freedom of speech. More for me but not for thee, apparently.

Idiotic

Sometimes that's the best word I can find to describe the work of Hasso Hering.

One of his latest is a bizarre piece on the future of Iraq. Near the end, he says something that prompted me to post about it.

Except that when I opened Blogger, I found myself staring at my hands and the keyboard - I couldn't find the words to describe how I felt about his latest that one can use at a sporting event, much less in polite conversation.

I mean, WTF? How does one respond to this?

After 9/11 in 2001, some of us predicted a long, long struggle. Most Americans still have not taken part and not borne any burdens except for being slightly inconvenienced at airports.

...

Our government has failed to devise ways in which almost everybody contributes to the sacrifice and effort. Now and then somebody talks about a draft, but it’s not a serious possibility and would still leave out most people.

No wonder there is no sense that we’re all in this together and that everybody has a role. (hh)

1. He fails to point out that there was an enormous opportunity to do just that right after September 11th. Instead, Bush told people to go shopping and go on vacation - there was a very explicit message, in fact, to not sacrifice and contribute to the effort. Hering's failure to mention this can only mean one of two things, I guess: He doesn't remember it (not a good sign) or he deliberately left it out (which is both my bet and very, very dishonest). Then again, if one considers Hasso to be, functionally, a Republican shill, then this aggravating omission makes all kinds of sense.

2. Now, with public support for Iraq so low, Hering's suggestion is laughable on its face. The idea that it would be anything but absurd to ask people to start sacrificing for a cause most of them think is lost...I have no words. Hasso is about six years too late on this one. I don't know what's worse: that he's just now realizing this, or that he's so cynical as to pretend he's just now realizing this.

3. It's flat-out insulting that Hasso writes from a position of assuming that everyone should sacrifice for "the war." It's almost like he's just re-hashing his memories of WWII posters or WWII propaganda (perhaps he has read The Greatest Generation one too many times). Specifically, I am insulted by the idea that since it's war, every American citizen should automatically buy in (the assumption of patriotism, perhaps?). Given the poll numbers - with somewhere below 30% of the population still supporting Bush's position - it's a fucked-up assumption to make, and it subtly tars dissenters with the suggestion that we are not patriotic if we do not support (not only the troops but) the entirety of the war, including its necessity and all the stupid shit that has come out of the mouth of Bush Administration officials in the last six years.

That's really low, even for Hering. Hell, I'm not the least bit patriotic and pretty open about that, and I'm still insulted.

Things That Make Me Go Puke in the Night

As if cross-country practice isn't hard enough:

VALPARAISO, Ind. -- Practice runs for Ben Franklin Middle School's cross-country team are getting scary.

Less than a month ago, a 17-year-old Valparaiso boy was arrested for allegedly shooting at the runners with paintballs. On Monday, a 16-year-old Valparaiso High School student was arrested for allegedly yelling a threat at a girl running with the team.

According to police, a red older-model Buick slowed behind the pack as the girls ran south on Campbell, near Northview, around 3:45 p.m. on Sept. 5. A teen in the back seat leaned out the passenger-side window and allegedly yelled, "Keep going or I'll rape you," at a sixth-grader.

As Jessica at Feministing notes, who says we don't live in a rape culture?

When The River Talks

From commenter River over at Lebanon Truth:

The problem is that education is not funded adequately to enable these dedicated professionals to offer students all of the opportunities that the professionals want to offer. This results in competition for resources which in turn leads to in-fighting.

The education community must pull together and agree that there is no “us and them.” There is only “us” and we are here for the kids. We teach them, we transport them, we coach them, we counsel them, we look after their health. We feed them, we identify and address their special learning challenges. We love them. We deal with their behavior issues, we protect them from each other. We provide them a library, we collaborate with their parents, we provide safe and comfortable buildings. We educate ourselves to understand our tasks better. We cut grass for them, guard crossings, build fences and dig ditches. We wipe their chins and clean their toilets. We coach them in sports, take them on field trips, and show them how to cook and shop. We manage programs as administrators, hire new team mates, and balance the books.

We spend more time with them than their parents and our influence can not be overstated.

Amen. Talk about something that's not been part of the public debate for a long time: Infighting hurts students.

Well, that and education funding in the United States is so pathetic as to be criminal.

I realize there are genuine differences of opinion in the LCSD, but certainly there is a much smaller likelihood of turf warfare if no one has to protect their own budget from their coworkers. I've been in that situation and seen even the most well-intentioned folks, people who are friends, get genuinely angry at each other.

I have an idea: Let's send Rick Alexander to lobby the federal government for more education spending. He seems like the kind of guy GWB would get along with... that or they'd toss him a large check just to get him to leave. Either way.

"Now You Know"

Some time back I found this blog, Sexual Intelligence. I don't read it that often, but perhaps I should, with posts like this:

Dear Larry Craig:

Now you know what it’s like.

I don’t say this in a mean way, I’m just pointing out a simple fact: Now you know what it’s like.

You already knew what it’s like to be terrified of being found out. You already knew what it’s like to hide who you are. But like millions of other Americans, now you know what it’s like:

* To lose a job because of your sexuality
* To be entrapped and then busted for inviting consensual, adult sex
* To be told you don’t belong where you know you do belong
* To suddenly be seen as totally different because of one private thing
* To be told that your sexual interest is the only important thing about you
* To be told that your “perversion” is the only important thing about you
* To be an acceptable butt of jokes, with no moral standing to protest
* To suddenly have your rights taken away even though you didn’t hurt anyone
* To go from being one of “us” to one of “them,” even though you haven’t changed

continued....

Can We Knock It Off With The "All Your Generation Belong to Us" Yet?

From the DH, apparently a couple of folks gave a talk at LBCC on the so-called "Millenials," those Krazy Kids that were born after 1982:

Millennials are people who were born since 1982. They have been sheltered and protected even before their first breath of fresh air, [author Neil] Howe said.

Their parents drove minivans with bumper stickers that read “Baby on Board.” Their Generation X and late Baby Boomer parents have surrounded them with rules and regulations to keep them safe from the outside world. They couldn’t ride a bicycle without a helmet. They couldn’t play alone at the city park for fear of abduction.

To reduce the risk of being affected by bad influences, their daily lives have been rigorously scheduled since kindergarten. They have been told that they are “special” and “good kids” — and in fact, statistics indicate they are.

“They are a generation that expects to work as a team,” Howe said. “They like to work and succeed in groups. They are not individualists like Baby Boomers.”

This might have been innovative and fresh in the year 2000, but now it just feels stale. I've actually heard and ranted about this point before, but that was practically before the advent of the Internet. I'm actually sort of of hoping "their latest book" was actually published at least five years ago.

Plus, I always hate it when anyone makes a generalized prediction about an entire generation. There's no basis for it. Ever.

Oh, and it does not describe the experience of pretty much anyone I know. It might be true for people who are just now in high school, or maybe even about to enter college, but older than that? Not in the circles I travel in.

Finally, I really, really dislike the fact that people are going to read this and then proceed to treat the supposed subjects as if they are automatically like the composite provided by the article.

Question

What the heck is this?

As president and spokesperson for the Lebanon Education Association, I am responding to current events surrounding the athletic situation in regards to the coaches whose salaries are determined by our contract.

...

Athletics is a fundamental need in any school district and there is data-supported proof that a strong athletic program helps support student achievement, district morale and community spirit. Considering the increase in state budget, it would be appropriate for the district to fully fund the current athletic programs before adding new positions elsewhere. We need every coach we have and they should be paid the salaries that were bargained.

Kimberly Fandiño, LEA President, Lebanon

It's a fairly straightforward letter, but it lacks context. Like, for example, why did she write it? Why put this statement in the paper? Who is she trying to reach?

If it's teachers, then she's the LEA President and she's got email. I suppose that she's trying to reach the public to counteract the impression that she isn't fully supportive of coaches. I wonder where anyone could have got that idea?

Second, letters like this almost always work on at least two levels. The first is the level the general public is going to read it at, and the second is the level at which the parties involved are going to read it at. I wonder what's going on over at Level 2? One suspects her support for Lebanon coaches is in doubt, and she's trying to shore it up.