Short takes III

Apparently this is a real problem among Manhattan's educated class: preparing your kids to ace the competitive exams for kindergarten.

The NYC public schools have special kindergartens for gifted children -- 70 throughout the city -- plus an even more limited number of elite kindergartens -- 5 in all -- for the really really gifted.

Kids are selected for these programs by their score on a competitive exam -- you have to be in the 99th percentile to get in some schools. Competitive parents have been around for some time. The new problem this year is that these parents have been sending their little children to test-prep programs and getting private tutoring -- so they will ace the exams. And they have.

Scores have soared: test scores jumped by 10% this year, while those qualifying for the even more exclusive, elite programs increased by 33%.

This is kindergarten admissions, not college, fer cryin' out loud!!! Sending little 3 year olds to learn how to test well strikes me as child abuse.

So what is the purpose of these special kindergartens? To have a bunch of little geniuses sitting on their floor mats discussing Einstein and Kant? Story time readings from Finnegan's Wake?

Let them play.

Let them learn by playing. That's the business of childhood, not taking tests so they can learn higher mathematics and philosophy before they're six.

Ralph

Muslims in our government?

Let me say loud and clear: No, do not take that heading seriously. It is merely an ironic reference to my previous "Short takes II" about the muslim cleric and suppression of sexuality.

So here goes:

Remember when John Ashcroft was AG and had drapes installed to cover the indecently exposed naked breasts of the "Spirit of Justice" statue in the Great Hall of the DoJ -- which he was embarrassed to have as his background during news conferences?

Now the Virginia AG has insisted on redesigning the State Seal because the Roman goddess depicted thereon has an exposed left breast. The original design was adopted in 1776 by the VA legislature, and it has endured for 234 years. In the newly commissioned image, the goddess is "properly" clothed. Young men's virtue is protected and earthquakes are prevented -- just what the Muslim cleric would have wanted.

Man oh man. Just think of all the young men in these 234 years whose imaginations have been aroused to fever pitch right in the midst of handling state documents, with those sexy, naughty state seals showing that goddess's naked breast!!! Like the Muslim cleric said, it corrupts the morals of young men, leads to adultery, and increases the frequency of earthquakes. In VA, they tend to get hurricanes, not earthquakes. Same thing.

Actually, I don't think the VA AG's sexual obsession makes him muslim -- just one of those right-wing, fundamentalist, christian patriots who has also publicly questioned Obama's citizenship, rescinded the anti-discrimination policies for LGBT students at the U. VA., and claimed that homosexuals engage in behavior that is "offensive to natural law."

What is it with these guys and breasts? At least Ashcroft is Mormon, which gives him a little more excuse. I mean, look what naked breasts cause there -- multiple wives !!!

I think the AG is just anti-sex --- which really means he's sex-obsessed and thinks he can't control himself if there's a naked breast exposed somewhere.

Is this the new pornography? The State Seal of Virginia?

Ralph

Short takes II

1. According to chaos theory, a butterfly flapping its wings in Indonesia can set forces in motion that result in a hurricane in the Caribbean. In commenting on the recent earthquakes around the globe, a Muslim cleric said:

"Many women who do not dress moderately lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity, and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes."

OK, so maybe the cleric isn't spouting chaos theory -- just garden variety demonization of the power of sexuality.

2. We aren't so far out of that dark age, ourselves. An article in Time, commemorating the 50th anniversary of the FDA's approval of "the pill" for birth control, also pointed out that it wasn't until 1965 (merely 45 years ago) that the Supreme Court's Greenwald vs. Connecticut decision overturned laws still extant in 20 states that prohibited the sale of contraceptives, even to married couples.

Ralph

Religious symbol on public land

It was a narrow ruling about the transfer of public land to private ownership so that a cross could remain as part of a World War I memorial in the Mojave National Preserve; but, in effect, the Supreme Court said that a cross on public land does not necessarily violate the anti-establishment clause in the Constitution. It was the usual 5-4, conservative/liberal split.

Here are some comments about the implied meaning of crosses on memorials for fallen soldiers:

Justice Kennedy: “A Latin cross is not merely a reaffirmation of Christian beliefs. It evokes thousands of small crosses in foreign fields marking the graves of Americans who fell in battles, battles whose tragedies would be compounded if the fallen are forgotten.”

Justice Stevens, joined by Justices Ginsburg, and Sotomayer: “The cross is not a universal symbol of sacrifice. It is the symbol of one particular sacrifice, and that sacrifice carries deeply significant meaning for those who adhere to the Christian faith. . . . [Because] Congress has established no other national monument to the veterans of the Great War, this solitary cross in the middle of the desert is the national World War I memorial."

Justice Scalia: “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead.”

ACLU lawyer Peter J. Eliasberg: Many Jewish war veterans would not want to be honored by “the predominant symbol of Christianity [that] signifies that Jesus is the son of God and died to redeem mankind for our sins.”

Justice Stevens: “Making a plain, unadorned Latin cross a war memorial does not make the cross secular. It makes the war memorial sectarian.”

The arguments are in, they are clearly divided, and the sides have been chosen. It remains to see how much the next case moves the law to the right.
Ralph

Short takes

1. Maybe it's the issue (they really can't convince middle America of the virtues of an unregulated Wall Street), but I like to think that Obama has accepted as fact that it is useless to try to get bipartisan cooperation from this bunch. After he strongly criticized Repub senators for obstructing the bill, after Harry Reid said he would keep the Senate in session all night with repeated cloture votes, and after Repubs saw they had lost public support, they gave up on the filibuster. That's the way to do it, Dems.

2. An anti-Obama Facebook site, which has attracted over 1 million members, has been accused of "praying" for Obama's death. To me, it doesn't sound so much like any serious intent but more like wishful thinking. The "threat" is really a cleverly written prayer:

"DEAR LORD, THIS YEAR YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTOR, PATRICK SWAYZIE. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE ACTRESS, FARAH FAWCETT. YOU TOOK MY FAVORITE SINGER, MICHAEL JACKSON. I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, MY FAVORITE PRESIDENT IS BARACK OBAMA. AMEN."

But, even if the Facebook group doesn't seriously intend an assassination attempt, some crazy person might be persuaded to become their "hero." So it has to be take seriously. It is, after all, against the law to threaten the president.

Ralph

What's left?

This is a bad season for institutions.

Congress -- approval ratings scraping the bottom. Loss of trust, hyperpolarization, paralysis.

The Vatican -- how do you spell coverup in Latin?

Wall Street -- how do you spell fraud in Goldman-Sachs-ese?
Strong language coming from the Chair of the Senate Permanent Committee on Investigations today. Carl Levin used the word "shitty" 17 times in describing Goldman Sachs' allegeded unethical practices. Of course, they're back to making obscene amounts of money already.

The Republican Party. Can't seem to do anything right -- except obstruct progress. Will that sell in November?

The Boy Scouts. Courts imposed a million dollar fine for failing to deal with sexual abuse case.

Damn. The Presidency is looking pretty good by comparison (except to those who don't want to give Obama any credit at all.)

Ralph

"Imagine . . . "

Tim Wise conducts anti-racism training for teachers and medical professionals. This is from something he wrote about the current, predominantly white, militant protest groups in the U.S.

Imagine that hundreds of black protesters were to descend upon Washington DC and Northern Virginia, just a few miles from the Capitol and White House, armed with AK-47s, assorted handguns, and ammunition. And imagine that some of these protesters —the black protesters — spoke of the need for political revolution, and possibly even armed conflict in the event that laws they didn’t like were enforced by the government? Would these protester — these black protesters with guns — be seen as brave defenders of the Second Amendment, or would they be viewed by most whites as a danger to the republic? What if they were Arab-Americans?

Because, after all, that’s what happened recently when white gun enthusiasts descended upon the nation’s capital, arms in hand, and verbally announced their readiness to make war on the country’s political leaders if the need arose.

Imagine that white members of Congress, while walking to work, were surrounded by thousands of angry black people, one of whom proceeded to spit on one of those congressmen for not voting the way the black demonstrators desired. Would the protesters be seen as merely patriotic Americans voicing their opinions, or as an angry, potentially violent, and even insurrectionary mob? After all, this is what white Tea Party protesters did recently in Washington. . . .

Imagine that a black pastor, formerly a member of the U.S. military, were to declare, as part of his opposition to a white president’s policies, that he was ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.” This is, after all, what Pastor Stan Craig said recently at a Tea Party rally in Greenville, South Carolina. . . .

Imagine a black political commentator suggesting that the only thing the guy who flew his plane into the Austin, Texas IRS building did wrong was not blowing up Fox News instead. This is, after all, what Anne Coulter said about Tim McVeigh, when she noted that his only mistake was not blowing up the New York Times. . . .

To ask any of these questions is to answer them. Protest is only seen as fundamentally American when those who have long had the luxury of seeing themselves as prototypically American engage in it. When the dangerous and dark “other” does so, however, it isn’t viewed as normal or natural, let alone patriotic. Which is why Rush Limbaugh could say, this past week, that the Tea Parties are the first time since the Civil War that ordinary, common Americans stood up for their rights: a statement that erases the normalcy and “American-ness” of blacks in the civil rights struggle, not to mention women in the fight for suffrage and equality, working people in the fight for better working conditions, and LGBT folks as they struggle to be treated as full and equal human beings.

And this, my friends, is what white privilege is all about. The ability to threaten others, to engage in violent and incendiary rhetoric without consequence, to be viewed as patriotic and normal no matter what you do, and never to be feared and despised as people of color would be, if they tried to get away with half the shit we do, on a daily basis.

Well said.

Ralph

Vatican X

Roger Vangheluwe, Belgium's longest serving bishop, resigned last week after expressing sorrow for having abused a boy in his charge many years ago.

Another bishop, the retired Rev. Rik Deville, told the Associated Press that he heard of the allegations from the boy's family and reported it to the archbishop more than 17 years ago. Archbishop Danneels does not remember it. Deville counters: "There was no way not to hear what I told him. It was extremely serious business at the time."

Deville told the AP he reported many allegations of abuse in the 1990s, but they were ignored or dealt with privately. Deville says of Archbishop Danneels that "sometimes he got angry and said it was not my job, that I should not get involved."

Meanwhile, the Vatican finally seems stirred into belated action -- quickly accepting resignations from bishops who were either involved in coverup or as abusers themselves. In the past week, the "longest-serving" bishop in Belgium and the "most-revered" bishop in Chile have been implicated as abusers. Important bishops in Ireland have resigned. How much higher up does this go?

Evidence of a culture of secrecy and coverup is now unmistakable, coming forth in allegations like Bishop Deville's about his rebuffed attempts to inform. But the problematic attitude in the Vatican continues. Listen to the words from Vatican spokesman and #2 in the hierarchy, Cardinal Lombardi:

"The time has come for truth, transparency and credibility. The situation we are going through is extremely demanding and it requires us to be absolutely truthful and credible."

"The time has come . . ."??? Oh? The time came years ago. What has come now is the world screaming loud enough finally that the church had to pay attention. It's not because any internal reflection emerged. They had to be clobbered with it.

"The situation we are going through requires us . . . ??? Oh? Still the victim, and the problem is what's happening now? The Vatican was not required to be truthful and credible UNTIL NOW?

I still think the resignations will have to go higher -- into the Vatican itself, if not indeed Benedict himself.

Ralph

Crawling back?

Have the Republicans finally realized that they have gone too far?

Last week, they seemed to be signaling a readiness to get on board with regulatory reform. Maybe. There were also some mixed signals, like meeting with top Wall Street lobbyists.

Today on Fox News, Senate Minority Leader Mitchell McConnell said it would be "highly unlikely" they would filibuster Obama's Supreme Court nominee: "Unless the nominee is an extraordinary individual, outside the mainstream, with really bizarre views."

Again, it remains to be seen what they call "outside the mainstream." But "really bizarre views" doesn't seem to describe any on the reported short list. The rhetoric has definitely changed.

Ralph

Should the Supremes stay silent?

Linda Greenhouse, Yale Law School teacher and former Supreme Court correspondent for the New York Times, has a column in yesterday's Times that is thought-provoking. She explores the question of why our confirmation process for Supreme Court nominees is so contentious, while that of other countries is not.

The answers that come quickly to mind have to do with the importance of decisions that are handled by our court and with our polarized political process. But other countries' courts also decide major constitutional questions and also require confirmation by a super-majority vote.

Greenhouse has other answers. She looked at other countries that have emulated our governmental structure of separation of powers into executive and legislative branches, with a "constitutional court with the authority to review and invalidate actions of the other two."

What she found are two significant structural differences:

1. Life tenure on the court. No other country has adopted this. Typically they serve a single, non-renewable term of 9 to 12 years. Shorter terms = more frequent turn-over. Therefore, any one appointment is not seen as so vital to the long-range liberal/conservative slant of the court.

2. The absence of dissenting opinions. Several European courts actually prohibit issuing dissenting opinions, and they are rarely given even where not explicitly prohibited. Often, at most, a separate opinion would simply state the number of justices who were not in agreement, but they are not named.

Mind you: this does not eliminate dissent. It eliminates public knowledge of who was in the majority and who dissented -- thus eliminating the politicizing of what goes on inside the court.

Greenhouse concludes:

The effect is to render the members of the court all but anonymous. It is unthinkable that justices of a European court would appeal directly to public opinion, as Justices Harry A. Blackburn and Antonin Scalia did in their dueling separate opinions in a 1992 abortion case. . . .

She goes on to cite a recent proposal by two law professors from George Mason University that Congress pass a law requiring that all opinions be anonymous. Although she concludes that this is, of course, completely out of the question, it is worth thinking about as a new confirmation debate heats up.

It took just hours after Justice Steven's retirement announcement on April 6 for the editors of National Review Online to proclaim: "The question for conservatives will be not whether but how to oppose Obama's nominee."

That seems simply partisan politics on the face of it. In the absence of any way to get rid of such knee-jerk opposition, however, perhaps it's worth taking Greenhouse's analysis seriously.

The solution to the confirmation problem could be as simple (and as impossible) as eliminating life-time tenure and dissenting opinions.

On the other hand, I'm not ready to give up reading the dissenting opinions in decisions that I abhor. The dissenting opinion sometimes seems more important, in retrospect, than the majority opinion.

Example par excellence of an unsigned decision, with no dissenting opinions given: Bush v. Gore. Wouldn't you like to have been able to read what the liberal, dissenting justices had to say about the decision that gave the presidency to George W. Bush?

Ralph