I support CPS teachers' right to strike because of teachers like this one.

My friend Mike, a CPS high school special ed teacher, sent out a letter that summed up the current CPS/CTU mess most compellingly.  In fact I couldn't get it out of my head all afternoon.  Here it is. Hello all, I really hope that you have heard by now that the Chicago Teacher's Union, the CTU, is striking.  This is the third largest school district in the country.  Thirty-thousand teachers, aides, and clerks have walked off their jobs teaching 400,000 children.  I am not a union rep, nor have I been enthusiastic about the CTU in my nine years with Chicago Public Schools.  I have been participating in the strike, though, going to every picket and rally called, and I feel I should give my take on what is going on. First off, this thing is not about the money.  Most teachers are pretty smart people and know when the government is cash strapped.  There are serious questions about how CPS runs its books, but I don't think the average striking teacher was thinking we would get a substantial pay raise this contract.  I think most have been pleasantly surprised (and deeply suspicious) about the size of the pay increase that has leaked out of negotiations.   What this thing is about is anger and frustration.  I can say that a good summarization of the attitude at the rallies is "I've been working for CPS in schools where the plaster is crumbling off the walls, 107 teachers share one photocopier, where a whiteboard is considered cutting edge technology, with a class size of up to 40 students that walk into school after dealing with poverty, homelessness, violence, and gangs.  Fine.  We'll do what we can despite CPS's criminal stinginess when it comes to providing special education services and hiring counselors, aides, social workers, even school nurses.  What we are sick of is constantly being threatened that, if we don't fix these kid's academic problems and get them up to a national norm, CPS will fire the entire school to either "turn it around," or hand it over to a Charter operation."    That is technically a "job security" issue, but it feels more like we are being scapegoated for much bigger social failings than we have control over.  That is why we are angry.  That is why teachers are hitting the streets.  Ironically, that issue in only indirectly being discussed in the negotiations. The links below are to relatively brief summaries of the strike and the contentious issues from unbiased (or pro-union if you are anti-union) viewpoints. I am asking you to  support our strike.  The "liberal" media has been downright lying about the strike--the issues, the motivations, even the size of the rallies downtown--and, except for at the rallies and picket lines, we are feeling pretty lonely in this thing.  If you live in Chicago, call your alderman, email Rahm, come to one of the rallies.  There will be one, somewhere, probably in Union Park at Lake and Ashland, Saturday at noon.  If you live in Illinois, email or call Governor Quinn.  If you don't live in Illinois, call anybody, call Obama's White House, tell him to rein in his former chief of staff.   For the record, the rallies are kind of fun, in an inconvenient sort of way.  Picketing, on the other hand, sucks.  I'll send out pictures from the events when I sort out my relationship with technology. Thanks, Mike Marren 12 years Special Education teacher, 9 at Roosevelt High School on Chicago's NW side. http://www.suntimes.com/news/marin/15081962-452/rahm-emanuel-picked-this-fight-with-teachers.html http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/15068666-452/hard-facts-behind-union-board-dispute.html https://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=IMUboOIQT48

pictures from Ireland 2012 - now with links.

Sorry about that. Tried to get fancy with the slideshows and it blew up. Here we go.

ins and outs
amusing signs and imagery
anarchy anyone?
dublin, parts 1 and 2
belfast
giant's causeway / dunluce castle
carrickfergus castle / mellifont abbey / monasterboice / carrick-a-rede rope bridge
derry/londonderry (site of bloody sunday)
grianan of aileach (medieval ring fort) / slieve league (1,291-ft sea cliffs, europe's highest) / caldragh graveyard (pre-christian pagan tombstones!)
ballyconnell / kinawley / county fermanagh
galway
killarney / kilkenny
clonmacnoise (largest medieval monastery in ireland)
glendalough monastery, county wicklow

Sad but true: why women still can't have it all, in today's Atlantic.

Have feminists sold younger women a bill of goods? 

An outstanding article causing much buzz in today's Atlantic, worth the several minutes you will want to set aside to read, on why women still can't have it all, by Anne-Marie Slaughter, first female policy planning director at the State Department under Hillary Clinton. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-can-8217-t-have-it-all/9020/

Speaking as a mom trying to balance life and work since forever, I found hard truths on every page.  See what you think and let me know.

...OK, but what about Lincoln as a frontier-era, white Obama?

Obama is a Metrosexual, Black Abe Lincoln.  

Just wanted to say that one time.  I don't get the Abe Lincoln part, but he's working the look.  

Thinking of Obama dressed as Lincoln is not too freaky, but to picture the converse - Lincoln as a modern-day metrosexual, if that's what Obama even is - makes my skin crawl.  You don't want to mess with Lincoln's image in the Land of Lincoln.  It violates some kind of Illinois prime directive.

GOP 'Super PAC' Weighs Hard-Line Attack on Obama, NYT, 5/17/2012

.

Mr. Obama: Got any more of those raisins?

Barack Obama has succeeded wildly in forging his own identity and creating an intriguing narrative around it. When you're as famous as Obama, though, there are bound to be parts of your story you left out for a reason.  Or should I say, a raisin.  

One short chapter in Obama's life was a year or so spent at Columbia in New York, becoming involved with a woman, Genevieve Cook, whose story is told in a new book, Barack Obama:  The Story by David Maraniss. The book reads: 

'She remembered how on Sundays Obama would lounge around, drinking coffee and solving the New York Times crossword puzzle, bare-chested, wearing a blue and white sarong...

'Genevieve described [Obama's bedroom] in her journal this way: 'I open the door, that Barack keeps closed, to his room, and enter into a warm, private space pervaded by a mixture of smells that so strongly speak of his presence, his liveliness, his habits - running sweat, Brut spray deodorant, smoking, eating raisins, sleeping, breathing.'

(link to UK Daily Mail article) 

To a certain extent, we all do that.  We edit out the parts we don't particularly want made public, and put the rest out there for the world to see.  I'm fine with people seeing me as quirky, but not as eager to trumpet my sloppiness or secret eating.

But to me, knowing this about Obama makes me like him more.  The idea of our future President lying around in a sarong doing the crossword and eating raisins (so many that his room actually smells like raisins) is a huge comfort to me. Why?  Because it's so weird that it's oddly endearing.  Plus, if raisins had anything to do with his mojo (see article), the California Raisin Board has an incredible marketing opportunity on their hands.

Speaking of Obama and raisins, the only thing cooler than this video of an artist creating a portrait of Obama out of raisins is the uptempo jazzy/funky raisin music.

The Nunslap and the GOP's War on Women: Coincidence? I think not.

this would be me after 2 weeks.

I'm still pretty chapped about the Vatican's recent Nunslap against the LCWR, a group representing most American nuns, by the papal powers that be.


Garry Wills wrote an excellent article recently on the reason for the US nuns' and the Roman bishops' division.  It is, simply put, the pastoral versus the juridical.  Nuns serve those in need; bishops enforce Rome's rules. http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/apr/24/bullying-nuns/


One of many terrific quotes:  Now the Vatican says that nuns are too interested in “the social Gospel” (which is the Gospel), when they should be more interested in Gospel teachings about abortion and contraception (which do not exist). Nuns were quick to respond to the AIDS crisis, and to the spiritual needs of gay people—which earned them an earlier rebuke from Rome. They were active in the civil rights movement. They ran soup kitchens.


But here's my bigger worry:  that now, having let the monster out of the box on this nun thing, more stuff I'm pissed off about will start coming out.  Oh no, here it comes.


To wit:  it's hard to look at the Nunslap and not see echoes of the same thing in the situation certain factions of the GOP would like to put American women in, at least to hear the media frame it.  How is it possible, for example, that we can be having conversations in 2012 limiting women's access to contraception?  I understand fully the whole Church position that life begins at conception, BUT it's also true that during Vatican II, a papal birth control commission made a careful study of all the issues and theological angles, and recommended to Pope Paul VI a complete lifting of the ban on birth control, only to have the decision reversed due to machinations by a highly placed ally of the Pope.


If birth control, which the Church was ready to put to rest 50 years ago as an issue, is widely available, are the powers that be unable to do the math and see that abortions would go down due to so many fewer unwanted pregnances? - which would mean precious astronomical healthcare cost savings, at a time when we've got aging Boomers aplenty.


On different yet related note, on what planet does it make sense for insurers to provide coverage for Viagra but be reluctant to do so for birth control?  Listen, babe, my Insta-Boner is covered, but if it gets you pregnant, that's your deal, not mine. I'm not done being mad about that one but will save it for another post.


Don't get me wrong:  this isn't some rant from a member of the She-Woman Man-Hater's Club.  I like men, on a lot of levels.  I really do.  It's just that I keep getting the sense that if, for some of these well-heeled (mostly) gentlemen trying so hard to get these uppity women back in line and shut them up, if they could switch places with a woman for a while, some of this nonsense would never have been on the table.

Vatican to US Nuns (and all women): STFU!

Duct tape vould be zo much cheaper...

Until now, I have left religion alone like the ticking landmine it is, because that's your reality and blah blah blah.  But I can be silent no longer.  This latest outrage screams for an equally outraged response.

The Vatican has concluded a major investigation of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious (LCWR), which represents a huge percentage of women religious in this country, with an appropriately outrageous smackdown report:  Apparently, US nuns have been spending too much time focusing on social injustice and the poor, while remaining silent on or questioning other issues they should be pushing, such as the Church's official positions on male-only priesthood, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage.

Remember when our nuns were nice and quiet?

In other words, the nuns are less than jazzed-up about the very issues you would think intelligent, thoughtful religious women with no power in the hierarchy might be tempted to soft-pedal in favor of other, more practical and productive topics.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/19/us/vatican-reprimands-us-nuns-group.html


These women have given their lives to support an institution which does not support them.  They are NOT pushing for female ordination of priests or even deacons (don't even get me started on deacons).*  Just by asking questions and voicing opinions, they are accused of advancing a "radical feminist" agenda.

There's a backstory here which I may go into sometime, but suffice it to say this:  I converted to Catholicism, from nothing, in 2001.  I gave it the old college try for years, eventually becoming a lay pastoral minister, but needed to step back from it for a year.  It got lonely, though, and I had just started going back six weeks ago.  I figured I would just set my phaser to Ignore for the many parts that don't work for me.  Still good to sit quietly in a consecrated space with a group of decent people, right?  And the singing is nice.  An extra hour chilling with my family.

...but then this happens and reminds me (again) that I cannot ignore the vast gulf between the Church and what a lot of reasonable people think.  I cannot overlook the messages that these kinds of actions send not only to women religious, but to all women in the church, to our daughters and our sisters.  I can't be quiet about it any more.

* Did you know there used to be female deacons?  Yup.  Deaconesses.  The Church doesn't make much noise about that.  I learned it in my Called & Gifted Lay Minister training, incidentally paid for by the Archdiocese of Chicago.  Apparently they were very handy to have around, and there were a lot of them, until somebody got the idea that menstruation made women unclean.  So, like I said, don't me started...

primal howl: Mitt Romney's taxes

Everyone knows by now that Mitt Romney paid only 13.9% in effective taxes last year according to his return, and that as head of Bain Capital, he's made something like $40 million over the past two years.

I don't hate the rich.  But one big reason they are rich is that they find ways to spend as little as possible on taxes, in ways that aren't available to the rest of us. I don't begrudge them their money - I just wonder how people like Romney can justify contributing a smaller proportion of their income than those making exponentially less.

Does anybody seriously expect Mitt Romney to be the kind of person who will be able to identify with regular non-rich people? 

On what planet is it fair (and no, I didn't see Obama's speech last night) that people who make a tiny fraction of the 1% are expected to pay taxes at double the rate, or more, than the richest members of society? How can all strata of a society not at least partly share in the costs of running it?  Do Republicans actually imagine that everyone will pay a 15% tax rate - and then what?  Does more and more stuff just get sponsored by corporations, a la US Cellular Field in Chicago, or my favorite, the Taco Bell Arena at Boise State University?  Granted, nothing new there - after all, the Willis Tower was formerly brought to you by Sears - but the trend accelerates.  What does that kind of thinking do to the literal and cultural landscape of our country down the line?  Ugh - makes me want to become a sustenance farmer in the middle of nowhere.

Oh, and apropos of nothing but while I'm thinking about the wealthy, upscale neighborhoods have the suckiest garage sales.  Don't even bother - I've tried.

And I can't even spare any neurons on Newt Gingrich today.  The only good thing about him, in my view, is that his name is Newt, and we have a newt, so that's fun.  Honestly, I'm near the primal howl stage.

Don't Get Me Started: Karzai Says Raped Afghan Woman Can Marry Whomever She Wants

So the Afghan woman who was imprisoned by Karzai's government for being raped, and then told by Karzai that she'd be released on the grounds that she married her rapist, is now being told she is free to marry whomever she wants.

Thanks, Mr. Karzai.  That's really big-hearted of you.  This is the government our government put in place, and is keeping alive with tons of American and NATO money.

Political-ish: Gaddafi's Sexy Ukrainian Nurse Is Sad Now

Oksana Balinskaya, Gaddafi's most faithful nurse, might be the only human either brave or clueless enough to come out and say she is mourning "Daddy" now that he's gone.  He was a terrible, evil, awful person, but I have to give her credit for not caring what people think (unless she doesn't actually know what people think, in which case I take it all back.)

It does raise a question:  is a person worthy of forgiveness, no matter what they do?  The Catholic Church would say yes - that even if humans can't find it in their hearts to forgive, they should try, and that God has already forgiven them regardless.

Hm.  Do you think even the most evil person deserves forgiveness?

Gender: Why do so many people have a crush on Rachel Maddow, and what does it mean?

I love my husband, but Oh you kid!

The setup:  I made a purposely ridiculous comment this morning about gay vegans (Disclaimer:  I know and love several gay people as well as vegans, though perhaps not any actual gay vegans yet, but that would be cool, too).

Anyway, that thought led me to wonder whether Rachel Maddow was a gay vegan (thinking not).  Next thing you know, I'm thinking, "Why the hell do I like Rachel Maddow so much?"  A bit of investigation reveals that shitloads of people like Rachel Maddow.  I mean as in, like like.  Crush, infatuation, swooning, a "Gay for Rachel" meme, all that.  I fell hard for her by the end of the second sentence she pronounced on MSNBC.  Not only am I not gay (kind of butch, but still on this side of the number line so far) - but I don't even watch TV.  What is it about her?

I looked further into it and found this excellent analysis, part of "The Rachel Papers" by Joanna Widner, published in !@#$%^&* Magazine.  Widner explores this Maddow mania, why we appear to have gone "Gay for Rachel," and cautions against subscribing to the notion that because she became so widely liked, that we are somehow in a "post-gay" era, in the way that we might wrongly take Obama and Hillary's successes to mean we live in a post-racist, post-feminist world. I agree with Widner's assertion that what makes these people magnetically attractive/interesting/compelling to large numbers of people, from all possible flavors of life - is their own rare star power, their simple awesomeness.  Rachel is physically attractive (her androgyny appeals to a wide swath of people), but more importantly, she's also devastatingly smart, hilarious, well-mannered, and can verbally outfence anybody in the room.  Now that is sexy.   But it would be a mistake to think that we're past the point of needing to work on issues relating to gender, race, or women, just because we're under the spell of some very unique and compelling personalities.

Would I have gone gay for Rachel, if I hadn't married a wonderful man long ago?  Quite possibly...but it's because they both possess characteristics most attractive to me:  they're both articulate, super-smart, and funny.  And they both like girls and look cute in glasses.

Evil with a side of perv, times 3

This is one sick trifecta...
1. Moammar Gaddafi's "love den":  quease-inducing enough as is, but the adjoining gynecological exam room and operating theatre push it into a new super-yuckosphere.  The media didn't even want to linger.
2.  Pat Robertson: If your wife has Alzheimer's and you're seeing a lady on the side, better to divorce the wife & marry the mistress.  Apparently finding some other way to gratify your sexytime needs and taking care of your dang poor sick wife are out of scope for Pat.

3.  Dominique Strauss-Kahn:  now that he's free in France, former IMF head DSK says, "whoops, I meant I did have sex with that maid!"...but, he insists, it was consensual.  DSK, you look like Claude Rains and you have one heck of a speaking voice.  But you're still a f**er, and not in a good sense.  Makes me ashamed to have studied French.