Check me out on Examiner!

In case you didn't know, I'm now writing for the Examiner as the Dade County Education Policy Examiner. Here's a link to my home page:
http://www.examiner.com/x-12824-Dade-County-Education-Policy-Examiner

I've got 5 articles posted now and will be continuing to post there. I will try to put some more current posts on this blog sometime soon as well...maybe this weekend?! I've been slacking off sorely. But I'm sure no one is missing me...!

Check out my articles and leave a comment...

Should the "pro-life" movement change its name?

Anyone who doubts the extremist, terrorist nature of the anti-abortion movement should take a look at this website: http://www.armyofgod.com/

That's the extreme. But the mainstream? Just check out what Bill O'Reilly has to say about it:


So yeah. That's the take you get on it from Fox. After attacking Tiller since 2005, labeling him unrelentingly "Tiller the Baby Killer" and calling him a "mass murderer" with the "blood of thousands" on his hands, Tiller is finally killed, and O'Reilly "condemns" the murder while admitting that the victim was acting within the law, nonetheless sticking by his earlier comments.

Abortion is not one of my favorite topics. But when a doctor is murdered for doing something that is permitted by law, and some groups not only refuse to condemn it but actually defend it or even hail the perpetrator as an "American hero," it deserves discussion.

First off, let's take a look at the name the movement gives itself. "Pro-life." Need I say more? Is the hypocrisy not evident? You are in favor of life and of all having an equal right to live...yet all life is not valued. Just as anti-abortion activists are more often than not pro-death penalty, pro-preemptive war, etc., some of them (though fortunately not most) also operate on the rationale that, since they see doctors who perform abortions as murderers, and apparently believe that murderers deserve the death penalty, then it is on them to execute those murderers if the law will not do it. Vigilante justice. In this country, there is a right to free speech, just as there is a right to free thought; we are all entitled to our own opinion. But when the law is not in your favor, you are not justified in killing another human being, no matter what opinion you have of him/her. How can anyone seriously call himself "pro-life" when he believes that there is something justifiable in killing a living human being, for any reason whatsoever, much less for doing something that is permissible by law?

I think these Bible-beaters have overlooked the fact that "an eye for an eye" is in the Old Testament, and that Jesus tells them in the New Testament--their own holy book--that they should turn the other cheek. In other words, Jesus does not support revenge; he supports leading by example. Practicing what you preach. If you preach non-violence, you do not commit violence. If you preach that one should choose life...you should let live.

I can't help but laugh at this old article in the satirical newspaper, The Onion. It fits my sentiments to a tee. http://www.theonion.com/content/news/christ_kills_two_injures_seven_in

Ironically enough, you do not hear of anti-abortion activists murdering women going to get abortions. They do get harassed, yes, but they are not the ones targeted for endless harassment (by mainstream TV personalities as well as radicals), nor are they the ones to get shot to death. Why? If abortion is truly and literally murder, then wouldn't the woman going to get an abortion be committing murder, and therefore be a murderer? And so (following their logic) if she is indeed a murderer, and murderers deserve death, wouldn't it be their duty to kill her too?

They call the pro-choice movement the "pro-abortion" movement, as if anyone who did not believe abortion should be illegal were cackling, rubbing his/her hands together and plotting how to raise the number of abortions performed every year. I do not know anyone who "likes" abortion or thinks anyone should take it lightly. Like everyone else I know on my side of things, I think prevention is the best medicine, and that women (especially teenagers) wising up about the consequences of sex and about birth control is a much better alternative to abortion. I do not think of abortion as an acceptable method of birth control...like pretty much everyone I know.

The problem is, too many in the anti-abortion movement believe in things such as abstinence-only education, which has been proven ineffective. It has been proven that teenagers taking a vow of abstinence are just as likely as teens not having taken the vow to have premarital sex. So far, I have not met a single person in my generation or a younger generation who has not had sex before marriage. Are we all going to hell? Perhaps, if you believe in such a thing (I don't). Regardless of what you believe about the otherworldly consequences of sexual activity, the fact of the matter is, sex is an act that has the ability to create life. And "being old enough to have sex" does NOT make one "old enough to handle the consequences." Sorry. It just doesn't. Twelve- and thirteen-year-olds are more than capable of having sex. Are they more than capable of being good parents? I think few people would say they are.

So, my question: should the "pro-life" movement change its name? To, perhaps, oh I don't know...the "pro-fetus" movement? After all, the life of an unborn fetus seems to hold far more importance for many of them than the life of an already living, breathing human being. I guess they believe that, since those fetuses have not yet been born and therefore cannot yet have sinned, their "lives" are worth saving, while people already born and already having sinned are not worth saving, and are, in fact, worth killing.

I hope those "rescued" fetuses are taking note. As soon as they are born, and do something that displeases these holy followers of Jesus (I say that with all the sarcasm in the world, in case it is not clear by my caustic tone), their life too ceases to be valuable, and they too are subject to have their life taken away from them, with the implicit support of Bill O'Reilly among others.

Yes, please, let's kill all the sinners. That way, there will be a lot more room for the animals. And maybe global warming will finally get under control.

If you haven't watched the news like this, you haven't watched the news.

Perspectives ARE unique and DO influence our judgment. Is this a bad thing?

First off, I will not presume to be any sort of expert on Judge Sonia Sotomayor, or on any judges (or justices) at all for that matter; so, until or unless I do a lot of research into her legal opinions throughout her career, I won't be touting OR slamming her as a Supreme Court nominee. I can say that I sincerely hope that she is the best possible choice, considering that appointments are for life and, at 54, she could be around for quite some time yet. I am not knowledgeable enough about the subject (or her career) to speculate on whether she is the right pick or not; so that will not be the subject of this post.



What I do wish to discuss, in regards to Sotomayor and her nomination is the criticism of her nomination that has predictably gushed forth from the right (particularly the far right). So far, I haven't heard many compelling arguments against her nomination. Indeed, all the bashing seems to stem primarily from two soundbytes, taken out of context and repeated and repeated and repeated like a broken record, and one case where she upheld the judgment of the lower courts (the Newhaven case).

To discuss the quotes. I don't have the whole thing right in front of me, so I can't guarantee that I have the one they're using word-for-word, but it basically says that, "I would hope that a Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, make a better judgment than a white man without those experiences." (Forgive me, or feel free to give me the full quote, if I am mistaken and added something or left something out.) Granted, this could have been articulated better. However, the bottom line is, I do not think she means to say or even imply that white men cannot have good judgment or interpret the law as it's written. What she does mean to say, and what I personally take away from this (as do many other people I've heard and seen), is that the more experiences we have had throughout our lives, the more able we generally are to understand (and, to use that dreaded word, empathize with) others who are not like us and have not had the same experiences we have had; and therefore, as it pertains to a judge (or a Supreme Court justice), we are often better able to understand the implications and consequences of our decisions on the people they affect.

Conservatives get riled up and scream "reverse racism" (ahem, Rush Limbaugh and cronies) and try to say that she is saying that Latina women are smarter than white men (or anyone else for that matter) or are better suited to be judges. I don't see that at all in this quote (which is, of course, taken out of context, and while I have been unable so far to find the full quote, I have heard--correct me if this is wrong, and please provide the full quote if you have access to it, as I really want to see the whole thing). What I do see is someone remarking on the fact that, in a realm where there are very few women and even fewer minorities, some balance--a reflection of the diversity of cultures and experiences in today's America--is desirable, and could help render better judgments in the sense of interpreting the Constitution in such a way that it protects individual rights--everyone's rights.

Can a white man have good judgment and use it to make wise decisions as a judge? Of course. Can a white man have empathy and be conscientious of the impact his decisions will have on individual people, including women and minorities? Of course he can. We have proven that in the past, with decisions like Brown v. Board of Education... Roe v. Wade.

But all too often, decisions are made that favor the "rights" of corporations (as if these were individual people) over the rights of individuals. Right now, there are political forces that would like to see Roe v. Wade overturned, who would like to see an amendment made to the federal Constitution (and upheld) to prohibit gay marriage, who would like to see our borders closed and prevent immigrants from enjoying the rights that American citizens enjoy, who want to make sure that Americans everywhere continue to carry around AK-47s, even into national parks. And when you get down to it, the Constitution was written well over 200 years ago. When it was written, these topics were not even on the radar. Does that mean we need to live, and interpret our Constitution, as if we were living in 1799 instead of 2009? Because the founding fathers never discussed gay marriage, does that mean we shouldn't, either? Before you answer yes, remember that some of our founding fathers, even as they wrote that all men were created equal, were slave-owners. Women didn't get the right to vote until 1920, and the last laws against interracial marriage were not struck down until 1967. The changes that have been made, more often than not through the Supreme Court, have been good ones; progressive ones; ones that recognize the humanity of minorities and the traditionally disenfranchised rather than rejecting their humanity in order to "conserve the law as it is written."

Empathy and compassion for individuals and underprivileged groups is a major part of making those kinds of progressive decisions. "Empathy" is not a dirty word. Without it, we might still talk about all men having equal rights even while trading slaves and denying women the right to own property or to vote. However upset some people may be that "traditional values" seem to be fading, any reasonable and well-intentioned person would have to admit that, overall, our laws have progressed in giving people rights and protection. The courts are part of the system of checks and balances and part of their role, a major part, is to protect the minority from the will of the majority when it endangers their rights and personal liberties. When we have people on the Supreme Court who can empathize with the "underdog," so to speak, we have better chances of continuing to overturn laws that hurt the minority in order to placate the majority.

And to deny that personal experience is or should be important when coming to decisions and making judgments beggars belief. The conservatives blare that a judge's job is simply to uphold the law according to the Constitution, not to "legislate from the bench," and that one's gender or ethnicity or personal background should play no part in this process. True, perhaps, that in an ideal world, it should play no part in the process. But who would deny that our world is far from ideal? I don't think it is inaccurate to say that we are "the sum of our experiences." It is our own background and experiences that provide us with our perspective on the world. It goes without saying that a white man raised in a middle- or upper-class family, who never had to go without, who had all doors open to him from birth through adulthood, will inevitably have a different perspective on life than a minority women who was raised in a housing project by a single mother and had to struggle to achieve her dreams. Does that mean that the woman is necessarily "smarter"? Of course not--no more than it means she's less "smart." But it does mean that she is aware of the struggles of the underclasses, and will be more likely to take them into consideration when judging laws and interpreting the Constitution. How is that a bad thing?

Those who scream the loudest that one's personal experiences do not, or should not, play a role in the decisions one makes or the way one perceives the law are almost always precisely those whose personal experiences show the least amount of hardship and struggle. When one has never known what it was like to worry about keeping the lights on or keeping food on the table, or not being able to go to college because of the high costs or because of the need to work to help support the family, it is very easy to say that everyone has equal opportunity in this country, and to claim that anyone who dares say otherwise is a "reverse racist".

...And all of this could sound funny coming from me, the WASP who was born and raised in a middle-class family. I never went hungry; my family was never homeless; I never worried about whether I could go to a doctor when I was sick or whether I would be able to go to college. Hell, I never even had to worry about whether I would have a car to drive. So where do I get off talking about personal experiences and struggle?

I sang the same self-righteous song as many conservatives are singing now for most of my life, at least throughout high school and part of college. After all, I grew up hearing that song; naturally I bought into it. Everyone has the same chances, it's a free country, the land of opportunity, and if people choose not to rise to the occasion, it's their own damn fault, and they have only themselves to blame for that. It's easy to believe that, when you have been given everything, and when the few things you've had to work for came easily because you grew up given the tools you needed to conquer those few challenges you would eventually face. It's hard to imagine not having those things, not having been given those tools.

But as I've written about before, having lived in other countries, and having been in numerous friendships and relationships with people from totally different circumstances, raised in totally different ways in families with totally different priorities, struggles and values, and exposing myself to other perspectives through travel, literature, film and communication with people from other walks of life, and finally working in a school with children from a background totally different from my own--all of this has changed my perspective. What I grew up in, and what I was given all my life, I can't erase that; it shaped my perspective before, and I have to fight to keep it from dominating my perspective now. But what my experiences with other people who grew up less privileged than me have given me, above all else, is empathy, compassion and a change in perspective. I am not so quick to judge or criticize as I used to be. Oh, I still judge people, and I still tend to be critical; it's something I struggle with every day. I think, "Why are these people like that? Why can't they just be more like me?" Then I have to remind myself that they come from circumstances different from my own.

How can I (or anyone else) say what I would or would not do, think, believe or say if I had been raised a different way, in different circumstances? Would I see the world the exact same way I see it now if I had been raised in a housing project by a single mother? I think not. It does not mean that someone who grew up in that situation necessarily has a wider or superior perspective; more often than not, their own perspective will be just as limited as someone who grew up with a silver spoon in mouth, though limited in a different way. Those people tend to be less aware of what else is out there, what other options are available, what they could do to improve their own lot or to influence the law.

But that's exactly why it is so important to have people who come from that type of background, but have beaten the circumstances and reached great achievements, to be on our Supreme Court, in all our courts and in the legislature for that matter...and in the executive branch. They will naturally have a much broader perspective, be more conscientious of what everyday people on all ends of the spectrum are dealing with and going through, and hopefully do their best to make sure that our laws help and protect those who are less represented among us.

Does it mean a white man cannot make these decisions or reach these conclusions? Does it mean a white man cannot empathize with their plights and help them? Of course not.

But having a court that reflects who Americans are, and where different experiences and perspectives are available and can help influence the empathy of those already on the court--that can only be progress.

No time like the present to end discriminatory policies.

Let me start off with a disclaimer: I am not insensitive to the fact that our President has his hands full at the moment--to say the least. The recession/depression, failing banks, the mess in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention Guantanamo, trying mightily to push a health care package through this year before he loses steam; the list goes on and on. And I know that one person can only handle so many things at one time, and that certain things will inevitably get pushed onto the back burner.

That said, I still feel like, in spite of the entanglements we're in overseas--precisely because of our messy entanglements overseas, actually--there is no time like the present to end policies of blatant discrimination: in this case, namely, the military's ridiculous "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

First off, look at the side people rarely consider: the cold, hard financial stats. Military training is not cheap. It costs taxpayers an awful lot of money to train armed service members. So it just stands to reason that if you turn around and fire them (for no reason other than their sexual orientation), and new soldiers must be recruited, hired and trained in their place, we are losing money. The Palm Center organized a commission of military officers, a former Secretary of Defense, and experts in military law to study the financial costs of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. They confirmed that implementation of the policy cost taxpayers, between the years of 1994 and 2003, $363.8 million. (http://www.palmcenter.org/files/active/0/2006-FebBlueRibbonFinalRpt.pdf) That's a pretty hefty tab for some good, old-fashioned, homophobic discrimination!

There is a common misconception that "not that many" people actually get discharged under the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. In fact, in the last ten years, over 10,000 service men and women have been discharged under the law, including 322 translators of critical foreign languages needed for intelligence work such as Arabic, Farsi and Korean. All this, at a time when the army has notoriously been lowering its standards for enlistment due to a lack of qualified volunteers. Mired in an ugly, unpopular war of choice that a majority of Americans now admit we never should have gotten into in the first place, and from which we are now having a very hard time extracting ourselves, this is not a boom time for army recruiters. The suicide rate among service members serving in Iraq and recent veterans of the Iraq war is very high. Among those in active duty, the rate is about 18.1 per 100,000; among veterans of the "War on Terror," aged 20-24, the rate is between 22.9 and 31.9 per 100,000--between two and four times the rate of civilians their age. (See the full CBS news story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/13/cbsnews_investigates/main3496471.shtml) The allure of the G.I. Bill to pay for college post-service is obviously less brilliant when the prospects of coming back from the seemingly endless and repeated deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan seem so dismal...and when those coming back are so often either maimed or suffering from intense PTSD, only to find shoddy medical and mental health services available to them through their VA Hospitals. The Armed Services need more than "a few good men" right now...they need all the good men they can get, and then some...because it's pretty hard to get them in the current state of affairs. So they have lowered their standards for enlistment. (See the CBS news story: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/07/30/eveningnews/main3115199.shtml) They are lowering or eliminating weight and health restrictions that used to bar individuals from service. They are lowering required standardized test scores. They are accepting more and more soldiers with prior felony convictions (in 2007, the Army admitted over 8,000 recruits with criminal records). Why? Not because the military really cares about giving individuals who have messed up a second chance. Just because they have to take pretty much anything they can get at this point.

Yet at the same time, dedicated, highly-decorated men and women in the service, often in critical operations positions, are being discharged for no reason other than their sexual orientation. If you don't believe the raw numbers (over 10,000 in ten years), just look at one prime example: Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who served honorably in the Air Force for 18 years (and was only 2 years away from retirement), who has 2180 flying hours, nine Air Medals (including one for heroism) and five Air Force Commendation medals, and has served tours of duty in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002-2003 and in the Balkans in 1999, was notified of his discharge two weeks before his scheduled overseas deployment. His "offense"? Being gay. (Read his story on Military Times at http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/05/airforce_fehrenbach_052009w/)

So, yeah. Basically, we'll take whatever we can get, including idiots and criminals; anyone, anyone, anyone except homosexuals.

This policy makes no sense at all. It is not supported by the American public (79% of Americans think it should be repealed; 91% of Americans aged 19-31) or even by most men and women in the services (over 50% believe it should be repealed, and 3/4 said they did not feel uncomfortable working around homosexuals). There is exactly no evidence to support that having gays in the troops affects morale. This is just a purely discriminatory policy based on good old-fashioned homophobia.

And if I were in the military (which, thank God, I am not), I think I would be insulted by the very premise of the policy. It seems to assume that most men in uniform are homophobic bigots who would be so queasy at the very idea of a "faggot" among their ranks that they would be unable to effectively perform their duties. Naturally it is also very insulting to gays (beyond being just one more form of blatant discrimination limiting what jobs they are "allowed" to hold): it implies that they are all sleazy, promiscuous and out-of-touch, their raging hormones and perversions so out of control that they would be unable to perform their duties to the military without trying to, presumably, cop a feel here or there, or, who knows, molest someone in their unit at the first opportunity...in the showers, in the trenches, in a tank. What the hell?

Men and women serve side-by-side in the military now. Cases of sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior are dealt with (sometimes better than others) through normal channels. If indeed a homosexual said or did something inappropriate to another service member, those normal channels would still be there to deal with those words or actions just as they do between men and women. Why on earth do we need a law prohibiting those individuals from serving, simply because of their sexual orientation? Just as it would be a joke to say that all heterosexuals knew how to behave themselves around people of the opposite sex, it is just as much of a joke to say that no homosexuals know how to behave themselves around people of the same sex.

I was just wondering aloud yesterday (and the day before) about how America managed to make monumental changes through this whole Civil Rights Movement, supposedly providing for equal opportunities for all, whether in education, voting rights, marriage, employment opportunities, military service, public services, private services, etc., etc., etc., and yet we somehow find a continuous stream of excuses to deny those same basic rights and freedoms to homosexuals. How did the gay community get excluded from benefiting from the Civil Rights Movement?

My friend's boyfriend pointed out that this discrimination continues precisely because too many people still view homosexuality as a "choice," and a perverted one at that. So, according to their logic, because these people are sick and perverted, and "choose" to live a lifestyle that they personally find unappealing, or that their Holy Book (and, more importantly, preacher) tells them is an abomination, they are not entitled to those same civil rights. All they have to do is "quit being gay," and they will enjoy the same rights as everyone else.

Yet all research indicates that sexual orientation is genetically determined. A gay person can no more "quit being gay" than a black person can wish away the color of his skin--"quit being black." Sure, he or she could retreat back into the closet (or never leave it in the first place), and pretend. Plenty of people do that. They go years and years, sometimes their entire lives, pretending. They even get married, have children, have grandchildren. Yet their "gayness" never goes away. It is part of them. I have many gay friends. Some of them lived in the closet for years, going through the motions: having girlfriends (or boyfriends, if they are lesbians), one or two even going so far as to get married and have kids; others never pretended, never went through the "closet" phase, and "came out" at puberty. Regardless of which path my friends personally took, all of them tell me that they knew from puberty at the very latest--and often before, in early childhood even--that they were "different." As soon as sexual feelings began to manifest themselves and come into focus, they understood what that difference was. Some of them fought it for a long time, refusing to admit it to themselves or anyone around them, hoping it would just go away if they tried to be "normal." Others (usually those with very supportive families) were able to accept themselves as they were. But not a single one of them ever "made a choice" to be gay. Not one of them was a regular old heterosexual, enjoying fulfilling romantic and/or sexual relationships with members of the opposite sex, who just woke up one day thinking, "Hmmm. I'm tired of this. I think I'll try being gay for a while."

And honestly--why would anyone make that choice, if indeed it were something one chose, like which shirt to put on for a party? Why would anyone choose to be gay, knowing that it would expose them to discrimination in just about everything they did? Knowing they would not be able to marry the person they loved; knowing they would not only not be able to procreate naturally with that person, but would almost certainly be refused the right to adopt; knowing that in many states there are no laws to protect them from being discriminated against for employment or housing; knowing that some three-quarters of the Protestant churches in the country (and close to 100% of the Evangelical ones) would be preaching against them; knowing that they would become prime targets for hate crimes, including violent crimes; knowing, very often, that they would lose acceptance in society and sometimes even within their own families because of it? What incentive would there be for anyone to make that "choice"? To use an only slightly exaggerated analogy, it would be like someone "choosing" to be born black during the days of slavery--or at the very least, during the days of segregation and institutionalized racism. There were plenty of wonderful things going on within the black community during those times, and lots of unity, just as there are plenty of wonderful things going on within the gay community and lots of unity now; but how many people would purposely "choose" to belong to a group that would find itself consistently ostracized, discriminated against and denied basic civil rights?

I have blogged before about why gay marriage bans are nothing more than blatant, institutionalized discrimination. "Don't ask, don't tell" is the same, only worse, in the sense that it really and truly hurts everyone. At a time when our military needs ALL the "good men and women" it can get, and is settling for some who are NOT so "good," it cannot afford to go firing anyone for the simple crime of being gay. On top of that, the nonsensical and discriminatory policy costs taxpayers tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

3/4 of service men and women say they are not uncomfortable working with homosexuals. I guess that means that 1/4 are? So how about this? Instead of discriminating against gays, to protect the delicate sensibilities of that 1/4 who are so offended by anyone who dares be gay, how about let's make a policy of not allowing openly homophobic people in the armed services? If you are not homophobic, or can control your homophobia enough to do your job efficiently, you may enlist. If you are such a bigot that you cannot stand the idea of working alongside someone who does not share your sexual orientation, then maybe you shouldn't be in the military anyway.

Maybe you should go back to driving monster trucks and cow-tipping. Or find your vocation as the pastor of an Evangelical megachurch.

It's time to reform the seniority system in public education.

Congratulations to me on my stellar end-of-the-year evaluation today! I give myself a pat on the back, even though I feel that I know better how much learning has gone on in my classroom this year than any administrator who has stopped by--I've had only one formal observation this year, and a principal or assistant principal has dropped in my room for thirty seconds (usually for some other purpose than to observe me) maybe two or three times all year. I am not complaining--it would definitely stress me out if I had administrators in my classroom every other day, like some teachers and especially at some other schools--but I honestly wouldn't mind if they did pass by more often. After all, I do my job. I teach; my students learn. Some days are busier than others, some more productive than others, some better than others. That goes without saying. But I feel that I am a good teacher and that most of my students--the ones who give a damn--are learning. It is nice to hear it from an outside source, particularly the ones responsible for giving you a job, but I would believe it nonetheless.

So I was very pleased to sit down with the assistant principal in charge of my department and hear great things about myself and my teaching. That my students were engaged, that we had great interaction, that it was clear there was learning going on and that the students liked me, that we had good lines of communication open, that I was more than proficient in my level of French, that the class was well-organized and planned. All of that I expected, but was happy to hear from my superior nevertheless.

What upset me at the meeting was some news I got about what's happening to some other teachers even as I write. The A.P. was running about 15 minutes late for our meeting, because, as he told me when he came in, our principal asked him to be present for the surplus meetings they were having with certain teachers from our school who aren't coming back next year. I asked, half-kidding, half-dead serious, "I hope it's not me..." He assured me that no, I still had my job for next year, but that they had just had to meet with someone from my department who didn't, and that it was terrible, that they just hated having to do that, etc., etc. I certainly will not name any names on this website, but when I found out who was getting laid off for next year, it really upset me.

This individual is a friendly acquaintance of mine; he has always been very nice to me, we get along well. But that is not what disturbs me about his being laid off. After all, there are plenty of teachers who are friendly to me or even friends, who are lousy teachers and I know it. What disturbs me is that this is a good teacher. From everything I've heard from his students, he teaches, and they learn; he's kind of tough, as in they have to work to make a good grade in his class. They learn. My A.P. confirmed this--that he is a great teacher, that he had a very good evaluation, but that the numbers just weren't there for next year, and what with the budget cuts, they were going to have to let him go.

If all the other teachers of that subject were good, I would have to (regretfully) understand. He was the "new kid on the block"--he started either the same year as me, or the next year (I can't remember now, but I think it was the year after me). That's the way the seniority system works. Last to come in, first to leave. The thing is, he is, at least from what I've heard from students, probably the best teacher of that subject. Of the three teachers teaching it, there are two who are good, and one who does nothing. The one who does nothing has been teaching at our school for something like thirty years now. Well over twenty anyway. He's just putting in his time to retire, so he can make more during his retirement. But apparently that's not the only reason he does nothing in his classes. I have colleagues who were students here years ago, and they say that even back then, his classes did nothing. They watch American movies in English. They dance salsa. They play cards. They might learn a few words here and there...that's about it.

Yet he stays. First in, last to leave.

I have been willing to listen to suggestions for reforming the seniority system for quite a while, but this is the final straw. This is the nail in the coffin for me. What kind of sense does it make? While it's true that, for a good teacher--one who cares about teaching, cares about his/her subject area, cares about the students--experience does add to his/her value. Unless something changes drastically in my attitude toward my job in the years to come, I think I will deserve to be paid more the longer I am here, because experience will make me a better teacher. I think I was a relatively good teacher my first year; last year, I was better; this year, I am much better. So it's true. And, I think, those are the grounds upon which the seniority system rests.

But there's a major flaw in that system, and that is the assumption that all teachers will improve with years of experience, and that an experienced ("veteran") teacher is always and automatically preferable to a less experienced one. Because while, as I explained above, it is undoubtedly a good formula for dedicated teachers, it ignores the fact that sometimes (probably quite often) mediocre to bad teachers slip in and, mostly thanks to this system, stay in. So a lousy teacher who was hired many years ago, who was never much good to begin with and only grew lazier with time, just waiting for Fridays to collect his/her paycheck and waiting for the years to pass so he/she can retire in happy comfort, gets to keep his/her job while a younger, more dynamic, more enthusiastic teacher gets laid off as soon as the budget gets cut. It seems to mock the professed goal of public education: to ensure that all students, regardless of their parents' income or their background, have access to a quality education.

Public education was created, and exists, for that purpose. Or does it? Is it really just a government bureaucracy whose whole raison d'etre is to provide secure jobs for some people? I have to believe in the mission of public education in order to do my job and do it well. But when things like this happen all around you, you begin to waver in your faith in the system. If there were any justice--if public education's real goal was to educate all children, and they did everything in their power to make sure that goal was met--then the teacher they laid off this morning would be coming back next year, and the old "dead wood"--the one who's been here for 30 years and hasn't taught the whole time--would be gone. In fact, he would have been gone long ago.

Let me clarify a few things. I am a member of the union and in most matters, I do support the union. Like I've said before, they fight for our salaries and our benefits and our working conditions. Without them, we would be at the mercy of the School Board and/or the administrators at our school, with little or no recourse other than filing lawsuits on our own. I'm certain that our salaries would be even lower than they already are; that we would be even more overworked than we already are; and that our benefits would have hit the chopping block this year, if not long ago. I've watched our union fight for all of those things, and I am grateful for them, and that is why I pay $40 out of every meager paycheck to them--to show my support, and to make sure that they can keep fighting for those things so essential to my life.

But on this point--the tenure system--I will have to disagree with them. The nature of a union means that, sometimes unfortunately, they have to fight for all teachers, all members--even ones who don't do their job very well. Because that is the job of the union. Their support is fantastic when the teachers they support are good teachers doing their job. It's unfortunate that they have to defend bad teachers as well. It is a shame that they continue opposition to performance-based pay and to reforming the tenure system. Their defense of mediocre teachers means that administrators rarely dare to try to oust a teacher after the third year (or often even before), once tenure kicks in. It requires loads of paperwork to do it, and often years. They have to show documentation that they have done everything they possibly can to help that mediocre teacher become a better teacher, and that all of those efforts have failed. That requires hours and hours of observation, where they must document the teacher's shortcomings in the classroom, frequent meetings with that teacher, coming up with an improvement plan for the teacher, documenting how the teacher does not make progress on that plan, etc., etc. It is a lot of work to fire a teacher for poor performance. And even if they manage to document their case and fire the individual, very often that individual will come back with union lawyers to challenge the dismissal. Administrators are (like teachers) overworked as it is--especially now, when budget cuts have slimmed down their numbers as well as those of teachers. They don't have time to go through the long, stressful, time- and effort-consuming process of documenting the case to fire a teacher because he or she is a lousy teacher. So, instead, the dead wood stays. And when the budget gets the ax, as it has this year, and heads have to roll, rather than making a case to chop down the dead wood, they do what is easiest, and what is required by the union: they chop off the new, green branches. No matter if those new, green branches are sprouting fresh leaves while the old dead wood is rotting from the inside out.

Next year, I intend to get more involved with the union at my school to try to put in my voice towards changing this system. I have no doubt that it will be hard, if not impossible; my voice is not all that loud when we're talking about the union as a whole, thousands of members across Dade County. Nor do I think firing a teacher should be at the pleasure of one principal or administrator; it would almost certainly be abused. But why could we not come up with a system of firing ineffective teachers without the prohibitive long hours of paperwork? For example, having every administrator sign off, plus having peer review from several teachers or guidance counselors (who have nothing to gain or lose from that individual keeping or losing his/her job). While it can certainly happen that a teacher will have personal issues with one particular administrator, it does not happen nearly so often that a teacher will have personal issues with all administrators, plus their peers chosen at random. The only teachers I know with whom adminsitrators and most peers have problems are ones who truly are lousy teachers, don't do their jobs, and are unprofessional in their work ethic.

And they deserve to get fired.

Solidarity among teachers can only go so far. If a teacher is not doing his or her job, and students are not learning in his or her class, then that individual needs to find another profession.

We are here for the students. The students need to learn. And in order for them to learn, they need us to teach.

Enough is enough. Your rights end where my nose begins. So quit infringing already!!

I've been sitting here for about half an hour, flipping through the newspaper, checking my e-mail, contemplating what to "blog" about today. My original goal was, you'll recall, to write a post every single day. Obviously I am falling short of that goal, for various reasons...being busy, being lazy, not feeling like discussing anything...but I definitely want to maintain several posts a week, and since it's Sunday and I'm not really doing anything else, it seemed a propitious occasion to write.

Several topics have crossed my mind this morning...and I should make notes to myself to discuss them more in-depth in later posts. But what keeps overrunning all the individual topics is this disgust for all the social issues the conservatives keep parading about, because it seems to infiltrate into so many different areas. While I profoundly (and vigorously) disagree with those who fight to maintain the status quo when it comes to health care, who advocate lowering taxes over government intervention into business (tried and proven to fail under Reagan and Bush, incidentally), and it often enrages me, I can at the very least understand, usually, where they're coming from. They either have their own interests to protect (i.e., they or the corporations they represent or both--usually both--are making money, or seeking to make money, what is truly unjust to society as a whole, in undermining the good of the public), or else, if they are not part of a large corporation, lobbying for one, or in the pocket of one--if they are truly a Joe Schmoe on the street with nothing to gain personally from those positions (and everything to lose)--then chances are they simply watch too much Fox News and maybe even listen to Rush Limbaugh or his cronies, and somehow manage to take all that malarkey. I can almost feel sorry for them, even though their views threaten the greater good, because they are somehow ignorant enough or gullible enough to believe that somehow these positions they support are going to help them or someone they love, rather than just lining the same fat cats' pockets several times over, while they themselves get poorer and poorer...and fall into bad health and go bankrupt trying to cure their ailments. But at least I have an idea where the ideas are coming from. It's Reagan's ingenious "trickle-down" strategy in action. The ideas start at the top, with the executives and higher-ups who stand to lose from any significant change in the status quo, but stand to gain if they can get their own agenda of further corporate tax cuts and deregulation through. Then, since they have trouble (understandably) packaging their agenda into something that would be appealing to middle-class or working-class voters, they invest much more time, energy and money (especially money) into repackaging what the other side is pushing for into something terrifying: usually wrapping it up in a big package we Americans have been taught to fear above all else, labelled socialism or, better yet, communism (though it appears people finally aren't falling for the latter quite so easily anymore). "They want to socialize medicine," they hiss. "Watch out! You won't be able to pick your own doctor anymore. You'll be waiting months to get your throat examined. Your doctor will not have a high school diploma. They will operate on you without anesthesia. WE WILL ALL DIE!!!" Or, in the case of corporate taxes (or taxes on the rich), they will say, "They want to put small businesses out of business! They want to tax businesses so much that they will shut down and you will all lose your jobs! If they raise taxes on businesses, they won't be able to pay workers' salaries, and there will be massive lay-offs. You will all be unemployed!!" These are the usual scare tactics-propaganda, only slightly exaggerated. Their efforts to convince you of their soundness is usually just repeating the trickle-down philosophy--that if you make the rich richer, that wealth will eventually trickle down and everyone will be richer--but in today's economy, it's harder and harder for them to make that argument. They've been touting it for going on 3 decades now, and so far it has not worked. Quoting from www.commondreams.org, with statistics from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (and quoting the same figures as CNN), "CEO compensation swelled from 85 times what workers earned in 1990, to 209 times in 1996, and 326 times the following year. In 1999, CEO pay surged to a record 419 times the average worker's wage, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. The gap then declined, to 282-to-1 in 2002, before surpassing 300-to-1 the following year, according to the research and advocacy group United for a Fair Economy (UFE). Comparable figures for other wealthy nations generally do not exceed the double digits."

There has been no trickling down. In 2004, salaries of CEOs rose an average of 12% compared with the 3.6% rank and file workers saw their own salaries rise. Is that "trickling down"? The truth is, the rich get richer, but they get no more generous. If anything, they feel the need to hoard their riches ever closer, guarding them ever more ferociously. Perhaps the most outspoken of the conservative advocates for lowering or even eliminating taxes on businesses and the rich, Rush Limbaugh, makes $33 million a year. I'm not sure I could spend that much money if I tried. Yet he is infuriated by any attempt to tax that stockpile that he works so very hard to earn, with so much sweat, blood and tears. Oh, the poor thing, he works so much harder than those lazy, unambitious people working in factories day in and day out and still worrying about keeping the lights on. He deserves every penny, right. God forbid he should pay more in taxes than the family with a household income of $40,000 or less. So unfair. But, well, maybe I'm the one being unfair? After all, I guess that $33 million is just enough to support his OxyContin habits, and his trips to Dominican Republic for Viagra-fueled hooker parties. If he had to pay more in taxes, maybe he couldn't hire quite as many hookers at a time.

But I digress ever more. This was not the point of my post today. My point was, those at the top have something to gain or protect by pushing their economic agendas, and those at the bottom who support them are ignorant, misled, or both. I hate it, I disagree with it, but at the very least I can understand where it comes from. What I simply cannot understand, or stomach, are the positions on the social issues.

This was brought about this time, I think, by the anti-Obama protests at Notre Dame. He is their commencement speaker, and a minority of Catholics are against him speaking because he is pro-choice. I do believe that everyone has a right to his or her own opinion, and everyone has a right to assemble and express their opinions in a public place in a peaceful manner. I simply cannot understand why people spend so much time, energy and emotion on issues that, more often than not, just don't affect them or their personal rights or freedoms.

Abortion is a tricky subject, of course, one that has to be plodded through with care. If you truly believe that life begins at conception, then it is easy to see how one would think that abortion is murder, and be against it. These are not my personal beliefs, of course, but I can at least conceive of how people can hold that position. My qualm with these individuals is not so much their message but their methods. I think intimidating women who are already in the difficult position of having to choose an abortion is just wrong--let's face it, this is just not something most women take lightly or do for "fun" or out of sheer convenience, but because of necessities such as income, living situations, age, physical or emotional problems that would prevent them from caring adequately for a child, the list goes on and on. Threatening doctors who perform abortions is also uncalled for. Parading about with posters that use gory graphics to convince the beholder that a first-trimester abortion is tantamount to killing a fully-developed baby is misleading at best, downright deceptive at worst. Indoctrinating small children, who don't even know how babies are made yet, to protest against something they don't understand, especially something as difficult and complex as abortion, is criminal.

But my other qualm with them is consistency. If someone who claims to be "pro-life" (i.e., anti-abortion) is also against the death penalty (in all cases), against war (especially "preemptive wars" like the one we waged in Iraq), in favor of gun control (in light of the inconvenient truth that guns kill family and friends far more often than some threatening outside force), and in favor of universal health care (since access to health care for everyone, regardless of their income or work situation, saves lives), then I can accept their anti-abortion position, even accept their claim to be "pro-life"--because they would be showing that they are actually in favor of allowing people to live, no matter what their income or what they have done in their lives.

But when someone says they are "pro-life," but then supports the death penalty (as they almost always seem to do), supports Bush and his war (as they usually do, or at least did until the war become so unsupportable that there are just a few ralliers left to bolster it up), carries a gun (or attacks anyone who questions one's constitutional right to carry around an AK47), and decries "socialized medicine," their position on abortion seems hypocritical at best. You mean to say, you value the life of a fetus not only not even born, but not even developed--a ball of cells--over the life of someone who is already alive?

It is ridiculous, but they will, almost across the board, lean back on the Bible--that mishmash of human testimonies from thousands of years ago, often contradicting each other, and very few of the major stories or characters having any verifiable base in real history--to support and justify their stances. I'm not sure where in the Bible it talks about abortion--if you find that passage, show it to me, by all means--nor where it says in the Bible that one should carry around an AK47 at all times--but they will justify their positions with the Bible nonetheless. Never mind that the Ten Commandments say "Thou shalt not kill"--we should play God anyway and kill anyone who kills someone else, or does something we don't like, or breaks into our house. And as for bombing civilians in Iraq...well, these people seem to see those people as something less than human, anyway--they're Muslims. They have the mentality of the Crusades. It complements the jihadist mentality quite nicely, actually. If there were somewhere these people could go to face off and fight it out to the finish--bets on God? on Allah? anyone?--and not kill or maim any innocent men, women or children who do not seek holy war but seek merely to exist--then I would say, more power to them. Let them go fight it out. But the sad fact is, each side crusades, and more innocent people die. For what? What has anyone gained by any of this?

Pro-life, huh? Whose life are you really "pro"?

...And don't even get me started on the whole "gay marriage" issue. I simply cannot conceive of why anyone would be so passionately against gay marriage that it would trump issues such as a terrible failed, costly, deadly war; economic policies that have bankrupted working American families; a failed health care system so bad that the World Health Organization rates us #37--right between Costa Rica and Slovenia. Why, when everything else is crashing and burning around us, things that affect every single one of us either directy or indirectly, why the hell would you even care if two people who love each other get married?

I have not yet heard one claim for a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage that makes a lick of sense. Many religious groups claim that to legalize gay marriage is to, somehow, violate their "freedom of religion". I have been trying to get my head around this one for quite some time now, and still can't figure it out. So let me try to get this straight...Your religion tells you gay marriage is wrong. (Actually, it doesn't--nowhere does the Bible talk about gay marriage at all, and its only mention of homosexuality is passing and its condemnation of homosexuality is much milder than its condemnation of divorce, and in the seeming basis for the condemnation, we see that in order to prevent that abominable homosexual act it is somehow better for our hero to offer up his daughter to be raped by the town. But for the sake of argument, let's pretend that they can find a verse somewhere in the Bible where Jesus says, "Thou shalt not marry someone of the same sex.") Therefore, if a gay couple is legally allowed to marry (not even by your church, but just in general, by the state, at city hall), but your religion tells you this is wrong, then...oh, yes, I get it now! Your religion says it's wrong; state or federal law says it's OK; oh my God, you're right! Your freedom of religion is being impeded upon! You're no longer being free to have your own beliefs, if something your religion disagrees with is legal! OK, it's all clear to me now...

So that's one argument. I totally see the logic in it now.

The other common argument is that gay marriage is somehow a threat to heterosexual marriage. That makes a great deal of sense, too. I totally get it. For example, I know that if they legalized gay marriage in my state tomorrow, I would have to run out and marry another woman. I would instantly become gay. How could I not, if it were legal? What a slippery slope! Once gay people are allowed to marry, it's all straight downhill from there. Why on earth would any man and woman want to stay together, if they were legally allowed to go out and marry someone of the same sex? And hell, while they're at it, why stay married to someone of the opposite sex if they could marry, say, a goat? I mean, I know for one that the only reason all my romantic relationships have been with men is because I knew that they were the only ones the law would allow me to marry. If I had known that I could marry another woman, or a goat, or a cat, or a cockroach, I would have been involved with those all along...all at the same time, why not?! So, OK, yeah, I get it. Gay marriage definitely threatens heterosexual marriage...or heterosexuality in general!

Then there's the argument that the purpose of marriage is procreation; therefore, since two homosexuals cannot naturally conceive a child, there is no logical reason for them to marry anyway. Well, that's a damn good argument. Every couple I know marries solely for that one purpose and no other. We should also fight against marriage anyone too old to bear children; God obviously does not approve of that marriage, and thus neither should we. Oh, and while we're at it, let's require a fertility test for both parties in any marriage, and if either one is deemed infertile, then we should immediately deny their application for a marriage license. After all, if natural reproduction is not on the table, there is no purpose for their marriage. And a fully-functional heterosexual couple who chooses not to have children? Marriage should be annulled with two years if no children are produced. No sense in that marriage.

Obviously, not a single one of these main arguments against gay marriage holds a drop of water in today's society. Nobody's "freedom of religion" is being infringed upon, because nobody is going to be forced to marry anyone they don't want to. Nobody's sexual orientation is going to magically change because gay marriage is legal--though perhaps some closeted individuals will be more willing to come out and pursue their own happiness once they feel more accepted for themselves in society (God forbid). And having children is only one of many reasons for people today to get married; most people marry someone they are in love with (or believe they are in love with) because they want to share a life together. And maybe children are in that future they foresee, maybe they're not; but nobody requires them to make that decision before granting them a marriage license, or even before marrying them in a church, of any denomination. And anyone with two brain cells to rub together can figure all of this out; it doesn't take a rocket scientist.

So what is this really all about? I'll tell you.

It's about intolerance. It's about prejudice. It's about hate. Just as interracial marriage was once illegal in many states, bigots fight, now just as they did then, against rights for any group who dares to be different from them (and never mind that one cannot control his or her sexual orientation any more than one can control the color of his or her skin). While the Civil Rights movement won rights for racial minorities, those rights apparently do not extend to homosexuals. Once again, a segment (far larger than it should be in the 21st century) of our population feels that in order to maintain their own position in the world, it is necessary to repress others.

These are just two social issues where the opposing view perplexes and revolts me with their ignorance, hypocrisy and prejudice. I try to understand, but I have a lot of trouble. I was always taught in school growing up, "My rights end where your nose begins." In other words, I am a free person, but as soon as my so-called "freedom" begins to harm you or infringe upon your freedoms, it is no longer freedom, it is persecution...and it is wrong. Can we please be the nation where all men (and women) are created equal, and we all enjoy the same rights...to freedom of expression, to privacy, to religion (or lack thereof), to pursue happiness--when it is not hurting anyone around us?

Or must we really crawl out of the Middle Ages once again?

I feel so violated...yet I voted to rape myself.

As I left the woodshop where I cast my ballot with the union, my bitterness burned like bile in the back of my throat. I had just cast a vote that I did not like, which I almost abstained from casting--and finally decided to, at the last minute, choose between what seems to be the lesser of two evils. But is it really? Is voting "yes" to dock my own salary next month, by $400 (it will be significantly more for teachers at a higher step/pay rate than my own), in exchange for a handful of promises that may or may not be kept by the district (at their pleasure and their leisure, mind you), really better than having them dock my salary on their own terms and despite my vote of "no"? I voted, but I am still deeply undecided in my heart.

Maybe I should have abstained from voting. After all, if you are asked to vote between forced suicide ("yes") and the electric chair ("no"), either way, you are going to die. If I vote "yes," am I legitimizing the whole sham of a procedure? Am I pretending to actually vote for something, in order for the school board to be able to say, "Congratulations, you did the right thing," knowing damn well they would have gone ahead with it on their own regardless of the outcome of the "vote"? Isn't what I just did a bit like actually voting in an election in a totalitarian nation where there is only one name on the ballot, or where the other name will never actually be allowed to win, but where the election is contrived to give a facade of democracy to the whole thing?

Or perhaps I am being a bit melodramatic. But that is what it feels like, in many ways. If you read my blog from the 12th (if you didn't, catch up now!), or if you're a M-DCPS teacher, then you know what I am talking about. As I explained in Tuesday's post, after UTD has fought the school board for months on the issue, during which time the district has put out propaganda and even columnists for the Miami Herald have accused the union of being "greedy" and "petty", it is down to the wire: we are presented with the choice of voting "yes" to screw ourselves, or voting "no" so that we can get screwed anyway. They tell us, "If you vote yes, you'll get a kiss before the d*&^ up your a**." (Forgive my narrowly dodged profanity; I feel in a cursing mood at the moment.) "If you vote no," they continue, "then you'll just get a d&^* up your a**." And, of course, not voting at all is the same as voting no...or voting yes, if the majority of members vote yes...and what difference does it really make, because the "choice" we are given is no choice at all, and the outcome will, essentially, be the same. We will get screwed out of pay for 2 days of work, and we may or may not get repaid in (they say) October (maybe).

So yes, I am bitter. Like I said in Tuesday's post, I rely on every penny from every paycheck just to make ends meet. I don't go out clubbing. I don't go on shopping sprees. I don't eat at Ruth's Chris every night, or ever, for that matter. On the other hand, unlike the AIG execs (whose contracts were held so sacred that every performance or retention bonus or raise promised within had to be upheld, regardless of the fact that those people are responsible for the collapse of the economy that is a major factor in the bankruptcy of Florida's education system), I have been doing my job, consistently and more than satisfactorily, all year. I'm not asking for a retention bonus. I'm not asking for any bonus at all--no millions, no thousands, no hundreds, not even a dime, though it certainly would be nice to feel appreciated. All I'm asking is to get paid for work I have already done, and done well. Apparently, that is too much to ask, and when we ask for it anyway, we get called "greedy" by Myriam Marquez in the Herald. We get told we should be making "sacrifices."

Well, guess what, Ms. Marquez. I already am making sacrifices to do what I do. I'm smart, I made great grades in school; I could have done pretty much anything I wanted to do. I could have gone to law school and become a trial lawyer so I could drive a Porsche and live in a mansion in Golden Beach. I could have gone into advertising (as was my first plan in my first year of college) and made a lucrative career out of brainwashing gullible consumers into buying more crap they don't need or even know they want until they see the commercial. I could have done a lot of things that would have given me license to be rich...and greedy. And it would have been defended on a large public scale as "capitalism at work." But guess what. I wanted a career where I felt like I was actually doing something good, bringing value into people's lives and into society as a whole, and where I didn't feel like I was exploiting others or being exploited just to make some quick cash. Sure, it's nice to be able to buy the things you want, but I realized quickly that driving around in a Jag would feel pretty rotten (for me, at least) if I did not feel proud of where that money had come from, or what I'd had to do (or whom I'd had to screw) to get it. I don't want to play martyr, either; there are definite advantages to my job...good benefits (though they've tried to strip us of those, too); plenty of time off; significant job security when compared to jobs in the private sector. But the bottom line is, I do my job because I enjoy it; because I like feeling that I am giving more than I am taking from society; that I am making a difference in someone's life, maybe not every kid's--I'm sure not every kid's--but a few. And those few are going to feel just a little better about themselves at the end of the day, and then who knows what they may go on to accomplish. I think my job is pretty freaking important, and that it contributes much more to the greater good than selling derivatives--whatever that means--or suing people, or working to scam the general population or exploit the vulnerable--the things that seem to go on endlessly in the corporate world.

And again, I'm not threatening to quit if I don't get some multi-million dollar retention bonus. I don't think I'm that important. But I do think I am important enough to be paid for the work I do, and to be paid enough that I can live comfortably and do what I do without having to worry about how I'm going to pay my bills.

But you know us teachers. Always so greedy. Just take, take, take. Hands always in the taxpayers' pockets. Building stadiums with public money, that's just fine. Some capitalist will always be there to say, "But that will bring in revenue!" Never mind that that is not always true...they will say it anyway. They will try to claim that building stadiums contributes more to society than education. And there seem to be certain things that just cannot be considered when debating how to fund education...for example, closing corporate loopholes. Did you know that ZephyrHills, among others, bottles their water for free in Florida? When I say for free, I mean for free. The same water that you and I and everyone else pays for, they get for free; then they bottle it up and sell it to you. But your friendly Republican legislature, always looking out for your best interest, proposed taxing the consumer who buys the bottled water rather than the bottler...(or not even taxing the bottler; just making him pay for the water he's bottling). People who buy yachts in Florida pay ridiculously low amounts of tax on them; yet they want to raise the sales tax on everyone. And anything, anything but creating a state income tax; God forbid we should tax the people who can afford to be taxed, rather than spreading it out over everyone through a sales tax, where the burden inevitably falls heaviest on those who can least afford it.

Why the hell do we want so badly to keep all those rich people in this state, anyway, when they obviously have no interest in giving back to the state?

But I digress. The point of this post was the vote I cast today, of which I am pretty ashamed. I did it with the vague idea that it was probably in my best interest, but knowing deep down that nobody really gives a damn about my best interest in this district or in this state. Since you're determined to screw me anyway, do it as gently as possible, with a kiss and a few sweet nothings in my ear. When I wake up tomorrow and you're nowhere to be found, your unfulfilled promises ephemeral as a dream, I'll still feel just as violated...only now, I'll have myself to blame, not only you.

Congratulations. You achieved your goal. You convinced me that it was in our best interest to lie still and quiet during the rape, rather than kicking and screaming.

Miami Teachers: Between a rock and a hard place.

This post will deal with a local issue a bit more personal to me: what's going on with Miami-Dade County Public School employees, the district and our union. I can't say that I'm happy with either of the latter two right now. Let me explain why. If you're a M-DCPS teacher, and have checked your e-mail today, you should probably already understand.

The district is bankrupt. They have not honored the contract they signed with our union, the United Teachers of Dade, last year for our hard-fought cost-of-living raises. They tell us they can't afford to pay even the salaries we are currently making (less than they agreed to pay us). Now they ask us to accept being furloughed for 2 teacher planning days this year (though there is only one left...?), promising to "pay us back" for it in the next fiscal year (beginning July 1). Our Superintendent tries to guilt-trip us into agreeing to this by bringing up other places where unionized workers have voluntarily accepted furloughs in order to help keep their colleagues from losing jobs. Up until now, UTD has taken a pretty hard-line stance on the subject, offering suggestions for ways the district can cut spending in other areas (including administration) to keep from cutting into our already deficient salaries. Suddenly, today, I find out that the union is basically encouraging us to vote "yes" to the new "deal." If we vote yes, we are told, we will lose 2 paid days this year, but the district promises to pay us back next year without working extra days for it; they promise not to make any further layoffs until the service has been repaid; they promise to reopen negotiations for our step increases. If we vote no, we are told, they will likely take those days away from us anyway, but without being bound to any sort of guarantee or agreement.

So here we are, once again, teachers stuck between a rock and a hard place. No matter what I vote, I am essentially (or potentially, anyway) screwing myself. The fact of the matter is, our salary is really not up-to-date with the extremely high cost of living in South Florida, and I for one happen to live paycheck to paycheck. Administrators, more veteran teachers, they might be able to handle being furloughed 2 days this year and repaid for it next year. They probably have some money in the bank. I am a 3rd year teacher with a Master degree. My salary of $42,000 might serve me well in a less expensive city or region, but in Miami, it doesn't get me all that far. I depend on every single penny in every single paycheck to make ends meet, to pay my bills on time, to eat well, to maintain a comfortable (though far from extravagant) lifestyle. Let me be clear. I go out to eat rarely; at expensive restaurants, almost never, unless someone else is footing the bill. I do not go out clubbing or bar-hopping. My biggest shopping "splurges" in the past 4 or 5 months have been at Target, stocking up on $5 T-shirts. I put the $20 pants back on the rack because I can't afford it right now. That is what my situation is. I am not crying to anyone. I knew when I took a job as a teacher that I was not doing it for the money, and that I would never be rich. I also knew that I could take the same job in another city, region or state and live more comfortably. So there were definite conscious decisions involved there, for which I do not blame anyone. And I am OK with cooking at home (I still eat well); I am OK with buying my T-shirts at Target, and spending my Saturday nights on the couch reading a book or watching a DVD. My point is not that I think I should be earning six digits by now. My point is simply that I do live paycheck to paycheck (in a very unextravagant lifestyle) and I need every penny I earn, and for the district to tell me they'll "pay me back" next year...I don't have the luxury of telling the electric company that I will "pay them back" next year. I can't tell my landlord, "Sorry; I'll have to pay you the rent after July 1, the school district is flat out of cash." Those are luxuries I do not have. If I have to pay what I owe, why does the district not have to pay what they owe me for work I have done?

There is only 1 teacher planning day left this year. They say they are taking away 2 days. I have worked those days. I fulfill the requirements of my contract, and then some. I often spend my lunches in my classroom sponsoring the French Club (for which I am not paid this year), administering make-up tests, or simply helping students with things they need help with. I usually stay after school anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour and a half catching up on grading and lesson planning that I simply do not have time to do during the day (since I believe in spending classtime actually teaching). The district is telling me, once again, that my work is not valuable to them, and asking me to wait to be paid for it--a luxury I cannot afford.

And I am now disappointed in my union as well. I do understand that for them to encourage us to accept the offer, they probably feel that for us not to will not be productive--that the district will do this anyway, with or without our consent, and that at least this way we get some promises in return. But frankly, I am sick of the district's promises. They have already proven that they have no interest in upholding our contracts. They were all too quick to shelf the raises they agreed to when the budget came up short, while they were still buying themselves Expeditions on the company dollar. What makes us think that they will honor these new promises? The court sided with them--that they do not have to give us the contractual raises because they don't have the money for them. It seems a bit ironic, doesn't it, when the excuse for the AIG "retention bonuses" and "performance bonuses" was that they were written into the contracts. Taxpayers paid bonuses out to people who brought our economic system crashing down. Yet teachers, who settle for salaries a fraction of what they might make in the private sector in order to do a job they feel is valuable and important, well, taxpayers don't have to honor their contracts. Screw the teachers. They'll take it. And because they care about the kids, they won't quit their jobs. They'll keep doing what they do. They'll keep coming back for more.

There was no money to pay me the club sponsor supplement for sponsoring the French Club. So what am I going to do? Sure, I could tell the kids who came to me asking me to sponsor it, "No, I can't, the school isn't going to pay me for it. Sorry." But what kind of teacher would that make me? What kind of person would that make me? On the contrary, I was all too happy to see their enthusiasm, to hear their ideas. I am more than happy to sponsor the French Club for free on my own time. It just shouldn't be that way.

But I took that on of my own initiative; I will not lay blame there. But my contract. My contract? There are plenty of "deadwood" teachers, unfortunately, who give teachers everywhere a bad name. It is regrettable, and I am all for making reforms that would make it easier to fire bad teachers (without giving a carte blanche to vindictive or difficult principals), and for performance pay, if they can find an equitable system for assigning it that is not based primarily on standardized test scores. I am in favor of those things because I know that I am a good teacher. My students love me, at least 95% of them. The administration loves me. My students learn. I see the progress every day. They come to me not speaking a word of French, and by the end of the first year, they understand what they hear, they are writing 3-paragraph essays entirely in French. I know that the ones who put forth the effort (and some of those who don't) are learning. So I don't fear getting fired for low performance. If there is an equitable performance pay initiative, I am fairly certain that I would get my fair share. Fix those things, by all means. I am ready.

But in the meantime, Miami-Dade County Public Schools, you made a contract with us, with me. You are not honoring that contract. You already shunned it at the beginning of the year, when you told me I would not get my promised step increase. Now you're shunning it even further--mocking it--by telling me that regardless of how I vote on the proposal, I will have my salary docked by $400 this year...$400 that I cannot afford. I am asked to vote on this. I am asked to vote to screw myself, because whichever way I vote, it looks like I am losing $400 this year. I may or may not get it back next year. I may or may not eventually get my promised salary raise. Hell, I may or may not get laid off. Because, though the district talks like this is being done to save jobs, they don't deny that jobs will still be lost.

I love my job, but the district is killing it for me. No, I seriously doubt I'll quit my job if they do this like they say they're going to. But I can say for sure that if the present trend continues, and if in a few years I am not making more than I am making right now, despite my years of experience and good performance, I will have to start considering all my other options--including moving somewhere less expensive or with better pay, or changing careers. Which is a damn shame, because I love my job. I love what I do. I love the kids; I love watching them learn; I love being responsible for that learning; I love watching them grow. I don't do this job for the money; I do it for the kids. But I cannot afford to do it as volunteer work. I just can't. And the lawmakers--and taxpayers--of Florida should not expect me to. When you invest in education, you are investing in the future of the state, the country, the world. When you do not invest in education, the rich still get educated--they can afford to send their kids wherever they want--but the poor only get sucked further into the cycle of poverty. This will come back to haunt everyone in our society, not just those at the bottom of the food chain.

I wish teachers could strike. It's against the law, but if every teacher in the district (or state) went on strike at the same time, what could they do? Fire us all? It's already hard enough for them to get (and keep) quality teachers in the classroom. They can't replace thousands of teachers at once. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear we can get the support or momentum among the teachers, and if it's only a few, it won't work. (Sigh.)

Between a rock and a hard place. Should I even bother to vote? Give me your input. I really don't know at this point.