Terriblus Tyrantus

Blogger's note: This is the third in a series of posts that I wrote in February of 2012 as part of a writing fellowship application. See the introduction to this series here. All of the school closing announcements of late--in DC, Philadelphia, Chicago, and of course, New York reminded me of this post.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York sees himself as the “Education Mayor.” But lately New Yorkers seem to wish he weren’t. While a recent poll (more coverage here) shows they approve of some of his education policies, for example paying higher performing teachers more and basing layoffs on teacher performance rather than on seniority (the poll didn’t define “performing” or “performance”), it shows that voters don’t approve of his handling of the schools overall or of strict mayoral control, and that they trust the teachers union more than the mayor to be advocates for students. Nor are Chancellor Walcott’s numbers so good: only 34% approve of his performance.

Bloomberg’s cynical reaction: a) I don’t care what the public thinks and b) the public doesn’t really think that—they were manipulated by advertisements except for c) when the voters approved of me in which case they were sincerely happy. I should know because I buy public opinion when I need to. You want a poll in my favor? Believe me, I can get you a poll in my favor by 3 o’clock tomorrow, with nail polish.

What’s most concerning about this is Bloomberg’s utter disdain for democracy. These are the times when I hear Bloomberg talking in Jon Stewart’s thug voice. Yes, he gave that donation to Planned Parenthood during the Komen ordeal. Yes, he supports gay rights and gay marriage. Yes, he gave his own money to a program in New York City to help unemployed, previously incarcerated, and uneducated young men look for jobs. But that’s just the point: he buys policy he approves of but cuts government funding to those he doesn’t approve of. He bypasses democratic institutions and processes.

He has closed schools at an amazing clip, sending students off to try their luck at getting into small schools, charter schools, or, if that fails, other comprehensive schools. Those schools then become dumping grounds for the kids are hardest to educate, and become vulnerable to being closed for low performance, beginning the process anew. In 2002, the Panel for Educational Policy (PEP) was set up to replace the central board of education; of thirteen members, the Mayor could appoint eight. In 2004, in an incident known as the “Monday Night Massacre” Bloomberg had three of his appointed members removed as they were planning to oppose his proposal regarding social promotion. His appointees on the PEP haven’t voted against one of Bloomberg’s proposals since. I’ve heard some New Yorkers call it the Puppets for Education Policy.

Last night’s PEP meeting featured intense protests regarding the closure or truncation of 33 schools. That brings to over 100 the number of schools Bloomberg has closed with over 400 co-locations of charters in public school buildings, many of those schools already making full use of the building. That’s an astonishing assault on an essential public democratic institution, especially given that it’s occurring without any meaningful public input.

Immediately after Bloomberg engineered the chance to get a third term and won, Hendrick Hertzberg wrote a column in The New Yorker bemoaning the conditions of Bloomerberg’s reign but ultimately approving it. Hertzberg ended with a shrug of the shoulders and a question:

“If Bloomberg had been satisfied with two terms, he would be leaving office a beloved legend, a municipal god. He’ll get his third, but we’ll give it to him sullenly, knowing that while it probably won’t measure up to his first two—times are hard, huge budget gaps are at hand—it’ll probably be good enough. The Pax Bloombergiana will endure a while longer. But then what? Will we have forgotten how to govern ourselves?”

The question is not only whether New Yorkers will have forgotten how to govern themselves but whether after the dismantling of New York’s public democratic infrastructure, they will be able to, whether there will be institutions and processes in which to do so. Bloomberg may give money to good causes, he may be in favor of gay rights, and he may support immigrants, but he’s still a machine politician, and even worse, he’s a machine politician for the party of Bloomberg.

Constituents: Eric Cantor wants to hear that you agree with his bankrupt agenda.

Blogger's note: This is the second in a series of posts that I wrote in February of 2012 as part of a writing fellowship application. See the introduction to this series here. Eric Cantor's foray into education reform a la vouchers and privatization--he desires to "move heaven and earth to fix education for the most vulnerable" and says that "our schools are too dangerous"--along with recent attempts to re-invent himself reminded me of this post about how he was was (also) trying to re-make himself one year ago.

Eric Cantor has sent out an e-mail to his constituents; the subject line reads “I’d like to Hear From You.”  The congressman wants “to understand where you stand on the many issues facing our nation and how they’re impacting you and your family.” Included is a survey full of leading questions.

Eric Cantor is notorious for ignoring his constituents, but people or corporations outside of his district, however, are another story. During the 2010 campaign, his advance staff went so far as to have local police remove and arrest for disorderly conduct, trespassing, and resisting arrest a Louisa, Virginia, constituent from a campaign event at his local coffee shop—one that the constituent had registered for. This past August, two hundred of Cantor’s constituents rented a ballroom in the same hotel where Cantor was holding an “advisory council meeting,” again to which he had invited constituents (via an announcement on a Tea Party website). They had been unable to get a meeting with Cantor and were hoping to be heard at this event. Ultimately, the group was kicked out of the hotel where the event was held—the hotel cited discomfort with hosting “conflicting events.”

Three Democrats are competing for the chance to run against Cantor this election. David Hunsickerformerly served in the Air Force and is real estate broker from Orange County. E. Wayne Powell, also a military (army) vet is an attorney. Jim Phillips is a former Assistant Attorney General of Virginia and a Richmond law professor. In 2010, Cantor was challenged by one Democrat and one Tea Party candidate—they held debates which Cantor declined to take part in. Democrat Rick Waughwon 34.1% of the vote and Floyd Bayne 6.5%, certainly not very much, but considering Cantor’s amassed power and that Waugh and Bayne were no-names with no national support, it’s not too shabby, either.

Perhaps with three lining up to oppose him this year, each with more publicity and money than 2010’s candidates, Cantor is somewhat on the defensive and realizing that he needs to at least make a show of engaging in the campaign. Go ahead and laugh, but a poll done in November shows signs of vulnerability. Furthermore, if he weren’t feeling a need to polish his image he wouldn’t have taped this segment with 60 Minutes where he showcased his pro-choice wife and his affinity for rap music. Days later, during a Q & A session after reading to elementary students in his district, he distanced himself from his portrayal on the news show, saying, "You never know what those kind of shows are going to do or not do," and that the producers left out that while “the beat [in rap music] may be okay,” the lyrics are “abhorrent.” On second thought, he doesn’t much care for rap music.

My prediction is that Cantor will still win but by a slimmer margin than he did last election. What will matter in part is how much his opponents are able to call his constituents’ attention to his capitulations to outside Big Money. For example, Cantor just seriously weakened the soon-to-be-passed STOCK Act, an insider-trading ban for members of Congress, by removing an amendment which would have required “political intelligence consultants” to disclose their activities and a proposal that enables the feds to more easily prosecute corrupt public officials. In 2009, Cantor, an investor in the mortgage industry, opposed a measure that would have helped home buyers get lower interest rates and avoid foreclosure.

Perhaps if voters in the VA-07 get this message, they’ll decide the rhymes he’s been rapping in Congress are simply too abhorrent to continue.

Summer School 2013

Second Spring Oxford is now advertising the 2013 Summer School of the Centre for Faith and Culture and Thomas More College. The dates are 12th-26th August. The summer school will explore the cultural crisis which has gradually overtaken the Christian world, by examining the historical events and perceptions in which it is rooted, particularly the English Reformation. We are also looking at the vocation of the Catholic writer in witnessing to Christ in a hostile environment. We touch on the deeper question of what it means to be human, how a vision of humanity was imperilled by the "tempest of the Times" which helped to create the modern world, and how the writers of the 19th- and 20th-century Catholic revival attempted to recover and reclaim that vision. Detailed information is now available, and a dedicated website will be announced shortly.

Indeed, let’s celebrate the defeat of Prop 8 but know it’s far from the end of hate

Blogger's note: This is the first in a series of posts that I wrote in February of 2012 as part of a writing fellowship application. See the introduction to this series here. That DOMA and Prop 8 cases are soon to go before the Supreme Court is what reminded me of this piece.

Yesterday, Proposition 8, California’s ban on gay marriage, was struck down by a federal appeals court in San Francisco. Gay rights supporters erupted in celebration, though those paying close attention to the decision were quick to point out that,

“. . . the Ninth Circuit did not hold that same-sex couples have a right to marry. It held that once a state has granted them the right to marry, it can’t take it away arbitrarily. In California, a state court decision in 2008 had held that the state constitution required the state to allow same-sex marriage.” 

I was living in California when Prop 8 was passed—in Oakland. It passed the same day Obama was elected president, making it a bittersweet day. Many in the Bay Area reflexively blamed Southern California for Prop 8. Yes, Southern California is more conservative than Northern California and yes, voters there approved the measure at a much higher rate, but according to the by-county breakdown data, nearly 25% of San Francisco voters and a little more than 38% of Alameda County voters, where Oakland is located, voted for it. Now those percentages are certainly low, but given the population and history of San Francisco and Oakland, I was surprised and reminded SoCal haters that maybe “no one they knew” voted for it but with one in four voters in San Francisco and one in three in Alameda County voting “yes”, somebody in their community certainly did.

Prop 8 passed in 2007 at least in part because its proponents were more organized and funded. For one, opponents of Props 8 did a lousy job with their ad campaign against it. Furthermore, if the numbers in San Francisco and Oakland were any indication, would be naysayers were complacent. Many people who might have voted against the measure didn’t even make it the polls. Especially powerful, however, was the myth perpetrated by Proposition 8 supporters that if it did not pass, children would be “taught gay marriage”(whatever that means), or even to be gay, in public schools. So some voters who might ordinarily have voted with a “live and let live” attitude instead took exception to the possibility of their own children being taught to live as others might choose to live.

The American Prospect's Abby Rappaport holds up happenings in the Anoka-Hennepin school district, among other places, as another reason for hope beyond the Proposition 8 defeat. In this particular case, I would be far more cautious. The night before yesterday’s ruling, I happened to read this article by Sabrina Rubin Erdely in Rolling Stone about Anoka-Hennepin, which is about 30 miles north of Minneapolis and is part of Michelle Bachmann’s district. Before it came up for re-evaluation in 1994, health teachers in Anoka-Hennepin were allowed to teach that homosexuality was normal, but after reconsideration, the policy held the opposite. Any discussions or evenmentions of homosexuality stopped. Despite student and parental complaints, students who intimidated and assaulted apparently LGBTQ and LGBTQ-perceived students went undisciplined. After an epidemic of suicides, lawsuits, and pressure, in 2009 the district modified the policy again to one of  “neutrality,” which while better still came across ambiguously to educators. Finally, this past December, there was a proposal to eliminate the policy altogether. To note, the school district released a statement which disputes Erdely’s portrayal, calling it “grossly distorted.”

Anoka-Hennepin’s latest policy, which seeks to “prevent teachers from influencing students on controversial topics,” is merely a small step in the right direction, away from a policy that led to often brutal and shameful treatment of a certain class of kids. Educators couldn’t mention the word “gay,” couldn’t discipline students for bullying students for being gay, had to engage in de facto don’t ask, don’t tell about their own sexuality, and couldn’t teach about anyone or anything gay. Kids were beaten, abused, and killed themselves—neither Rappaport’s post or the Minnesota Public Radio piece Rappaport links to mentions any of these specifics. Certainly, the district should be applauded for finally taking this step and certainly, according to Erdely, some school board members and teachers union members there were against the policy from the get go, but that’s a far cry from district leaders being champions of civil rights for LGBTQ kids. Calling identifying as LGBT or Q “controversial” still implies that it could be wrong. Can it be said that being a girl is controversial? A Latino? A Muslim? Of course, students are free to think that being gay is wrong, but when they go through public school doors, they shouldn’t be allowed to behave as such, to discriminate against, threaten, or harm other students based on those beliefs.

That Proposition 8 was struck down is a victory for gay rights, but until we tackle the codification and teaching of discrimination against LGBTQ people—this after all was essentially how Prop 8 was passed, by tapping into people’s fears of their children being exposed to the concept of homosexuality—the struggle will continue. If teachers are not supposed to be impartial while mediating issues stemming from racism, then why should they be impartial in matters of homophobia? Hate is hate, quite objectively.

When I was free to try to not write for free

As I have been busy with a new job, new projects (more on this soon), and parenting, I have not, as I said wouldn't, posted or, as I said I would, written :( very much in the past several months.

This time last year, however, I was writing up a storm. I posted and tweeted relatively frequently and I had recently finished applying for a writing fellowship. By now the details are fuzzy, but for the second round of the application process, I had to write four blog posts over the course of a week and I had to indicate which day and what time of day I would have posted them (but submit them all at once).

Certain events in the news recently have reminded me of these posts and since I have not written much lately, I have decided not to leave these hard-wrought posts to rot in the hard drive of my senile laptop. So, if any of you dear readers are interested, I will post these four posts over the course of this next week including the story that reminded me of each one.

What a different place I am in now. Not a bad place, mind you, but a different one, one that reflects a re-examination of my passions and aspirations and where they fit in the context of, well, reality.

And in case you want to know, the whole Atlantic-Nate Thayer dust up is what re-ignited this existential conflict, this trip down memory lane, in the first place.

Beauty is the seal of truth

In his response to the Lenten spiritual exercises lead by Cardinal Ravasi, Pope Benedict pointed out that 'the medieval theologians translated the word "Logos" not only as "Verbum" [Word], but also as "ars" [art]: "Verbum" and "ars" are interchangeable. For the medieval theologians, it was only with the two words together that the whole meaning of the word “Logos” appeared. The "Logos" is not just a mathematical reason: the "Logos" has a heart, the "Logos" is also love. The truth is beautiful and the true and beautiful go together: beauty is the seal of truth.' 

Evil, of course, is always intent on spoiling creation and defacing it, but cannot succeed. 'The incarnate Son, the incarnate "Logos" is crowned with a crown of thorns and nevertheless is just that: in this suffering figure of the Son of God we begin to see the deepest beauty of our Creator and Redeemer; in the silence of the “dark night” we can, nevertheless, hear the Word. And believing is nothing other than, in the darkness of the world, touching the hand of God, and in this way, in silence, hearing the Word, seeing love.'

Throughout his pontificate, and right to the very end, this Pope has spoken of the Logos and helped us to see the meaning and beauty of the truth revealed in Christ. The 'Pope of the Logos' teaches that faith, reason, and beauty converge in love.

Pope Benedict: Freedom in orthodoxy

The following article by Leonie Caldecott appeared in the Catholic Herald dated 15 February 2013.

When Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected Pope on the 19th of April 2005, I rejoiced and was glad. I knew what a great theologian he was, and that he was the person who understood most profoundly the mission of his predecessor, who poured himself out to the bitter end for the Church they both loved.

I rejoiced too because I had happened, a few years earlier, to observe the new pontiff at fairly close quarters, at a liturgical conference he helped to convene in the Abbey of Fontgombault in France. My husband had been asked to give a paper, and I accompanied him as his interpreter. The proceedings were held in the guest-house. The trouble was, no one at this traditionalist monastery had told us that this was technically within the enclosure. As the dreadful realisation that I was distinctly de trop in this highly clerical setting hit me, I was ready to trade my soul for a cloak of invisibility, but it was too late to leave. 'Your Graces, Fathers, Brothers and... sister!' was how Cardinal Ratzinger opened the proceedings, with a kind, if amused, glance in my direction.

I was not the only recipient of the future Pope’s warm courtesy. When he first arrived, a group of families gathered shyly on the far side of the square outside the monastery. He immediately walked over to greet them, smiling, chatting and blessing the children, before turning back to greet the monastics waiting in a patient semi-circle outside the abbey church. But most remarkable of all, as the days of the conference unfolded, was the way the Cardinal led the discussions about the relevance of the old rite of the Mass, amidst a group of participants who were not at one on the issue. It was a foretaste of things to come: his wise sense that both liturgical extremes must give way to a historically informed sense of what the old could contribute to the new, if only they were given the space to co-exist as living forms.

In a homily on the feast of St Mary Magdalene (he insisted on keeping the date from the new calendar), the Cardinal pressed home his central point. It was all too easy, he warned, to become liturgical Marthas, preoccupied with one agenda or another. This happens when even legitimate concerns seep into the liturgy in an attempt to make it politically ‘relevant’. But it happens just as much when attempts to keep the liturgy beautiful and sacred give rise to a formalism that locks out the presence of God. The answer lies in a spirit of loving contemplation: Mary’s ‘better part’.

This nuanced way of reasoning about liturgy is characteristic of Pope Benedict’s theology. Even leaving aside his considerable writings from before he became Pope, his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, is a catechism in a nutshell. The social teaching of Caritas in Veritate flows on from it. Benedict is truly a model of how to do theology on your knees. His trilogy, Jesus of Nazareth, is a master-class in lectio divina, taking into account modern biblical criticism, whilst maintaining an authentic vision of faith in the God-made-man who does not fit into reductionist categories. The balance he has restored to biblical scholarship may be one of his most lasting legacies. Again and again, I have been blown away by the charity-infused clarity of the man who has steered the barque of Peter for the last eight years or so.

And yet this most ‘traditional’ of Popes has shaken the Church and the world to its roots by suddenly renouncing the papacy. Why has he done this? We can be sure that he has a very good reason, or he would never have broken with the precedent of nearly six centuries. He touched on this situation in The Light of the World in 2010, where he spoke of the Pope’s obligation to resign if he felt he was no longer capable of handling his duties. As it says in the Pastoral Rule of St Gregory the Great, the pontiff must be “a man whose aims are not thwarted by the frailty of his body.” Some have speculated that the present Pope’s decision implicitly criticises his predecessor. However, Benedict knows that the aim of Blessed John Paul II was allow the frailty of a once strong body to give witness to the value of weakness, in a culture which despises it. Like every Christian, each Pope has his own particular mission.

I would guess that this sensitive and humble man has finally felt his aging mind and body outrun by the sheer volume of issues needing the attention of the chief shepherd. The demands on the papacy in the age of the internet and fast-moving media, not to mention global travel, have vastly increased in the last few decades. Also, we should never forget that holy people are the subject of intense supernatural attack, which combined with physical frailty is exhausting. After years of contemplating betrayal by his own men, whether in past horrors now revealed, or present jostling for power (and the tragic case of the leaking butler is surely a consequence of this), Benedict XVI may have decided that the most radical, and thus the most faithful solution is the one that makes room for a man who has the strength to govern what is threatening to become an ungovernable body.

While some are jumping at the opportunity to make critical comments, those who know and love this Pope are wondering what will we do without him. The beauty of it is that we don’t have to - he will still be there. For his successor, it will be hugely comforting to know that this most fatherly of priests is on his knees somewhere nearby, praying for him, not interfering, knowing exactly what he is having to contend with. And the need for prayer is above all what this stepping down signifies. Only in a constant re-centering on Christ can the dead hand of the lust for power be defeated. This principle of freedom in orthodoxy is one of the remarkable traits of this papacy, as it was of the last. By doing what he has done, the Holy Father is preaching the most powerful homily he could possibly have given us as we enter Lent.