Wow - this is the plan? This is how we're going to compete in a global economy? Merit pay for teachers and charter schools?!? This deserves to be spelled out - What The Fuck?!?!?!?!? (http://tinyurl.com/b99zt6)
Day 50 - President Obama is downgraded to a C- by this blogger. Yuck - who stepped in the GOP plan for creating another generation of automatons???
What do you think of the President's craptacular plan? (Seriously, what a piece of shit!!!)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
91 comments:
Okay. In Tarzan talk, "Me Play Bad Man Now On Brushfires":
This is all new to me but on the surface, I don't see what's the huge issue. Perhaps I'm missing the minute details but why should we have problems rewarding good teachers who excel at their job as opposed to Mrs. Frankjupty who's been teaching for 48 years and taught nothing? Just getting a paycheck?
I haven't done any precise study on the issue but don't chartered schools help what is often called "underperforming" children to do better?
Merit above seniority? Is that wrong?
Again. I'm not so totally versed, clearly. But what's the problem here? What am I missing?
wv:clutis. I'm sure some of you will call that "clueless"
And please do. Enlighten me.(but keep it clean)
Because, Teddy, union slackers won't get any of the gazillion dollar pie being handed out and they might actually be pressured into doing the job that they're being paid to do--teach the chillen.
wv: yedth. As in yedth is does make sense. Score one for Obama.
P.S. Do you wear a wedding ring? Assuming you're married? What kind of a scumbag won't wear a wedding ring? I WANT TO KNOW!!!
Pitting teachers against one another will create competition instead of cooperation. Would you want to mentor someone who could be getting a raise using *your* advise - and you aren't? How do you evaluate subjective courses like arts and phys ed? Not all quality can be determined by test scores, so what standards will be used to evaluate which teachers are *good*?
Maybe some competition is just what our sucky school systems need--competition works wonders for children. Isn't it part of what motivates children to learn? Having the honor of being the best and the brightest? Or the most artistic, or athletic? (And those two subjects can be measured quite easily.)
Is it really pitting teachers against one another? Asking teachers to have and teach their children to excel? How will this create competition instead of cooperation? It's, as far as I can see, simply asking teachers to care and do their jobs as oppossed to just getting a paycheck. You ask " Would you want to mentor someone who could be getting a raise using *your* advise - and you aren't?"
Huh? What does that mean?
Really. I don't understand the question.
You do NOT evaluate subjective courses like arts and phys ed. Clearly. I'm talking about teachers who really, realy, teach the basics and make sure their chikdren not only know but understand the importance of it. Of it all. You evaluate on whether or not students can speak in complete sentences. Whether or not they are socially responsible and can, frankly, learn to learn. And the best teacher can make them enjoy to learn. These are the saints and triumphs of our educational society.
I have to be honest. I'm not sure what we're debating here.
And please, please, never ask me to teach someone, anyone, to
tipe
;)
I think Calif. public school teachers get tenure after two years. Obama's either talking about abolishing tenure systems for pre-college public schools, or modifying them drastically. Wonder why that isn't clear in the news stories?
And I agree, it's pretty hard to "grade" teachers. A fourth grade teacher in Cupertino is going to have an easier time looking good and successful than will one in East Oakland.
Overall, Obama's approach deosn't impress me.
But xoot, and perhaps I'm being too bleary eyed and polyanish, I would say, if it was at all possible, "shouldn't the circumstances of the district also have a modicum of the merit status?"
Yeah. In a perfect world. But the results of such deficiencies should then make our government target the issue.
That's what I'm saying. Target the problem areas and pay the best and finest in these areas.
Let the Mrs. Jubtowskys teach the tiffany's and Ambers. Pay and reward the:
MR. HAND's
Of the world to deal with the Spicollis.
And Gina, I'm the guy who's wife said she lost her wedding ring. I'm certain she pawned it, though
;)
So only teachers who teach English & Math get raises? Ted, that doesn't make any sense. And, Gina, they don't test Phys Ed and Art on the NCLB tests...so, how again do you evaluate those?
Also, if I am going to be evaluated on grades, don't I just give everybody A's? Or, teach them how to take the test, memorize things and respond by rote, without teaching them anything about critical thinking? I got a first rate public school education right here in No. Cal and we didn't have standardized testing and merit pay. We had teachers who didn't have over-crowded class rooms, didn't have half a class room of ESL students, and didn't have kids bringing guns and drugs to school. Plus, thanks to Prop 13, we have starved the education system in CA so that we are ranked 50th in the US!!!
In your 'unions are bad' world Gina, I'm sure this argument just proves your point, but when the NEA, teachers, and parents all over the country are denouncing your plan...something just ain't right!!! (Sorry, Miss Smolski! - 4th grade teacher/saint)
Sorry, I'm not buying the "throw more money" at it solution. Catholic schools operate on a shoe-string budget, often only surviving with the voluntary fundraising efforts of the parents, yet still manage to give the children very good educations. My oldest, a product of that system until grade 10, passed all required state tests without any problems and at a college level. The tests he took were geared to about an 8th grade level. More than half of his public school class couldn't pass those tests and didn't graduate because of it.
And as for how to measure levels of education or learning, I'm sure some braniacs could figure out how to test it. Part of the problem of determining what to test for is a pervading attitude only certain areas of education are considered valuable. The reality is that all children have strengths and weaknesses in different areas,and it's not really fair to base intelligence on certain areas. To say an artistic or athletic or musical child is less learned than a mathmatical one is like saying Van Gogh, Willie Mays, and Bob Dylan are less important than Bob Gates.
mathematical. Sorry. And sorry, too, Ted about the lost ring. Why didn't you just buy her a new one? Maybe she really did lose it.
But, FH, as the Chicago Sun Tribune writes, "the stimulus bill increases funding for Head Start and Early Head Start by $5 billion. Obama has also called on Congress to enact a grant program to support high-quality early learning programs. Investments in strong preschool programs, research shows, offer some of the best returns in education. Investment later on, such as remedial help and job training, have much lower returns." Obama is, I think, relying on the research of the Nobelist James Heckman whose work I find totally convincing on the importance of early childhood education.
Obama is also right to extend the school year by one month, and the use of incentives is not going to be based on test scores alone. We'll have to look carefully at exactly what Arne Duncan has done in Chicago; it may of course be as bad as you say. BUt I don't know the details yet.
Bill Dylan? (sorry, couldn't resist)
Slightly interesting editorial in the NYT this morning about Obama's approach to education. The plan is pretty well focused. Certain school districts that really need the money will show more relative success than others that need less, it seems. Something like that. It may actually be worth looking at the full plan. I'll bet it's available on the Educ. Dept. website.
Here's something:
http://tinyurl.com/726tcx
I've talked to parents who are enthusiastic about charter schools. But I also know a teacher who got fired from a charter school when he objected to test-score tampering. The school fell apart in disgrace soon thereafter. Generally, I just don't trust charter schools to cure the problem of poor education for the poor.
districts that really need the money will NEED TO show more relative success than others that need less, it seems.
is what I meant to say
from the tinyurl-linked summary:
"new and innovative ways to increase teacher pay that are developed with teachers, not imposed on them. Districts will be able to design programs that reward with a salary increase accomplished educators who serve as a mentors to new teachers. Districts can reward teachers who work in underserved places like rural areas and inner cities. And if teachers consistently excel in the classroom, that work can be valued and rewarded as well"
Gina, one of the problems with your analysis is that private schools are selective, and can limit admission to the students who can meet their standards and can drop students who might not be able to get the job done. Public schools can't really do that.
I'm not as negative as FH about what Obama's doing, because I think there has to be more school accountability. But I'm not really that worried about most teachers. I think most teachers are sufficiently effective to get the job done, if they have the proper resources.
My issue is with the administration of most schools. They seem very inefficient based on what I hear from people who work for them. There needs to be less focus on administrative regulations and more focus on what works, administratively speaking. More teacher-administration collaboration and less top-down mandates from administration would help (e.g., some adminstrative functions might be useful as teaching tools, while other tasks may best be left to adminstration rather than teachers).
Clearly more resources need to be spent in the classroom; whether this can be done solely by shifting resources from adminstration or whether it will require additional funds over and above that shift is what remains to be seen for me. Fewer rules, more flexibility, more focus on teaching than administration, that's my mantra, and I think charter schools are a good place to try these ideas out.
wv: foolv
er, I'm not certain this is such a bad idea either. Sorry to disagree with you, FH. Suzasis used to work for a public school administrator south of here and was constantly regaling us with tales of wasted money and idiotic administrators.
As a (mostly) product of CA public schools I can tell you from personal experience that the interest and competence level varies WILDLY. I had some teachers, especially pre-secondary, who should NOT have been teaching.
Others were great and inspiring. Many were adequate - but that is what happens in any corporation. Too many teachers are prevented from being productive by idiotic administrators, if you ask me.
I know of one school in Santa Cruz that got a bunch of money to upgrade their science building. They spent millions of dollars, all the time knowing that the building wasn't handicapped accessible and wouldn't be able to be used. They just wanted to spend the money.
I know of another administrator who didn't want to get computers in his elementary school. He didn't want or know how to use them and figured that the kids didn't need to either.
We definitely need to overhaul the school system - it's in really sad shape.
I guess my concern is one that has been addressed by a couple of you folks - focusing on the 'workers' instead of 'management' - ie teachers vs. administration. To me, it reflects the auto industry bailouts - ask the assembly line workers to take pay cuts when they aren't the decision makers making the bad decisions.
Teachers are under a Federal mandate due to NCLB that treats education problems by defunding non-performing schools. As someone (I wish I could recall who) said, that's like starving a person to cure their cancer.
I don't want to just throw money at the problem, I want to spend the money more wisely - and I think there is plenty of room for improvement.
Gina - please don't try to pretend that anything funded by the Catholic church is operating on a shoe string...are kids in Catholic schools sharing books? Are they allowed to bring the books home at night? Public school kids in CA aren't - and that's a BIG problem!
It's amazing that people are loving this idea because it came from Obama, yet it was a terrible plan when the right wing was all over it. It's still an awful idea.
well, I agree with you, FH, that the onus should be on the administrators - they pull down some pretty nice salaries and are sometimes shockingly out of touch with what is going on in the day to day life of the school. They are JUST like executives.
I don't like charter schools much; I'm not completely hostile to merit pay, if "merit" encourages many types of teacher achievement (and not primarily student grade or test success). But I don't see how that can work efficiently.
I have two kids in school now. Combine them and I have 19 individual school years worth of recent experience spanning public school, private school and Catholic school. The private and Catholic school faculties can be held accountable and the results have been impressive (except for a couple of rather strange, but brief, exceptions at the private school).
We left the public school for two basic reasons: the faculty was horribly uneven. In 3 years we met two of the worst elementary school teachers imaginable. (The kindergarten teacher who called to talk about Perry O'Dontal was actually very good.) Also, the public school, being in an upscale town, had only a few African American and no Latino students. The private and Catholic schools, while academically rigorous, are wonderfully diverse.
The public school system in California is deficient even in the districts where it is best. Raising teacher salaries across the board would help retain good teachers and attract more of them. I'm not sure selective "merit" pay would improve the system more efficiently.
I'm sorry, even after watching season four of The Wire, I've haven't a clue as to how unfuck our schools. My sister is a soon to be layed off truant officer (this makes no sense because she generates a lot of income for her school district, and her effectiveness is easily measured), maybe I'll have her weigh in.
My list of public school teachers who had an impact on me:
Hyla Jones 3rd grade- She broke the newly enacted prohibition against prayers in school the day JFK was assassinated. Cast me in the lead of the off-off-off Broadway play, LET THERE BE INDIANS. I played the part of Hartal :)
Mr Brownsword 5th grade- A Christian fundamentalist, although I didn't know it at the time. He turned me on to some of my favorite books, like "The Phantom Tollbooth". I find myself to this day having imaginary debates with him about nature and man. He was completely misguided about the abilty of animals to think and feel emotion.
Mr Cesta social studies- Taught me how to write a term paper.
Mr. Barlow geometry- He looked like Henry Kissinger and spoke exactly like John Houseman. I learned more about logic from this class than the actual logic class I took the same year
Alice Cross English- Turned me on to Kurt Vonnegut and Thomas Pynchon, turned me on period. Easily the most fuckable teacher I ever had, she was a Quaker who devoted herself to keeping us from getting drafted after student deferments were abolished.
" My sister is a soon to be layed off truant officer"
Should I blame my teachers for the misspelling?
Bament?
Yogi, after watching Season 4 of The Wire, my solution was to take out all the adminstrators and shoot them.
wv: equisti I've been a little horse lately....
xoot, a general pay raise is good, but we gotta get rid of the two-year tenure track.
wv: hosed Yes, we are.
One of the terrible public school teachers we encountered was tenured. The other was in her first year, right out of Cal's graduate level Education program. She tanked and was denied tenure after we left. The earn it or lose it two-year system worked ok in that case.
UC is a six-year track, I think, but research is a huge part of the qualification. How far would you extend it for lower school teachers, dsg? Would you abolish tenure? If so, then salaries would have to skyrocket to entice good teachers to take the chance.
Just getting letters back from private schools. But they are as expensive as $18,000 a year, though I understand Catholic school can be just less than 60% of that.
Someone researching the economics of private schools told me that a disproportionate number of kids comes from single child homes.
Gotta get back to work.
There was a great editorial by Nicholas Kristof several months ago in the New York Times on the central importance of public education to America's ascendance as a world economic power. He reported on the findings of Claudia Goldin.
Thanks for the head's up, Hartal. I'll look for that - I really like Kristof's writing...
Be sure to look at the op-ed NYT piece Kristof published two days ago, specifically in response to Obama's education speech.
Here, it's too damn much on topic to be offhand about:
http://tinyurl.com/alhuem
All this talk about education and no one has mentioned improving shop classes. Why, if Americans could build decent things, we wouldn't be bailing out the auto industry, would we?
Another perspective: let the free market sort out school performance. That way, when the schools *really* go down in flames, we can finally spend trillions of dollars to fix them. Even Michael might go along with that. ;)
Good news, Ted! I found your wife's wedding ring!
WV: whers... pimp my funeral ride!
Great comment too sense. After all Newton and Einstein were both master clock makers and Sadi Carnot developed the science of thermodynamics from the study of engines. So not only is shop important to teach for vocational purposes, it's silly to disengage science (especially mechanics and thermodynamics) from working with machines. I even tried to get my just four year old daughter to build with me a simple clock from a kit.
xoot, interesting column. I think lifetime tenure is a bad idea; perhaps you can get it after 5 years and then get reviewed every 5 years thereafter.
Great, TooSense! Which pawn shop?
I'll let you know as soon as I get a decent price for it, Ted. ;)
ok, what I'm going to say is a bit snobby, but please remember that I went to a CSU. That's California State University, which takes the top 35% of California high school graduates. UC (University of California) takes the top 8%, so it's a better school. Still, CSU's get a "good" rating from some organization. I believe that you get out of an education exactly what you put into it.
With that extended intro, I must say that of the students I attended with, those majoring in Liberal Studies and intending on getting their teaching credential were mostly the more limited sort. As in, not that bright. As in, not great thinkers or readers or great much of anything. As in, believe in corporal punishment.
I don't have a great deal of respect for most school teachers. It is *very* difficult to distinguish ones' self (especially in elementary schools) and I think a little merit based pay would go a long way towards knowing which teachers are better. Sure, it's political - all careers and their corresponding salaries are political - but those of us who have had some measure of success have learned to negotiate those waters while still performing our jobs. If you perform excellently, you get a bonus or comission. If you don't, you get the salary or you get fired. That's the way it works.
Teaching should be a competitive field, not a fall back position (as it is for many, not all). The teachers would get more respect that way - at least from me.
A few months back, I got an email of the cold call sort from a woman who was looking for people to support a charter school she was starting in San Jose. I set it aside, and then the economy imploded, and I forgot about it. But I saw it again yesterday, and so I thought I'd ask if anyone was interested in looking into it. Here's the person who's developing this project; she's a fellow with buildingbetterschools.org:
http://tinyurl.com/cadp4z
Well, teaching is competitive. The best teachers compete for jobs in private schools. Check the resumes of good private school faculties.
They don't have tenure, generally, and they don't get paid a lot more than public school teachers (maybe even less than high-seniority public school teachers), but they have more motivated students and far fewer problems with drugs and violence.
"Gina - please don't try to pretend that anything funded by the Catholic church is operating on a shoe string...are kids in Catholic schools sharing books? Are they allowed to bring the books home at night? Public school kids in CA aren't - and that's a BIG problem!"
You're wrong on that one, Ferret. Fundraising is mandatory or the school shuts down. And there have been plenty of them. My association with the Catholic school system has been for 14 years at several different ones because of my husband's career moves. Every one follows the same academic standards. That was one reason why I have always stuck to them. I could move from a different state and the rules would always be the same. Because there are no unions to contend with, the teachers have far more freedom when it comes to teaching and discipline. Every Catholic school teacher I spoke with about teaching always said that despite the pay being lower, it was worth it to have the ability to be less rigid in method.
As for text books, yes, they share books, many are not very new, either. Children are allowed to take books home, but from a very young age they are assigned at minimum of an hour of homework a night. It increases with age. My oldest, by the ninth grade had at least four hours a night. And ongoing projects. And if the work is not completed, they are penalized.
Catholic schools also have an advantage that public schools don't--they're allowed to teach ethics--personal responsibility--which dovetails very nicely into having the child accepting responsibility for their own learning.
Also, Catholic schools do not discriminate on any basis. Every school my children have attended always had minorities, children of different faiths, or none at all, and children with emotional and physical problems. The only time someone was expelled was after every attempt to accommodate the child was exhausted. Many students are on full or partial scholarship. When the Church pays out money to pedophile cases, it's more than likely coming from money that would normally go towards scholarships.
They operate on a shoestring budget--take my word for it.
"Catholic schools also have an advantage that public schools don't--they're allowed to teach ethics--personal responsibility--... When the Church pays out money to pedophile cases, it's more than likely coming from money that would normally go towards scholarships.
They operate on a shoestring budget--take my word for it."
Gina - ethics should have dictated that the church protect it's youngest parishoners from pedophiles, instead of recycling the offenders through parishes around the country. They are criminally responsible for aiding and abetting this behavior, money is the very least of what they owe those victims/survivors!
Personally, I would be ashamed to argue in support of Catholic education operating on a shoestring budget by explaining their poverty is due to paying off victims of sytematic pedophilia... Those are the people to whom you are entrusting your child?!?!?!
It's not so dangerous at the HS level, FH, if your kid is an atheist with a black belt in karate. The Brothers pretty much back off.
Gina's hysterical defense of Catholic schools notwithstanding (pedophile settlement monies come from scholarships?), my own experience with Catholic schools as a student was nothing but positive. I will not repeat my earlier comment as to why private/Catholic schools have it easier than public schools, but I will add this: Lack of resources and an abundance of undisciplined boneheads were the main reasons the public schools didn't serve me well. At least there were fewer undisciplined boneheads in Catholic school, and the costs were kept low due to the minimal amounts paid to members of religious orders to teach.
I will say this about the priest/pedophile thing - despite the years of hemming and hawing and delaying, the US Catholic Church has done a damn sight more to fix the problem than the Catholic Church in other countries. Despite the Pope saying that our culture of pornography is to blame, you CANNOT tell me that there are not pedophile priests in other countries that simply get away with it because the people have no power or the laws are different.
The whole pedophile thing is a serious black eye on the church, but I think in the future the US branch will look a lot more proactive (depsite the years of sweeping it under the rug) than in other countries.
I had too much coffee and I can't sleep. That's why I'm posting at a weird time. Damn coffee. I hardly ever drink it and then I had to go and have a double.
All right. I'll fix my statement. Money that is used to pay off pedophile cases mostly comes from selling off property and insurance policies. But, it's all sort of from the same pool. Church money goes towards different expenditures...they put it where it needs to go. If the money is not there, it's not there. Things don't get funded. And, the Church is not just the excommunicated pedophile priests. It's the whole body of Catholics...those are some of the real victims that have gotten punished for crimes they weren't aware of and didn't commit....they're the ones who paid for everything the Church owns--not the pedophile priests. For the most part, the Church has done what it can to make the situation right.
The area of priestly authority is where my main issues with the Catholic Church lie. Most Catholic theology is relatively harmless, in my view (transubstantiation, immaculate conception), and a lot of it is pretty useful (the sanctity of life, helping the poor). But the idea that the Church must be our intercessor with God is unfortunate, because it is subject to that iron law of human nature, "Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely." If you got rid of the absolute authority of the pope and the mandatory vow of celibacy, the problem of pedophile priests would fade away.
wv: beata dead horse.
DSG - I agree with you about priestly authority. My dad, who has been in the grocery business all his life, likens a parish priest to a supermarket manager. He may have to answer to the big guys, but his store front is his domain and he rules over all with absolute authority.
That's one of my main issues as well. I've dealt with soooo many priests that are just bitchy queens. I think that is partially because prior to recent decades, the only "acceptable" life for a gay man raised in a catholic family was to join the order.
You also get the same people who are attracted to positions of authority over young people in order to exploit that power - same as teachers, boy scout leaders, etc. Until recently the Church was a safe place for them to hide - it's no longer so (at least I hope not).
Suza, I like the analogy. And let me be clear, I think I'm pretty objective about the Catholic church (of course I would say that, but I have no axes to grind against it, and I was never so heavily invested in it that I can't be critical). So, even if we assume Christ's deity and the direct link between Christ and Peter, the fact remains that Peter was a man, as have been all of the pontiffs since, and that all men are fallible. Significant allowances have to be made for that fact--just look at the Borgias.
Before I forget, I did want to mention one more aspect of Catholic theology that I consider to be harmful: sex as original sin.
Talk about weird timing: http://tinyurl.com/c8mh5z
I forget where I heard this, but someone was saying that the original sin wasn't Eve eating from the tree, but the snake lying to her...Eve got a bum rap!!!
FH, but wasn't Satan speaking through the serpent? And since Satan was a fallen angel, wasn't he incapable of human sin?
I've had dealings with a big-firm attorney who is famous for defending Catholic Church clergy abuse cases. Can you imagine making that the center of your career?
xoot, we are talking about lawyers here. :)
wv: allatt I swear the words are being picked by someone with a sense of humor
xoot - ugh on your colleague. I thought about going to law school a few years ago but I just can't get the killer instinct/moral relativism thing down. I know there are fields where you can avoid that, but I just can't get past it. I would be a terrible lawyer.
Our priest was telling us how fallable the church was and how many mistakes have been made. I'm seriously struggling right now with a lot of catholic stuff. I'm not so sure anymore that I can continue to put up with the sexism and unwillingness to change. Maybe - I think it's been corrupted for 1800 years by MEN and probably will continue to be so until after I die.
No comment on the Catholic Church, other than to say it's probably one of the reasons why God made gay men. If it wasn't for the Church, I don't believe reading and writing would be as prevalant today.
I don't necessarily endorse this comment, I just really like my WV-punmator. It is now officially a part of my vocabulary.
As an atheist, I pray for catholics and their church. I pray that someday they'll get a clue and put their cult to bed instead of children. I realize that an atheist praying is a pretty silly thing, but catholics need an intermediary to stand in the presence of the lord. It's kind of like taking your shoes off in the temple, or washing your filthy hands before you eat. I'm there for you, catholics (but not you, priests. And DO NOT get thee behind me!).
I thought we were deleting anonymous posts?
But, I am getting married in the catholic church because my mom wants me to. It may be our last interaction - we'll see.
Keep a close watch on the ring-bearer, suza.
xootsuit, does that attorney you know make any mention of a need for proper legal proceedings to make sure that the punishment meted out to priests for the statutory rape of boys and teenagers is equivalent to the punishments for statutory rape of children and teenagers of the opposite sex to the perpetrator?
Suza - we are...I just got home. (yeesh!!!)
Gina, I'm assuming that was you. Feel free to repost your comment, I don't want you to feel picked on, I'm just trying to be consistent.
One of the things I like the least about SFGate is the slipshod way they apply their 'rules'. I had a comment deleted today for no good reason. It was about the woman who claims that the Chronicle was responsible for her getting hate mail over her support of Prop 8. The Chronicle story disputed her claim that they published her address. My comment: "Publish her address now, I missed out on the first round of hate mail. Rightwingers wouldn't know the truth if it jumped up and slapped them in the face!" Is that delete worthy?!?!?
fh - most definitely NOT delete-worthy. In fact, quite admirable. You can find the addresses somewhere at SFist from a couple of months ago, if you are still interested... ;)
TS - no ring bearers. The youngest participants will be 9. And girls. Otherwise, yeah, how could you help but keep an extra special eye out. It would be tantamount to letting your kid go over to Michael Jackson's house by himself.
I already spoke of suspicious of Catholicism for its satanization of the body, i.e. the whole idea that the soul suffers the needs and pleasures of the body--it is crucified--and needs to be freed through the crucifixion of this corporeality.
I am deeply suspicious of this idea of a life a body without needs or the ideal of a body that cannot even enjoy pleasure or feel needs. Why should we have as an ideal not a body that easily satisfies its needs but a body that no longer feels any need or any enjoyment. Why is there not great importance given to the image of a world where persons satisfy their needs with enjoyment?
I am wary of subjecting my children to an "ethical" training in such ideals and images.
okay, Hartal, I don't understand what you are trying to say, so let's parse this out and maybe you can explain? I'm not being snarky, I really don't understand what you are saying.
hartal said...
I already spoke of suspicious of Catholicism
did you leave out a word here? You spoke of being suspicious of Catholocism? Or you spoke of your suspisions of Catholicism?
for its satanization of the body
Satanization of the body? Like, the body is evil? I think you might mean that you've heard that the flesh is evil, but I don't think I've heard that from a Catholic. I've heard Baptists and other protestant fundamentalists say that.
i.e. the whole idea that the soul suffers the needs and pleasures of the body
Are you saying that the soul feels the needs and pains of the corporeal body or that the soul suffers the consequences of failings of the flesh?
--it is crucified--and needs to be freed through the crucifixion of this corporeality.
You're mixing me up with your pronouns here. What "it" do you mean? Do you mean the body is crucified or the soul is crucified? Cuz, you know the soul can't be destroyed. But the soul remains when the flesh is destroyed. If you've ever been with someone as they died, you would be very aware of the lack of presence death brings. It's intangible, but still very real.
I am deeply suspicious of this idea of a life a body without needs or the ideal of a body that cannot even enjoy pleasure or feel needs.
That's more Buddhist than Catholic. I've head people say that they deny the needs of their flesh, but I've never heard anyone other than someone into Zen Buddhism say that they don't feel pleasure or need anything. Certainly not a Catholic.
Why should we have as an ideal not a body that easily satisfies its needs but a body that no longer feels any need or any enjoyment.
I don't get where this argument came from. This is not a Catholic ideal.
Why is there not great importance given to the image of a world where persons satisfy their needs with enjoyment?
I think that's called hedonism. I think the point is that one person's needs may be harmful to another person's corporeal body. That's not Catholicism either.
I am wary of subjecting my children to an "ethical" training in such ideals and images.
I would be too. Children are the most hedonistic and selfish beings in the world. That's not Catholicism.
wv: believe it or not: hypti
Sorry I wrote quickly before dinner, and must write quickly again. Excellent engagement. Let me just say the Grünewald Christ, and hope to get back later.
Best time I ever had near an altar was at a small dome-shaped Catholic Church in downtown Managua in 1985. An electric rock/salsa band backed the choir, colorful murals decorated the walls and ceilings, liberation theology fueled what I guess was a sermon (homily?), and a great finish involved everyone in the building standing, holding hands, and singing "We Shall Overcome" in Spanish (Nosotros Venceremos) best and loudest we could. So I'm biased.
One side of the Catholic Church sure has done a lot of good in Latin America. (Another side, well. . . . .)
hartal, The lawyer I know who makes so much money defending the Catholic Church against molestation claims is an adversary. (NOT in the molestation cases; in two completely dissimilar commercial cases.) For some reason, he and his flunky junior partner both seem to hate me.
Let me just say the Grünewald Christ, and hope to get back later.
March 13, 2009 8:07 PM
**
Let me just say...
nuff said, poncho. Drop it.
We don't need to read your, as usual, if you would be honest, "I have no reply because you have out thought me so let me spend 8 hours of surfing the net and cutting and pasting opinions that make a better case than I can no matter how vague and off topic and no matter who the moron and their forum might be" and then go off on a tangent that has nothing to do with nothing that was originally sited.
Mindful Life was right. Let it go.
Please.
Spare us.
When somebody loves you
It's no good unless they love you
All the Way
Happy to be near you
When you need someone to cheer you,
come what may
That's very sweet, Ted.
Sorry about the anonymous post, ferret. Didn't realize that I had done it. I can't remember what I said either, or I'd repost. It's been a long week.
Oh poor Ted Spe,
The problem is that you don't understand that I provide you with an education that you would not otherwise have access to. But you are too bitter about your intellectual limits to appreciate what I provide gratis.
What I wrote in a couple of minutes before dinner was clear enough and should have pointed to obvious problems in Catholic doctrine to anyone who has been raised Catholic as my wife was. But what can I say? Mindful life did not understand it; I think xootsuit did, which is why pointed to the war within Catholicism against the liberation theologians who had to rework Catholicism in order to stench the loss of people to revolutionary movements.
I don't have to spend time surfing the net to develop my points. I only need to talk to my wife. And pointing me to the Grunewald Christ, she reminds that there is anti utopian vision in which the body, life itself, is seen as crucifying the person; it is not the flesh that crucifies the body but the body is identified with the flesh and the two become the crucifier of the human subject, which is the eternal soul. The needs of the body are confused with the impulses of the flesh and they mortify this human subject who accepts being crucified insofar as it will bring these impulses of the body into subjection. The soul thus defends itself against the pleasures and the self0interest of self-interest that mortify it. The refrain is always to accept the cross, never to overcome it. All of life becomes crucifixion, and salvation means replacing this life with another.
Has anyone here done a study of Ratzinger's views on the body, the flesh, the soul, materialism, idealism, dying and living?
Perhaps xootsuit will let the list know what role Ratzinger played in the suppression of the liberation theology...
"Life is hard. Harder when you're stupid." -John Wayne
Hartal...who's your wife? Mother Teresa?
That would explain why she married you at least. Considering your Catholic bigotry and your ignorant views on the religion. I suppose, though, if you thought you could get an excellent and cheap education exploiting the system for your child's benefit, you wouldn't hesitate to do it, would you?
And, just for your information, I can guess that it's pretty safe to say your wife is not the leading authority on Catholicism, Catholics or Catholic Doctrine or its history.
Oh, funny. hartal, maybe I just completely misunderstand your sense of humor considering your follow up posts backed what I said entirely.
I should lighten up and merely enjoy your odd satirical poses.
Educate me? Gratis? LOL!! You are truly a piece of work.
You think I am an emaciated Indian person that my wife has come to teach how to die? Wow! I thought that stereotype of Indians would be ridiculed here in the SF Bay Area whose economic strength has depended on the infusion of Indian talent, say, in the field of BiCMOS technology.
We did not apply to Catholic schools.
And what a thoughtful response to my concerns about Catholic doctrine..
But your Pope has told you to demote reason for faith.
You are obedient. Good for you.
Catholic bigotry? Do you mean Bishop Richard Williamson, Gina?
See what I mean? No one could ever *truly* be such a pompus moron.
hartal is pure satire.
But unfortunately also bad and dull satire which is why I just read the short posts and skip everything else.
And thus, missing out on an exceptional education.
Gratis, yet.
:)
Oh, that's beautiful. Swami Hartal is going to educate us on Catholicism.
Please do go on, Hartal. I'm waiting breathlessly for your generous enlightenment on my faith from your great pool of knowledge.
And let me get this straight. Your wife is Catholic, yet you despise Catholics based on what your wife says about the Catholic Church?
You were not kidding about having a substance abuse problem--were you, Ted Spe? You are aggressive, impatient, and unfocused. And you want to recreate the structure of your mind in the structure of every blog on which you take part. That's why you only read my short posts--you are only capable of reading short things.
As for Gina, it's obvious that she is the one who is taking advantage of the cheap and excellent education the Church offers (and many Catholic schools are indeed excellent). She can't discuss her faith because she does not really care about it, but she still wants the Church to educate her children.
I believe hartal's reference to the "satanization of the body" (a phrase I've never seen before) is a concept that is related to the notion I mentioned in my post, regarding sex as original sin. I would also note that the strain of mysticism in the Catholic church has a basis in asceticism, the denial of bodily pleasures (see, e.g., Thomas Merton).
"needs of the body are confused with the impulses of the flesh and they mortify . . ."
.
That sounds more like puritancal protestantism to me. Most Catholics I know love to fuck. If they're practicing, they shake it off in confession. If they're lapsed, they figure they'll take care of it later, when they're closer to the end.
.
Seriously, I have to admit that when people raised in faith talk about religion, I am like a visitor from another planet listening in wonder.
.
Also, hartal, on the notion that Isaac Newton and Einstein were both "master clockmakers" -- where'd you get that info? I know Newton had a clockmaking hobby starting as a kid, and Einstein reviewed patent applications related to clocks in Switzerland ("Einstein's Clocks, Poincare's Maps" was an interesting book). But Einstein, a clock MAKER? (Not countying the conceptual relativity mirror-light clock, of course.)
"That sounds more like puritancal protestantism to me. Most Catholics I know love to fuck. If they're practicing, they shake it off in confession. If they're lapsed, they figure they'll take care of it later, when they're closer to the end."
heh-heh. Thank you. I couldn't have said it better myself.
wv:corpa
What Catholic doctrine or the Pope says and what Catholics do...And I'd be interested to hear more about sex as original sin.
*
Yes I read the Galison piece when he came out in article form (Critical Inquiry). I can't remember whether Einstein built clocks (but I wrote quickly, so used clock maker as shorthand for someone interested in the clocks as technology) but he studied them, and the technical problem of synchronicity over time zones in a newly unified German state played an important role in his theorizing of relativity, if I remember Galison's argument but then you say that you have read the book so perhaps you could summarize.
The point I was trying to make is that the study of technology and the practical problems it is trying to solve should be integrated with the study of science. Science is often taught as too ethereal in its origin.
I am trying to figure out a way to make science interesting to my kids.
And now off to the park.
Just quickly. dsgonzale6 points rightly to the great work Catholics have done for the poor, and our President has obviously been inspired by the faith based initiatives of Catholics, yet I am concerned that a part of the contempt for the body that is present in at least some Catholic doctrine brings with it a needlessly romantic view of poverty since in one interpretation poverty is holy because the poor are very close to eternity as the less that persons satisfy their needs or the less they are able to have any enjoyment, the closer they are to the ethereal life of the angelic body.
Maybe another one of those garbled sentences, but if I spend any more time here I'll be accused of neglecting my responsibilities by Miss Gina.
I don't get how a painting by one German artist proves your point at all, and I studied some art in my time. Never Grunewald though, mostly the ancients through the italian rennaissance.
Sex as a sin is a Jansenist idea and the church formally distanced themselves from Jansen at least a century ago. The problem is that people (including those in the church) continue the erroneous information they've been provided with - as long as it continues to fit into their pre-conceived ideas.
I'm sure I could only take from the church the ideas that agree with the ones I already have, but I'd still be rankled by the idiots in the church who think otherwise. Like those a-holes who said that the sisters of perpetual indulgence shouldn't have been given communion. It is NOT up to any priest to decide who gets to take communion. That particular action is between you and God. If a priest stops men in dresses from taking communion because their appearance offends him, then who is next? Women in pants?
You're such a puke, Hartal. You don't even know how to define a Catholic, let alone understand the religion. It's just like trying to explain GWTW. You've no basis to discuss anything.When you've actually read the book and not formed your ignorant opinion on what someone has told you or based your insight on someone else's published opinion, then start the insults.
Didn't your sitar-playing momma ever teach you basic consideration of others?
A preist is exactly the one who gets to decide, Suz. Where are you getting your information from? And, if you really have been paying attention to the teachings, you should know all about that little thing called a 'developed conscience'. Every person that considers themselves Catholic should have one. It's the thing that tells you that it's wrong to take communion if you're not square with God. The same thing that tells you that Catholic marriage is a sacred vow and should not be entered into lightly or to please the desires of one's mother.
Er. Priest.
See my comment about priestly authority above.
But hartal, it was not I who spoke of the good the church has done for the poor in Latin America, it was xoot. Perhaps we lawyers all look alike to you.... ;)
Post a Comment