In her recent visit with the Pope, Michelle Obama wore a black headdress. As it turns out, its tradition for women to wear a black mantilla when in the presence of the pope as a sign of respect (Catholic Queens are allowed the privilege of wearing a white mantilla when in the papal presence). Apparently, men do not have the same duty of respect to the Pope as do women. Many first ladies have worn such mantillas when meeting the Pope, including Jackie Kennedy, Laura Bush, and Nancy Reagan. Hillary Clinton went without such a headdress when she met the Pope.
The Christian origins of women covering their heads stems from 1 Corinthians 11:3-9.
3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven.
6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
According to the Bible, women were created for men and as the glory of man, but man is the image and glory of God. According to this passage, it is also shameful for women to have short hair or shaven heads. It is noteworthy that this passage only commands women to cover their heads when praying, but Canon law took the passage a step further. The The 1917 Code of Canon Law states: "...women, however, should be with head covered and modestly dressed, ..."
It's no secret that women are given the short end of the stick when it comes to the Bible (or at least according to the translations). They rank barely above children in the Grand Heirarchy. The headdress Michelle Obama wore places women as second class citizens--doomed to eternal subservience based solely on the fact they were born with two X chromosomes instead of one.
A large part of me is disappointed that Michelle Obama bowed to this symbol of gender subordination. While I realize she was likely just trying to show respect and humility, I believe those are qualities equally laudible for men to demonstrate. To require a woman, but not a man, to cover his head in the presence of the Pope is just as oppressive as requiring a black person to sit in the back of a bus.
My hat goes off to Hillary Clinton for refusing to glorify this sexist practice. While I do not agree with her on many issues, this is one where I must stand up and applaud.
Friday, July 10, 2009
Friday, March 21, 2008
Mark Yudof - New UC President or new UC money pit?
Will the next UC President make TWICE Dynes' salary? Read on!
A UC search committee has recommended that current University of Texas system Chancellor MARK G. YUDOF become the next UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA President. While Mark Yudof has an impressive professional and academic background (he spent five years as head of the University of Minnesota before moving on to the University of Texas), one has to question whether he is the right fit for UC at this time. Just as UC Dyne's compensation package has been the subject of much scrutiny in these tough budget times (he makes a little over $400,000 per year), Mark Yudof currently makes about TWICE that amount at the University of Texas.
Whether that salary fact shows UC woefully underpays or UT overpays is a separate question, but a 2002-2003 article on Yudof's salary, published via a website called UT WATCH, states, "While UT staff and professors suffer from substandard wages, high-level administrators enjoy sky-high salaries. When confronted by reporters on the size and source of his salary, Yudof complained that "[he] is yet to make half of [the] football coach at Minnesota or at Texas."
In fact, YUDOF is the HIGHEST paid public university chief officer in the NATION. In addition to his salary, UT paid Yudof $172,000 in one-time compensation for retirement benefits he lost when he left Minnesota. He also receives a car allowance (UT Watch puts his 2002-2003 car allowance at $8400, presumably it has gone up since then!). He also gets Term Life/Long Term Care Insurance, Deferred Compensation, Housing (he lives in the UT mansion), moving expenses, and club membership dues.
$1.5 million pay-out for academic fraud
In addition, during his time at the University of Minnesota, a highly publicized scandal broke out regarding Clem Haskins, who was the men's basketball coach at the time. According to a 2,500 page investigation report, Haskins paid the manager of the University's academic counseling office to write papers for the players. Haskins had initially denied the allegation during his interview in June 1999, only to admit it later. Yudof made the decision to buy out Haskins' contract for $1.5 million (kind of makes the UC Davis Celeste Rose debacle look like a minor infarction!) Not only did Yudof pay $1.5 million dollars of University money, he seemed to defend Haskins several times and is quoted as saying, "These people are not criminals. They're not felons. What they did was they managed some situations poorly."
Yudof seems to think paying a University professional to write papers for the players and wilfully participating in academic fraud is mere mismanagement.
Tuition Increases
Also during his short five years at Minnesota, Yudof pushed one of the highest tuition increases in FOUR years! According to www.highbeam.com, tuition at the University of Minnesota was to increase 5 or 6 percent in one year, the result of what university officials said was inadequate funding from the Legislature and a need to raise faculty pay. Yudof told the Board of Regents that the record increase was needed to give faculty members an average 3 percent pay increase.
Hmmm. Sound familiar?
Union relations, etc.
There are other reasons to think more carefully about making Yudof UC's next president. University of Texas has NO unions. Zip. Nada. Zero. The University of California has over a dozen unions that represent its employees, so we're a far cry from Texas! While the University of Minnesota does have unions, Yudof was only there for five years, and apparently during that short time, he managed to pay out $1.5 million to buy out the contract of someone who contributed to academic fraud and he pushed a steep tuition hike to raise faculty salaries.
Race Discrimination
Also, Yudof is quoted as supporting the notion that schools should be able to racially discriminate against applicants for admission, commenting on a high-profile decision (Hopwood v. University of Texas) about the extent to which Universities can accept or reject applicants on the basis of race. (UT ultimately lost that case).
Gender Equality and the UC
There is another niggling thing working at the back of my mind. The University of California has apparently never had a female President. A University of California report highlighting gender inequality in the UC system listed the UCOP President, Faculty, Chancellors, and other high level positions as areas where women have been statistically significantly underrepresented. Yudof is an older white male. Dynes is an older white male. Before Dynes, there was Atkinson, another older white male. A full chronology of UC Presidents may be found at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/atkinson/ucpresidents.html. While I am NOT a proponent of selecting any candidate based on gender (and that includes selecting a woman just to have a woman), when women make up at least 50% of the population, one wonders why the UC has never found a woman to be the most competitive candidate when searching for a President. Is UC's selection criteria mandating a Y chromosome?
The final word
While Yudof may have some impressive qualifications, the UC Regents need to take a hard look at what bringing him here will mean for the State and for UC. Considering our Governor has declared a fiscal emergency, ordered a hiring freeze, and UC is heading toward serious budget cuts, can UC afford to bring in someone at double Dyne's salary? Should UC even consider hiring a man who insists on making more than any other public University head in the nation and who pushed to take more money out of student pockets to fund higher faculty salaries (though he didn't take money out of his overinflated salary to do so!)
If that isn't enough, here's an additional fact that gave me additional pause. Yudof is a member of The President's Council on Service and Civic Participation, an appointment President George W. Bush made in 2006.
That's right, on top of everything else, we're getting someone George W. Bush has full confidence in. That's scarier than all the remade Japanese horror flicks combined!
A UC search committee has recommended that current University of Texas system Chancellor MARK G. YUDOF become the next UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA President. While Mark Yudof has an impressive professional and academic background (he spent five years as head of the University of Minnesota before moving on to the University of Texas), one has to question whether he is the right fit for UC at this time. Just as UC Dyne's compensation package has been the subject of much scrutiny in these tough budget times (he makes a little over $400,000 per year), Mark Yudof currently makes about TWICE that amount at the University of Texas.
Whether that salary fact shows UC woefully underpays or UT overpays is a separate question, but a 2002-2003 article on Yudof's salary, published via a website called UT WATCH, states, "While UT staff and professors suffer from substandard wages, high-level administrators enjoy sky-high salaries. When confronted by reporters on the size and source of his salary, Yudof complained that "[he] is yet to make half of [the] football coach at Minnesota or at Texas."
In fact, YUDOF is the HIGHEST paid public university chief officer in the NATION. In addition to his salary, UT paid Yudof $172,000 in one-time compensation for retirement benefits he lost when he left Minnesota. He also receives a car allowance (UT Watch puts his 2002-2003 car allowance at $8400, presumably it has gone up since then!). He also gets Term Life/Long Term Care Insurance, Deferred Compensation, Housing (he lives in the UT mansion), moving expenses, and club membership dues.
$1.5 million pay-out for academic fraud
In addition, during his time at the University of Minnesota, a highly publicized scandal broke out regarding Clem Haskins, who was the men's basketball coach at the time. According to a 2,500 page investigation report, Haskins paid the manager of the University's academic counseling office to write papers for the players. Haskins had initially denied the allegation during his interview in June 1999, only to admit it later. Yudof made the decision to buy out Haskins' contract for $1.5 million (kind of makes the UC Davis Celeste Rose debacle look like a minor infarction!) Not only did Yudof pay $1.5 million dollars of University money, he seemed to defend Haskins several times and is quoted as saying, "These people are not criminals. They're not felons. What they did was they managed some situations poorly."
Yudof seems to think paying a University professional to write papers for the players and wilfully participating in academic fraud is mere mismanagement.
Tuition Increases
Also during his short five years at Minnesota, Yudof pushed one of the highest tuition increases in FOUR years! According to www.highbeam.com, tuition at the University of Minnesota was to increase 5 or 6 percent in one year, the result of what university officials said was inadequate funding from the Legislature and a need to raise faculty pay. Yudof told the Board of Regents that the record increase was needed to give faculty members an average 3 percent pay increase.
Hmmm. Sound familiar?
Union relations, etc.
There are other reasons to think more carefully about making Yudof UC's next president. University of Texas has NO unions. Zip. Nada. Zero. The University of California has over a dozen unions that represent its employees, so we're a far cry from Texas! While the University of Minnesota does have unions, Yudof was only there for five years, and apparently during that short time, he managed to pay out $1.5 million to buy out the contract of someone who contributed to academic fraud and he pushed a steep tuition hike to raise faculty salaries.
Race Discrimination
Also, Yudof is quoted as supporting the notion that schools should be able to racially discriminate against applicants for admission, commenting on a high-profile decision (Hopwood v. University of Texas) about the extent to which Universities can accept or reject applicants on the basis of race. (UT ultimately lost that case).
Gender Equality and the UC
There is another niggling thing working at the back of my mind. The University of California has apparently never had a female President. A University of California report highlighting gender inequality in the UC system listed the UCOP President, Faculty, Chancellors, and other high level positions as areas where women have been statistically significantly underrepresented. Yudof is an older white male. Dynes is an older white male. Before Dynes, there was Atkinson, another older white male. A full chronology of UC Presidents may be found at http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/atkinson/ucpresidents.html. While I am NOT a proponent of selecting any candidate based on gender (and that includes selecting a woman just to have a woman), when women make up at least 50% of the population, one wonders why the UC has never found a woman to be the most competitive candidate when searching for a President. Is UC's selection criteria mandating a Y chromosome?
The final word
While Yudof may have some impressive qualifications, the UC Regents need to take a hard look at what bringing him here will mean for the State and for UC. Considering our Governor has declared a fiscal emergency, ordered a hiring freeze, and UC is heading toward serious budget cuts, can UC afford to bring in someone at double Dyne's salary? Should UC even consider hiring a man who insists on making more than any other public University head in the nation and who pushed to take more money out of student pockets to fund higher faculty salaries (though he didn't take money out of his overinflated salary to do so!)
If that isn't enough, here's an additional fact that gave me additional pause. Yudof is a member of The President's Council on Service and Civic Participation, an appointment President George W. Bush made in 2006.
That's right, on top of everything else, we're getting someone George W. Bush has full confidence in. That's scarier than all the remade Japanese horror flicks combined!
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Britney Spears Judge - Gone Too Far?
I never thought I'd find myself in a position where I could appear to be defending Britney Spears or Kevin Feder-whatever. However, a court commissioner in Spears custody dispute has, in my opinion, overstepped his bounds. Courts, it seems, are now in the business of deciding what philosophy of child rearing parents must adopt.
Granted, in Britney's case, she really needs a few pointers. In fact, she needs a full-blown intervention. Still, I think the Court stepped over the line. It could have ordered her back into rehab, therapy, or taken a dozen other actions. Instead, the judge prohibited Britney or Kevin from ever spanking their children.
Each must also complete the court's "Parenting Without Conflict" class. The educational program, set in a group format and comprised of six sessions, helps parents learn the benefits of cooperative parenting, conflict resolution and problem solving.
Wow. Cooperative parenting? Parenting without conflict? Maybe when these kids grow up with their own substance abuse problems because their parents were prohibited from ever really disciplining them, they'll sue the Court.
A court's place is to protect children, not decide what parenting philosophy is best. An old saying, found originally in the Bible, warns, "Spare the rod, spoil the child." A little smack on the bum now and again has done many a child good, myself included.
And for all those who equate a smack on the butt with child abuse, get real.
Granted, in Britney's case, she really needs a few pointers. In fact, she needs a full-blown intervention. Still, I think the Court stepped over the line. It could have ordered her back into rehab, therapy, or taken a dozen other actions. Instead, the judge prohibited Britney or Kevin from ever spanking their children.
Each must also complete the court's "Parenting Without Conflict" class. The educational program, set in a group format and comprised of six sessions, helps parents learn the benefits of cooperative parenting, conflict resolution and problem solving.
Wow. Cooperative parenting? Parenting without conflict? Maybe when these kids grow up with their own substance abuse problems because their parents were prohibited from ever really disciplining them, they'll sue the Court.
A court's place is to protect children, not decide what parenting philosophy is best. An old saying, found originally in the Bible, warns, "Spare the rod, spoil the child." A little smack on the bum now and again has done many a child good, myself included.
And for all those who equate a smack on the butt with child abuse, get real.
Saturday, July 28, 2007
Sexist Justice: moms do more time than dads
Hundreds of loving but forgetful parents have inadvertently killed their children by leaving them in the back of hot cars. The Associated Press analyzed more than 310 such incidents in the past 10 years and discovered a disturbing reality. In a story featured by Yahoo News, the Associated Press dedicated one paragraph to a fact that should be a story unto itself.
"Mothers are treated much more harshly than fathers. While mothers and fathers are charged and convicted at about the same rates, moms are 26 percent more likely to do time. And their median sentence is two years longer than the terms received by dads." [Associated Press (AP)]
Why are women, on average, given harsher sentences than men for the same crime? We'd like to know.
"Mothers are treated much more harshly than fathers. While mothers and fathers are charged and convicted at about the same rates, moms are 26 percent more likely to do time. And their median sentence is two years longer than the terms received by dads." [Associated Press (AP)]
Why are women, on average, given harsher sentences than men for the same crime? We'd like to know.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
The Fall of Rocky
While I definitely think law enforcement officials should obey the law, reality is that they're all human, with human families, and frankly, probably a great many of them need to be investigated.
What bugs me is that the only one reason City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's issues were brought to the forefront is b/c he dared to prosecute Paris Hilton. Hmmm. Wonder who was trying to dig up the dirt on him? I guess he won't make the mistake of trying to prosecute someone with money and fame again -- if his career survives this. And if it doesn't, the next person will have definitely learned from his mistake.
So, this really ensures that law enforcement officials only go after poor, unfamous people who don't have the money or influence to find the dirt on them.
In case you've just returned from a prolonged mission in space and have no idea what I'm talking about, the following news article should clear it up
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070622/people_nm/hilton_prosecutor_dc_1
What bugs me is that the only one reason City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's issues were brought to the forefront is b/c he dared to prosecute Paris Hilton. Hmmm. Wonder who was trying to dig up the dirt on him? I guess he won't make the mistake of trying to prosecute someone with money and fame again -- if his career survives this. And if it doesn't, the next person will have definitely learned from his mistake.
So, this really ensures that law enforcement officials only go after poor, unfamous people who don't have the money or influence to find the dirt on them.
In case you've just returned from a prolonged mission in space and have no idea what I'm talking about, the following news article should clear it up
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070622/people_nm/hilton_prosecutor_dc_1
Tuesday, February 13, 2007
A Popup on your computer can land you in jail for half a century
Julie Amero lived a quiet life as a substitute teacher in an a small Connecticut town. She was assigned to a class at Kelly Middle School in Norwich, Connecticut, and just before class started, another teacher allowed her to use the computer to email her husband. Julie left to go to the bathroom and returned to find two students viewing a website on hairstyles.
She shooed the students away, but later pornagraphic images started popping up on the computer screen... all by themselves.
Now, she's been convicted of exposing seventh grade students in her class to pornography, and she faces up to 40 years in prison.
Even though the prosecution failed to check the computer for spyware or popups, and was therefore unable to refute that portion of Julie Amero's testimony, the jury still found the small town teacher guilty.
Reasonable doubt, it seems, is too big of a concept for some small-town juries.
Criminal convictions require INTENT on the Defendant's part. Under the circumstances of this case, it seems there is no way a prosecutor could prove Amero guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. That didn't matter to the jury, though. According to juror Mark Steinmetz, he voted "guilty" because, he would not want his child in Amero's classroom and asserted Amero could have unplugged the computer or turned it off.
Amero contended she was under strict orders not to shut down the computer.
Steinmatz stated he thought Amero could have even thrown a coat over the monitor to shield the pornographic images.
Okay, point conceded, but let's assume a small-town substitute teacher flustered by the unexpected pornagraphic images might not have thought about that at the time.
Facing a sentence of up to forty years in prison for not thinking to put a coat over a monitor seems a little ridiculous to me.
Maybe Norwich, Connecticut ought to do something about its educational system beyond merely upgrading the computer firewalls... its jurors don't seem to know the meaning of the basic fundamental principal of our justice system -- reasonable doubt.
She shooed the students away, but later pornagraphic images started popping up on the computer screen... all by themselves.
Now, she's been convicted of exposing seventh grade students in her class to pornography, and she faces up to 40 years in prison.
Even though the prosecution failed to check the computer for spyware or popups, and was therefore unable to refute that portion of Julie Amero's testimony, the jury still found the small town teacher guilty.
Reasonable doubt, it seems, is too big of a concept for some small-town juries.
Criminal convictions require INTENT on the Defendant's part. Under the circumstances of this case, it seems there is no way a prosecutor could prove Amero guilty BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. That didn't matter to the jury, though. According to juror Mark Steinmetz, he voted "guilty" because, he would not want his child in Amero's classroom and asserted Amero could have unplugged the computer or turned it off.
Amero contended she was under strict orders not to shut down the computer.
Steinmatz stated he thought Amero could have even thrown a coat over the monitor to shield the pornographic images.
Okay, point conceded, but let's assume a small-town substitute teacher flustered by the unexpected pornagraphic images might not have thought about that at the time.
Facing a sentence of up to forty years in prison for not thinking to put a coat over a monitor seems a little ridiculous to me.
Maybe Norwich, Connecticut ought to do something about its educational system beyond merely upgrading the computer firewalls... its jurors don't seem to know the meaning of the basic fundamental principal of our justice system -- reasonable doubt.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
O'Reilly gets the Boot!
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (Collier County, Florida Branch) posted an announcement on its website stating Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor, will not be a speaker at the dinner. John Walsh, host of America’s Most Wanted, will be the keynote speaker in his place.
Although the statement doesn't give a reason for the change in keynote speakers, it is safe to assume Bill O'Reilly's comments on The O'Reilly Factor suggesting that Shawn Hornbeck "liked" his time in captivity with Michael Devlin and chose to stay with the man (who has been charged with 69 counts of forcible sodomy) has something to do with the sudden change in speakers.
Bill O'Reilly came under heavy fire for his comments, as did the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for planning to have O'Reilly as its keynote speaker.
Although the statement doesn't give a reason for the change in keynote speakers, it is safe to assume Bill O'Reilly's comments on The O'Reilly Factor suggesting that Shawn Hornbeck "liked" his time in captivity with Michael Devlin and chose to stay with the man (who has been charged with 69 counts of forcible sodomy) has something to do with the sudden change in speakers.
Bill O'Reilly came under heavy fire for his comments, as did the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children for planning to have O'Reilly as its keynote speaker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)