Fair Pay for Teachers

It is time for our western societies to pay our teachers a fair wage. A fair wage will afford the recipient the opportunity to own a home and a comfortable lifestyle.

Why would you teach? Would you embark on an education program to become a teacher if you knew that your student loans would be forgiven? If they were going to be forgiven then why bother charging them in the first place?

Some people "dream of teaching but fear an oppressive combination of low wages and high debt."

Loan forgiveness is a system of forgiving loans to people who pursue careers like teaching and nursing. That is, jobs that are important to society but are not high paying jobs. (Nursing is well paid, according to a friend, in California but these statistics are country wide.) Included in these positions would also be "public interest lawyers."

In Kentucky "about 7,500 teachers, nurses and public interest lawyers have benefited from the state's loan forgiveness program since 2003 at a cost of $77 million to the state."

"There is no clear accounting of how many people were swayed by loan forgiveness to pursue teaching, or how many might be deterred by the absence of such programs. But the anecdotal evidence suggests the programs matter."

The New York Times ran an article on May 27th, "Recession Imperils Loan Forgiveness Programs" detailing some of the forgiveness loan programs that are in jeopardy and some that have been eliminated. There is an underlying question here that is not being addressed. Of course the article is worth writing and reading and publishing but like many other issues the underlying question is not addressed.

Why are professionals, like teachers, which are absolutely necessary to society not paid well? It is so simple and obvious that it is overlooked time and time again. Many, if not all, western societies take pride in education and development of its youth and the next generation but, at least in the U.S., they continue to underpay teachers (and other professions). I am no push over for unions and I believe they have a function and a necessary one but isn't this one of their primary jobs - to get their members paid fairly.

Is there a teacher in San Francisco that can afford a mortgage in San Francisco on their teacher's salary? I imagine there are many many other geographical areas that we can say the same about.

Why should an energetic individual interested in teaching have to go into debt hoping for it to be forgiven so that they can teach our children? Why can't they go into debt for college like everyone else and assume that they can repay their loans when they begin earning a fair salary? Do we as a society really want to carry on the ideology that teachers should spend their lives penniless while their young educated students go off and enjoy good salaries.

The favorite educators of our youth should not be bound by the meagre salaries our society pays them. It is time to pay our educators what they deserve and then we will probably have many many more good people wanting to teach.

Source for this post:
Glather, J.D. (May 27th, 2009). Recession imperils loan forgiveness programs. New York Times. P. B1.

The Future of Newspapers

The Mayo News presents itself in electronic form and it is aesthetically and practically pleasing.

The ongoing debate about the future of newspapers has many concerned about the future of journalism itself and the dissemination of valuable information to the people. Most newspapers have some kind of internet presence and electronic version of their paper. What I have always found about these electronic publications is that they are a world away from their physical edition. Aesthetically, the electronic versions require a totally different approach and way of reading.

But now I have found one that impresses. I am a proponent of the simple and the beautiful. I have asked before why newspapers don't just put the physical paper version up on the internet. It seems so simple and obvious that perhaps they didn't want to see it. Sometimes the most obvious remedy is the best.

If the audience is buying your paper the way it is then it stands to reason that they like it the way it is. Why change the look? Why don't newspapers just simply put the physical version online. One newspaper has done this (perhaps more) and this paper is The Mayo News. The Mayo News is the local newspaper in the locality where I grew up in the west of Ireland in County Mayo. It has won many awards in Europe for newspaper design.

The Mayo News presents its digital edition as an option. You must click on the digital edition tab and follow on. What you get at the end is the physical newspaper layout, but on your computer. What a simple solution to the question of how to go digital.

I think (and I have thought for some time) that this is the way to transition to digital newspapers and hold the audience. The audience is familiar with the look of the paper. It has been aesthetically pleasing enough before and keeping the same aesthetic electronically will provide continuity which is of the utmost importance when building and keeping an audience.

The turning of the page even comes with audio (although it sounds electronic) to make one feel that they are dealing with paper. This might not be where it all ends but this is a good start.

American Idol

It is difficult to imagine a show that would rival the variety shows of old when I was a young lad. Everyone in the household would be engaged in watching the one show, and from the eyes of a child it seemed as though this was the only show to watch. But viewing the American Idol finale has to be the closest we can come in these modern days.

What a show! How many stars (whether ancient or not) can you fit on to one show. How do you decide how many to include? Queen, Queen Latifah, David Coook, Keith Urban, Black Eyed Peas, Cyndi Lauper, Lionel Richie, Carlos Santana, Kiss, Rod Stewart...
Is this overload or what?

It's just one big advertisement. It seems that American Idol has the perfect captive audience for all of these artists to advertise their wares - a captive huge audience. Almost 100 million votes were cast on the finale to bring the season votes cast to approximately 624 million votes. How much does that add up to for AT&T in texts alone? As Ryan said "Your voices across the country that got us here," I couldn't help thinking that if the texting was a lot less Ryan might be out of a job.

The production used every aesthetic element known to humanity in an attempt to heighten the experience and keep the huge audience tuned in. Again it was almost overload. From the use of desaturation in the intro. to every camera angle imaginable to weird/creative lighting and, of course, the inferior audio on Adam and Kris at the start, it was too much. Is it necessary to present two people, Danny Oakey and Lionel Richie, dressed in black on a big stage and use every angle (and every aesthetic tool) in an attempt to energize the production. Could we not just see them and hear them singing the song.

The production felt like it was over produced. Just too much. I needed to take a breath and look away from time to time.

The Golden Idol Awards are either a joke or a disgusting abuse of some normal people. I'm not too sure which. Obviously some of the individuals are aware of the joke but I wonder if some are taken advantage of. And then the introduction of Catriona Darrell, a.k.a. Bikini Girl...

Bringing the show to the lowest common denominator seems to be comfortable for the producers. The cut-aways to Simon and Randy "gasping" were adolescent and pointless. All the camera angles were directed to objectification of the female. In 2009, chauvinism once again wins out by instigating a "bikini war." Kara Dioguardi showing her "bikini." Wow, what a way to be a "strong woman," a spokesperson for females. Are we to accept that it was for charity and therefore the chauvinistic undertones are acceptable? Do we overlook the ridiculousness of the event because she has a body that is accepted as the cultural ideal and therefore it was o.k? Do we admire this successful woman for singing on stage and then "ripping" her dress off? Is this the role model we hope for on a prime time show aimed at a young audience? Is this what we want our adolescent women to be looking up to?

I say no.

So much potential. So many opportunities squandered. When will we/they start using TV for the good of society. Here is (according to many) the democratization of the media. A show where unknowns become known through the votes of the proletariat. A place where the proletariat get heard.

A place where the producers decided to have a bikini war in front of 30+ million people. What a waste.

The Lieutenant of Inishmore at The Berkeley Rep: A Review

As I close in on the end of my first semester teaching at SFSU I have asked the students in class to be true to themselves. I remember my dad quoting Shakespeare (I believe) with, "to thine own self be true."

I have seen many shows at the Berkeley Rep over the years and I love the theatre. The Berkeley rep is a fine place and produces some fantastic shows. I have in my favorite playwrights list at the top both Martin McDonagh and David Mamet.

My inclination is to always find the positive in reviewing any performance, especially theatre, because I believe in the need for it to be supported for survival. But I must be true to myself and review as it is.

So I will focus on the positive...

The special effects on stage in The Lieutenant of Inishmore at the Berkeley Rep are excellent.

Twittering is bogus?

Listening to Armstrong and Getty on the AM radio this morning, I was amused to hear an idea that I have thought all along, that is since I heard of Twitter.

They were citing some study whicht said that 60% of twitterers stop twittering after a month. I can well believe this. It all sounds a little ridiculous to me. Following people's every move might be interesting to a small population who have voyeuristic tendencies or people interested in research of the media but I think it is a fad and will die out.

That whole escapade with Larry King and Aston Kutcher was amusing too but only just! So what if Aston could beat out CNN? He is a celebrity too. So, one celebrity wins against another. It was all very "reality TV".

"Amusing" is as much as I will give this whole thing. And I say it will die out like a fad that really never was.
I heard about twitter a year or so ago in Professor Marie Drennan's class in SFSU and it wasn't until the last couple of weeks that it got major mass media attention, thanks to Larry King, CNN and Aston Kutcher. Professor Marie Drennan beat the whole mass media to it. Maybe Aston proved that the media has potential to be democratized but we all knew that - right?

Whether democracy LIVES in and through the media is another matter and Larry or Aston or CNN are not helping that discussion along - IMHO.

Armstrong and Getty suggested that it will die out like the crazy fads of yesteryear. I am amused that they are saying it now. I said this a year ago and Professor Marie Drennan was talking about it long long before Larry or Aston.

Advertising for religion in Ireland

The Minister for Communications said "advertising shouldn't be used for promoting a particular religion or as an agent for recruitment" (Minister for Communications in Ireland, Eamon Ryan). Why not? This is an interesting statement from the Minister for Communications. Is he dictating what we can be exposed to? What's next? Will he be inclined to say that a company like Microsoft should not be allowed to advertise their corporate motto? Or will he tell us that a bank organization should not advertise investment accounts?

The 2001 legislation, to which the Minister refers when he says that it is interpreted narrowly, says that, "an advertisement which addresses the issue of the merits or otherwise adhering to any religious faith or belief or of becoming a member of any religion or religious organization" is not allowed for broadcast.

The light is being shone on this issue after Veritas, a company which sells books and things, and is owned by the Catholic bishops, was unable to satisfy the wording requirements for an advertisement. The Broadcasting Commission of Ireland (BCI) said that the phrase "Christmas: aren't we forgetting something" and "Why not give a gift that means more?" was not in keeping with the rules. In 2007 the word "crib" had to be removed from the text of an advertisement before it could be broadcast.

I don't mean to be petty about this but doesn't this all seem a little trivial? Are they having double standards here? What's the difference who is selling stuff? What's wrong with advertising for recruitment? The minister said that "at the same time, I don't want to completely restrict advertising that has a religious connotation." Why be bothered at all with advertising? If he is going to weigh in on advertising, why isn't he simply concerned with equality?

Or if you are to be concerned with advertising then where does it stop? Of course many will agree with the decision to ban advertising for cigarettes (some won't). But what of alcohol? Should the advertising of alcohol be banned? Cigarette advertising was banned for obvious health-issue connotations and this has been accepted, but we have to ask where does this intrusion on the media end? Should we ban advertising of chocolate, sweets/candy? At what point will rules and regulations cut in on our freedom of access to information? And more importantly, when is it o.k. to do so?

Cutting in on advertising seems a little intrusive to me. Advertising is the financing of the mass media (more in some countries than others). I'm no religious advocate but I don't see the big deal in taking money from a religious organization in payment for advertising. Now, I do think there are ethical issues with religious advertising and all that - but I'm open minded enough to see that these ethical issues can be argued against any kind of advertising whether it is for a size zero dress or an alcoholic drink or a mineral/soda which is loaded with sugar.

I suppose sometimes I just wonder. Why is time spent discussing these petty issues when there are bigger fish to fry? Oh, the article was published on April 1st?

Source for this post:
Minihan, M. (2009, April 1st). Controls on religious ads for broadcast to be relaxed. The Irish Times.

The Press and the Minister for Justice in Ireland

Can wealthy individuals obtain a court order to prevent investigative journalism related to themselves? According to Paul Cullen's piece in The Irish Times on April 1st, this is the newspapers' argument against privacy legislation in Ireland. However, the Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, says that there is no threat to investigative journalism in privacy legislation. Investigative journalism which seeks to hold government, institutions of the State, business and other organizations up to scrutiny would not be threatened, he said.

With the Press Ombudsman and the Press Council, I wonder if there is a need for privacy legislation. Is privacy legislation, as the newspapers might argue, simply a protection for the ones who can afford a court order? Is this another example of affording the wealthy a "more equal" opportunity for fair play? So individuals who could afford the law would be able to avail of the security of the privacy legislation while the less-than-wealthy would have to roll the dice and hope the Press Ombudsman or the Press Council would protect them.

The Press Ombudsman's office opened in January of 2008. It is amazing to think that it was not in existence before this and it is equally amazing to think that in such a short time after its inception the Minister for Justice is seeking Privacy Legislation. Surely this privacy legislation could be incorporated into the functions of the the Press Ombudsman's office or the office of the Press Council, and avoid the courts altogether. (Of course taking into account that the legal option is costly and therefore prohibitive to many.) This seems too close to an avenue of exploration open only to the well off. If I was cynical I might suggest that it is once again those in power using our democracy to instill protection for the wealthy and powerful while trying to appear to be concerned for the general population.

The defamation bill which is up for consideration too "gives statutory recognition to the Press Council and Press Ombudsman and allows newspapers to offer an apology without risking an admission of liability." This bill would allow the publication to defend its reporting as "in the public interest." This is the issue that the Minister for Justice has a problem with - in the public interest. He sees the necessity to support privacy legislation because he cannot define "in the public interest." He says that this area may be abused with "careless propagation of trivial or tabloid issues masquerading as being in the public interest." How many definitions has he used in that sentence which could be analyzed with numerous results?

What is his definition of "careless propagation?" How does he define "trivial?" What does he say is a "tabloid?" And then he uses the term "public interest" so easily when his own concerns are what others will deem to be the definition of this term. He seems to be clear in the definition by his own use of the term!

While his concerns are founded he seems to be looking out for the big guy rather than the proletariat here. How many of the general population really worry about privacy? How many people are concerned for privacy over free access to information?

Cullen says in the byline, "Minister cites 'worrying trend' of media intrusion." Perhaps the Minister for Justice should be concerned with how some have managed to take advantage of others life savings. Perhaps looking for justice would be a justifiable endeavour for the Minister for Justice. Perhaps searching for answers to the questions surrounding the injustice of the economic disaster would help the population to be better prepared for the next upturn. Perhaps the next upturn could be a sustained realistic growth that helps the many and not the few. Would that be justice?

Maybe the Minister for Justice would be serving the proletariat by discovering what went wrong and who brought it all about. Maybe the Minister for Justice could delve into the workings of the government (past and present) and report to the population what he thinks brought this about. The justice in this exercise is to learn from the mistakes. The justice in this would trump privacy whether for an organization or the government or individuals.

Justice brought about by free and equal access to information - Now there's a novel idea. That's an idea that the electorate might expect a Minister for Justice to believe in.

(By the way why is it an ombudsman? Shouldn't it be the ombudsperson?)


Sources for this post: Cullen, P. April 1st, The Irish Times