The first time I tried going to church on the East Coast, I had to drive to a small town adjoining Bedminster. It was not far from The Thebault's house. I got ready for church and Brian was outside as I was getting into the Suburban. He looked at me and raised his eyebrows. With a friendly smile he teased, "You look like you're going to the office."
I smiled in return but was puzzled. What did he mean? I was wearing a tailored dress, which I thought would be suitable for office or church. I had just bought it. Since we were no longer at the Shore, where I wore swimsuits that stretched with my weight gain, I had discovered none of my other clothes fit. It was a shirt dress style, with a white oxford style top with long sleeves and buttons up the front, a belt at the waist, and a long taupe skirt that fell to my ankles. I wore heels. My long hair was down and curled, a mass of thick, shining red curls. I had visited and attended a variety of churches in my youth and my dress would not be distinguished in any way from what others were wearing.
The Thebault's asked which church I was going to and I told them I was going to try the Presbyterian church nearby. I had gone to the same church in my youth. They nodded with approval, not that I asked for their approval.
When I found the church, I parked and noticed almost every car in the lot was a Mercedes or a Lexus. I noticed a woman going in. She wore a solid black dress, black heels, a black hat, and carried a black purse. Hmmm. To each his own, I thought to myself. I took my well-worn Bible in hand, and walked confidently into the quaint building. It was like walking into a morgue. I wanted to find a seat quickly, feeling shy and not wanting to draw attention to myself. But once I sat down and looked around, I tried to process what I was seeing. Every single woman in the entire church wore a black hat. The hairstyles were pulled back or severely groomed. Every woman also wore a black tailored dress, in the classic tailored style of dresses worn by Audrey Hepburn in "Breakfast at Tiffany's". They all spoke in hushed solemn tones or not at all. The men were dressed in equal fashion, in black sportscoat. Hats?! This was 1993. And black? This was church, not a funeral. Another example of unspoken dress code.
No one else had brought their Bibles with them. And there were few, if any, Bibles in the pews. Suddenly, I heard music. The singing of a choir in operatic style. Coming from...Where in the world were they? I couldn't see anyone and I realized there was a loft in the back of the church where the choir was assembled and hidden from view. The pastor gave his sermon, which was dry and rudimental in analysis. There wasn't analysis--just a direct reading of Scripture. No one spoke to me before the service began or even looked at me. The gentleman I sat next to was friendly but quit talking to me after he asked what had brought me to the area and I told him it was a nanny position. After the service a good looking man in his late 20s looked at me and smiled, with seeming interest. He was very handsome and began to approach. He was the only one who paid any attention to me at all, in a very small church of about 50 people. I felt so out of place, I was tongue-tied and didn't want to stick around. I turned and made a quick exit, a streak of white lightening and red hair cutting through the morgue. Or, a white and taupe cat caught in a thunderstorm. It was raining outside. Drizzling, and the sky was gray. Then I decided, before I got to the car, to summon my strength and inquire about the choir. Perhaps I could be involved in the choir, and hide out in the loft every service. I met the choir director, who was from Princeton. The choir members were not members of the church, nor were they residents. They were students from Princeton. They were dressed like me, in regular varied styles of clothing. No hats. I was joined to my underclass brothers. I surmised the rich do not join choir; they hire choirs to sing for them. I was given photocopies of the music for the next Sunday, several classical pieces.
I never returned!
Sunday, October 7, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Proposal For Change To Rules Of Legal Education (and more on Civil Rights Ed. in Public Schools)
I received an interesting comment this evening, to my post about Civil Rights Ed. for Jr. High and High School. I have thought about what I wrote in that post, and have examined my ideas. Public education in general was once a radical idea. I do not whether my ideas are radical or common sense. And it appears, I am not alone in considering these ideas either! In this post I'm going to examine 2 things: 1. the possible effects of proposed Civil Rights education in Jr. High and High School, and something new--2. a proposal for the option to enter law school directly from high school (the UK model), bypassing 4 additional years of undergraduate work and college debt, thereby enabling more students to enter public interest areas of legal practice, for the good of all.
Making Civil Rights study mandatory--how could ANYONE argue against it? The only area of "cost" would possibly be higher taxes to pay for additional instructors/lawyers and curriculum--but any parent or kid considering the benefits and alternative, would be convinced this is a wise investment and return on their money.
In fact, I believe it would make jr. high and high school a lot more interesting. By jr. high, one is able to think, argue, and examine philosophies and structures. As a tangent, I also would advocate teaching such a class with a combination of ages and grades, to more effectively model the real world and allow older kids to mentor the younger on such issues. I believe groups or classes should be formed from pulling kids from 7th, 8th, and 9th grade, and that in high school, classes should pull from 10th, 11th, and 12th. Or, if high schools are 9th-12th, a combination of these grades, and in jr. high a combination of 6th, 7th, and 8th, or only 7th and 8th, depending upon how a school is already organized by grades.
And while some kids complain about the practical application of trig or creative writing in "real life", I believe they would be inspired to study civil rights. For one example: some kids, by that age, are getting into trouble with drugs and are already entering "the system". By becoming involved, and interested in something at school, this would then provide incentive to stay in school, as a way to become socially and street smart as to their civil rights. The incentive to stay in school leads to decline in delinquent behavior. They are learning about something that not only means something to them, but is empowering. Sports keep some kids off drugs, who are motivated to play sports. But there are plenty of kids with no interest in sports who fall through the cracks and who would be the type to embrace civil rights studies. The incentive? Learn the system, outside of the system. If a kid screws up, they should be allowed to apply their mistake to their learning experience at least once.
The rest of the public school kids, as well as those at risk for drop-out, who may actually have less hands-on experience with the system, would learn about it through projects, debate, lecture, discussion, and practice organizing a protest or fundraiser or even legislative measure.
Other simple practical things could also be covered, besides structure of government and laws. Things like, "How to Write a Complaint" to an organization; how to document communications and "get" and "put" things "in writing; and other proactive and defense ways of protecting ones rights. Even practical advice like keeping a disposable camera in the glovebox in case of auto accident. Some basic things people who may not be able to afford an attorney, should know to minimize and prevent risk to their liberties and rights.
To prevent kids from being bullied and turning into Columbine shooters, examination of civil rights torts for harassment, no-contact orders, intentional infliction of emotional distress. To prevent sexual assaults, early education about definitions of assault and case law and examples as a warning and to inform others of their rights. Civil Rights should cover not only torts but criminal law as well, the distinctions, and ethics.
Examination of the government structure and how a person or group may introduce change, in a practical way, with application. Studies of the state Bill of Rights and federal Bill of Rights.
How else does the general public protect themselves against corporate interests that seem distant but will directly affect their personal lives? How else do they gain confidence and understanding of the system enough to make it work for them, and go to the polls in droves? The rich get a private education, parents, and mentors, at any early age, to teach them these things, and how to operate in their best interests, at sacrifice of public interest and common good. They learn how to manipulate and take advantage of others in order to secure and strengthen their family finances. They get people elected, and make laws, that are self-serving and harm the public, with little protest. How? Exploitation of the ignorance of the public.
By the time kids are adults, in the working world, some before they are 18 years old, they do not have the time or energy to learn the ropes. They don't have time to research laws, or find out what their rights are, or how to navigate the legal and social resources; they are simply trying to support themselves. Some kids go to college. It is inevitable that some will not. Knowing our civil rights is a must for either path.
This would also create public interest jobs, in education, for attorneys. I believe the class should be taught by a licensed attorney, or team of 2, who will devote their energies and knowledge to the students: free legal aid (not representing individual cases, but providing instruction) for prevention, protection, direction, discussion, and guidance. It should be a right for every public school student to have this class, not a priviledge. What parent or student wouldn't want this? As for exemptions, someone could opt out for religious reasons, but why? when the class would also cover religious liberties and rights?
I would go further, to say at least 1 out of 3 years worth of law school could be accomplished in high school, through this class and an added emphasis which would be optional. I am thinking of the Advanced Placement model already employed by high schools, where students may take AP classes in various topics to earn college credit in advance. In the 11th and 12th grade, special emphasis classes as electives should be available, in order to accomplish more specialized instruction in law. In that case, the fees should not exceed fees for participation in sports or music or other activities. Additional jobs for attorneys would be created for the special emphasis class, and 2nd year volunteers from private law schools could participate as mentors and add it to their "community service" portion of their resume. Those at private law schools may still retain their brand-name or "tier" designations, but at least those who cannot afford private school will receive a chance to learn and obtain info from a sort of extensive "pre-law" emphasis that each public school would provide. If private law schools don't like the idea of public school students getting a head start in jr. high and high school, they can also offer their classes to private jr. high and high schools, to stay competitive, if racing against the clock is a factor.
In the special emphasis class, LSAT prep should be routine. No student of the class should be required to pay for a special LSAT prep course that runs into the thousands. It should be provided in the high schools, at minimal cost for perhaps books and a small registration fee.
The practice of law is specific. Bachelor's degrees may prepare students for scholastics, but they do not guarantee success in law school, or more importantly, in the real world. Law schools in the U.S. accept Bachelor's degrees in any major because they claim they are mainly looking for a foundation and proof of follow-through or dedication. However, law schools are corporations that are supported by other corporations. If a student comes into law school with college debt, and acquires further debt from law school, they are then obligated to take the job at the corporate firm which works for big business, in order to pay off their debt. This cycle eventually benefits law schools themselves...
Big Business rewards the corporate firm, and the corporate firm then gives big business a perk by making donations to the state Bar, and encouraging the corporate attorneys to win positions of influence within the Bar. When the Bar is in the pocket of Big Business, the corporate attorneys get a free pass or at least partial treatment when or if a complaint is alleged against said lawyers, for misconduct. Employees of the Bar, like Judges, are dependent upon votes for elections. Lawyers and the public vote for Judges, but only lawyers vote for Bar positions which influence the practice and regulation of lawyers. When corporate attorneys outnumber private practioners, or civil rights lawyers, with the potential majority of votes coming from corporate firms, those with authority within the Bar, and on the bench, have an incentive to pass judgments in favor of corporate firms and therefore Big Business, to benefit themselves and ensure their re-election.
Students faced with debt, "forced" into corporate law, benefits big business, which in turn eventually gives a return to the law school through the form of donations, contributions, and creation of law school alumni with deeper pockets.
In Europe, a student may go directly from high school (our equivalent of high school), to law school. They do not even call it "law school". In the U.K., students go to university where the "Law school" is simply the law department, like the science department, and department of social sciences, etc. It is a degree unto itself. Not only does this save money, where becoming a lawyer is possible in 3 years rather than 7 (4 years undergraduate and then 3 years law school), it gives students a head start on the practice. If a public school student takes advantage of AP law classes in their Jr. and Sr. years, they could eliminate the cost further to 2 years of law school, having earned credits for the 1st year already. Four years of undergraduate work may make a student "well-rounded" but it does not necessarily make a better lawyer. The LSAT is comprehensive and difficult enough to determine aptitude, and completion of high school with fair grades, should be sufficient for proof of stamina to the rigours of law.
I believe the U.S. should allow for both methods. The current U.S. way as an option, and the UK way as an option. Students from public high schools could go straight from graduation, to law school, with Civil Rights as a prep. If they want a brand name, or can afford to spend more money and time on college, they could elect to obtain a degree and then apply to law school.
Right now, law schools in the U.S. require undergraduate degree. In a few states, there is a "read-law" option where a student may study the law under the mentorship of a licensed attorney, without going to law school, and take the Bar. This option should also be allowed to continue. In the very few (5?) states that allow this, surrounding states have decided to apply pressure and discriminate. This creates a kind of monopoly on who is able to access the Justice System--benefiting law schools and Big Business. For example: In Washington state it is legal to aquire a license without going to law school. However, Oregon's state Bar passed a recent law (couple years ago) prohibiting such Washington lawyers from practicing in their courts. Therefore, while a law school educated lawyer has access to practice in various states, with very few additional requirements to obtain a license to do so, the "read-law" student is restricted from the same equal access.
The general public needs better education, through public schools, of civil rights. When many former lawyers enter politics, and serve big business and private interests, right under our nose, kids could be learning and discussing alternatives to counter these actions, and they can come up with ideas for change, before they acquire the legal right to vote as a citizen.
As the commenter to my last post on this issue pointed out, we are lacking civil rights minded lawyers. When students come out of 7 years of college, burdened with debt, their choices are restricted; far more students go into corporate law than not. This strengthens corporations. The few who choose or can afford to go into public interest, find fewer jobs. Making Civil Rights studies mandatory would create new and interesting public interest jobs for lawyers, at least in education. However, there is a serious need and shortage of civil rights/public interests attorneys who will litigate and enforce our rights. Out of the few civil rights attorneys, most require payment from their clients up front and as they go. The poor, the very same whose rights are trampled most, who cannot afford to pay these rates. Most volunteer lawyers organizations are stretched thin with resources, and take the easiest, most clear-cut and simple petty issues. No local volunteer agency will take on a case that, albeit with merit, and consequence, could cost them most of their time and resources in a complicated OR political battle. The general public is often oblivious to the cost of not getting involved. One citizens' seeming "personal" battle, unrepresented and defeated, may set precedent that affects the lives of many others in the long run. It is well known that some lawyers and firms will actually "create" battles with "opponents" who are on the same side for the sole reason of creating precedent in their favor (this happened in the case of Carrie Buck, at the turn of the century, who was sterilized without consent and brought to trial for the sole purpose of establishing the now overturned legal right of the state to sterilize those they deemed "unfit" for procreation). Where the purpose is not to set precedent, it may simply be a case of harassment--using the unequal provisions of the justice system to discriminate against a weaker party (poor, disabled, etc) for their benefit, interests, and sometimes even pleasure and satisfaction.
I asked once why it was a right for someone accused of a crime to have a public defender, but not someone who had their civil rights violated. I never got an answer. But I think I know. Both the rich and the poor have historically been accused of crime. It is more often the poor that are discriminated against or abused, with regard to civil rights, than the rich, which is perhaps why the laws, which were written by wealthier men, are empathetic in the right to a public defender for crime, but not civil rights. At any rate, for a lawyer to defend those who most often need a civil rights defense, he or she needs to be paid. And if their client is not paying them, and the adversarial party is the corporation or individual with money (which is practically always the case), how will they support themselves, or their practice? Quite often, there is even discrimination against the poor by a jury and usually Judge, so, knowing this, very few cases are brought to trial or even taken up for settlement. A lawyer usually requires a fiery personal passion for the cause to be willing to risk a civil rights case, and better than average requirement for evidence. How can a civil rights attorney support themself? and fight the good fight for the public interest? Few organizations receive funding to do this: the ACLU perhaps, and a few others. Some "public interest" groups such as government attorneys for the FBI or other agencies, are crippled by bureacracy and politics.
That said, with no provision for the right to an attorney for violations of civil rights, even police and those within "government" will continue to violate these rights with impunity. The rich and the corporations continue to strengthen, unchecked. There is no accountability and they have nothing to fear. No check or balance against harassment of the poor, civil rights abuses, discrimination, or unequal application of the laws. The unequal provisions in the law serves the rich. The rich grow richer and stronger, and the poor grow poorer and weaker, victims of the system and defenseless as some lawyers, who may wish to assist, are also paralyzed with the fear that representing such a group will be taking on a war against Goliath, and know it is unlikely they will be victorious. These lawyers do not have the resources to fight the big dogs, and have already seen the "examples" made of "silly" idealistic attorneys who put principles a priority over "business" sense. Law schools enforce this idea, teaching students they are fools if they try to fight this, and that the cost will be bankruptcy and failure. Public school students are not the only ones prepared to be "grist for the mill", the very students who may enter law school with a dream of helping others are brainwashed and deconstructed to be this same "grist", lawyers who will not challenge the status quo or are afraid of doing so. Because so many attorneys have gone to the side of private interests and are corrupt themselves, the public loses faith in the ability of lawyers to create change and protect their rights. The lack of support for the rights of the poor and middle class, from attorneys, leads to lack of support for lawyers to fight a good fight and vice versa. If the public does not realize that even lawyers are being brainwashed by the system, they are unsympathetic and blind to the problem, making them less likely to organize together with attorneys, and less likely to make contributions to the public interest causes some lawyers may wish to defend or fight. Citizens and good lawyers are then isolated from one another, which is exactly what the rich minority, which holds 80% of land and monies in the country, want. Without trust between citizens and attorneys who wish to help, nothing will change. It is true that many attorneys serve their own interests and even "make deals" with the richer adversary, to benefit themselves rather than their clients. But citizens must be on the active look-out for lawyers who do show promise to create change, who have ethics, and find ways to support them so they are empowered to serve us. Even the middle class, if they can afford to pay for a lawyer when needed, are affected by the imbalance of powers when the poor are oppressed. When the rich gain power and use the current system to bully the poor, this strengthens the rich, and eventually makes it more difficult for even the middle class to fight their own battles against the rich or private interest. Additionally, that "private" and "personal" battle leveled against a poor person by the rich, may be an attempt to set precedent through the weakest link. Knowing this, the middle class could be looking for opportunities to support public interests by making donations and supporting civil rights lawyers.
Therefore, we the people, finding ourselves without protection against such schemes, and subject to continued violations of our civil rights; having witnessed the increasing powers of private interest at cost to public good, by unequal distribution of resources, should demand every public school to serve the public interest and level the playing field by improving the position of the public school student through education on rights and how to effect change. Secondly, we should demand a change in law, to provide the option for direct entrance from high school into law to alleviate the burden of debt and involuntary servitude of law students to corporate firms which serve Big Business, and free students to work for public interest.
Finally, someone needs to start providing incentives and grant monies for the EQUAL defense and protections of civil rights, and the law should be changed to either provide for the RIGHT of representation for civil rights cases for the indigent or poor, where it is clear the other party, Plaintiff or Defense, is monied and has an unfair advantage and access to the courts, simply because of a great disparity of resources and political clout.
Making Civil Rights study mandatory--how could ANYONE argue against it? The only area of "cost" would possibly be higher taxes to pay for additional instructors/lawyers and curriculum--but any parent or kid considering the benefits and alternative, would be convinced this is a wise investment and return on their money.
In fact, I believe it would make jr. high and high school a lot more interesting. By jr. high, one is able to think, argue, and examine philosophies and structures. As a tangent, I also would advocate teaching such a class with a combination of ages and grades, to more effectively model the real world and allow older kids to mentor the younger on such issues. I believe groups or classes should be formed from pulling kids from 7th, 8th, and 9th grade, and that in high school, classes should pull from 10th, 11th, and 12th. Or, if high schools are 9th-12th, a combination of these grades, and in jr. high a combination of 6th, 7th, and 8th, or only 7th and 8th, depending upon how a school is already organized by grades.
And while some kids complain about the practical application of trig or creative writing in "real life", I believe they would be inspired to study civil rights. For one example: some kids, by that age, are getting into trouble with drugs and are already entering "the system". By becoming involved, and interested in something at school, this would then provide incentive to stay in school, as a way to become socially and street smart as to their civil rights. The incentive to stay in school leads to decline in delinquent behavior. They are learning about something that not only means something to them, but is empowering. Sports keep some kids off drugs, who are motivated to play sports. But there are plenty of kids with no interest in sports who fall through the cracks and who would be the type to embrace civil rights studies. The incentive? Learn the system, outside of the system. If a kid screws up, they should be allowed to apply their mistake to their learning experience at least once.
The rest of the public school kids, as well as those at risk for drop-out, who may actually have less hands-on experience with the system, would learn about it through projects, debate, lecture, discussion, and practice organizing a protest or fundraiser or even legislative measure.
Other simple practical things could also be covered, besides structure of government and laws. Things like, "How to Write a Complaint" to an organization; how to document communications and "get" and "put" things "in writing; and other proactive and defense ways of protecting ones rights. Even practical advice like keeping a disposable camera in the glovebox in case of auto accident. Some basic things people who may not be able to afford an attorney, should know to minimize and prevent risk to their liberties and rights.
To prevent kids from being bullied and turning into Columbine shooters, examination of civil rights torts for harassment, no-contact orders, intentional infliction of emotional distress. To prevent sexual assaults, early education about definitions of assault and case law and examples as a warning and to inform others of their rights. Civil Rights should cover not only torts but criminal law as well, the distinctions, and ethics.
Examination of the government structure and how a person or group may introduce change, in a practical way, with application. Studies of the state Bill of Rights and federal Bill of Rights.
How else does the general public protect themselves against corporate interests that seem distant but will directly affect their personal lives? How else do they gain confidence and understanding of the system enough to make it work for them, and go to the polls in droves? The rich get a private education, parents, and mentors, at any early age, to teach them these things, and how to operate in their best interests, at sacrifice of public interest and common good. They learn how to manipulate and take advantage of others in order to secure and strengthen their family finances. They get people elected, and make laws, that are self-serving and harm the public, with little protest. How? Exploitation of the ignorance of the public.
By the time kids are adults, in the working world, some before they are 18 years old, they do not have the time or energy to learn the ropes. They don't have time to research laws, or find out what their rights are, or how to navigate the legal and social resources; they are simply trying to support themselves. Some kids go to college. It is inevitable that some will not. Knowing our civil rights is a must for either path.
This would also create public interest jobs, in education, for attorneys. I believe the class should be taught by a licensed attorney, or team of 2, who will devote their energies and knowledge to the students: free legal aid (not representing individual cases, but providing instruction) for prevention, protection, direction, discussion, and guidance. It should be a right for every public school student to have this class, not a priviledge. What parent or student wouldn't want this? As for exemptions, someone could opt out for religious reasons, but why? when the class would also cover religious liberties and rights?
I would go further, to say at least 1 out of 3 years worth of law school could be accomplished in high school, through this class and an added emphasis which would be optional. I am thinking of the Advanced Placement model already employed by high schools, where students may take AP classes in various topics to earn college credit in advance. In the 11th and 12th grade, special emphasis classes as electives should be available, in order to accomplish more specialized instruction in law. In that case, the fees should not exceed fees for participation in sports or music or other activities. Additional jobs for attorneys would be created for the special emphasis class, and 2nd year volunteers from private law schools could participate as mentors and add it to their "community service" portion of their resume. Those at private law schools may still retain their brand-name or "tier" designations, but at least those who cannot afford private school will receive a chance to learn and obtain info from a sort of extensive "pre-law" emphasis that each public school would provide. If private law schools don't like the idea of public school students getting a head start in jr. high and high school, they can also offer their classes to private jr. high and high schools, to stay competitive, if racing against the clock is a factor.
In the special emphasis class, LSAT prep should be routine. No student of the class should be required to pay for a special LSAT prep course that runs into the thousands. It should be provided in the high schools, at minimal cost for perhaps books and a small registration fee.
The practice of law is specific. Bachelor's degrees may prepare students for scholastics, but they do not guarantee success in law school, or more importantly, in the real world. Law schools in the U.S. accept Bachelor's degrees in any major because they claim they are mainly looking for a foundation and proof of follow-through or dedication. However, law schools are corporations that are supported by other corporations. If a student comes into law school with college debt, and acquires further debt from law school, they are then obligated to take the job at the corporate firm which works for big business, in order to pay off their debt. This cycle eventually benefits law schools themselves...
Big Business rewards the corporate firm, and the corporate firm then gives big business a perk by making donations to the state Bar, and encouraging the corporate attorneys to win positions of influence within the Bar. When the Bar is in the pocket of Big Business, the corporate attorneys get a free pass or at least partial treatment when or if a complaint is alleged against said lawyers, for misconduct. Employees of the Bar, like Judges, are dependent upon votes for elections. Lawyers and the public vote for Judges, but only lawyers vote for Bar positions which influence the practice and regulation of lawyers. When corporate attorneys outnumber private practioners, or civil rights lawyers, with the potential majority of votes coming from corporate firms, those with authority within the Bar, and on the bench, have an incentive to pass judgments in favor of corporate firms and therefore Big Business, to benefit themselves and ensure their re-election.
Students faced with debt, "forced" into corporate law, benefits big business, which in turn eventually gives a return to the law school through the form of donations, contributions, and creation of law school alumni with deeper pockets.
In Europe, a student may go directly from high school (our equivalent of high school), to law school. They do not even call it "law school". In the U.K., students go to university where the "Law school" is simply the law department, like the science department, and department of social sciences, etc. It is a degree unto itself. Not only does this save money, where becoming a lawyer is possible in 3 years rather than 7 (4 years undergraduate and then 3 years law school), it gives students a head start on the practice. If a public school student takes advantage of AP law classes in their Jr. and Sr. years, they could eliminate the cost further to 2 years of law school, having earned credits for the 1st year already. Four years of undergraduate work may make a student "well-rounded" but it does not necessarily make a better lawyer. The LSAT is comprehensive and difficult enough to determine aptitude, and completion of high school with fair grades, should be sufficient for proof of stamina to the rigours of law.
I believe the U.S. should allow for both methods. The current U.S. way as an option, and the UK way as an option. Students from public high schools could go straight from graduation, to law school, with Civil Rights as a prep. If they want a brand name, or can afford to spend more money and time on college, they could elect to obtain a degree and then apply to law school.
Right now, law schools in the U.S. require undergraduate degree. In a few states, there is a "read-law" option where a student may study the law under the mentorship of a licensed attorney, without going to law school, and take the Bar. This option should also be allowed to continue. In the very few (5?) states that allow this, surrounding states have decided to apply pressure and discriminate. This creates a kind of monopoly on who is able to access the Justice System--benefiting law schools and Big Business. For example: In Washington state it is legal to aquire a license without going to law school. However, Oregon's state Bar passed a recent law (couple years ago) prohibiting such Washington lawyers from practicing in their courts. Therefore, while a law school educated lawyer has access to practice in various states, with very few additional requirements to obtain a license to do so, the "read-law" student is restricted from the same equal access.
The general public needs better education, through public schools, of civil rights. When many former lawyers enter politics, and serve big business and private interests, right under our nose, kids could be learning and discussing alternatives to counter these actions, and they can come up with ideas for change, before they acquire the legal right to vote as a citizen.
As the commenter to my last post on this issue pointed out, we are lacking civil rights minded lawyers. When students come out of 7 years of college, burdened with debt, their choices are restricted; far more students go into corporate law than not. This strengthens corporations. The few who choose or can afford to go into public interest, find fewer jobs. Making Civil Rights studies mandatory would create new and interesting public interest jobs for lawyers, at least in education. However, there is a serious need and shortage of civil rights/public interests attorneys who will litigate and enforce our rights. Out of the few civil rights attorneys, most require payment from their clients up front and as they go. The poor, the very same whose rights are trampled most, who cannot afford to pay these rates. Most volunteer lawyers organizations are stretched thin with resources, and take the easiest, most clear-cut and simple petty issues. No local volunteer agency will take on a case that, albeit with merit, and consequence, could cost them most of their time and resources in a complicated OR political battle. The general public is often oblivious to the cost of not getting involved. One citizens' seeming "personal" battle, unrepresented and defeated, may set precedent that affects the lives of many others in the long run. It is well known that some lawyers and firms will actually "create" battles with "opponents" who are on the same side for the sole reason of creating precedent in their favor (this happened in the case of Carrie Buck, at the turn of the century, who was sterilized without consent and brought to trial for the sole purpose of establishing the now overturned legal right of the state to sterilize those they deemed "unfit" for procreation). Where the purpose is not to set precedent, it may simply be a case of harassment--using the unequal provisions of the justice system to discriminate against a weaker party (poor, disabled, etc) for their benefit, interests, and sometimes even pleasure and satisfaction.
I asked once why it was a right for someone accused of a crime to have a public defender, but not someone who had their civil rights violated. I never got an answer. But I think I know. Both the rich and the poor have historically been accused of crime. It is more often the poor that are discriminated against or abused, with regard to civil rights, than the rich, which is perhaps why the laws, which were written by wealthier men, are empathetic in the right to a public defender for crime, but not civil rights. At any rate, for a lawyer to defend those who most often need a civil rights defense, he or she needs to be paid. And if their client is not paying them, and the adversarial party is the corporation or individual with money (which is practically always the case), how will they support themselves, or their practice? Quite often, there is even discrimination against the poor by a jury and usually Judge, so, knowing this, very few cases are brought to trial or even taken up for settlement. A lawyer usually requires a fiery personal passion for the cause to be willing to risk a civil rights case, and better than average requirement for evidence. How can a civil rights attorney support themself? and fight the good fight for the public interest? Few organizations receive funding to do this: the ACLU perhaps, and a few others. Some "public interest" groups such as government attorneys for the FBI or other agencies, are crippled by bureacracy and politics.
That said, with no provision for the right to an attorney for violations of civil rights, even police and those within "government" will continue to violate these rights with impunity. The rich and the corporations continue to strengthen, unchecked. There is no accountability and they have nothing to fear. No check or balance against harassment of the poor, civil rights abuses, discrimination, or unequal application of the laws. The unequal provisions in the law serves the rich. The rich grow richer and stronger, and the poor grow poorer and weaker, victims of the system and defenseless as some lawyers, who may wish to assist, are also paralyzed with the fear that representing such a group will be taking on a war against Goliath, and know it is unlikely they will be victorious. These lawyers do not have the resources to fight the big dogs, and have already seen the "examples" made of "silly" idealistic attorneys who put principles a priority over "business" sense. Law schools enforce this idea, teaching students they are fools if they try to fight this, and that the cost will be bankruptcy and failure. Public school students are not the only ones prepared to be "grist for the mill", the very students who may enter law school with a dream of helping others are brainwashed and deconstructed to be this same "grist", lawyers who will not challenge the status quo or are afraid of doing so. Because so many attorneys have gone to the side of private interests and are corrupt themselves, the public loses faith in the ability of lawyers to create change and protect their rights. The lack of support for the rights of the poor and middle class, from attorneys, leads to lack of support for lawyers to fight a good fight and vice versa. If the public does not realize that even lawyers are being brainwashed by the system, they are unsympathetic and blind to the problem, making them less likely to organize together with attorneys, and less likely to make contributions to the public interest causes some lawyers may wish to defend or fight. Citizens and good lawyers are then isolated from one another, which is exactly what the rich minority, which holds 80% of land and monies in the country, want. Without trust between citizens and attorneys who wish to help, nothing will change. It is true that many attorneys serve their own interests and even "make deals" with the richer adversary, to benefit themselves rather than their clients. But citizens must be on the active look-out for lawyers who do show promise to create change, who have ethics, and find ways to support them so they are empowered to serve us. Even the middle class, if they can afford to pay for a lawyer when needed, are affected by the imbalance of powers when the poor are oppressed. When the rich gain power and use the current system to bully the poor, this strengthens the rich, and eventually makes it more difficult for even the middle class to fight their own battles against the rich or private interest. Additionally, that "private" and "personal" battle leveled against a poor person by the rich, may be an attempt to set precedent through the weakest link. Knowing this, the middle class could be looking for opportunities to support public interests by making donations and supporting civil rights lawyers.
Therefore, we the people, finding ourselves without protection against such schemes, and subject to continued violations of our civil rights; having witnessed the increasing powers of private interest at cost to public good, by unequal distribution of resources, should demand every public school to serve the public interest and level the playing field by improving the position of the public school student through education on rights and how to effect change. Secondly, we should demand a change in law, to provide the option for direct entrance from high school into law to alleviate the burden of debt and involuntary servitude of law students to corporate firms which serve Big Business, and free students to work for public interest.
Finally, someone needs to start providing incentives and grant monies for the EQUAL defense and protections of civil rights, and the law should be changed to either provide for the RIGHT of representation for civil rights cases for the indigent or poor, where it is clear the other party, Plaintiff or Defense, is monied and has an unfair advantage and access to the courts, simply because of a great disparity of resources and political clout.
NFTN 18: Lisa Laughs
Sometimes, Lisa laughed. A genuine laugh that reached her eyes. I told a few stories I thought would amuse her. Once I told her some of the names in my family. She asked how I got my unusual name, Cameo. Lisa's name was common, as was Brian's, and she had named her children traditional names: Philip, Christie, and Lauren. I simply told Lisa, "Oh, I come from a family of unusual names..." I began to rattle off: "Cameo, Levi, Rory, Rani, Armando, Valente, Locklyn, Alita, Dicksie-Dael, Bubba,...(laughter usually began here)...and then there's my Dad, Bob." Everyone always cracked up at Bubba and Bob. And Lisa thought it was so funny she asked me to repeat it to others. "Tell them your family's names!" she'd say. Then I let them know there was a beloved family pet before me, a dog, named Cameo.
Another time, a year or two after I had quit work with the Thebaults, I sent the kids a card with a funny story. Lisa wrote back that they'd enjoyed the story and had laughed. And yet, that Christmas, when I sent a card, Lisa sent one back to me, long after New Years, which had been "regifted". Now I've heard of "regifting", but recarding? It was actually a Thebault family card, with a name crossed out that it had been addressed to. There was a simple line through the name. I didn't write after that. I kept in touch lightly at first, when I thought about the kids, and thought one day they might want to contact me, but realized it wasn't worth it. I would not write about the kids even today, if they were younger, out of concern they may read my blog and be hurt or offended by any part of it. But by this time, they are grown, and the youngest child I watched, Lauren, is 16, Christie is 18, and Philip is in college. They are old enough to withstand what I write and may remember some things themselves. And if they wish, they can choose to deny, to themselves, or to others, that any part of what I write is true. It would be a stretch to believe they oppose the attitudes of their parents, or have a different philosophy about equality.
There is a book that comes to mind: The Age of Innocence, by Edith Wharton.
Another time, a year or two after I had quit work with the Thebaults, I sent the kids a card with a funny story. Lisa wrote back that they'd enjoyed the story and had laughed. And yet, that Christmas, when I sent a card, Lisa sent one back to me, long after New Years, which had been "regifted". Now I've heard of "regifting", but recarding? It was actually a Thebault family card, with a name crossed out that it had been addressed to. There was a simple line through the name. I didn't write after that. I kept in touch lightly at first, when I thought about the kids, and thought one day they might want to contact me, but realized it wasn't worth it. I would not write about the kids even today, if they were younger, out of concern they may read my blog and be hurt or offended by any part of it. But by this time, they are grown, and the youngest child I watched, Lauren, is 16, Christie is 18, and Philip is in college. They are old enough to withstand what I write and may remember some things themselves. And if they wish, they can choose to deny, to themselves, or to others, that any part of what I write is true. It would be a stretch to believe they oppose the attitudes of their parents, or have a different philosophy about equality.
There is a book that comes to mind: The Age of Innocence, by Edith Wharton.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Bear: Lost Language
Hello Little Bear,
You are very quick to learn things, and you laugh at the funny parts of books for much older children, without prompting from me. However, your language has been lost.
I must write about this here, because perhaps I will later know the reason, or this will correct itself. I was told, when this happened several months ago, that I shouldn't worry, because, I was told, sometimes infants and toddlers only focus on one thing at a time. So, I was told, perhaps you were focusing on motor skills rather than language right now. That made some sense to me, but I was still a little worried. I thought perhaps too, you are confused with hearing Spanish and English from me and others and don't know which to use. Yet in the last month I have become increasingly worried. This cannot be normal. It is certaintly NOT normal child development, even as I am aware of variations from child to child.
My mother tells me I began speaking at 9 months of age, and that my first word was "Kitty". She and my father say I was a real "talker" and called me "Chatty Cathy" after a doll that could talk which was popular at that time. I quickly amassed a large vocabulary at a very young age. My brother on the other hand, barely said one word until he was 2 years old and then he spoke in complete sentences. You, Little Bear, have not followed either one of these patterns.
This is from my notes on you (before I was blogging) from:
November 30, 2006: He hasn't said any words, but yesterday he was trying to say "thank you". He tried it over and over. He gives me a kiss, and I'll say "thank you honey!" and he goes, "ank-ha" for "thank you"--he says it with the same intonation as my thank you so I know he's trying to say thank you. (age 6 months old)
December 16, 2006: --'s main words are: "mam", "mama", "hi", and "thank you", but he doesn't always say them consistently. He's very friendly. He likes to hear animal sounds and one day, he copied them, but hasn't done so since. (7 months)
January 3, 2007: --- just said "key"! and "keys" after i picked up my keys, talking about them and he reached for them saying the word. (almost 8 months)
January 6, 2007: Anyway, wanted you to know, yesterday ---was iniating peek-a-boo to play with me, also played ball with me by giving it to me after I gave it to him, and he said 4 words yesterday (3 new): hi, dock, bubble, and there. He's said hi before, but the others are new. When I was blowing bubbles, and talking about the bubbles, he said "bubble" and when I was singing "Hickory Dickory Dock" he said "dock" a few times, and he also said "there" when I was saying something but I don't remember. This morning, he heard a song and patted his thigh with his hand, in time to the beat. (couple days shy of 8 months)
January 21, 2007:---watched as I paid attention to Emma making raspberries and has been doing this ever since. Also, a couple days ago, I visited Gardenia and held Austin, and ---watched. I paid attention to --- too and he didn't seem to mind, but he was watching closely and when I talked to Austin, who only squealed a certain way, later, ---started doing this, to get my attention. He mimics the squeal exactly. I realized --- picks up things other kids do that he thinks get my attention and makes me want to hold them...He's been babbling with intonation since 6 months and tries out new words now and then...should be noted that the sounds --- is imitating, by other babies, are less sophisticated and are actually a regression of his own speech development. he goes from articulating vowel and consanant (msp) sounds to preverbal stuff he did many, many, months ago. makes me realize the power of peer pressure and what how easily kids are influenced and pick stuff up, especially when they perceive a certain behavior is "rewarded" by/wish adult attention, or from someone they love .
January 27, 2007: i believe --- DID put a bottle nipple to a baby dolls mouth yesterday, and today i said "bye bye!" and --- said "goodbye" (so perfect and proper) but he never said it again. he's said these words out of nowhere and i wonder if he even knows it bc then he doesn't repeat them!
February 2, 2007: Yesterday evening, at the bookstore, --- was imitating the sounds of: a goat, a cat, and an owl, when we went over some animal books. And he kept saying "kiss" all day, when I would kiss him. I think this is regular vocab now. He seems to be more expressive everyday.
February 12, 2007: a couple days ago i was patting your back and then you patted my back. i said, "pat-pat" and you said, "pat-pat" right back to me.
March 28, 2007: He pointed to a red dot on a glass I was holding and I said "red". Then I pointed to a couple of white dots and said, "These dots are white". ---pointed back to the red dot after moving his finger to the white ones, and said, "Wed." Then, today I asked him, at breakfast, what a doggie says. He said, "woof" perfectly. Then he made a cat sound when I asked, a duck sound, a horse sound, a sheep sound, and a cow sound ("mooo"). When I said to him, "A sheep says "baaa"", he repeated, "sheep--baaa". .. He says peek-a-boo and today when he was looking at the zipper on my shirt and said "button". I said, "no, not a button, this is a zipper" and then he said zipper. He freaking said "zipper". If he sees a ball, he'll pick it up and say "a ball!" and does with other things.
April 6, 2007: ...Also, about a month ago, he started saying "Gampa" and "Gamma". My grandparents first heard Grandpa. It's really clear. He says "walk". His vocabulary: Grandpa, grandma, mama, dog, kiss, thank you, ball, balloon, red, baby, button, zipper, truck, vroom-vroom, cup, milk, shoes, bottle,
April 8, 2007: more words in ----'s vocab: diaper, light, water, bear, walk, see, animal sounds, number, chicken, puppy, yellow, blue, drum. I just counted. He has a vocab of about 33 words. He LOVES numbers, more than the alphabet. We count to 20 sometimes, and then count other things in the day sometimes (how many stairs we climb, how many tires on a car).
April 9, 2007: yesterday ----said "garbage" several times when I was cleaning and telling him I was putting things in the garbage and we took the garbage out. .I just took the card from ____ and looked at it and ----was looking at it. There are words on the top of the card and I think he wanted me to read them. "Hey Dude!" I said (this is what the card says). He just repeated, perfectly, "Hey Dude!"..
April 18, 2007: My own PCP focused on ---, and got distracted by him. I was talking about my issues and she just cut in, mid-sentence, and said, "You know, your son is VERY intelligent." She kept going on about him. He was all over the room. The toybox interested him for a second but they were babyish toys and he wanted to explore wires coming out from the walls, wall posters, mobiles, and find out what was behind the examining table. And he was jabbering away the whole time and then got insistent and wanted our attention. My PCP wanted to take over for my son's care too, but I already had him in Peds, where he went afterwards and the doctor there was also impressed and made no argument about having me contact a gifted kids center, the Robinson Center at U of W. The last couple days I wrote down words --- has said: 15th: bathroom, t.v. banana, word, fish, done, good job, couple, 17th: my ball (he's been saying this a long, long, time), graham cracker, poop (got poop), flower, 18th: glasses, all done, my jeans, curtain, mama's shower, water (as of this time of 10:10 this morning).
May 11, 2007: One day, about a month ago, I was saying, "No ---, no, no..." and ---looked at me with an impish grin, showing his teeth and nodding his head up and down, he said, "YESS!" "YESSss!" and kept doing what he was doing, watching me as he continued.
June 4, 2007: ---- is talking a lot, and can count to 5. He surprised me with number recognition when he pointed to a "10" and said clearly, "ten!". After all of this, you just stopped talking. Granny and Grandpa noticed because you don't even say "Grandpa" or "Gramma" anymore. You make sounds, and babble, and say "Kitty" and have even made a 3 word sentence a couple of times. But you don't talk anymore. You're on target for your age, not behind at all, but for YOU, you're definitely not where you were. Otherwise, you seem happy and healthy, so I'll just wait and see if there's a vocabulary explosion after age 2. Maybe you're more self-conscious now and are organizing language in your mind first? I've only included exerpts about your language development, but I have records of everything else, which I began when you were about 4 months old.
Love you!
You are very quick to learn things, and you laugh at the funny parts of books for much older children, without prompting from me. However, your language has been lost.
I must write about this here, because perhaps I will later know the reason, or this will correct itself. I was told, when this happened several months ago, that I shouldn't worry, because, I was told, sometimes infants and toddlers only focus on one thing at a time. So, I was told, perhaps you were focusing on motor skills rather than language right now. That made some sense to me, but I was still a little worried. I thought perhaps too, you are confused with hearing Spanish and English from me and others and don't know which to use. Yet in the last month I have become increasingly worried. This cannot be normal. It is certaintly NOT normal child development, even as I am aware of variations from child to child.
My mother tells me I began speaking at 9 months of age, and that my first word was "Kitty". She and my father say I was a real "talker" and called me "Chatty Cathy" after a doll that could talk which was popular at that time. I quickly amassed a large vocabulary at a very young age. My brother on the other hand, barely said one word until he was 2 years old and then he spoke in complete sentences. You, Little Bear, have not followed either one of these patterns.
This is from my notes on you (before I was blogging) from:
November 30, 2006: He hasn't said any words, but yesterday he was trying to say "thank you". He tried it over and over. He gives me a kiss, and I'll say "thank you honey!" and he goes, "ank-ha" for "thank you"--he says it with the same intonation as my thank you so I know he's trying to say thank you. (age 6 months old)
December 16, 2006: --'s main words are: "mam", "mama", "hi", and "thank you", but he doesn't always say them consistently. He's very friendly. He likes to hear animal sounds and one day, he copied them, but hasn't done so since. (7 months)
January 3, 2007: --- just said "key"! and "keys" after i picked up my keys, talking about them and he reached for them saying the word. (almost 8 months)
January 6, 2007: Anyway, wanted you to know, yesterday ---was iniating peek-a-boo to play with me, also played ball with me by giving it to me after I gave it to him, and he said 4 words yesterday (3 new): hi, dock, bubble, and there. He's said hi before, but the others are new. When I was blowing bubbles, and talking about the bubbles, he said "bubble" and when I was singing "Hickory Dickory Dock" he said "dock" a few times, and he also said "there" when I was saying something but I don't remember. This morning, he heard a song and patted his thigh with his hand, in time to the beat. (couple days shy of 8 months)
January 21, 2007:---watched as I paid attention to Emma making raspberries and has been doing this ever since. Also, a couple days ago, I visited Gardenia and held Austin, and ---watched. I paid attention to --- too and he didn't seem to mind, but he was watching closely and when I talked to Austin, who only squealed a certain way, later, ---started doing this, to get my attention. He mimics the squeal exactly. I realized --- picks up things other kids do that he thinks get my attention and makes me want to hold them...He's been babbling with intonation since 6 months and tries out new words now and then...should be noted that the sounds --- is imitating, by other babies, are less sophisticated and are actually a regression of his own speech development. he goes from articulating vowel and consanant (msp) sounds to preverbal stuff he did many, many, months ago. makes me realize the power of peer pressure and what how easily kids are influenced and pick stuff up, especially when they perceive a certain behavior is "rewarded" by/wish adult attention, or from someone they love .
January 27, 2007: i believe --- DID put a bottle nipple to a baby dolls mouth yesterday, and today i said "bye bye!" and --- said "goodbye" (so perfect and proper) but he never said it again. he's said these words out of nowhere and i wonder if he even knows it bc then he doesn't repeat them!
February 2, 2007: Yesterday evening, at the bookstore, --- was imitating the sounds of: a goat, a cat, and an owl, when we went over some animal books. And he kept saying "kiss" all day, when I would kiss him. I think this is regular vocab now. He seems to be more expressive everyday.
February 12, 2007: a couple days ago i was patting your back and then you patted my back. i said, "pat-pat" and you said, "pat-pat" right back to me.
March 28, 2007: He pointed to a red dot on a glass I was holding and I said "red". Then I pointed to a couple of white dots and said, "These dots are white". ---pointed back to the red dot after moving his finger to the white ones, and said, "Wed." Then, today I asked him, at breakfast, what a doggie says. He said, "woof" perfectly. Then he made a cat sound when I asked, a duck sound, a horse sound, a sheep sound, and a cow sound ("mooo"). When I said to him, "A sheep says "baaa"", he repeated, "sheep--baaa". .. He says peek-a-boo and today when he was looking at the zipper on my shirt and said "button". I said, "no, not a button, this is a zipper" and then he said zipper. He freaking said "zipper". If he sees a ball, he'll pick it up and say "a ball!" and does with other things.
April 6, 2007: ...Also, about a month ago, he started saying "Gampa" and "Gamma". My grandparents first heard Grandpa. It's really clear. He says "walk". His vocabulary: Grandpa, grandma, mama, dog, kiss, thank you, ball, balloon, red, baby, button, zipper, truck, vroom-vroom, cup, milk, shoes, bottle,
April 8, 2007: more words in ----'s vocab: diaper, light, water, bear, walk, see, animal sounds, number, chicken, puppy, yellow, blue, drum. I just counted. He has a vocab of about 33 words. He LOVES numbers, more than the alphabet. We count to 20 sometimes, and then count other things in the day sometimes (how many stairs we climb, how many tires on a car).
April 9, 2007: yesterday ----said "garbage" several times when I was cleaning and telling him I was putting things in the garbage and we took the garbage out. .I just took the card from ____ and looked at it and ----was looking at it. There are words on the top of the card and I think he wanted me to read them. "Hey Dude!" I said (this is what the card says). He just repeated, perfectly, "Hey Dude!"..
April 18, 2007: My own PCP focused on ---, and got distracted by him. I was talking about my issues and she just cut in, mid-sentence, and said, "You know, your son is VERY intelligent." She kept going on about him. He was all over the room. The toybox interested him for a second but they were babyish toys and he wanted to explore wires coming out from the walls, wall posters, mobiles, and find out what was behind the examining table. And he was jabbering away the whole time and then got insistent and wanted our attention. My PCP wanted to take over for my son's care too, but I already had him in Peds, where he went afterwards and the doctor there was also impressed and made no argument about having me contact a gifted kids center, the Robinson Center at U of W. The last couple days I wrote down words --- has said: 15th: bathroom, t.v. banana, word, fish, done, good job, couple, 17th: my ball (he's been saying this a long, long, time), graham cracker, poop (got poop), flower, 18th: glasses, all done, my jeans, curtain, mama's shower, water (as of this time of 10:10 this morning).
May 11, 2007: One day, about a month ago, I was saying, "No ---, no, no..." and ---looked at me with an impish grin, showing his teeth and nodding his head up and down, he said, "YESS!" "YESSss!" and kept doing what he was doing, watching me as he continued.
June 4, 2007: ---- is talking a lot, and can count to 5. He surprised me with number recognition when he pointed to a "10" and said clearly, "ten!". After all of this, you just stopped talking. Granny and Grandpa noticed because you don't even say "Grandpa" or "Gramma" anymore. You make sounds, and babble, and say "Kitty" and have even made a 3 word sentence a couple of times. But you don't talk anymore. You're on target for your age, not behind at all, but for YOU, you're definitely not where you were. Otherwise, you seem happy and healthy, so I'll just wait and see if there's a vocabulary explosion after age 2. Maybe you're more self-conscious now and are organizing language in your mind first? I've only included exerpts about your language development, but I have records of everything else, which I began when you were about 4 months old.
Love you!
Thursday, October 4, 2007
Organization of Blog and Civil Rights Ed. For Jr. High and High School
I wish there were folders with blogger. If there are, I don't know about it yet. I have sort of begun to organize my writings by putting thoughts to my son titled with the preface "Bear:". Current thoughts/journaling, I sort of prefaced with "Personal:". Justice system topics with "Justice:". And Notes From The Nanny with "NFTN:". But then there's Wenatchee/local (where I live now) stuff to write about, and personal stuff can also be justice system related...So I don't think I have a good system yet. The NFTN's are clearly defined though. I like how I've organized this and kept this in good order. The rest of my thoughts...?!!?! It's an organization problem. Oh, and I like the Bear designations bc they can be picked out as being directly written to my dear boy (who will one day read this entire thing). I don't know how to organize the rest yet.
I plan to follow the NFTNs through my entire past, in linear fashion with a timeline, from the first family I worked for, to the next, to church experiences, to my friend dying in car crash, to being held hostage with roommates, to the assistant job with the Rabbi's wife, etc., and up through and into all of the shady things that later came up with lawyers, judges, justice system, FBI, media, monks, and catholic church. That will take me up, eventually, to the present and when the past and present meet,I will then continue my blog as up-to-date and IF things have died down or turned around with my life, then I will devote my spared energies to writing on behalf of others and their experiences. For some reason, I stumble into things, unwittingly, and I'm sure there are more people to meet, and to write for, whose experiences need a voice, whose stories need to be heard or publicized. Even while harassed, still, with certain things, by certain people, I have attempted to help others. I wrote a letter in support of Mr. Richard Paey, to the Florida governor, a few months ago, for his pardon, and he has been pardoned. Not that I did it alone, but I contributed. Once, in college, I changed my professors mind on the euthanasia issue by my persuasive arguments and writing, so said my teacher. I felt really good about that; that I had been able to bring new ideas to someone's mind that helped them to better decide for themself what they believed and what the pros and cons were. I said to God, in my early 20s, when I was praying once about what to do with my life for a career: "God, if you want me to be a writer, then give me something to write about."
Even now, events are occuring which provide excellent material to use in my writing. Even if they are not good events, at some point, they will be seen for what they are. It's sort of funny, bc now that I'm finally writing about things, I notice certain persons are working overtime to try to justify things that were done in the past.
I am reading a fascinating book right now. I can only read a small bit at a time bc I seriously feel like I have cancer sometimes, I'm so weak and have to manage pain issues (among other things), and have a son who is active besides, but it is called "Myth America: Democracy vs. Capitalism" by William H. Boyer. I HAVE to write about it soon in a post, because the insights about how corporations got their power, and how their powers have increased since our federal and state constitutions and bills of rights were in place, and every American should know.
I believe every citizen, in at least jr. high and high school, should not only take English, Math, Science, and History...but should be required to take Civil Rights. If public education is all about giving all students equal opportunity, why are the poor still deprived of education about due process, search and seizure laws, discrimination law, and the politics of government, corporations, and oligarchy of the rich? Keeping the public ed. students uninformed leaves them wide open to personal violation of their civil rights and blind to the hand behind it, and how they might organize and be able to effect change. Only the rich can afford lawyers. In criminal matters, the poor do not have access to the law and their defense when the public defender is lousy and making deals with the PA, and they're sitting in jail completely dependent on faulty defense. In civil rights matters, no one who is poor is able to hire a lawyer to advocate for their rights. Only the rich are, and they do not usually have the need as much because people do not trample the rights of those who have power and money to fight back. Since when do the poor oppress the rich? If all the public ed. kids learned about this stuff early on, the current system couldn't stand. Enough people would organize, be informed, get the right people elected, and change laws. Right now, all those kids are, as Boyer says, "grist for the mill".
Civil rights are inherent, but codified. If these kids knew the law and politics, and had people come in as guest speakers, they would have a better chance of knowing equal opportunity. If teachers made filling out a dummy FAFSA a requirement, and instructed them about preparation for college in jr. high, instead of leaving it to parents who may not have attended college themselves, kids would be informed and have a hands-on tutorial on how easy it is to do.
Some schools still have Home Ec., or Shop as electives, but yet matters that affect their lives every day, are left unaddressed. Civil Rights should be a requirement for students and it should be for at least 4 years. Which would include law, politics, civil rights and rules, legal procedure, visiting the courtroom and following a case, debating topics, writing arguments, and organizing political or social fundraisers and rallies. If I had my way, it would not only be for the last 4 years in high school, but for jr. high as well. 7th, 8th, 9th, grade. Some kids drop out in high school, and knowing more about their rights and the laws, and the structure that may be working against them, and how to find a way to get things working for them would probably be an incentive to stay in school.
Students who wish to pursue law should have mock LSATs, though not required for all Civil Rights students. They should also have a chance to pass the Bar exam, if it's permitted in the state. The monopoly of law school over the justice system, which is simply another example of corporation and money-making should be abolished in all states so that it is not mandatory to pay hundreds of thousands. If law is taught in public school, students could be fully prepared to take the Bar at graduation, by attending a special emphasis class or elective with this sort of prep. What is 3 years of law school to 7 years of "law" in jr. high and high school, plus elective for emphasis? And at least everyone else will know enough to be motivated to effect change.
But...Who wants to raise up a bunch of lawyers and activists within the public school system? Law schools would fight it, and they are the lawyers and employers; the government might fight it, for fear of too many informed citizens causing an "uprising". And there are many who do not want anything that would threaten the status quo. Police wouldn't like it because it would be a check against their powers, and Judges wouldn't like it because then every citizen they face in a courtroom would know civil procedure, and just where to file their complaint regarding judicial fitness. Lawyers wouldn't like it because citizens wouldn't need them as much and it would be competition. Corporations would hate it.
I plan to follow the NFTNs through my entire past, in linear fashion with a timeline, from the first family I worked for, to the next, to church experiences, to my friend dying in car crash, to being held hostage with roommates, to the assistant job with the Rabbi's wife, etc., and up through and into all of the shady things that later came up with lawyers, judges, justice system, FBI, media, monks, and catholic church. That will take me up, eventually, to the present and when the past and present meet,I will then continue my blog as up-to-date and IF things have died down or turned around with my life, then I will devote my spared energies to writing on behalf of others and their experiences. For some reason, I stumble into things, unwittingly, and I'm sure there are more people to meet, and to write for, whose experiences need a voice, whose stories need to be heard or publicized. Even while harassed, still, with certain things, by certain people, I have attempted to help others. I wrote a letter in support of Mr. Richard Paey, to the Florida governor, a few months ago, for his pardon, and he has been pardoned. Not that I did it alone, but I contributed. Once, in college, I changed my professors mind on the euthanasia issue by my persuasive arguments and writing, so said my teacher. I felt really good about that; that I had been able to bring new ideas to someone's mind that helped them to better decide for themself what they believed and what the pros and cons were. I said to God, in my early 20s, when I was praying once about what to do with my life for a career: "God, if you want me to be a writer, then give me something to write about."
Even now, events are occuring which provide excellent material to use in my writing. Even if they are not good events, at some point, they will be seen for what they are. It's sort of funny, bc now that I'm finally writing about things, I notice certain persons are working overtime to try to justify things that were done in the past.
I am reading a fascinating book right now. I can only read a small bit at a time bc I seriously feel like I have cancer sometimes, I'm so weak and have to manage pain issues (among other things), and have a son who is active besides, but it is called "Myth America: Democracy vs. Capitalism" by William H. Boyer. I HAVE to write about it soon in a post, because the insights about how corporations got their power, and how their powers have increased since our federal and state constitutions and bills of rights were in place, and every American should know.
I believe every citizen, in at least jr. high and high school, should not only take English, Math, Science, and History...but should be required to take Civil Rights. If public education is all about giving all students equal opportunity, why are the poor still deprived of education about due process, search and seizure laws, discrimination law, and the politics of government, corporations, and oligarchy of the rich? Keeping the public ed. students uninformed leaves them wide open to personal violation of their civil rights and blind to the hand behind it, and how they might organize and be able to effect change. Only the rich can afford lawyers. In criminal matters, the poor do not have access to the law and their defense when the public defender is lousy and making deals with the PA, and they're sitting in jail completely dependent on faulty defense. In civil rights matters, no one who is poor is able to hire a lawyer to advocate for their rights. Only the rich are, and they do not usually have the need as much because people do not trample the rights of those who have power and money to fight back. Since when do the poor oppress the rich? If all the public ed. kids learned about this stuff early on, the current system couldn't stand. Enough people would organize, be informed, get the right people elected, and change laws. Right now, all those kids are, as Boyer says, "grist for the mill".
Civil rights are inherent, but codified. If these kids knew the law and politics, and had people come in as guest speakers, they would have a better chance of knowing equal opportunity. If teachers made filling out a dummy FAFSA a requirement, and instructed them about preparation for college in jr. high, instead of leaving it to parents who may not have attended college themselves, kids would be informed and have a hands-on tutorial on how easy it is to do.
Some schools still have Home Ec., or Shop as electives, but yet matters that affect their lives every day, are left unaddressed. Civil Rights should be a requirement for students and it should be for at least 4 years. Which would include law, politics, civil rights and rules, legal procedure, visiting the courtroom and following a case, debating topics, writing arguments, and organizing political or social fundraisers and rallies. If I had my way, it would not only be for the last 4 years in high school, but for jr. high as well. 7th, 8th, 9th, grade. Some kids drop out in high school, and knowing more about their rights and the laws, and the structure that may be working against them, and how to find a way to get things working for them would probably be an incentive to stay in school.
Students who wish to pursue law should have mock LSATs, though not required for all Civil Rights students. They should also have a chance to pass the Bar exam, if it's permitted in the state. The monopoly of law school over the justice system, which is simply another example of corporation and money-making should be abolished in all states so that it is not mandatory to pay hundreds of thousands. If law is taught in public school, students could be fully prepared to take the Bar at graduation, by attending a special emphasis class or elective with this sort of prep. What is 3 years of law school to 7 years of "law" in jr. high and high school, plus elective for emphasis? And at least everyone else will know enough to be motivated to effect change.
But...Who wants to raise up a bunch of lawyers and activists within the public school system? Law schools would fight it, and they are the lawyers and employers; the government might fight it, for fear of too many informed citizens causing an "uprising". And there are many who do not want anything that would threaten the status quo. Police wouldn't like it because it would be a check against their powers, and Judges wouldn't like it because then every citizen they face in a courtroom would know civil procedure, and just where to file their complaint regarding judicial fitness. Lawyers wouldn't like it because citizens wouldn't need them as much and it would be competition. Corporations would hate it.
NFTN 17: All Shut Up And No Place To Go
I used the Suburban when I was off-duty at the Shore. But there was really no place to go. Once I drove through a town with a ridiculously narrow road. Cars parked on either side of the street and one almost had to pull over to let the other go by on the opposite side. I was used to driving a station wagon, but it was far different from driving a huge Suburban. One day, I committed a hit-and-run. Sort of.
I was driving on that road and WHAM! hit the side mirror of another car that was parked. It broke off, but I was so panicked, trying to stay on the road and not hit an oncoming car, I didn't get a good look at the car. I tried to go back and find it, but couldn't find it. So I drove away. I told the Thebault's, who were thrilled, (Brian especially) when I told him I didn't know which car I hit so I left. Now that I think about it, maybe I should have gone to police? But I did make a good-faith effort to find it. The Thebaults told me how that wasn't as bad as what one of their foreign nannies had done. One closed the garage door down on the car, and was inside, and freaking out. Lisa laughed hysterically when she told me, tears almost coming to her eyes.
When back in Bedminster, I wanted to use the car to go to church mainly. There were no churches at the Shore--just casinos and nightclubs. I tried the most local church, and found it stiffling, so went in search of another church and the Thebaults were angry about my use of gasoline. I was working overtime and not paid for it, but they made a big deal about going more than 10 miles to a church. They lived in the middle of nowhere. They stopped filling the car up with gas. Then I was trapped. Not only did they try to restrict my use of the car, when I was told from the start I had unlimited use of the car, they would spring the "You're babysitting tonight" surprise on me, last minute, every single night they knew I was planning to get together with my friend Kelly. She went out and I rarely did. My workday ended at 7 p.m. and then I was technically free--unless I had to babysit.
My contract said I would babysit 2 nights week in addition to working 7-7. I ended up babysitting closer to 3-4 workingweek nights and one weekend night at well. And I was never given any notice. It was part of the way to "manage the help".
I told the Thebaults I wanted to go to church. I also told them I wanted to see Kelly at night. I don't remember being able to go out with Kelly once while with the Thebaults. When Lisa kept popping the babysitting surprise on me, I started giving them notice in advance. I thought perhaps they were forgetting I had plans already. What was typical was that I would tell Lisa I was going out one night, and let her know in advance and remind her that day. Then, about 10 minutes before 7 p.m., when I was off, Lisa would suddenly tell me, "I need you to babysit tonight." She claimed they hadn't known in advance. They gave me no notice when they went out, had others over, or went to PTA meetings. It happened over and over. She constantly usurped my plans. Then I was harassed by Lisa and Brian, who would tell me I didn't really know what being a nanny entailed, and that I was to be available to them around-the-clock, and they would basically tell me I was naive, stupid, young, and a bad nanny. When they continued to tell me these things, I began to doubt myself. Which was what they wanted. It made me more compliant.
I was not a foreign au pair. I was not stupid. I had an entire history behind me of good experiences with families and their children, and references to prove it. I knew the Thebaults were wrong, but I still began to doubt myself. I understand now how it is possible to be brainwashed, exploited, or abused, even if one should perhaps "know better".
I started giving Lisa advance notice, on a calendar, and with her approval. Lisa would go so far as to "approve" my future plans and dates. And then she deliberately rescinded her "okay" and would tell me again, last minute, that I had to babysit for them.
I was prevented and discouraged from going to church and I was prevented from going out with friends. I was not being paid for overtime and then they started making me pay for new things, like gas. I was isolated. I was becoming a slave.
I was driving on that road and WHAM! hit the side mirror of another car that was parked. It broke off, but I was so panicked, trying to stay on the road and not hit an oncoming car, I didn't get a good look at the car. I tried to go back and find it, but couldn't find it. So I drove away. I told the Thebault's, who were thrilled, (Brian especially) when I told him I didn't know which car I hit so I left. Now that I think about it, maybe I should have gone to police? But I did make a good-faith effort to find it. The Thebaults told me how that wasn't as bad as what one of their foreign nannies had done. One closed the garage door down on the car, and was inside, and freaking out. Lisa laughed hysterically when she told me, tears almost coming to her eyes.
When back in Bedminster, I wanted to use the car to go to church mainly. There were no churches at the Shore--just casinos and nightclubs. I tried the most local church, and found it stiffling, so went in search of another church and the Thebaults were angry about my use of gasoline. I was working overtime and not paid for it, but they made a big deal about going more than 10 miles to a church. They lived in the middle of nowhere. They stopped filling the car up with gas. Then I was trapped. Not only did they try to restrict my use of the car, when I was told from the start I had unlimited use of the car, they would spring the "You're babysitting tonight" surprise on me, last minute, every single night they knew I was planning to get together with my friend Kelly. She went out and I rarely did. My workday ended at 7 p.m. and then I was technically free--unless I had to babysit.
My contract said I would babysit 2 nights week in addition to working 7-7. I ended up babysitting closer to 3-4 workingweek nights and one weekend night at well. And I was never given any notice. It was part of the way to "manage the help".
I told the Thebaults I wanted to go to church. I also told them I wanted to see Kelly at night. I don't remember being able to go out with Kelly once while with the Thebaults. When Lisa kept popping the babysitting surprise on me, I started giving them notice in advance. I thought perhaps they were forgetting I had plans already. What was typical was that I would tell Lisa I was going out one night, and let her know in advance and remind her that day. Then, about 10 minutes before 7 p.m., when I was off, Lisa would suddenly tell me, "I need you to babysit tonight." She claimed they hadn't known in advance. They gave me no notice when they went out, had others over, or went to PTA meetings. It happened over and over. She constantly usurped my plans. Then I was harassed by Lisa and Brian, who would tell me I didn't really know what being a nanny entailed, and that I was to be available to them around-the-clock, and they would basically tell me I was naive, stupid, young, and a bad nanny. When they continued to tell me these things, I began to doubt myself. Which was what they wanted. It made me more compliant.
I was not a foreign au pair. I was not stupid. I had an entire history behind me of good experiences with families and their children, and references to prove it. I knew the Thebaults were wrong, but I still began to doubt myself. I understand now how it is possible to be brainwashed, exploited, or abused, even if one should perhaps "know better".
I started giving Lisa advance notice, on a calendar, and with her approval. Lisa would go so far as to "approve" my future plans and dates. And then she deliberately rescinded her "okay" and would tell me again, last minute, that I had to babysit for them.
I was prevented and discouraged from going to church and I was prevented from going out with friends. I was not being paid for overtime and then they started making me pay for new things, like gas. I was isolated. I was becoming a slave.
Bear: Moon, Horses, Indian, Happiness
Hello Little Bear,
Last night we watched the movie, "The Indian in the Cupboard". You intently watched the whole thing, except for a couple of parts that I briefly fastforwarded past. I found myself enjoying the movie as well, as the Indian is HOT--Ahem, where is the nearest reservation please?
We had a lot to do yesterday and things to sort through. Unfortunately, this meant I had to be on the phone quite a lot and while you didn't like it, you were so good and patient. Truly amazing honey, and other people are noticing your excellent personality and character as well.
You got some compliments at the mall a few days ago, by a wise old woman, who stopped me just to say how lovely you were, and how wonderful it was to see a child so happy.
Then, yesterday, we had to go to the police station to discuss something with officers, and you got compliments from one of the officers, about how remarkable your personality is. She too, said you were so happy, and easy-going, and charming. And patient. She gave you quite a compliment.
I'm happy others can see what I also see in you, as your biased mother. I hope your life will be strong and that you will be encouraged throughout your life, by at least one person, to "be", in an of itself, an excellent boy/man. I hope you will be stronger than I am, though I've been strong, and that you will be even more courageous. And yet, I hope you always know you can do this in your own way and don't have to imitate me unless that is your natural style. In some ways, I can already see we are alike. When I saw you going up and down that steep incline, over and over, until you had mastered it, I was reminded of how I, as a child, used to play and replay, and play again, a song, and sing it over and over, just one sentence at a time, until I had it down perfectly. I was a perfectionist in what I was passionate about, and I think you may be too, and that you also enjoy a good challenge. I hope I can keep up with you. I see how athletic you are and we jog together, but I can no longer run like I used to and I wish I could, so I could run with you when you're a little older. But that's alright, when I can't run beside you, I'll be cheering for you on the sidelines.
This movie, about the Indian, well, the Indian's name is "Little Bear!" So you found that interesting. A neighbor you used to see and like gave it to you, along with the movie "Brother Bear" and some others.
Something you've been doing lately...I pointed out the moon to you a month ago, and although I've done it in the past, you were very excited about it then and ever after. Every time you see the moon you get a big smile on your face and say, "Mmmm". Sometimes "Moon", but usually just the first part, "Mmmm". Maybe because it sounds like MMMnnnnnnn. When I kiss you kisses, I sometimes make the kiss noise, "Mmmm-AH!" with a smack. So you started saying, "Mmmm" for moon, and then I said to you, "Mmmm...." and I leaned in and gave you a big kiss..."Ah!" in a play on words and you cracked up laughing. So you did it again, and again, wanting me to do the same thing.
You seem very fascinated with the moon, tractors and vehicles, sculptures, your Kitty-Cat, and natural challenges. Oh, and books!
We went to the horse stables yesterday and you got to see all the horses, and some steers. You like your cat better. I miss the smell of horses and stables; it brings back memories. I remember when I was little, hearing my mother say she liked the smell of horse dung, and I thought she was out of her mind. But we were out at the stables and the smell was everywhere, and it does smell good! Probably because of all the alfalfa. I taught you how to stroke the nose of the horse, and pat the side, and to blow lightly into the horses nostrils to introduce yourself. Whenever you touched a horse, I was watching the ears of the horse to be sure they weren't back.
Love you,
Last night we watched the movie, "The Indian in the Cupboard". You intently watched the whole thing, except for a couple of parts that I briefly fastforwarded past. I found myself enjoying the movie as well, as the Indian is HOT--Ahem, where is the nearest reservation please?
We had a lot to do yesterday and things to sort through. Unfortunately, this meant I had to be on the phone quite a lot and while you didn't like it, you were so good and patient. Truly amazing honey, and other people are noticing your excellent personality and character as well.
You got some compliments at the mall a few days ago, by a wise old woman, who stopped me just to say how lovely you were, and how wonderful it was to see a child so happy.
Then, yesterday, we had to go to the police station to discuss something with officers, and you got compliments from one of the officers, about how remarkable your personality is. She too, said you were so happy, and easy-going, and charming. And patient. She gave you quite a compliment.
I'm happy others can see what I also see in you, as your biased mother. I hope your life will be strong and that you will be encouraged throughout your life, by at least one person, to "be", in an of itself, an excellent boy/man. I hope you will be stronger than I am, though I've been strong, and that you will be even more courageous. And yet, I hope you always know you can do this in your own way and don't have to imitate me unless that is your natural style. In some ways, I can already see we are alike. When I saw you going up and down that steep incline, over and over, until you had mastered it, I was reminded of how I, as a child, used to play and replay, and play again, a song, and sing it over and over, just one sentence at a time, until I had it down perfectly. I was a perfectionist in what I was passionate about, and I think you may be too, and that you also enjoy a good challenge. I hope I can keep up with you. I see how athletic you are and we jog together, but I can no longer run like I used to and I wish I could, so I could run with you when you're a little older. But that's alright, when I can't run beside you, I'll be cheering for you on the sidelines.
This movie, about the Indian, well, the Indian's name is "Little Bear!" So you found that interesting. A neighbor you used to see and like gave it to you, along with the movie "Brother Bear" and some others.
Something you've been doing lately...I pointed out the moon to you a month ago, and although I've done it in the past, you were very excited about it then and ever after. Every time you see the moon you get a big smile on your face and say, "Mmmm". Sometimes "Moon", but usually just the first part, "Mmmm". Maybe because it sounds like MMMnnnnnnn. When I kiss you kisses, I sometimes make the kiss noise, "Mmmm-AH!" with a smack. So you started saying, "Mmmm" for moon, and then I said to you, "Mmmm...." and I leaned in and gave you a big kiss..."Ah!" in a play on words and you cracked up laughing. So you did it again, and again, wanting me to do the same thing.
You seem very fascinated with the moon, tractors and vehicles, sculptures, your Kitty-Cat, and natural challenges. Oh, and books!
We went to the horse stables yesterday and you got to see all the horses, and some steers. You like your cat better. I miss the smell of horses and stables; it brings back memories. I remember when I was little, hearing my mother say she liked the smell of horse dung, and I thought she was out of her mind. But we were out at the stables and the smell was everywhere, and it does smell good! Probably because of all the alfalfa. I taught you how to stroke the nose of the horse, and pat the side, and to blow lightly into the horses nostrils to introduce yourself. Whenever you touched a horse, I was watching the ears of the horse to be sure they weren't back.
Love you,
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)