Where's My Shiv?

As one that has had his dog attacked twice by pitbulls on our very own street when I lived in LA...I'm calling for a ban on pitbull and pitbull mixes at dog parks. Controversial and not PC, I don't care. How many attacks have to happen against children and other animals?

Are you capable of taking a knife and stabbing a dog that is attacking yours? I think I am. I used to carry a stun gun with me on our walks. Nothing compares to seeing your dog attacked, especially my old senior citizen Bailey who could not fight back. Why should those people in the East Village or any place live in such fear they need to arm themselves to protect their beloved pets. I SAY BAN THE DOGS.

LOWER EAST SIDE, NY (WPIX) —

After a recent spate of pit bull attacks at an East Village dog run, fearful pet owners have begun to arm themselves.

Tompkins Square Park dog owners claim there have been five attacks by pit bulls on other dogs and humans at the dog run since September, and they fear for their pets.

"I mean when you see a pit bull latching on to another dog, there is no letting go," said Ellen Burton.

So owners are taking matters into their own hands, and several dog lovers are now reportedly packing knives, hammers and other weapons when they visit the dog run.

"In every dog run there is a fight -- it happens, it's like a playground with kids -- the only difference is, pit bulls finish fights," said one dog owner.

There is a sign at the entrance clearly stating that dog owners are always legally responsible for any damages their canines do, but that hasn't prevented the pit bull attacks.

"It's not necessarily (the case of) a bad owner, but if you know you have a dog that is aggressive you are a bad owner if you bring your dog to the park," said New York veterinary specialist E'lise Christensen.

Some dog owners blame the nearby Social Tee Animal Rescue, but founder Robert Shapiro thinks he's being targeted unfairly. "The minute a dog gets into a fight at the dog run my name is mentioned . . . I'm sure some have been from me, (but) my policy is no pit bulls at the dog run," Shapiro said.

The Parks Department says they've met with the NYPD and community groups on the issue and have installed undercover units to patrol the area.

voting for dummies....

after suffering three miscarriages, minnesota couple alisha and peter arnold have not only found themselves pregnant again, but struggling with whether they are emotionally prepared to have a child. when faced with the decision to either move forward with the pregnancy or abort, they did what every normal couple does...they set up a website, birthornot.com, so america could help them decide! once on the site, visitors could not only vote, but monitor "wiggles'" progress (that's what they call him/her) and see ultrasound pictures.

while voting was supposed to be open until dec. 7 (two days before the arnolds could still legally get an abortion in their state), it was abruptly closed yesterday. with the number of votes jumping from 250,000 to over one million in a 30 hour period (including a large swing in opinion shifting from from 81/19 in favor of "give birth" to 42/58 for "have an abortion") the arnolds suspected voter fraud. here are two excerpts from their posts:

"if you think by having a computer auto-vote for us, that it is going to discount the votes of the hundreds of thousands of legitimate votes from real people who actually care in helping us make a decision: you are wrong. rest assured, whatever your opinion on this topic, and whatever you have voted one way or another, your vote is being heard."

"with 2,008,039 votes, we have decided to close the vote. we will be sending them off to a third party report wizard to have them analyzed and have the fraud removed."

the results currently shown on the page are 73.63% for "have an abortion" and 22.37% for "give birth." according to alisha: “we are using [the vote] to help determine our decision, but we will still make the final decision." (at the time of this post, no announcement had been made.)

needless to say, this site has sent many news websites and bloggers into a tizzy. a debate has even begun on whether its premise is legit or, if it's really just a hoax to start a national discussion on abortion? according to the arnolds, "while some see this as a game, we most certainly do not."

my point, and i do have one is...are we really surprised this is what it has come too? everyone seems to not just want, but crave their 15 minutes of fame. in my opinion this has led to the over-sharing of people's lives on public forums like facebook and twitter. go ahead, look at your facebook page and see how many of your friends talk about their relationships, jobs and personal issues.

why do people feel the need to purge every single thought they have and action they take for the masses? i just don't get it. but even those of us, who may not over-share but still condone and encourage it, need to accept some responsibility. while others may have the problem, we are their enablers. which brings us back to our couple who has put the fate of their pregnancy to a national vote, just like on american idol or dancing with the stars.

in my opinion, whether or not to go to term with a pregnancy is a very personal and private matter. while the moral implications can be debated, at the end of the day i think one thing is clear...if this couple needs america to vote on whether they should be parents, children's protective services better be on hand if they have the baby! if not we, america, may be co-parenting this child via votes on their next website. (don't laugh, you know that's coming next.) what's your point?

mo' controversy on the street

for forty-years bert and ernie, have cohabited at 123 sesame street, leading many to ponder, what is the nature of their relationship? are they really just roommates? or, perhaps, they are more than "just friends?" (not that there would be anything wrong with that.)

this deep philosophical question, which has long been debated by both mensa members and stoned college kids alike, is back in the news thanks to a tweet from bert on sesame street's official twitter page.

while referencing his hair style, bert tweeted: "ever notice how similar my hair is to mr. t's? the only difference is mine is a little more 'mo,' a little less 'hawk." well, hawk-ish people may have read a little mo' into this tweet than originally intended.

since the word "mo" is used by some in the gay community as a shortened version of "homosexual," it didn't take long before bert's comment became the ambiguous tweet heard 'round the world.

not only were gay bloggers, activists and parents questioning whether this was finally a tip of the proverbial hat to those who have long speculated about bert and ernie's sexuality, but mainstream media also jumped on the bandwagon in an attempt to "break the story."

the la times posed the question: "is sesame street brought to you by the letters g-a-y?" (that's some pulitzer prize winning writing right there.). some media even referenced the fact that sesame street has been inviting more openly gay celebrity guests to the show, such as wanda sykes and neil patrick harris (who came on as the shoe fairy – i love it!) as additional "proof" of...ummm...something...i guess?

everyone can speculate all they want but, according to long-standing statements made by sesame workshop, bert and ernie are just good friends. in 1993 they went on the record regarding the gay rumors and said: "bert and ernie...do not portray a gay couple and there are no plans for them to do so in the future. they are puppets, not humans...[they are] characters who help demonstrate to children that despite their differences, they can be good friends." sesame workshop president and ceo gary knell commented again in 2007, saying: "they are not gay, they are not straight, they are puppets...they don't exist below the waist."

my point and i do have one, is...while i would happily support the lifestyle choices of both bert and ernie, whatever they may be, i actually find it more interesting that bert tweeted.

sesame street is targeted to children ages five years and younger, so who exactly are the tweets on the official sesame street twitter page targeted to? are they suggesting it's the five-year olds in their audience? or, is it really the parents of these children, as well as long standing fans of the show? if in fact, as i suspect, it is the later, is it really such a leap to then believe that these same adults that follow sesame street, may read into the tweets posted, thinking there may be some hidden messages and double entendres?

either way, i think people have mo' time on their hands than they know what to do with. and besides, everyone knows that if bert and ernie did come out as gay, that would be about as news worthy as when clay akin, ricky martin and lance bass did. scandalous!

what's your point?

an open letter to anderson cooper

dear anderson,
how you doing? long time no speak. so, i read today that you signed a deal to host a syndicated daytime talk show in 2011. now honey, you know how much i love you right? and you know i think you kill when you fill in for regis! but really? a daytime talk show?

i know you aren't leaving your gig at cnn and that you think the daytime show will provide an opportunity to expand your hard news background, showing a different side of you. your syndicator, warner brother's, is billing you as a replacement for oprah, saying your show will even be similar to hers, “an hour with a celebrity one day and an investigation of women’s rights around the world the next day" with a studio audience and that special mix of "feature pop culture, human interest stories, investigative reports and the occasional town hall meeting."

if i could, i would set the dvr right now to support your vision, because i love ya, you silver fox you! but, my darling anderson, my point, and i do have one...is, why didn't you call me before making this decision?

while i see the allure and appeal of daytime for many, i don't see why you would choose to make the jump. i know it's not for the money...you do quite well for yourself and, oh yeah, in case you forgot, you're a vanderbilt! i know you're not doing it to get some ass, 'cause your a hot commodity in both the gay and straight communities!

anderson, you are this generation's go-to-guy for news (you know, besides jon stewart). you're seeming accessible, you show empathy and compassion while informing and educating your audience. this daytime show will give you an opportunity to explore different stories? are you telling me that cnn won't give you a special if you asked? you are the rock of cnn! sure their ratings suck, but they have anderson cooper! but, ok if you can't do the stories you want there, what about your special correspondent gig on 60 minutes? not enough room to spread your wings?

now, in fairness, i felt the same way when george stephanopoulos went to gma. after the untimely death of tim russert, this inside the beltway, washington insider was the king of sunday morning with this week. and now? you can see him doing cooking segments in the 8:00 hour. really? (george, you can call me too the next time you're making a big decision.)

but, you never know, i could be way off base. this could be the start of an amazing show. i wish you all the luck in the world! i mean, even edward r. murrow did lighter fair with person to person. and, if you do get some of oprah's time slots, in a lot of cases you'll be the lead-in to local news, which is stronger than a mid-day slot against jerry springer.

anderson, i hope i am wrong...i really, really do! but i have just two words for you: the mole (how long did it take you to regain credibility after that?)...i'm just sayin'.
xoxo
robin

ps: what's your point?

tackling tenure

the topic of teacher tenure has been in the news this week, in part due to nyc mayor michael bloomberg's announcement regarding changes he plans to make to the city's tenure program, as well as chatter about the upcoming movie waiting for superman. i don't need to tell anyone reading this blog that teacher tenure is a hot button issue for many. for the purposes of this blog, when referring to teacher tenure, know i am specifically discussing elementary, middle and high school public school teachers, not college professors. so where to begin? let’s start with the history of tenure.

back in the early 19th century, the purpose of tenure was to ensure that educators (at the time, mostly college educators) were free to teach without fear that their jobs would be in jeopardy due to factors other than education. this was particularly the case for female teachers who may have either married the wrong kind of person or did things that were deemed "inappropriate" (for a woman at that time, this potentially meant simply being out in the street past a certain hour). tenure also protected those who may chose to speak against the political leanings of their school or administration. tenure rallied against arbitrary firings and guaranteed that if a teacher were dismissed, it was based on clear violations of the educational system and nothing else.

currently, as we know, teacher tenure has expanded past the collegiate ranks and into the public school system. it has become a pillar of teach union's platform and something at the heart of many debates over the years. while the length of time it takes for an elementary, middle school or high school teacher to achieve tenure in a public school varies from state to state, it seems most are eligible for tenure review within two to three years. currently roughly 2.3 million public school teachers enjoy tenure.

according to the national education association (nea), "tenure is about due process — not about guaranteeing jobs for life. and it’s not about protecting “bad” teachers — it’s about protecting good teachers." they say tenure does not guarantee teachers a job, does not offer any lifetime employment security and, regardless of the implications, does not just happen after a “certain amount of time.” in comparison to jobs not in education, the nea said this about a teacher's probation period prior to tenor: " at most jobs outside the field of education, a newly hired employee may be considered probationary for six months, or even a year....[but,] when teachers are hired, it is common for them to serve as untenured, probationary employees for three or four years. at this point they can be — and often are — dismissed for any reason whatsoever. that time period also gives school administrators an extended opportunity to evaluate a teacher before determining whether or not the school district, at its discretion, should grant the teacher tenure." another point often made on this side of the debate is, teachers still fear retribution for political disagreements, whether with a supervisor, principal or administrator, hence needing tenure.

now, let me state upfront that i grew up in a family with several public school teachers. in particular, i have an uncle who, in my opinion was (and continues to be) the epitome of the teacher you want in your child's classroom. this is a man who knew he always wanted to be a math teacher. he loves math, he loves teaching it and always had fun doing it. when i would visit him at work when i was small, i witnessed a teacher who was both effective and liked by the students. he was a rock star! sure, he knew the cool music of the time (madonna, cyndi lauper and wham) and had a good report with the students, but he also demanded respect in his room and success from his students. in addition to our family teachers, my brother and i are beneficiaries of the new york city public school system. we had many amazing teachers who helped mold us into the people we are today.

ok, with that said, my point, and i do have one...is, i think teacher tenure should be eliminated. i firmly believe being a teacher is a noble and important profession, especially in the formative years. teachers help shape and influence our leaders of tomorrow. public school teachers should be revered, not made the butt of jokes and should be paid handsomely for doing a good job. but i don't understand why teachers deserve more protection than employees in other industries and professions? i think the basic premise of employment should be you work hard, you strive to always be better and, in turn, you get rewarded with monetary compensation that reflects your success.

in my 15+ years of working, i have not only had to do my job and do it well, but also play the politics necessary to ensure my success (i'm not saying that should be part of the gig, but lets be honest it's the truth). i would be lying if i didn't say that, since moving to the south, there have been numerous times this loud mouth, opinionated northerner has held her tongue so as not to potentially ruffle the political feathers of conservative higher-ups. i have lived my whole professional career knowing that being vocal on things that have nothing to do with the quality of my work could potentially put my job on the line. where is my tenure to ensure i can say what i want without penalty?

if i calculate all the six month probationary periods i have had at my various non-education jobs (as referenced by the nea), it would show i have worked nearly 4.5 years of probation and, to this day, i can be fired at will! where is my tenure to ensure this doesn't happen? (i am not even getting into summers off, spring breaks, my approx 235 work year vs. the approx.180 school year...oh and lets not forget snow days!)

what about all those people who worked at a job 20+ years and then, when the economy tanked, lost their jobs? many of those people are now in foreclosure and have lost their retirement money because they didn't have a guaranteed tenure or a pension. where is their tenure? and what about the teacher i knew in high school who flat out told me he doesn't like his job or the kids, is phoning it in and is only a teacher because he needed a way to stay out of vietnam? he is probably in a classroom right now, because he has tenure.

now, before you go thinking i am anti union, know, i am actually not. i think unions can be a good thing and should be there to protect basic rights of different groups. but over the years, i have seen what appears to be the all powerful teachers union (who reportedly gives more money to political campaigns than the nra) looking out for the protection of the teachers, often, in my opinion, at the determine of the children. (to be honest i fault the union leaders, not the teachers, for that perception.) look, whether fair or not, if the system was working, this would be on page 16 of the newspaper, not above the fold, but the system and our children are failing and i don't believe you can address improvements to the overall system without looking at teacher tenure.

in an effort to try and provide an alternate solution, i think a system should be set up to properly review teachers so that a full picture of their work can be established. some of the review points would include:

* test results - i think this is something to look at, but by far not the end all and be all. the school you are in and students you have will play a factor in this, so i believe a straight "results/reward" plan is faulty. additionally, when looking at scores its important to not just see pass/fail, but also increases/decreases vs. past performance.

* surprise peer reviews - i think that teachers who teach the same subject should peer review other teachers. this also gives teachers the chance to learn from other teaching methods.

* surprise supervisor reviews - just like in any job, the supervisor should do evaluations of the employee's work. not with a scheduled review, but one where the teacher has no time but to do what they planned for the day.

* student reviews - i think this is important too. i think there is good information to be had in reverse evaluations. i feel this way regarding corporate america as well. the "subordinates" (in this case the students) should have a voice to say what they think of the teacher and the teaching style. these should be done anonymously so the students don't feel they will be punished or rewarded for their thoughts and opinons.

* self review - this would give the teacher a chance to review and critique themselves as well as lay out any bumps they had in the road that year, concerns, successes and goals for the next year.

* principal review - i think it is important that the principal know the quality (good or bad) of the educators within his/her school.

* school review: this is a part of the review that takes into account the school’s student make-up, issues and successes when evaluating inherent issues a teacher in that school may face.

in my opinion it is important for the criteria to be laid out in advance, so there are no secret as to what a teacher has to do to succeed. those who excel year-to-year should be rewarded accordingly and those who don't, should be put on a probationary period and then, baring future improvements, kicked to the curb. there should also be some sort of review board that can swiftly and in a timely fashion hear issues that may arise. this board would not be made up of purely board of education administrators, but also teachers and principals.

i don't think anyone's job should ever be even close to guaranteed, especially a teachers. like all professionals, teachers should constantly be working to get better. if their own personal drive isn't enough to keep them motivated to create new and innovative ways to teach, let the fact that their job can be on the line be their motivator.

finally, for those who think this blog has been somehow critical of teachers, i ask you to read it again, because it has not. what it has done is critique the tenure system, a system that i believe is hurting the level of education in this country. overall, i think most teachers are good and want to help students learn and succeed, but there are always the bad apples and we should not make it hard or expensive to pick them out and remove them. teacher tenure is far from the only problem with today's educational system. there needs to be an overhaul of school funding, as well as an acknowledgment that we have an epidemic of parents who don't get involved in their children's education.

as i stated at the beginning, i think being a teacher is a noble and important profession, they should be revered and should be paid very well, i just don't think they should get tenure.

what is your point?

really...she is plus-size?

at ny fashion week, uber designer zac posen cast plus-size model crystal renn (pictured here) for his zspoke show. needless to say, the idea of putting a plus-size model in a high fashion runway show during fashion week has caused quite a stir.

when renn started in modeling, at the age of 14, she was told to lose almost a third of her total body weight. she did, all so she could attain that model look that was requested and required. once she achieved her size zero, she became one of many unknown models out there looking for work. eventually, after having health scares due to her unhealthy obsession with food and weight (which led to anorexia), she made the bold decision to switch to plus-size modeling. since then she not only became the highest-paid plus-size model in the world, but a bonafided supermodel, gracing the covers of american vogue and harper's bazaar as well as appearing in dolce & gabbana ads. while renn's exact dress size is debated (most say this six-foot model is a size 10, though some say she could be as small as a six), what is not in debate is the fact that those in attendance at posen's show say renn's larger size was barely noticeable.

my point, and i do have one, is...to begin with, the official definition of "plus-sized" is a u.s. dress size of 14 or higher, therefore it's not even proper to consider renn plus-size (even by the standards set by the fashion world). that being said, i think that it is not only ridiculous, but irresponsible for the fashion industry to classify the woman pictured above as plus-size!

ok, before i get any further, lets address the big fat plus-size elephant in the room...with 28 percent of americans officially obese and the average woman in this country wearing a size 14, people may question if by applauding plus-size models we are indirectly promoting obesity and unhealthy living. i get it! as a woman who has battled her weight her whole life and who comes from a family with, lets just say many women of size, let me be clear, i would never encourage, endorse or celebrate unhealthy lifestyles or obesity! (for the purposes of this blog, know i am not speaking about the overly overweight and obese when discussing plus-size, i am talking about run of the mill, in my opinion "average" sized woman.) also, let me say that i am not a women who hates or dislikes "skinny" women, even those who are size zeros (i have many friends who are naturally size zeros that can eat me under the table!)...my problem is with a world that tells women that they need to be size zero thin to fit into society's warped sense of "average."

society not only celebrates but rewards women who are ultra thin (the majority of actresses, models and performers are sizes zero-two). airbrushed and unattainable images of super thin women are perpetuated, leading to a blanket acceptance of this look as the benchmark for beauty. this leaves the majority of women and young girls not only wondering what that says about their shape, but also with unhealthy body images (giving way to a world dominated by weight loss companies and dietary supplements).

society also tells men that this is what they should look for in a woman. a certain gentleman i know (who i love and adore) once famously said to me the following about the look he wants in a woman: "i'm not saying that i want her to have an eating disorder, but i wouldn't be mad if she looked like she did...you know the hungry look." i think he said a mouthful! while i wanted to slap the crap out of him, truth be told, he was just being honest and verbalizing a look that many (not all) men consider ideal.

recently, star of the tv series mad men, christina hendricks (who is very curvy and oozes of sexuality) found it nearly impossible to score a dress for the emmy awards. she told the daily record: "people have been saying some nice, wonderful things about me. yet not one designer in town will loan me a dress...they only lend out a size zero or two. so i'm still struggling for someone to give me a darn dress."

now, speaking for myself (a size 10/12 woman), it has taken me the better part of my life to sorta come to terms with the fact that i have hips, i have (a whole 'lotta) boobs and no matter how little i eat, no matter how much i diet and exercise, i will never come close to being a size zero or two (not that either size would work on my body frame). i have long said, regarding my shape, that on a good day i have an hour glass figure and on a bad day it's an hour and a half! yet, as self aware and knowledgeable as i am, every day i still struggle to try and achieve the unattainable, because at the end of the day, it is still what society says is beautiful and desired.

this is why is disturbs me so very much to see crystal renn called "plus-size" when in reality is she not "plus" at all, but actually quite normal. what's your point?

just 'cause your knocked-up, doesn't mean you can't be a knock-out!

forever 21, a store known for their inexpensive and young trending clothes, recently announced they will be introducing a "love 21" maternity line.

while being launched in five states across the country, three of which (arizona, california and texas) have some of the highest pregnancy rates, the store reps say that's just a coinky-dink: "forever 21 did not create, design or distribute love 21 maternity to target, or appeal specifically to pregnant teens. any relationship between teen pregnancy rates and the locations of our stores is unintentional." needless to say, a maternity line in a store targeting tweens and teen, has raised an eyebrow or two. some question whether forever 21 is profiting from the glamorization of teen pregnancy?

my point, and i do have one, is...when forever 21 launched a clothing line called "faith 21," targeting the plus-sized girl, i don't remember seeing all this buzz about them glamorizing or profiting from obesity(i'm not saying that buzz shouldn't have existed, but it didn't.) we live in a capitalistic nation and i personally think this is a brilliant move for forever 21. in addition to opening themselves up to a new market of consumers, who happen to be teen mom's-to-be (or as sara libby from salon's broadstreet calls it the “temporarily plus-sized” girl"), the controversy is providing them with a lot of free press and chatter.

when a teen mom goes to babies r us to buy stuff she needs, aren't they profiting from that teen pregnancy? oh, and what about the magazines and newspapers who ran stories about bristol palin and jamie-lynn spears, didn't they profit from teen pregnancy? and if a teen girl walks into macy's or target and buys maternity clothes there, aren't they profiting?

look, i am not saying teen pregnancy is a good thing, not at all. and i don't think it should be glamorized. but if a girl goes and gets pregnant because the store she shops in now has maternity clothes...well we have a much bigger problem on our hands! (i can just hear a mom now: "just because all your friends are getting pregnant to wear forever 21's maternity line, doesn't mean you should!")

people spend so much time and effort looking for someone to protect "our" kids, when they already have supposed protectors, their parents. it is a parent's job to make sure their kids are eating healthy, staying safe and not getting themselves or someone else pregnant. but from the looks of things, too many parents either don't or can't do their job (and this is one job, even in today's bad economy, you can't get fired from). but hey, if you can't do your job effectively, don't be surprised when you are maternity shopping with your kid at forever 21.

what's your point?