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?

A(AA) solution to an age old problem

this fourth of july, aaa clubs across the country are doing their part to cut down on the number of people involved in drunk driving incidents with their "tow to go" and "tipsy tow" programs (depending on where in the country you live).

these programs provide free, confidential rides and tows home from any bar or restaurant to anyone who has had too much to drink, even those not aaa members. (program specifics vary in locations, but generally speaking, the ride is only for the driver, not additional passengers and is free up to five miles from the pick-up destination, cost beyond that may apply).

"i work the night shift and have provided more tows home for intoxicated drivers than i can count with nothing but good experiences because everyone is usually grateful for a free ride home," said dan simpson, florida service technician who has serviced tow to go calls for more than eight years for aaa auto club south. "what concerns me is the fact that the majority of people tell me they were going to drive home if tow to go wasn't an option and that's not good since many of these people can't even walk, let alone sit upright on a bar stool."

these programs provide assistance during heavily traveled holiday periods when drunk driving accidents are most common. the full list of events/observances includes: the pro bowl, super bowl, st. patrick's day, cinco de mayo, memorial day, independence day, labor day, halloween and thanksgiving through new year's day.

according to the most recent statistics on the mother's against drunk driving site, an estimated 11,773 people died in drunk driving crashes involving a driver, with these deaths constituting 31.6 percent of the 37,261 total traffic fatalities in 2008. the tow to go program of aaa south (which is regionally sponsored and underwritten by budweiser) has safely removed more than 11,400 drunk drivers off roadways since their program began in 1998. it goes without saying that these programs should be used as an emergency option after trying to get a cab or calling family members.

my point, and i do have one...is, i think these are great campaigns. these programs keep not only those towed safe, but also the innocent people who could potentially be in harms way by merely sharing the road. while many drunk people think they can still drive well beyond when they should and therefore may not call for these services, if bartenders, waiters/waitress and party hosts call, it could save many lives.

now, while i understand why only the car's driver is towed in these programs (they probably only have one other seat in the tow truck), when possible, i think it could be a benefit to have the tow include the driver, plus one, since most people go out with at least one other person and wouldn't want to leave them behind. additionally women may not want to go in a tow truck with a stranger while drunk.

that being said, in the big scheme of things, the good done by these programs outweighs the small potential improvement suggestion. i applaud aaa and their local sponsors for being part of the solution to the age old problem of drunk driving.

what's your point?

discrimination is thicker than water

on friday, the federal advisory committee on blood safety and availability (which makes recommendations to the food and drug administration) voted nine to six against lifting the ban preventing gay men from donating blood in the u.s., putting them in a category with other banned groups like intravenous drug users and people who have been paid for sex.

that's right, according to current fda rules, if you are a man who has ever had sex with another man since 1977, you are banned from donating blood for life. this rule, which was put in place in the 80's, before hiv tests were available, is supposed to be a way to ward off potential hiv tainted blood. a study showed that if this ban was lifted, approximately 219,000 more pints of blood would be available each year.

the fda recognizes the policy defers many healthy donors but rejected the suggestion it’s discriminatory. the national gay and lesbian task force doesn't quite agree with that: "the committee's decision today not only leaves a discriminatory practice in place, it also puts lives at risk." additionally, the red cross expressed disappointment stating: "while the red cross is obligated by law to follow the guidelines set forth by the fda, we also strongly support the use of rational, scientifically-based deferral periods that are applied fairly and consistently among donors who engage in similar risk activities."

my point, and i do have one...is, these stories of blatant government upheld discrimination, make me ashamed to be american. first, this ruling implies that ONLY gay men have a potential risk of acquiring hiv, merely perpetuating outdated stereotypes that hiv is not just a gay disease, but a gay man's disease. in reality. studies have shown that heterosexual sex is the fastest-growing means of contracting hiv in the u.s. and and the most prevalent method worldwide. does this mean we should also include heterosexuals in the ban? if we do, we better line up a bunch of non iv drug-using lesbians who were never prostitutes, because they seem to be the only group still ok to donate! (also, i find it odd that someone who has been paid for sex is banned, but the person who paid them, not so much. what steps are we taking to protect society from the john who potentially gave the prostitute hiv? but i digress...)

here's another thought, you can't identify most gay man by sight (yes, i said most...come on now, you know i love each and every one of you over the top, make-up and boa wearing gay men, but lets be honest, some of you are a tiny bit easier to spot). is the federal advisory committee on blood safety and availability therefore keeping us all "safe" by assuming that no one will lie when asked about their sexual history? yeah, 'cause that never happens, right evangelist ted haggard, senator larry craig, representative bob allen or national chairman of the young republicans glenn murphy jr.?

look, while current hiv tests are highly accurate, no test can yet detect the virus 100 percent of the time. that being said, donated blood is put through a battery of sophisticated tests to determine whether it is safe and disease-free.

it wasn't too many years ago that blood from a black person wouldn't have been able to be donated and now, the government (run by a black man with blood that can donated blood), is blatantly and systematically blocking gay right (don't ask don't tell, gay-marriage and now blood donation). nahh, that's not discrimination. god bless america.

what is your point?

the (military) code has been cracked

general stanley mcchrystal, president obama's hand-selected commander in afghanistan, along with his aides, made shocking comments to rolling stone. according to the washington post, they called the national security adviser a "clown," described the president as intimidated and disengaged, disparaged allies and top u.s. diplomats and converted vice president biden's surname to "bite me." the article, whose accuracy mcchrystal has not denied or challenged, has been called an "enormous mistake" by the white house. they also said mcchrystal showed "bad judgment."

at the time of this blogs posting, the president was awaiting mcchrystal's arrival at the white house. speculation has begun that he is prepared to give the president his letter of resignation.

my point, and i do have one...is, as a citizen of our country, we have a fundamental right to freedom of speech. i personally value and treasure this right. however, when you talk about the military, they live and die by a code of conduct and ethics. at its core it prides itself on honor, respect, order, chain of command and discipline. for any solider, let alone one as high ranking as mcchrystal, to outright and publicly criticize the commander in chief during a time of war goes against everything the military supposedly stands for. as a solider, it is not your job to agree with or even respect your commander in chief, it is however your job to respect his rank and carry out his orders. mcchrystal could have first retired or quit and then run his mouth, but he didn't. instead he made the conscious decision to do this interview while actively leading men into battle.

in my opinion mcchrystal's alleged resignation should be rejected so that the president can outright fire him. additionally, i think mcchrystal should be court-marshaled. according to article 88 of the u.s. uniform code of military justice, “any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the president, the vice-president, congress...shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.”

at the end of the day the president needs to be able to trust his commander of u.s. forces in afghanistan. how is that possible any more? many are saying that it could do the operation more harm than good by replacing him. but if they don't, what message does that send to the rest of the military? if a general at mcchrystal's level can blatantly disrespect the commander in chief with no consequences, it sets a precedent that others, at every rank, can disrespect their commanding officer and expect no repercussions. i am not sure that is something i would be comfortable with.

general mcchrystal should feel ashamed that by granting an interview with rolling stone, he has smeared what, to this point, was a highly respected military career. (and if i can speak directly to the general for a sec... really? rolling stone? that is the publication that you choose to give the story that will haunt you the rest of your life? my friends and i have played the game, "if you are the lone survivor of a plane crash, who would you give your interview to?" i gotta tell you general, rolling stone never makes anyone's top ten. do you not have any media advisers around you at all? i'm just sayin'...)

what is your point?