Ratemyteachers rears its ugly head – again

I know this is going to bore you to tears, but I just can't get over this. Today the Irish Independent has an editorial condemning Ratemyteachers.ie

The Independent's editorial is bemoaning the fact that Irish children are adding more comments than children in the US & Canada combined.

Irish students are putting more comments about their teachers on the site than their counterparts in the US and Canada combined. This week, the site was claiming that 35,548 teachers in Irish schools had been rated and that total ratings on the site from Ireland were now approaching the half million mark.

Before I get into whether that's true or not, I'd like to ask whether the Independent has played any role in the growth of this site. Seems pretty obvious to me that if the Irish Independent (& other papers too) didn't give this site so much publicity that it would probably have never taken off like it has. Perhaps, just perhaps, if the Independent had ignored this nonsense it would never have become a "monster".

Now, could it possibly be true that Irish children are adding comments at a rate greater than that of American and Canadian children combined? Well, as the Independent notes, more than 35,000 teachers have now been "rated" and nearly 500,000 comments have been added by Irish students. Yesterday 8,000 comments were added.

The figures for the US & Canada are:

• total teachers rated – just over 1 million
• total comments added – just under 7.5 million
• total comments added yesterday – just under 9,000.

So, the total comments added by children across the US and Canada yesterday was basically same as the total added by Irish children. What does this tell us?

Well, it tells me that this is a fad and kids bore of it quickly. If the Independent and the rest of Irish media had just ignored this it would probably have just quietly faded away. Time to give it a rest.

Rehashing the war

The justification for the war is back in the headlines again this week on both sides of the Atlantic. Over here, it's thanks to the leak that compelled the British government to release the advice of the Attorney General on the legality of the war (his full advice here). In the US it's the reemergence of the WMD issue thanks to the publication of the final report of the weapons inspectors.

All of this is somewhat tiresome, but at the same time I think it's good that we have as much information in the public domain as possible. And, it's good that people keep pressuring those with responsibility for making decisions on war or peace to ensure that they justify their decisions properly.

I was in favor of the war, but not for any of the reasons ever put forward by either the US or UK governments. I was in favor of the war because I felt it was the only way out of a bad situation created by some very bad decisions during the 1990s. The 1991* war with Iraq was a disaster because it was inconclusive (a conclusion would have required a new regime in Iraq) and because it tied our hands unnecessarily.

The result of the war was a a sanctions regime enforced by the US & UK and permanent US force in Saudi Arabia. The sanctions regime and the US forces in Saudi, combined with the collapse in oil prices during the 90s, helped fuel anti-Americanism in the Arab world. Additionally, the global conditions that allowed the UN Security Council to agree on the war with Iraq in 1990/91, changed drastically by 2001 and meant the Security Council was now like a pair of hand-cuffs on the US, and especially, the UK by then.

This situation was bad enough, but after September 11 it was unacceptable and required a solution. As far as I was concerned, there were only two possible solutions: abandon the sanctions regime and leave Saddam unchecked or remove him. I thought the former was too risky an option, so I favored the latter. I suspect that the Bush Administration was of the same mind-set, but didn't use that justification because it meant saying publicly that Bush senior was a disaster as a President.

However, they admitted as much with the justifications that they did put forward. Each of them – Saddam's a threat to the region; Saddam has links with terrorists; Saddam wants to acquire WMD, including nukes; Saddam terrorizes his own people – was also true in 1991, only more so. The only justification for the current war that ever made sense to me was that we dug ourselves into a big hole and we need to get out. This is the way out.

* Just to set the record straight, I was opposed to the first Gulf War.

R rated Bruce

I haven't bought Springsteen's new album yet. I'm sure I will, it's just a matter of time. I was all set to get it this week until yesterday, when I got an e-mail from a friend of mine that made me hesitant.

A couple of years ago, my friend and I had discussed how we had both played The Rising for our children. This was their introduction to Springsteen.

Before I knew anything about the new album I had mentioned to my children that I would be getting it and playing it for them. My friend's e-mail knocked me down a bit.

My friend's significantly less up-tight than I am, but he told me that one of the songs is so explicit that he can't play the album with the kids around. With a tip like that I had to go find out for myself. And he's right. I can't play the song Reno for my teen and pre-teen children. The song begins (and, yes, that's my editing in there):

She took off her stockings, I held them to my face.
She had your ankles, I felt filled with grace.
"Two hundred dollars straight in,
Two-fifty up the a**," she smiled and said.
She unbuckled my belt, pulled back her hair,
And sat in front of me on the bed.
She said, "Honey how's that feel, do you want me to go slow?"
My eyes drifted out the window, down to the road below.

Of course, Bruce is an adult writing songs that are not really aimed at the teen market. I have books in the house that are (I'm sure) more explicit than that, but that's not the point.

I had been looking forward to playing the new album for the kids. Now I have to censor Bruce Springsteen. The new album will be like some forbidden fruit, hidden away from the kids until they're old enough to be able to handle such content. Or, maybe, I just won't get it.

How Catholic were the Irish?

Not very, according to this article in this week's Irish Echo. 150 years ago Archbishop Cullen of Dublin and Archbishop Hughes of New York were so distressed by the fact that such a large portion of the Irish population was Catholic in name only that they initiated a "devotional revolution".

In pre-Famine Ireland, for example, only 30 to 40 percent of the population attended Mass and many who identified themselves as Catholic had virtually no knowledge of the faith's dogma and practices. Worse still, many still clung to pre-Christian pagan rituals and beliefs that had never fully died out after Ireland was converted to Christianity by Patrick and his successor missionaries. The response of Cullen and Hughes was to launch a campaign to instill faith, orthodoxy, and obedience among the people, a process historian Emmet Larkin famously dubbed, the "devotional revolution."

Maybe this is a well known fact of Irish history, but I wasn't aware of it.

They was talking good

I was listening to Newstalk this afternoon and heard a retired officer from the Irish National Teachers Organisation defending teachers' work. He cited international statistics on literacy to support his case.

All fine. I wasn't paying that much attention any way.

Ten minutes later during a different report on the same station, a Fine Gael spokesman displayed a complete disregard for the most basic rules of English grammar. This man opted to use only the singular form of any verb regardless of the subject.

Simplifying the language. Pure genius, only I hope that retired teacher had switched off his radio.

Doing background checks

I just went to Google and searched for "Michael E. Sachs". The first item was a site called healthgrades.com. Healthgrades.com sells reports about doctors. I didn't buy one, but they do have one available about Dr. Michael Sachs for $7.95. I'd love to know if the Sunday Independent bought one. From the one sample I saw, it looks like they'd have received a fair amount of information from which to build a better profile on Dr. Sachs before getting in too deep with him for their feature story.

This from the Times's article really bothers me

"If this guy is fit to practice medicine in the United States, who are we to say he's not fit to practice?" said Brendan O'Connor, the editor of The Sunday Independent magazine.

It's not a matter of saying whether Dr. Sachs is "fit to practice", but whether he's running the type of medical practice that the Sunday Independent should be promoting (and that is what their article did for Dr. Sachs).

Dr. Sachs

I was surprised that RTE's report on last night's 9:00 news on the death of the Irish woman after plastic surgery in New York made no comment on the part that some Irish newspapers may have played in directing the unfortunate woman, Kay Cregan, towards Dr. Michael Sachs.

RTE's report noted that the New York Medical Examiner is investigating and that "since her death it has emerged that the surgeon has a history of malpractice claims against him". That last phrase is true, but RTE could have indicated that this fact could have emerged before her death. In fact, it could have emerged around the time the Sunday Independent decided to do a big feature on Dr. Sachs

I don't think this is just a matter of RTE scoring some points at the expense of the Sunday Independent. There is a public interest in asking the Sunday Independent about their efforts to check on the background of Dr. Sachs. So far, only the NY Times seems to be asking the questions.

Happy puppy

Bruce Springsteen tickets were hard to get around here when they went on sale recently. All 6,500 tickets were sold in 40 seconds.

Needless to say, I didn't manage to get one. Neither did Chris, but she's since acquired one through eBay. To say the least, she's upbeat about the prospect of her first ever concert.

Kissing the Pope's ring

Sometimes I see things or read comments in the news that surprise me, but when I see no reaction in the media or online I figure that what I've seen isn't all that surprising really. Had just such a reaction on Sunday watching the news on Pope Benedict.

The President's brother, Florida Governor Jeb Bush, led the US delegation at the Pope's inauguration Mass. I hadn't expected to see Governor Bush kneel to kiss the Pope's ring, but he did. {I can't find a picture of the moment anywhere. This picture, which shows Governor Bush kneeling in front of the Pope, is the nearest I could find.}

When I saw Governor Bush kneel and kiss the Pope's ring my first instinct was, "Wow, what a long way from 1960". Then I remembered reading that there was some upset in Mexico when President Vincente Fox knelt to kiss John Paul II's ring a couple of years ago. I wondered what the press would make of Governor Bush's actions.

At the time I wasn't aware that the President's brother had converted to Catholicism. When I heard that it made his actions more understandable, but I was still convinced that people would be offended that the man leading the official delegation from the US had knelt before the Pope.

But, I was wrong. I haven't seen it mentioned anywhere. Did I just miss the reaction?

Beasley

DaMarcus Beasley, American soccer player now playing for PSV Eindhoven, apparently never experienced overt racism before his move to Europe.

In his first Eindhoven game, a Champions League qualifier against Red Star Belgrade in Serbia and Montenegro last August, Beasley, who is African-American, was rudely welcomed to European soccer.

"Whenever I got the ball they would whistle, boo and make monkey noises. That was my first real racism experience," Beasley says. "I tried to block it out of my head and play. You have 65,000 people screaming at you and it's only you. It's crazy."

On the road in the Netherlands, Beasley faces similar treatment at times.

Probably says as much about the progress the US has made in combating racism as it does about how far Europe has to go still. Indiana, Beasley's home state, would not have been known as a bastion of tolerance in the past.

I love the fact that Beasley is only 5'7" and 125 lbs.

Kansas City vs New York

I like this little story from today's NY Times. In 1957 former Yankee Billy Martin was playing his first game in the Bronx for his new team, the Kansas City A's. Before the game Cardinal Spellman, who was at the game, called Martin over.

Spellman asked Martin how he liked Kansas City. "Oh, just fine, Your Eminence," Martin answered. The more Martin thought about the prelate's kindly question, though, the gloomier he got. "How do I like it in Kansas City?" Martin mused once he was back on the field. "I wanted to ask him, 'How would you like it in Kansas City?' "

Wi Fi

I know it's not new, but it is to me. I can't believe how easy it was to set up my new Netgear wireless router. My house is a hot spot. I'll be sleeping in a hot spot. Is this like living near a mobile phone mast?

Now to figure out what WEP is . . .

Using the media

The NY Times takes up the story of the Irish woman who died after having plastic surgery in New York. Sad story, but one with a cautionary tale for the the Irish media.

Examining Mrs. Cregan's knapsack after her death, her family found a folded copy of an article from The Sunday Independent of Ireland. It was a glowing account of a face-lift performed by Dr. Sachs, "a leading cosmetic and facial reconstruction surgeon" in the United States, the article said, with a "highly confidential client list."

. . . Her journey from Ireland to a private operating room in Manhattan offers a cautionary tale about the ability of doctors with tarnished records to promote themselves to trusting patients and the news media's role in abetting these efforts.

The article goes on to explain how Dr. Sachs was featured in the Irish Examiner and on Ireland AM on TV3. Eventually Sachs agreed to do a free face-lift for an Irish woman in exchange for a front page article in the Sunday Independent's magazine.

The result of his agreement with Mrs. Donaghy was a cover article in the Independent's Sunday magazine. "People have been stopping me on the street to tell me how good I look," Mrs. Donaghy was quoted as saying. "I'm having the time of my life." The article gave contact information and a Web site for Dr. Sachs but omitted any mention of the problems he faced.

"If this guy is fit to practice medicine in the United States, who are we to say he's not fit to practice?" said Brendan O'Connor, the editor of The Sunday Independent magazine. But Mr. O'Connor said last week he was unaware of the 33 lawsuits or the restrictions placed on Dr. Sachs by New York State health authorities.

This is especially damning:

Although Mrs. Cregan may not have had the expertise to decode Dr. Sachs's résumé, an Internet search might have revealed his inclusion in The Daily News's list of most sued doctors. A New York State-run Web site, www.NYDoctorProfile.com, lists medical malpractice judgments and disciplinary actions against doctors.

Whatever about Mrs. Cregan's internet search, I have to believe that there is someone in the Sunday Independent (& the Examiner and TV3) who could have unearthed this information.

9/11 Report – Chapter Two

In chapter 2 of the 9/11 Commission Report (did I happen to mention I'm a very slow reader?) Osama bin Laden's worldview is explained and put in historical context. I've read a fair bit about this since September 11, but this report provides a good summary. The second chapter doesn't move as quickly as chapter 1, but it's equally well written and easy to read.

This chapter has most of what I wanted to know on September 12, 2001, essentially:

1. Who are these people?
2. What motivates them?

Of course, I knew about the previous attacks – in Somalia, on the World Trade Center '93, Khobar Towers, and the African embassies – yet I never really tried to understand what was happening after any of those attacks. The chapter does an excellent job of illustrating just how much the government really didn't (& still doesn't) know and how much of al Qaeda's development remains a vague fog (at least officially, publicly) for the government.

"John Paul the Straight"?

Perhaps the oddest comment of the past few weeks with regards to the death of John Paul II and election of Benedict XVI was made by Declan Lynch in his Sunday Independent television review column on April 10.

And I can add just a couple of observations to the millions which have already been made. For the past week we have seen perhaps thousands of churchmen on television, we have heard them saying their pieces, and we have observed that the majority of them, if not exactly gay, have a certain indefinable quality of gayness about them.

How do you know ? Ah, you just know.

At first you pass no remarks on it, but there's a sort of a cumulative effect of all this gayness on our screens, all day every day - not that there's anything wrong with it.

The late Pope, by contrast, was made of different stuff. He clearly didn't have a gay bone in his body. Perhaps in some subliminal way this was the basis of all those descriptions of his "vigour", his determination to take the road less travelled.

Pope John Paul the Great was also Pope John Paul the Straight. And by the looks of it, we will not see his like again.

"God's rottweiler"

The other night EWTN had a short interview with Cardinal Pell from Sydney. The questions came from Fr. Neuhaus.

(from memory)

Fr. Neuhaus: . . . do you think there will be a discussion on a married clergy and would you welcome such a discussion?

Cardinal Pell: No, I would not welcome such a discussion . . . And I don't think Pope Benedict will instigate such a discussion.

The emphatic nature of Cardinal Pell's response and his whole manner indicated that he's not a man to be messed with. In fact, if I take some liberties and try to read between the lines, I half suspect that Cardinal Pell is a little concerned that Pope Benedict is not going to be firm enough. I would say he definitely doesn't buy this rottweiler business.

Deaf

Went to see a girls' basketball final this afternoon. There were probably 150 or so girls from the two schools there to watch the game. I have to say that standing in a gym with 150 girls watching a game is the equivalent of standing at the stage for an AC/DC concert. I have this ringing noise in my ears . . .

At least the right team won and we'll have a happy face at the dinner table tonight.

More on Benedict XVI

The NY Times finds that there's pretty much nothing to Benedict's "Nazi past".

Gerard Baker has been enjoying the media reaction to Joseph Ratzinger's elevation to the Papacy.

Journalists and pundits for whom the Catholic Church has long been an object of anthropological curiosity fringed with patronising ridicule have really let themselves go since the new pontiff emerged. Indeed most of the coverage I have seen or read could be neatly summarised as: "Cardinals elect Catholic Pope. World in Shock."

Dr. Vincent Twomey provides more insights into what sort of man Joseph Ratzinger is. Twomey studied under Professor Ratzinger at the University in Regensburg, where Twomey was a student in 1971.

He is unprepossessing to meet, his intellectual brilliance and extraordinary memory hidden behind a pleasant demeanour, betrayed only by his piercing eyes and occasional witticism.

Not exactly physically robust, his lifestyle is simple. He never drove a car, and walks to work each day, as he did as professor. He flies economy class. An avid reader, he also enjoys walks in the countryside, and conversation with his friends. He is a man of simple faith and remarkable moral courage, both of which he inherited from his beloved parents.

Joseph Ratzinger is, in the final analysis, a man of prayer - his spiritual writings are refreshing - rooted in the liturgy, the reform of which he has promoted through his recent writings. His celebration of the Requiem Mass reflected both his theory and practice of union with God in Christ.

I remain hopeful and see nothing to fear.

Evangelization

In the previous centuries, Evangelization mostly meant bringing the gospel to Africa, S. America, wherever. Today, however, much of the Church's efforts are focused on W. Europe & N. America.

This was a big part of John Paul's papacy and I think the Pope Benedict will continue this work. As far as John Paul was concerned many Catholics had drifted so far away from doctrine that they were Catholic in name only. The Gospel had to be brought to them again.

It seems to me that John Paul II was willing to live with a (possibly) much smaller, but stronger Church that is committed to its traditions and doctrines. This small, strong Church would then be in a better position to provide an alternative to today's secularist, relativist world.

It also seems to me that John Paul II essentially decided to skip a generation – the "me" generation – and focus on the next generation. The world youth days were a big part of that. Those young Catholics are to be the Church's evangelizers this century.

That possible trend I noted last week would be part of that. So would the growth of student movements advocating abstinence and reviving Catholic traditions.

Whether these are just blips or the real beginnings of a revival of Orthodoxy among Catholics (in the US & elsewhere) is impossible to say. It's also too early to evaluate whether this approach is the right one, but those Christian Churches that would be called "hard-line" or "conservative" are also the ones experiencing the greatest growth. Something I'm sure that is not lost on Benedict XVI.

Benedict XVI

Wow! Amazing how much nonsense and garbage is in the papers this morning. It's almost like Bush has been elected again.

Most of the columns and editorials are really only nonsensical because they wanted a public campaign and public vote and instead had to make do with pre-election rumors and post-election silence.

Therefore, all they have are the ridiculous references to the Pope's "Hitler Youth" experiences. An example of the garbage is in the editorial from today's Guardian. "[Ratzinger] is a name that will clamp the cold hand of foreboding round the hearts of all who care about the developing world". What? I think the Guardian has taken that 'Panzer Cardinal' stuff to heart and figures that Benedict XVI is going to roll over Africa.

According to this article, Nigerian Catholics are jubilant. Not everyone in the "developing world" is so fearful.

Here's a good article by David Quinn on his meeting with Cardinal Ratzinger in the mid 1990s.