Zero Tolerance and the Appearance of Impropriety.

This post's fractal is called Ring of Fire. I picked it because of the "ring" shape (similar to a "zero") and the fire represents intensity. Ah well, on with today's post!

-

Some things in the news this week have gotten my panties in a bunch--yet again. They all have to do with “zero tolerance” and the “appearance of impropriety“--two concepts that look great on paper but doesn’t work so well in the “real” world. Read on and tell me what you think . . .
-
Friday March 16 a couple of girls were sent home from an Orange County Elementary School for coming to school with green hair (dyed temporarily in honor of St. Patrick’s Day). Colored hair is, according to school administrators, a “distraction” to the other students.
-
Frankly, I just don’t get that: I’ve never felt the need to dye my hair but whenever I see someone with “unique” hair (or other features) I don’t give them more than a passing glance. Maybe things have changed since I was in school back in the Age of the Dinosaurs but I’m pretty sure that not a lot gets done on holidays. But, then again, I’m pretty sure St. Patrick’s Day isn’t even mentioned in public school these days. After all, we can’t have a hint of religious prejudice, can we?
-
Zero Tolerance is usually a good thing but, like everything else, it can easily go too far--like it did in this case. It can often go too far. Good kids get caught and punished because the school administrators have no choice but to enforce the policy in order to avoid the “appearance of impropriety.” Doesn’t matter how minor the infraction, Administrators have no choice but the enforce pre-determined punishments.
-
And that brings us to the next part of the story.
-
Two teachers were recently fired from a Catholic High School here in Orange County. “Inappropriate Conduct” was cited (although the Diocese says their conduct “did not involve students.” The investigation and subsequent decisions were carried out behind closed doors: the Diocese cited “privacy rights” (for both them and the people involved) as their reason for doing this.
-
Here’s what little we do know. Both teachers were single, middle-aged men (and this same High School has had previous sex scandals involving single, middle-aged men). One teacher was asked by parents to allow their son to accompany him on a trip to Egypt and the two spent the night together in a hotel room. (The boy, age 17 at the time) insists nothing happened and he didn’t feel the slightest bit uncomfortable during the trip. The other teacher had a “streaking incident” on a camping trip (which was a prank engineered by the students and he had no part in). He also took several students to a Turkish Bath as a cultural experience while on a tour of Europe, Turkey to be specific. Clothing is optional in the Turkish Baths but everyone who went (from the school at least) covered their naughty bits. It should also be noted that the parents of the students involved in this knew what was going to happen in advance and gave their consent for their sons to participate.
-
The “bottom line” is simply this: the Diocese of Orange County can fire any teacher for almost any reason. And, to be completely fair, something truly inappropriate that we don’t know about that the Diocese does could have happened. Personally, I think the firings have a lot more to do with said teachers being gay or having some “anti-Catholic values rather than anything “wrong” they may have done but that is merely speculation on my part: I have no solid evidence.
-
Neither of the teachers involved as chosen to speak out (which may or may not be important) but the school has lost two popular and dedicated teachers and parents and students are left without any answers. Maybe the men are afraid that speaking out may make it harder for them to be hired by other institution in the future or maybe they simply choose to put the whole incident behind them. In any case, I’m sure nothing illegal happened or the Diocese would be pursuing criminal charges.
-
School officials are completely within their rights to fire these men (and if there’s something going on then these men really do need to go: still, I think this whole incident places the school district (and in my opinion the whole Catholic Church) in a bad light. Furthermore it sends the teachers at this (and other) Catholic schools a message I’m sure the church hadn’t intended--don’t get involved and don’t help out your students. Doing so will just get you in trouble--and that is truly sad. Teachers like this are a rare gift and should be encouraged but after this incident it will be less likely that a teacher will do anything other than provide classroom instruction.
-
Avoiding the “appearance of impropriety” has also taken on national importance thanks to what’s going on in Washington DC right now: unless you’ve had your head buried in the sand the past few months you have no doubt heard about the firings of several Federal Prosecutors, the subsequent cover-up and the troubles that have since befallen the Bush Administration.
-
Like any private enterprise, the Bush administration can pretty much fire anyone they want--but in this case doesn’t center around the firings themselves but the subsequent lies and cover up that followed. Not a good thing--if indeed it happened as many Democrats (and even a few Republicans) insist. And the more information that comes out the worse it looks for Bush‘s people. Then just when you think it can’t get any worse President opens his mouth and sticks his foot in it.
-
Congress, in a rare bi-partisan effort, has decided to fully investigating the situation, The Judiciary Committee has requested testimony from senior White House Senior Staffers (like Karl Rove and Harriet Myers). President Bush, however, stated yesterday (March 20) that he will not “allow” these people to be subpoenaed. (He feels that the fact that he allows them to talk to the committee behind closed doors is more than enough.)
-
Maybe it’s just me but I always thought that all Americans were supposed to be equal under the law. The idea that our President can prevent someone from testifying (by invoking “Presidential Privilege, whatever that is) really disturbs me. President Bush cites “party politics” as his reason for doing this but it seems to me that if his Administration has nothing to hide he shouldn’t have a problem with his people testifying in public and under oath. I think he’d want to cooperate fully--if only to avoid the “appearance of impropriety.”

300 (or so) Words

Today's post beings with a fractal titled Arabesque 18. I picked it because it has a certain "Persian Rug" quality and the post at least vaguely relates to the Persians. The colors aren't right but there's only so much I can do.

Sometimes I have strange reasons for the movies I choose to see. 300 usually isn’t the kind of thing I would go to--especially with Robyn--but when I heard the complaints from Iran that the movie was “anti Islamic” and opinions from Iranian-Americans that it was setting up American sympathy for an attack on Iran I knew I just had to go.

300 tells the story of three-hundred Spartans who hold off Persian King Xerxes and his army of Persians--numbering a million or more at the Battle of Thermopalae. Character development is minimal and the story has about as much depth as a comic book (but, then again, this movie was based on a Graphic Novel by Frank Miller) so I guess that is to be expected. In fact, this movie is little more than a testosterone-soak gore-fest, artfully animated by computer.

Gerard Butler (Phantom of the Opera) barely sketches out the character of Spaartan King Leonides (but he doesn’t have a lot to work with): Roberto Santoro (Lost) looks like what would happen if Dwayne Johnson (AKA The Rock) and Ru Paul had a child. The rest of the cast are people I’ve never heard of before and probably wouldn’t recognize if I saw them again but they chew the scenery with verve.

The real star of the move (and the primary reason to see it) is the computer animation. This entire sword and sandal epic was filmed on a single Canadian Soundstage. Everything from the landscape to the eight-pack abs on everyone was digitally rendered in post production--and the effect is spectacular. Even the voices get run through a computer for enhancement. Almost every scene is rendered in monochrome so the occasional shots of color are particular effective: the violence is stylized and extremely graphic--not for the faint of heart. Still, the movie is a technical triumph--almost worth the price of admission for the craft alone.

When we saw the movie (on Sunday March 18) the theater was about 90% young adult males. 300 is not for the squeamish or fans of "pure" historical epics but the target audiences will eat it up. As for me, I’m glad I saw this movie but I can’t really say I enjoyed it.

As for being “anti-Islamic,” I confess I didn’t see that--but I am no “Son of the Prophet” so maybe I’m just not looking for the right things. And the idea that 300 is trying to set the stage for an attack on Iran--that’s just silly. Yes, the “freedom isn’t free but must be paid for in blood” message (delivered however heavy-handed) is frankly jingoistic but it’s just standard “war-movie” talk that has been around since movies were first being made.

-

FINAL GRADE: B-

It's Simply a Question of Believeability . . .

Picking an image for this post was particularly difficult considering the subject matter. I finally settled on Heimdall. He was the Guardian of the Rainbow Bridge to Asgard and was said to be able to see everything that happened on Earth. You'd need something like that to resolve the case I'm posting ablut today.

Serving on a jury is never easy and I really don’t envy the daunting task given to Jurors in this country. It's hard to sit on any try but the situation becomes particularly problematic when they are asked to sit on a child-sex case. Take for example, a case that just went through the Orange County Courts.

Jeffrey Ray Nielsen, son of a local Judge and well-connected in the local Republican Party was just tried for having sex with a minor. While I have to confess to a certain schadenfreude at this turn of events, (I secretly love it when bigshot Republicans get caught with their pants down)I have to say the whole thing makes me feel (and I wish there was a better word for it) icky. The details of this case makes me fell bad for everyone concerned.

The accuser (who was 14 at the time) is hearing-impaired and learning disabled who’s had a rough go of it from the start. He’s the kind of kid that cries out for sympathy. We know he spent time with the accused and can describe the bedroom in detail (right down to the oversized Teddy Bear and stuffed elephant on his bed). But there are a lot of inconsistencies in the accuser’s story and over the intervening three years his story has changed. (Now he doesn’t know which version is the truth.) To make matters worse the poor kid has been caught in some obvious and stupid lies on the stand.

There is clearly some inappropriate conduct on Nielsen‘s part: he met the accuser in a Chat Room where gay men solicit sex and the accused admits to picking up the boy (without his mother’s permission) and taking him to his home. Nielsen says that he only wanted to be a friend and mentor to the kid. In Nielsen’s favor, there is no physical evidence of a sexual encounter. Nielsen never acknowledges sex in any of the extensive e-Mail records: the only real “evidence” is the boy’s word--and that’s why I feel conflicted about this case.

I want to believe the kid--really I do--but I can’t get past the inconsistencies in his story, the lack of hard evidence and the fact that he couldn’t describe some very evident scaring on Nielsen’s body. The thought that a child molester might be set free to prey on other young men sickens me but I couldn’t get past my doubts to put Nielsen away on the evidence presented.

In the end the jury deadlocked and couldn’t reach a verdict: various votes ranged from 10-2 to 7-5 (although the Judge refused to say which way the votes went. The District Attorney’s Office has already announced that he intends to re-try the case on all six counts--although I can’t see the next trial turning out much different this time. I’m glad I’m not a lawyer having to work on this case and I’m especially glad I’m not on the jury: I don’t envy these people in the least.

Ron Rants and Reviews: the Time Change and Wild Hogs

This post's fractal is called Opposites Flower. I picked it because I really like the shape, the stark black and white contrast and because today's blog entry has two parts. Hope you enjoy them both.

Should I review a movie or complain about the time change? I couldn’t decide which one to do for this blog entry. In the end I thought, why choose? I’ll do both!

First the time change . . .

I think I’m in the minority for actually liking the time change (at least the one where we “Spring Forward”). The sun was coming up way to early (even in March) and I thoroughly enjoy being able to remain asleep until the alarm rang--for a few days at least until my body adjusts and I start waking up ahead of the buzzer. I cheered when the Feds moved Daylight Savings Time from the last weekend of April to the first: I loved all that extra light in the evening (and actually took advantage of it to go walking and spend time outdoors).

You think I’d be happy that they moved DST to the middle of March but no--it just annoys me! Moving the change to the middle of the month seems unnatural somehow--not to mention it plays hell with some programmed devices (but more on that later). DST was begun to help farmers get more work done by giving them more light to work by later in the day (although I think that’s a “City Feller” notion: I’ve never known a farmer to schedule their work by the clock.) The last expansion of DST was done to increase spending (which, oddly enough, actually worked!) and reduce auto accidents (which statistics say worked as well--but don’t ask me to prove it--this is a blog not a news story.)

The Feds say they made this new change to save energy. I just don’t get that reasoning: sure households may use less energy in the afternoon and early evening but all those savings will be eaten up by the additional energy consumed in the morning. We already proved that way back in the 1970s when President Nixon mad DST a year-round thing. That proved to have no effect but they had enough sense to overturn that after eighteen months. Dunno if that’ll happen with this new Law (and, honestly, I’ll probably get used to it quickly enough).

But there’s one thing I will never, indeed can never deal with: a few years ago Robyn and I bought this bitchin’ alarm clock with all kinds of cool features: it has large numbers (easy to read without glasses) Weekday and Weekend alarms and it even gets the time from the Naval Observatory and automatically resets itself whenever the time changed.

At least it did before the new laws were enacted . . .

Our clock has a huge down-side we weren’t aware of when we bought it though: we can only set the Time Zone. For the next four weeks the thing is an hour slow. Come the end of October it’ll be an hour fast and I’ll have to remember to hand-adjust the alarms so we can get up on time. The alarm clock cost less then $25 so I suppose we could just toss it out and get another one but I hate to throw away something that is still in perfectly good shape. Ah well--that’s what I get for being thrifty. What cannot be cured must be written about in a blog . . .

Now on to the movie review!

Wild Hogs debuted with huge box office last week (March 2) and still made almost 30 Million dollars in the second week of release. The critics didn’t savage it nearly as badly as Ghost Rider but I didn’t see a truly “positive” review anywhere. Still, an on-line friend told me it was the funniest thing she’d seen in a long time and so we decided to go take a look for ourselves.

But before the review a word about the Cinnemark Theater at the Huntington Beach Bella Terra Mall. For the second week in a row we tried to buy tickets to a later show--only to be given tickets to a movie that had already started. True, both movies had almost twenty minutes of previews so we didn’t miss any of the actual movie but neither of us enjoy struggling to our seats in a darkened theater. It puts us in a bad mood for the rest of the show. That being said, back to the review!

Wild Hogs is the story of four upper-middle class suburban men who ride Harleys and pretend to me a motorcycle gang. The “boys” escape their problems at home by taking a road trip to California, running afoul of a real motorcycle gang and finding redemption while saving a small town in New Mexico. If it sounds like a recycled Three Amigos it is--and this movie wouldn’t know an original joke, character, or plot twist if said item came up behind to took a bite out of its butt.

Tim Allen plays Doug--a former bad-boy but now suburban dentist who now works too much, has high cholesterol and can’t relate to his wife or only son. His character is mostly recycled “Tim Taylor” (his character from Home Improvement)--right down to the grunting and monkey noises (although, Thank God, the fascination for power tools didn’t make an appearance. Martin Lawrence plays against type as Bobby--a failed writer who can’t control his family and is completely under his wife’s thumb. William H. Macy plays hapless computer-nerd Dudley: he can’t ride his bike, make his computer work right--and especially can’t score with the ladies. John Travolta plays Woody--a guy the others think has it all--but they don’t know his swimsuit-model wife is divorcing him, he’s lost his clients and is going to lose his house--and can’t even get the best of a ten year old kid.

Along the way they encounter Marissa Tomei--who plays Maggie, a small-town waitress who inexplicably finds an attraction for Dudley and Ray Liotta plays Johnny, the leader of the “real” bikers intent on making the Wild Hogs “pay” for their crimes. There are a few interesting sideline characters they meet along the way that are actually pretty funny--but I won’t spoil the best parts of the movie by giving any more away.

The plot is completely by-the-numbers: listen closely under the soundtrack of 70s and 80s arena rock and you can almost hear the clockworks clicking along. Most of the jokes are telegraphed and the performances are purely phoned in. Still, it’s a “fun” movie: grab some popcorn and park your brain at the door. It’s a nice-enough diversion for a hot afternoon or to rent at the video store once it finally comes out on DVD--which shouldn’t be too long.

A Childhood Dream Goes Up in Flames

This week's fractal is called "Flare." Read the blog and you'll see why I chose it.

I’ve loved architecture as long as I can remember, be it quirky, magnificent or just plain weird I’m a fan. I love to study their lines and intricacies and am always happy to tour a building with character: staying in a building with unique charms is a special treat. And I’m especially sad to see one go.

I can trace this peculiar fascination back to one building where I grew up--the Planters Hotel in Brawley California. Growing up in a small town as a kid who didn’t travel much this place was the stuff of childhood dreams and sparked my imagination as a teenager.

The Planters Hotel was completed in 1927 and for a time was the “luxury” destination in the Imperial Valley. But, like many similar places all of the United States, that didn’t last: by the 1960s the local Movers and Shakers had found more “contemporarily” locales in which to gather and the Planters began its long decline into oblivion. When I became aware of the building ate age five or six (1960 or thereabouts) the bloom was definitely off the rose: the Hotel had become little more than a Flop House and the high-end businesses on the ground floor were being replaced by more marginal establishments (or so my inexact memory tells me). The Hotel closed once and for all and the upper floors were abandoned in the early 1970s although the owners never let the exterior get too run down (for which I‘m sure the citizens of Brawley were grateful).

I never got a chance to go inside the building (and I never even saw pictures of what the place looked like) so my imagination was free to roam: I imagined a large lobby, lit by chandeliers (depending on my mood they were either crystal or wrought-iron confections) but the wood paneling was always dark and the carpets were always sculpted and patterned. Of course the furniture was on a large scale and lushly upholstered in deep red velvet or fine-grained dark brown leather. Upstairs I visualized large, light-filled guest rooms with baroque details and touches like glass door knobs and colorful Mexican Tiles and claw-foot tubs in each bathroom.

As a young adult I visualized revitalizing the Planters and turning the hotel space into luxury apartments. It was never a practical or even remotely achievable dream. The cost of retrofitting the building to make it fire and earthquake-safe would have been prohibitive--and then there were issues like providing adequate parking for the residents (not to mention finding tenants with both money and interest in living in a place like this--especially in a small town with cheap real estate available in plenty). Still, every time I’d come back to visit the Valley I’d see the Planters and those dreams would float through my mind however briefly.

But those dreams went up in smoke once and for all around 12:30 AM Wednesday February 26 when an (alleged) arsonist torched the building, destroying several small businesses located on the ground floor. My heart goes out to those who lost everything: I hope whoever is responsible is caught and punished. I’m also saddened by the loss of local landmark like the Planters Hotel (since the Imperial Valley had so few to begin with) and I mourn the idea of another childhood dream going up in smoke. The Planters Hotel that never was and never could be will live in my dreams--and I hope yours . . .

Below is view of the Plenters Hotel taken from the air in the building's better days. I wish I had a larger, more detailed, picture but this is lterally the only one I could find

The Full Monty: Baring it All

It seems only fair that a theater review should feature a fractal image having to deal with stars--hence I present Star in a Star for your dining and dancing pleasure.

-

Last Saturday night (March 3) Robyn and I saw the Musical Theatre West production of The Full Monty with our friends Alison and Eris Young and Don and Andrea Pitzenbarger. This musical follows the plot of the original British movie of the same title, transferring the action from the English Midlands to Buffalo NY. Jerry Lutowsky is an “average” blue-collar guy who has been laid off after his steel mill closed. Divorced and behind in his Child Support, Jerry hits on the idea to make some fast money by staging a one-time only show where he and a bunch of his buddies will outdo a troop of professional male exotic dancers b showing “everything” off. (It’s the “Full Monty!” Get it?) Can this motley band of literally “get their act together”? Can they regain their self-esteem by showing off "the goodds" to an adoring crowd? You’ll have to go see the show (or rent the movie) to find out . . .

-
John Bison brings decent acting chops to his lead role as Jerry but lacks the paint-peeling intensity needed for the heavy rock numbers the composer pens for Jerry. He dances as well as anyone although (like most of the cast) he’s really to well-sculpted to really be believable as an “Average Joe.” He acting is fine but the script doesn't give him all that much to work with.

-
John Massey Jr., as Jerry's best buddy Dave Bukatinsky fares better: his musical numbers are more melodic and his character is entirely more sympathetic than Jerry. Watching him shove his not considerable bulk around state is amazing--particularly to a “chubby cubby” like me: he wonderfully kultzy when he has to be but still manages to keep up when good dancing is required. I have to commend the guy for his bravery: it takes a lot of guts to play a part like this and even more to spend that much time on stage wearing that little: I couldn't do it.

-
The rest of the cast fares well with what little they are given: most parts are barely sketched by author Terrance McNalley. The women particularly suffer in this show--but, then again, it’s not their story. 11 year-old Quintan Craig does well in the part of Nathan--a precocious kid, wise beyond his years (the sort never seen in real life). John J. Todd deserves mention (if only because he’s so pretty) has fun with his part as a ‘professional stripper. Mary Jo Catlett is loads of fun as Jeanette--a spicy senior citizen who comes out of retirement to play piano for the boys and drop the occasional zinger. Kudos to the dancers who transform themselves from stumblebums to Broadway-style “hoofers” at the turn of a plot and actually make us believe it.

-
The sets are rather abstract--a bit unusual considering the other productions I’ve seen done by Musical Theatre West but they work for this show. The lighting and costumes are adequate but there was some problems with the sound mix on the night we saw the show--particularly in the first half of Act One. Stephen Glaudini’s direction doesn’t look forced and keeps things flowing smoothly. The music, helmed by Allen Everman II, is a good as any professional show (maybe better since he has more band members to work with). Lee Martin’s choreography is always fun to watch.

-
The real stars of the show though are the songs by David Yazbeck. Man “borrows” a hook from the old “Marlboro” jingle while sketching both Dave and Jerry’s personalities in one number. Big Ass Rock manages to make attempted suicide funny. Life With Harold (just about the only female solo in the whole show) is a fun number about a woman blissfully oblivious to her husband’s dire financial state. Michael Jordan’s Ball likens sport to dance while songs like Big Black Man and The Goods are sly social commentary. You Walk With Me is a haunting duet sung beautifully by Malcolm and Ethan (Kevin MacMahon and James Leo Ryan). The music seems deceptively simple but the rhythms and harmonies (not to mention the killer range) make them challenging to sing.

But do you get to see the “Full” Monty? I hear you cry. The simple answer is “yes” (but everything is carefully back-lit so decency is preserved). That being said, the show has more “moons” than Jupiter and plenty of raw language sure to offend those of delicate sensibility. This is no “Rogers and Hammerstein” musical that’s for sure but neither is is bombastic crap like so much of Andrew Lloyd Webber. This show is a good mix of fun and pathos that proves to be a thoroughly enjoyable evening.

-

FINAL GRADE: A