Abigail

I just have to brag, I am such a proud mom today. Aaron won the Student Citizen of the Year award at his school today. 4 students out of the entire school (K - 8th grade) were chosen for this award. It is granted based on grades, behavior, and leadership ability. Congratulations, Aaron - you've come a long ways baby!!!!

That's it, I'm excavating my back yard!

I allowed myself to get deterred from my original point by questions that were absolutely ridiculous and out of context entirely from what I had been saying. "A swat on the bum never hurt anyone" I am not opposed to using a swat on the butt and have done so on occassion when I felt that was what was required to get my child's attention. "We can and do control the behavior of both children and adults, in prisons, if necessary." No, even there we are not controlling them. We are simply limiting their access to our society and to certain items which may be dangerous. They are still ultimately in control of their own behavior. "But yes, my child has a right to decide a teacher may not touch them. To a degree, but not absolutely. A child who is hitting, biting, breaking things, or otherwise endangering people or property has given up that right." I agree and I have had to use a restraining hold on my older son on more than one occassaion as a result. HOWEVER (and this brings me back to the point that I allowed myself to be distracted from by ridiculous questions) In the video (which I acknowledge still leaves out much information) - the chld does not start hiting until after the assistant principal continues to touch her and direct her. In fact at one point the child very much appeared to be trying to regain her self control, but the AP keeps at her until the child is climbing all over the furniture in an attempt to get away. So my questions(which remain unanswered) were: Have you ever gotten angry and walked away from an argument with your spouse because you needed a few minutes to calm down? How would you feel if your spouse continued to follow you around talking to you, touching you, trying to prevent you from walking away and taking that few minutes to calm down? I have been in that position and I know I felt like decking my spouse. Now I didn't do it, because I am an adult and I have more wisdom and a better ability to control myself than a five year old. But I can't help but wonder why one would exepct a 5 year with less wisdom and self control old to feel differently or behave better than we would.

"So would there be circumstances when you would strongly support your child punching the teacher? " Yes there would. Though such a circumstance would also require the firing of the teacher for sexual molestation or child abuse. "See in the circumstance you describe, the CHILD is the one who is making the decision." The CHILD is always the one who makes the decision about their behavior. I teach my children they are in control of their behavior and responsible for it. Ultimately, we do not control children any more than we can control another adult. What we do is teach a child to control themselves. That can be done in a lot of different ways. "No, you are not permitted to touch me. You must not correct me." I will support you if you feel you need to punch, kick, hit or bite your teacher if that person is doing something you don't like." I never said anything like that. But yes, my child has a right to decide a teacher may not touch them. Does my child have a right to punch, kick, hit or bite? yes, and then face the consequences for those actions. However, in addition to dealing with the consequences for the action, I would search for the underlying cause and deal with that as well. Usually by the time a child is 5, IF they have been taught anything about right from wrong - there is an underlying cause, be it emotional, physical, something someone else, did, whatever. That cause at least needs to be discussed so the child can learn a more appropriate way to handle the situation, if nothing else. "Do you think it's okay to say, "Little Johnny, your teacher is an a$$ and you don't have to show that person any respect or do anything they say"? If they bother you, just hit them?" Again,no where in my post did I ever say anything so ridiculous. I said I teach my kids, when, where, how, and under what circumstances they must obey. I teach them they have a right to set certain boundaries for themselves and maintain those boundaries. I also teach them how to appropriately maintain those boundaries - in some instances (though very very rare) punching someone (who, say was hurting them) may be an appropriate way to maintain that boundary. Though first and foremost - I teach them walk away or run away whenever you can in such a circumstance.

I am glad this is a free country and I am free to raise my child as I see fit. Water Garden, ever get angry and walk away from an argument with your spouse because you needed a few minutes to calm down? How would you feel if your spouse continued to follow you around talking to you, touching you, trying to prevent you from walking away and taking that few minutes to calm down? I have been in that position and I know I felt like decking my spouse. Now I didn't do it, because I am an adult and I have more wisdom and a better ability to control myself than a five year old. But I can't help but wonder why one would exepct a 5 year with less wisdom and self control old to feel differently or behave better than we would. I will never teach my kids they have to blindly obey someone in a position of authority. Instead I teach them when, where, how and under what circumstances they need to obey a person in authority. Likewise, I would never teach them another person has a right to touch them when they don't want to be touched. I want my children to grow up understanding they have a right to set certain boundaries for themselves and maintain those boundaries. "If I had an issue with a teacher/principal he would never have known about it, because he was supposed to obey his teachers and the parent and the teacher having an issue that the child knows about simply encourages the child to act out." When things come up with my kids at school - we discuss them. They know when I think they were wrong, and likewise they know that I will go to bat for them when I think they are right. An example that comes to mind is bathroom breaks. The school policy is that the teachers are not allowed to tell a child "no" when they have to go to the bathroom. This came up with my 8 yr old, who was humiliated to no end after he wet his pants because a teacher refused to allow him to use the bathroom. I took the issue up with the principal, with his full knowledge. He is not afraid to tell the teacher that the teacher is breaking school policy by refusing to let him use the bathroom and he has my full support in that. The teacher also knows, if my son is playing around when he is supposed to be using the bathroom, he will have my full support in discipling my son for his misbehavior. That maintains boundaries and builds trust and confidence between me and my children. "Interesting, when moms stayed home to raise the kids, and the kids would get a smack on the bum if they disobeyed (that's what they called it back then) there were fewer discipline problems in the schools and fewer drugs to hand out, fewer diagnoses of behavior disorders, and, not coincidentally, better educated kids." There were also fewer chemicals in our food and water, less polution in the air, less knowledge of emotional, mental, and neurological disorders, and a smaller population. You cannot say just because when A was so, B was so, therefore A caused B. There are other factors involved which also need to be considered.

Well here is what I know from my experiences with my own son - which may be entirely different from that of this little girl, but also may not. If he is upset and having a difficult time controlling himself, the LAST thing you want to do is touch him, cause it will push him right over the edge into totally out of control. If you can get on top of things before he totally loses it, the best thing you can do is get him to someplace quiet and let him calm himself down. Usually this involves giving him some say in location. As he has grown older, he is getting better at telling me "I'm getting really angry" and then going off to his room to be by himself for a while. If he does this, I know I need to back off and pick up with things again later when he is calm. But at 5 he was not at all capable of communicating those things and I had to learn to read his cues and respond accordingly. This is not tolerating bad behavior - there were always consequences for that. It is an issue of understanding the underlying problem and responding accordingly. Knowing what battles to pick and WHEN to pick them. From watching the video - it seems every time the girl starting to get herself under control again the AP starts touching her and redirecting her. The girl isn't lashing out in order to behave badly - she is trying to make the AP stop touching her - she is climbing all over the furniture to get away from the AP and it is only after it comes apparent to not only the viewer, but the child as well, that this woman is not going to leave her alone, that she starts hitting the AP.

Watched the fox news segment. What continues to jump out at me is that this little girl is trying to get away from the assistant principal. The AP keeps touching her, usually gently but in an attempt to physically direct her, and the girl is trying to get away. At one point she is standing calmly in front of what looks to be a filing cabinet, not doing anything wrong - and again the AP takes her by the shoulders and tries to physically direct her elsewhere. According to the news article, the little girl has only acted out this way with the AP, and not other teachers. The mother repeatedly asked that the AP NOT be the one to handle her daughter and the school wouldn't listen. The mother also tried to transfer her daughter to another school, but was not allowed to do so. This doesn't sound to me like a mom who just doesn't care. Again, most parents who don't care enough to discipline their children, also don't care enough to fight the school over how they handle the child.

Shows you where their priorities are. Molest children get moved to another church, but steal their money . . . MI Priest Sentenced for Stealing from Churches April 26, 2005, 08:40 AM Email to a Friend Printer Friendly Version A Roman Catholic priest has been sentenced to 300 days in the jail for stealing $244,000 from 2 Van Buren County churches that he served. The Reverend Bogdon Werra was sentenced in Van Buren County Circuit Court in Paw Paw after pleading guilty March 10th to embezzlement. Werra faces up to 10 years in prison. The judge also ordered him to serve 5 years' probation, undergo counseling and repay the stolen money. Werra served at Saint John Bosco Parish in Mattawan and Saint Margaret Mary Mission in Marcellus. Werra resigned in July and was charged in August.

I agree that suspension and expulsion do not get a child's attention (detention can if it is done properly). But it will often get the attention of the parent who has to take the day off work to take care of the child. Here's some interesting information on special education in public schools . . . . Amid Affluence, a Struggle Over Special Education [Exerpts] By ALISON LEIGH COWAN Published: April 24, 2005 "The sign outside Westport should say: 'Don't Move Here. We Don't Take Care of Special Ed,' " said Stanley Alintoff, a parent who said he has spent more than $100,000 challenging Westport's decision to revoke special accommodations his daughter was receiving because of a digestive disorder. [Hmmmm perhaps the girl shouldn't be allowed to have a regular education seen as how her awful parents allowed her to be born with a digestive disorder] With an estimated 5.7 million children in the United States qualifying for special education, similar struggles are playing out around the country. Federal laws aimed at protecting the disabled entitle those who qualify to a free and "appropriate" education tailored to their needs. But the definition of "appropriate" differs from town to town, leaving much to quarrel about... In Calaveras County, Calif., the Bret Harte Union High School District fought so hard to block the claims of a student that Judge Oliver W. Wanger of United States District Court took 83 pages to berate the district's "hard-line position" and its law firm for "willfully and vexatiously" dragging out the case so long that the former student is now 24... While the federal government created the special education entitlement, and some states outside New York, New Jersey and Connecticut enacted stricter laws of their own, Congress and state legislatures have failed to provide all the funding. [And that is HUGE part of the problem - you cannot expect schools and teachers to perform a task and NOT give them the tools needed to do so.]..... Coming from Warren, N.J., where, he said, accommodations were granted without fuss, Mr. Blittstein said that Westport's harder line could cost children their shot at an education. "They have seemingly endless resources to just wear you down, and my kid will be out of the school system in a year," he said. But some longtime residents of Westport said that the town's attitude toward children with special needs has shifted from the days when it opened Stepping Stones, a preschool program conceived with the disabled in mind. "The focus of the administration changed," said Richard C. Elliott, an adjunct professor of education at Argosy University in Sarasota, Fla., who spent 30 years as a teacher and administrator in the Westport system. "It changed from asking the question, 'What's best for the child?' to asking, 'What is our minimal requirement under the law?' " . . . "At school board meetings and in interviews, many parents faulted Dr. Landon, and the town's competitive culture. "Elliott Landon does not get kudos for how many special ed kids he teaches multiplication tables to," said Valerie Spellman, the mother of two autistic children, who moved her family out of the district last year. "He gets kudos for how many kids he gets into Ivy League schools." . . . "Parents and some members of Westport's Board of Finance point out that Ms. Gilchrest's analysis places no value on lost staff time or on the cost to society of failing those children. Critics also have trouble grasping why the district fights tooth and nail in situations where giving in would cost little. Some of the fiercest fights, they said, involve requests for extra time on tests or early dismissal so children can attend enrichment programs at parents' expense."

"We do a grave dis-service to our children when we back them up when they are wrong and punish the teachers for trying to control their classrooms. " Agreed. However, we also do a grave dis-service to our children when we fail to back them up when they are right. So it becomes a very difficult situation for a parent who cannot be present to witness what is actually occuring. The best we can do is make decisions based on what we know about our children, their teacher, and the situation. Sometimes we get it right, and sometimes we don't. In a world that is becoming increasingly hazardous to our children, because we continue to allow perverts and violent criminals out the streets, and some of these people make it into our school systems as well - I have to base my judgements on what I know of my child. Where my children attend school now, if there is a disciplinary problem that the teacher cannot handle (due to laws or school policy) the child is sent to the principal's office. If the offense is serious enough the parents are contacted. If necessary - there is detention, suspension, and expulsion. If none of that gets the parent's attention - beating the child or handcuffing a five year old, is not likely to help. Seems to me that would be the point when contacting protective services might be warranted. In this state - if you do not make your child attend school, the parents are fined. "Additional facts about the case: Not the first time the police have been called on this child at school. Mother under eviction. Does anybody feel that there are probably alot of problems at home that would make this child act out like this. I do." Quite possibly. But I still fail to see how handcuffing a five year old will help. Additionally, the question that stands out in my mind is, if this child has had so many problems in the past why has she not been assessed? Why not suspend her or expell her? Despite the laws which make discipling a child in school more difficult in some cases, there are options which would be far less traumatic than handcuffing a five year old. As for the police being called in the past, it may explain why mom was so quick to find or already had an attorney. Additionally, the eviction does indicate problems at home - but in this day an age does not necessitate neglect. Maybe mom lost her job to one oversees, maybe dad stopped paying child support. We still don't know enough. However, I would be very interested in knowing where you got your information, because this case definitely has my interest and I would like to find out more about it.

Hackers strike again: 'Pharmers' targeting online bank users with new scam By Jane Larson Gannett News Service Protect yourself • It's difficult to detect and prevent pharming scams because they are largely transparent to personal computer users. The scams exploit weaknesses in the Domain Name System, or DNS, servers operated mainly by Internet service providers (ISPs). ISPs can provide the most robust protection by adding an additional layer of security to their DNS servers to thwart pharming. • Until that happens, Windows XP and 2000 users should consider installing the free Netcraft Toolbar for Internet Explorer, which reports the country of origin of any Internet server to which you are connected. • You may download the Netcraft Toolbar and read a tutorial about how to use it at http://toolbar.netcraft.com. It's the next Internet scam, and it could be the most menacing. The reason: Even experienced Internet users can become victims and not know it. The ploy is called pharming - a play on "phishing," another type of Internet fraud - and it involves highly skilled hackers who secretly redirect users' computers from financial sites to the scammers' fake ones, where they steal passwords and other personal information. Even the Web address looks the same. Unlike phishing, where users click on links in e-mails and are taken to fake sites, pharming intercepts a user on his or her way to the bank or credit-card firm. And it potentially can affect thousands of users at a time. "With pharming, you don't have to do anything stupid to get on the hook," said Tom Leighton, chief scientist of Internet software firm Akamai Technologies Inc. in Cambridge, Mass. "You're just swimming along, and you get caught in the net." It is just a matter of time before the scam becomes widespread, experts fear. "If it didn't get worse, it would buck the trend of all known security problems," said David Jevans, a Silicon Valley executive who is chairman of the fraud-fighting Anti-Phishing Working Group. The scam is so new that Internet security gurus have just started warning about it. Leighton told a technology conference in December that hackers are targeting small sections of the Internet and rerouting traffic to fake bank sites to capture users' passwords. The legitimate sites don't notice the drop in Web traffic because it is just a fraction of the total. An anti-phishing bill introduced in Congress last month also would apply to pharming. It calls for prison time and fines for those caught either phishing or pharming. Security experts say pharmers have two main ways of operating: attacking either users' computers or the large servers that find Web sites for users. The first way is to send virus-laden e-mails that install small software programs on users' computers. When a user tries to go to his bank's Web site, the program redirects the browser to the pharmers' fake site. It then asks a user to update information such as logons, PIN codes or driver's license numbers, said Chris Faulkner, chief executive officer of CI Host Inc., a Web-hosting firm in Bedford, Texas. Scammers use the information to steal identities. Other viruses, called keyloggers, track a user's keystrokes on legitimate sites and can be used to steal passwords. The pharmers' second method takes advantage of the fact that Web sites have verbal names but reside at numeric addresses on the Internet. When users type a Web site's name into their browsers, Domain Name System, or DNS, servers read the name, look up its numeric address and take users to the site. Pharmers interfere with that process by changing the real site's numeric address to the fake site's numeric address. The servers can belong to financial institutions, Web-hosting companies or Internet service providers. This tactic, called DNS poisoning, has been around for years, but it is only in the past six months that techies have seen it used for identity theft and dubbed it pharming. "It's like the name sounds," said Rami Habal, senior product manager at Proofpoint Inc., a Cupertino, Calif.-based e-mail security software firm. "They're planting the seeds of malicious code and harvesting the identity information later." What alarms the experts is that pharming can reroute thousands of Internet users at a time, making the impact potentially huge. "With phishing, you're scamming one person at a time with e-mail," Faulkner said. "Pharming allows you to scam a large group at once." Pharmers generally come from overseas, such as China, Russia and Eastern Europe, experts say. They fear many are tied to organized-crime rings that buy and sell identity information. Companies and big organizations can reduce the threat by keeping their software updated and patched. They also can install firewalls, filter for known scams, and watch for changes in Internet protocol addresses on their servers, the experts said. Anti-pharming software is in the works.

"My beef is with the judges in this country who have taken the right of the parents away to discipline their children. " I disagree. The judges have not removed a parents right to discipline a child. In fact, in many states it is still perfectly legal to spank a child on the behind with a bare hand as long as the red mark does not last for hours. However, where our government has blown it, is by taking away a teacher's right to discpiline a child (and no I am not speaking of corporal punishment). Even worse, they have put a tremendous amount of pressure on the teachers and the schools to meet certain goals without offering them the funding or training to make that possible. "Also, we don't know if she was a special needs kid. She could have been just a 5 year old throwing a temper tantrum." Yes, I agree this is possible. BUT most 5 year olds will not throw a tantrum of this degree unless there is an underlying problem. That problem COULD be a lack of discpline at home, but this far into the year the child should be accustomed to the routine of school, as well as the discipline which follows. Other problems could be boredom, being expected to sit for too long a period, physical problems as Krys suggest, or neurological ones. We just don't have enough information to know. BUT to just out right blame the parents, given this lack of information, really ....es me off. In addition, traumatizing the child by handcuffing her isn't going to help the child. " In addition, appparently this child had run ins with this asistant principle before, and the mother had asked for this woman not to be involved in handling her child." Which is one of the reasons why I would not be so quick to blame the parents. Most parents who don't care enough about their kids to discipline them, are not going to put much time or energy into fighting with the school over how the school handles them. So I am wondering - if there have been problems in the past, has an assessment been done? Has one been requested? This mother had an attorney, had she retained him prior to this event because she was already having problems with the school? Perhaps the school was not complying with the laws with regard to doing an assessment? I don't know. "Nowadays, everyone wants to put every child who is energetic on some kind of meds. They are classified hyper active. Could be just that children are active - THEY ARE CHILDREN after all. When I was young we spent our entire summer outside and depleted that energy by the tme evening rolled around. Yes parents do have a big responisbilty in this. " Yes, and when we were young we spent half a day in kindergarten and most of that time was spent playing. Now in kindergarten they are expected to be at school for 7 - 8 hours and most of that time is spent sitting at a desk doing paperwork. Additionally, is it not entirely possible that we do have more kids who are ADD and ADHD because of the chemicals we put in our food, water and air? The preservatives in all the vaccines we give them? Could it simply be because we have a larger population? A better (though still seriously lacking) understanding of how the body and mind work or in some cases do not work properly? Again, I don't know. Also, a number of kids are misdiagnosed as ADD or ADHD when there is a different neurological disorder because the symptoms can overlap so much. What I can't help but wonder though, is amongst all this finger pointing is anyone thinking of the child? How terrified and/or angry she must have felt to get that out of control? How terrified she must have felt when she was handcuffed and placed in a police car? Did any of that help her? Or just hurt her more? I have been on both sides of the coin when it comes to medicating children, Outofdaog. I have a son who does require medication and I have fought for 6 years to get him not just the medications but the other help he needs as well. I am still fighting and will probably have to continue to fight for a good long time. That could easily have been my son in kindergarten and I thank God it was not. He is 8 now and has come a long ways, but he still has a ways to go, too. I also have a "normal" son in kindergarten and I have spent this entire past winter fighting a school that would have me drug him into submission because he had a difficult time sitting at a desk all day doing paperwork. Amazingly (sarc) with the arrival of spring and more outdoor time, along with a new teacher who is willing to give him work that challenges him, his behavioral problems have disspeared without medication. But I'll tell you, this past winter, that too could have been my 6 year old son, who was pushed beyond frustration by his teacher. This son, who is not at all violent at home, did start having tantrums at school. So, I agree, we don't have enough information to know what happened to this little girl and why it got so far out of hand. That being the case, why are so many quick to blame the parents?

Man, I am still so ****** about this thread. I'd bet most of you who want to crucify the parents don't even have children, much less a child with special needs. I bet you have no clue how much time, energy and emotion goes into raising such a child. Are you aware that most doctors won't even consider testing and diagnosing such a child until after they get in trouble at school? Once you finally do find a doctor, and wait months on a waiting list to be seen, go through two days or more worth of testing, get results which may or may not lead to an accurate diagnosis, you then being the long process of trial and error with therapy and medications. When/if you finally find a medication that works, odds are good eventually the body will grow and adjust and you will have to change medications. Then its back to trial and error with medications which may help or may exasperate the problem. Then there are the side effects and the medications to treat the side effects. What are we to do with these special needs (aka "cookoo kids)? Should we stone them as was done in days of old? Should we lock them in a mental ward where they will never have a chance at a normal life? Maybe we should stone the parents for having given birth to them? Separate them and put them in special ed? What about the ones who are too smart for special ed, what do you do with those children? It is very easy to sit on your throne and judge that which you know nothing about. Well, in the words of a special lady, phuk you

Wacky, I pray you never give birth to such a cookoo kid, for the kid's sake.

There is a great deal the video leaves out. What was going on before she was directed in front of the camera? If you watch - the teachers keep touching her, her shoulders, her arms - they are trying to direct her, that is not an insult toward the teachers. BUT I know with my own son (which is quite likely an entirely different situation than with this little girl) that when he is upset the last think you want to do is touch him. His brain cannot handle the sensory input at that point and even a gentle touch will send him over the edge. In the video, it looks in the beginning, as if the girl is trying to make the teacher stop touching her. Also, I know if my son is upset, talking to him is pointless. Best when possible, to let him do his own thing for five or ten minutes until he has himself under control. Again, this is not always possible, I am aware of that. But I would be very curious to see the "rest of the story"

Wacky, inclusion in and of itself isn't a bad concept. Inclusion needs to depend on the abilities and difficulties of the individual child, however, and should not be an across the board mandate. I do agree though, regarding the training.

This blame the parents crap really ....es me off! Being the parent of a child who has had some pretty out of control tantrums, which included busting a window when he was three, I can tell you that it is not because he has learned that it was tolerable or acceptable behavior at home. It is not because I didn't discipline him, and it is not because I haven't sought help for him. Some children have emotional, neurological, or physical problems that lead to episodes like this regardless of what parents and/or teachers do. At least until the proper treatment is found - which is no easy task. I can also tell you, if my child got out of control like that at school and the school called the cops I'd be suing the foot off of them. The first thing I would expect them to do, if they could not handle the situation on their own (and usually even when they can) is to CALL me. Why? Because while legally they may not be able to physically restrain him, I can and I know how to do it in such a manner as to not harm him physically or emotionally.

One last passage regarding the history of Iran and the author and then I am done for a while :)--> "At the start of the twentieth century, the age of marriage in Iran - nine, according to sharia laws - was changed to thirteen and then later to eighteen. My mother had chosen whom she wanted to marry and she had been one of the first six women elected to Parliament in 1963. When I was growin up, in the 1960's there was little difference between my rights and the rights of a women in Western democracies. But it was not the fashion then to think that our culture was not compatible with modern democraqcy, that there were Western and Islamic versions of democracy and human rights. We all wanted opportunities and freedom. that is why we suppored revolutionary change - we were demanding morerights, not fewer. . . By the time my daughter was born the laws had regressed to what they had been before my grandmother's time: the first law to be repealed, months before the reatification of a new constitution, was the family-protection law, which guaranteed women's rights at home and at work. The age of marriage was lowered to nine. . . and women, under law, were considered to have half the worth of men... My youthful years had witnessed the rise of two women to the rank of cabinet minisiter. After the revolution, these same two women were sentenced to death for the sins of warring with God and spreading prostitution."

Some historical notes that I find facinating . . . In Iran, there were many who were opposed to a ruling religious regime. Many who were forced to wear the veil and follow Islam against their will. Those who refused (and here I speak most specifically of women because it was from that perspective that the books was written) were sent to prisons where they were repeatedly and brutally raped and then shot. Many who were a part of the revolution that turned Iran into an Islamic Republic, did not understand the consequences of their actions. All they knew is that they hated the monarchy and they were so caught up in that idea alone, that they did not consider the effects a religiously ruled political force would have on the people in their country. The news scenes, so often aired, of Muslim people burning flags and screaming hatred for the U.S., were often "faked". The government paid poverty stricken people to participate in such acts for propoganda. Additionally, many who truly did despise the U.S. and western culture did so because they felt that "we" were imposing and forcing our culture upon them. We were corrupting their religious way of life. I find this last concept interesting on many fronts, including the political climate we face in the middle east, but even more so the political climate we have right here at home. I wonder about the religious right who so resents the rest of the people for our "liberal and corrupt ways." I wonder if they consider the long term effects of winning their moral war. If they understand that they too, in trying to fashion reality out of a dream(ideal) may destroy both the dream and the reality.

Black and white thinking - objectifying of people . . . Context is a young college student, dedicated to Islam and the regime, who had just set himself on fire and gone running down the hallway of a school building. "Resentment had erased all ambiguity in our encounters with people like him; we had been polarized into "us" and "them." It did not occur to me or to my students and colleagues as we shared stories and anecdotes that day . . . that he who seemingly wielded so much power was in fact the one with the strongest urge to self-destruction. Had he, by burning himself, usurped our right to revenge? . . . " "one did not have to agree with him or approve of him to understand his position. he had returned from a war where he belonged to a university he had never been a part of. no one wanted to hear his stories. Only his moment of death could spark interest. It was ironic that this man, whose life had been so determined by doctrinal certainty, would now gain so much complexity in death."

On cult mentality as well as political propoganda . . . "The place where the regime tried to keep its hold, ironically, was in the realm of our imagination. . . . This was not only to justify an increasingly unpopular and desperate war, whose end the regime had refused to contemplate until it had "liberated" the whole of Iraq. It was also aimed at intimidating and controlling a restive population, by holding up the prospect of even greater misfortune. . ." and "Khomeini's death carried its own illuminations. Some, like me, felt like aliens in their homeland. Others, like the taxi driver I came across a few weeks after the funeral, were disillusioned with the whole religious fraud, as he put it. Now I know how fourteen hundred years back they created the imams and prophets, he said - just like this guy. So none of it was true." "what they mourned. . . was the death of a dream. Like all great myth makers, he had tried to fashion reality out of his dream, and in the end, like Humbert, he had managed to destroy both reality and his dream. Added to the crimes, to the murders and tortures, we would now face this last indiginity - the murder of our dreams. Yet he had done this with our full compliance, our complete assent and complicity."

On a non-political note . . . . The context here is the death of someone's mother. They were not allowed to bury her in a cemetary because she was a "political outcast" due to her religious views. "I wanted to touch him, but the experience had put him outside of reach: he was still there in that car, driving towards the garden. There were many such instances, when expressions of sympathy could not be exchanged. What do you say to someone who is telling you about the rape and murder of virgins - I'm sorry, I feel your pain?" This reminds me of how I feel when I hear some of the stories here at the cafe. Or when I hear of the death of a loved one, as so recently happened when my aunt died.

"The war with Iraq(Iran and Iraq) began that September and did not end until late July 1988 . . . At first the war seemed to pull the divided country together: we were all Iranian and the enemy had attacked our homeland. But even in this, many were not allowed to participate fully. From the regime's point of view, the enemy had attacked not just Iran; it had attacked the Islamic Republic, and it had attacked Islam. The polorization created by the regime confused every aspect of life. Not only were the forces of God fighting an emissary of Satan, Iraq's Saddam Hussein, but they were also fighting agents of Satan inside the country. At all times, from the very beginning of the revolution and all through the war and after, the Islamic regime never forget its holy battle against its internal ememies. All forms of criticism were now considered Iraqi-inspired and dangerous to national securty." Does the ring a familiar bell to anyone? I finding it eerily too close to home.

This thread could go in a number of forums, doctrinal, political, about the way, so I decided to place it here. I am reading this book (thread title), which is written by Azar Nafisi. Never has a book touched me so powerfully or changed my perspective on so many topics. I wanted to share a few passages, which will hopefully touch others, despite the missing context of the rest of the story. I think I will quote them in separate posts.

Yeah, there is someone from the cafe' in Grand Rapids, but I'd prefer to let that person make themself known (I know improper grammar). I'm in Lansing, Out There. How long you been out, could be we know each other?