Hilton, the self-proclaimed "Queen of All Media", opened the lid of this pageant Pandora's Box by purposefully challenging a contestant who happens to attend a Christian college.  Miss Prejean also happens to represent the state that recently passed the oft-discussed Proposition 8 which reiterated the public's desire to see marriage remain recognized as between a man and a woman.  Hilton is no shrinking violet and is both a well-known attention hound and admitted homosexual.  That is part of his shtick and a large reason for his devoted following.  These elements helped to create a kind of ideological perfect storm.  The move was as calculated as its outcomes were predictable.

            When Hilton asked her beliefs with regard to gay marriage, Miss Prejean's answer was sincere and to-the-point, "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

            In theory, that should have been the end of it.  Question. Response.  Next.  But for so many torch-bearers of the gay agenda, this constituted nothing less than a public flogging that should be responded to in kind, and soon armies of homosexual activists and apologists were mounted and on the charge. 

            In the hours and days following the pageant, Miss Prejean was subjected to a litany of insults by Hilton himself, media personalities, and vitriolic members of the gay community on message boards and sound bites throughout the country.  Through the media, Hilton spewed a slew of expletive-laden insults at the 21 year old college student.  In addition to his vulgar tirades, he also defaced her pictures on his web site, proudly announced he had given her a score of  "0"(essentially costing her the title), and said had she won that he'd have run on stage and snatched her crown away.  One of the co-organizers of the pageant, Keith Lewis, said he personally was "saddened and hurt" by her comments while another colleague, Shannon Moakler, supported his comments. CNN talking head Jane Velez-Mitchell attacked her as part of a panel discussion on No Bias, No Bull.  And increasingly irrelevant train wreck-in-waiting Miley Cyrus, renowned thinker that she is, also chimed in with her critique of Miss Prejean's answer, "That's lame."

            Even if one were to disagree with Miss Prejean's opinion, you could not legitimately make the argument that her answer was hateful, mean-spirited, or even all that inflammatory. She answered both honestly and according to the dictates of her beliefs.  The same cannot be said, though, of the disproportionately vitriolic attacks on both the character and beliefs of Miss Prejean. One need only scan the comments section of any on-line article featuring the showdown to get a sample of the violent, unhinged, and often anti-Christian sentiment being poured out at the expense of Miss Prejean's name and faith.

            It is not as if she requested that question in order to manufacture some nationwide platform, but one could reasonably draw the conclusion that Hilton, no doubt upset by the success of Proposition 8 and a vested interest in the cause, utilized his position as a judge to further push his own agenda.  He is the one who injected the issue into the evening.  Miss Prejean, a Christian woman of faith,  simply answered accordingly.

            Truth be told, the question was an entirely plausible one.  It is fair to ask about a social issue that was hotly contested and debated.  What is not fair, though, is to politicize and event and then act outraged when someone expresses a dissenting opinion.   Hilton went so far as to say that Prejean's answer ought to have been more "politically correct".  Let's get this straight, no longer are gay advocates content to force their agenda on the public at large in a cultural rape, but they now want us to voluntarily agree and say "Thank you for the service"?  Well, no thanks.

            The public has spoken repeatedly in large numbers that they believe that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Whenever this comes up for a vote it is regularly beaten.  Only Vermont can claim that the measure passed via legislation.  All other instances -- Massachussettes, Connecticut, and most recently Iowa -- saw the general will of the voters cast aside as judges legislated from their benches and bullied the general populace into submitting to the whims and wills of the ever-advancing homosexual agenda and its foot soldiers.  More states are certain to follow suit.  When elections are viewed as mere formalities and the benches acknowledged as the true seats of power, the voters are increasingly losing their political voice.

            It seems that Perez Hilton and his ilk now want them to lose their actual voice as well.  The egg of individual expression is now being assaulted by acolytes of the gay movement.  As evidenced by the outcry against Miss Prejean, there are cracks already beginning to show in that shell. And all the queen's horses and all the queen's men most decidedly do not want to see that put back together again.

            “Just don’t talk politics.” And so began my cousin’s explanation of why some members of my predominately liberal, Democratic family has continued a practice of boycotting events at my home. This ostensibly began last year during the early months of the election and had now continued into our Easter celebration.

            I laughed and asked why. His answer was as fascinating as it was alcohol-induced. “You see, Bob, you can’t go around be miserable just because your side lost. Just like I can’t go around being miserable when my side loses.”  

            Yet, time marches on and the pendulum always shifts, just as it did last November with the election of Celebrity-in-Chief Obama. I was disappointed. I was, and remain, incredulous about both his eligibility and abilities. I eagerly await the next two election cycles. However, I am not spending my time as this same cousin spent his during much of the time between 2002 and 2008. That is to say obsessively mocking, ridiculing, and bemoaning the president in any personal way with no sense or semblance to my criticisms. 

            People say he is smart. He won’t release his academic records, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I have, and will, continue to avoid attacking his intellect unlike this same cousin who spend much of the past eight years calling Bush everything from an “idiot” to a “monkey” and many others in between.

            People say he respects the military and will be just fine in the face of a crisis. I gave him both the benefit of the doubt and his position. The no-nonsense approach to the Somali pirates indicates that he has the important ability to tackle such a confrontation. His initial flirtations with Russia, Cuba, Iran, and Palestinians, as well as his announced plans to rid the world of nuclear weapons and to halt the missile defense shield, though, give me pause.

            People say he has had only a passing affiliation with some of the most radical people ever to surface on the national political radar. I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt here, but truth be told, he is not making that very easy. This one I may never be able to do in earnest or full. That is simply because I am currently watching the greatest redistribution of wealth in our nation’s history coupled with the largest spending bills in history against the unprecedented backdrop of  the American government’s nationalization of industries such as banking and automobiles which only serve to distract from the fact that American sovereignty is quickly falling by the wayside.

            Now, I say those things not to incite, but rather because they are facts. And to prove these items, all I need to do is point to a variety of actions and activities over the course of the last 84 days. The devil is in the details. Or in theis case the daily news. I wonder how my cousin would choose to qualify his “monkey” argument with regards to W.?

            The real kicker came when my cousin explained that my comments make some people uncomfortable. Let me do a quick deconstruction: “comments” = facts that I like to point out, “some people” = liberal family members, and “uncomfortable” = ticked off that they can’t dispute so they are forced to return fire with comments like “monkey”.   When I politely offered that I did not really care all that much about making others uncomfortable because facts are facts, he seemed satisfied that I had now accepted my role as the official outcast in the family. At that point, he popped another Bud Light and began quizzing my recently college-graduated cousin as to whether or not she had voted and on the validity of  her assertion that her parents were even registered to do so.

            Somewhat confused, she turned to me and asked what he was talking about. I simply answered “politics” and smiled, wondering how long until he was banished to the familial nether regions alongside me. Then, remembering that liberals ascribe one set of rules for themselves and a different set for others, I figured my position as “black sheep” is firmly cemented for many, many years to come. And, by contrast, I could not be happier.

Perhaps I am an alarmist. Perhaps I am succumbing to the media-induced inevitability of a Barry Hussein ascendency. Perhaps I am just tired of fighting that same media and Hollywood and academia and the unions and all the various and sundry elements of the left. Perhaps it is all of the above.

In the end, though, what I saw last night was a man in desperate need of both runs and spectacle. He seemed to produce little of either.  A solid policy hit here and there may have satiated the policy wonks and talking heads, and the base on balls allowed by moderator Bob Schieffer helped keep the feistier-than-normal candidate in the game.  

Unfortunately, when you are playing against a mega-watt star, wins, losses, and runs never count as much as the tape-measure shots of your opponent no matter how vacuous, improbable, or untrue his claims.  The occasional ground-rule double (“I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against him you should have run four years ago.”) did little more than whet the appetite of both the bleacher bums and box seated fans alike. 

In the end, what most will remember is a series of softball lobs that Obama hung in the air long enough for a collective nation to hold their breath to see if this time the Arizona senator would swing for the gates. Many would have been happy to simply see warning track power. But, like the fictional Casey, each time these beach balls crossed his plate, McCain left an anxious crowd deflated, dejected, and unfortunately probably defeated come November.

Tax breaks for 95% of all Americans including the thirty-plus percent that don’t actually pay taxes? Strike. Unsavory alliances? Strike. An economic policy that will be impossible to fund simply by rolling back tax cuts for a certain segment of the population, ending the war, and trimming some political fat? Strike.

He did not do it in the fashion of Bugs Bunny, corkscrewing himself into an inhuman pose wrapped round and round his own torso. That would have at least signaled an attempt. Instead, Obama seemed to paint the corners daring McCain to swing. And each time, the elder statesman left the lumber on his shoulder.

Winners go down swinging. Champions connect. Lately, McCain does precious little of either. So, while it may not be the bottom of the ninth, it sure is late in the game. 

 “Late to the Party” should be the name of John McCain’s next inevitable memoir. Win or lose, not only does it accurately sum up, for many, the presidential nominee’s standing in the GOP, it also is an apt description of his approach to running for the highest office in the land.

While political pundits, radio orators, and cable talking heads have spent the better part of the last year discussing and dissecting NObama’s relation to everyone from Jeremy Wright to William Ayers to ACORN to Jim Johnson, McCain conspicuously has not. 

Perhaps he intentionally steered clear of those topics in order to hold true to the promise he made of this being an honorable campaign. As well intentioned as that idea was, it was not then nor is it now, a realistic way to run a victorious campaign. McCain seems to have come to understand that. After months of side-stepping the questions or moments that would have allowed him to make character a central issue in the campaign, McCain has slowly but surely loosen the tether on both Sarah Palin and his own choke collar.

Unfortunately, McCain continues to come across as decidedly schizophrenic on the matter. One day he decries the personal attacks and any hint that these relations are relevant. The next he is trying to shoe horn twelve months’ worth of potentially potent ammunition into stump speeches on a maddeningly inconsistent basis. Such erratic application paints him as neither a sensitive, honorable contestant nor a serious contender. It is simply too haphazard to appear as anything more than ham handedly using feints and jabs to deliver a knockout blow. 

Palin seems comfortable in the role of attack dog for the campaign, but McCain’s increasingly mixed message not only infuriates his supporters but also unnecessarily casts Sarracuda in an unflattering light readily exploited by the mainstream media. Moreover, his failure to regularly follow up on the points she so deftly makes in essence cuts her legs out from under her.

Rush Limbaugh has recently taken to describing the current phenomenon as dragging McCain across the finish line. At times it does seem that McCain is unaware of the fact that he is not merely running against the Anointed One but the mainstream media, academia, the far left, the intelligentsia, and most of Hollyweird. 

In more than one debate appearance, McCain failed to hammer home important points, draw clear delineations between both himself and Barry Hussein (and at times even the non-ballot W.), and to confront The Once and Future King with his own poorly – perhaps strategically – chosen allies. Any or all of the above would have given the viewers at home a more transparent version of Nobama, a clearer measure of McCain the man, and supporters of the Arizona senator the knowledge that this candidate wants to win as much as they want him to and is willing to work at least as hard. 

I hope the esteemed members of NARAL have a moment to answer a few questions.  For those intellectually honest enough to try, please don't think of it as a quiz so much as a moral inventory of sorts.  Wait, do that only if you choose.....

1)      Do you support and promote the choice to abstain from dangerous activities including, but not limited to, high risk same-sex encounters, teen sex, and casual sex? Do you support and promote school districts choosing programs that encourage or educate students about that choice as it is the only 100% effective way to avoid both STDs and pregnancy?

2)      Do you support and promote the choice of a home owner to own a gun to protect them in the event that some miscreant chooses to illegally trespass, break and enter, or violently attack them?

3)      Do you support and promote the choice of an un-wed mother, who unexpectedly finds she is pregnant, to carry the child to term and then either raise the child or place it into adoptive care? Do you support and promote her choice if the baby is not 100% healthy or is not guaranteed a long life?

4)      Do you support and promote the choice of an individual to allocate their funds as they see fit when it comes to helping those less fortunate than they? With regards to their retirement? With regards to education for their children?

5)      Do you support and promote the right of a restaurant owner to choose to offer the fare of his choice in his own establishment? Do you support the right of a business owner to allow or disallow smoking in his own establishment? Do you support or promote the concept that a customer has a choice to patronize or not patronize an establishment based upon its fare? Its prices? Its location? Its policies? The attractiveness of its staff?

6)      Do you support and promote the choice of a localized community to set its own standards of conduct and accomplishment without federal intervention? 

7)      Do you support and promote the choice of family members to encourage the use of any and all medical means at their disposal to extend the life of a loved one?

8)      Do you support and promote the choice of a private enterprise to hire and promote solely on the basis of merit or an academic institution to allow admissions based solely on the same?

9)      Do you support and promote an individual’s choice to vocalize words, phrases, or ideas that run contrary to the beliefs of others?

10)  Do you support and promote the choice of a pharmacist to decline to personally   fill a prescription that conflicts with the tenets of her religion?

(Bonus fun: Did you choose to read the previous question differently because of my choice to use the feminine pronoun rather than the masculine?)

11)   Do you support and promote the right of a woman to choose to terminate a pregnancy? To seek means to do so? To actually terminate the pregnancy? To do so without notification of parents or significant others?

Now, the theory I’d like to posit here is that a self-proclaimed pro-“Choice” Advocate probably answered “yes” to only 1 of 11. Perhaps 2 of 11 if you count the bonus question. In any event, I simply wanted to point out their hypocrisy.

            Truth be told, these pro-“Choice” acolytes are the antithesis of choice. They want to choose for you thus effectively eliminating all choice. Perhaps, “Proto-Fascist” would be a more apt description. That may seem harsh, but facts don’t lie.  And while the Left has for years trotted out the “fascist” retort to any and all things Conservative, the hard truth is that the term is much more fitting for Liberal policies and rallying points (for more literate and researched evidence, consult Jonah Goldberg’s brilliant Liberal Fascism). 

The above questions offer a very fair litmus test with regards to the issue of “choice” in its purest form. It is amazing how so many of the self-same pro-“Choice” zealots would not allow choice on so many other issues rooted in the Constitution. It is also interesting that they simply glom onto the issue of abortion of which they are staunchly in favor.

This begs the question, if they are not willing to wear the bigger badge of “Proto-fascist” as I am sure they would not, would they choose to make clear their true affiliation by proclaiming themselves “Pro-abortion”? That seems like a simple enough question. And, strangely, yet one more to which they would more than likely answer “No” today.

Merry Christmas to everyone in the Southwestern Oklahoma State University human resources department!

Sorry, I momentarily forgot about your brave new "x" policy with regard to the current holiday season and the fact that those first six letters must be replaced with x’s or covered over. Won't happen again.

It's funny how so many individuals have allowed something silly like the actual wording of our Constitution to lead them to believe that they actually have the right of unabridged free speech or the freedom to exercise their religious beliefs without prohibition.  I blame the constructionist malcontents.  Thank goodness there are so few of them -- only half the country. You needn't worry about them.  They probably adhere to such antiquated notions as bedtime prayers and saying grace before meals.  Rubes.

Then again, I am most definitely in favor of protecting any minority -- that is what this country is all about (as a sidebar:  it is what much of Christianity -- I'm sorry xxxxxxianity-- is all about).  But this need never be done at the expense of the rights of others.

I wonder, since "hate" speech is defined and prosecuted on the basis of intent, can they take your attack on the wording of this sacred holiday as an intended hate crime?  Don't worry, they probably wouldn't prosecute.  After all, it is the xxxxxxmas Season.

What's that?  It's not an attack on religion?  Oh, okay then.  So this is strictly a non-religious issue, relegating the holiday (lower-case "h" so as not to offend your delicate sensibilities) to secular status?  You are probably totally justified then.  But that does beg the question as to your dubious motives at covering over six letters of the word (complete disclosure-- the most important six letters, for my money...).  Aren't you slightly concerned about so arbitrarily messing with the American lexicon?  Because if you are not attacking a particular religion, it has to be that, for no other reason than sheer whimsy, you have decided certain letters, or at least, their various combinations must be eliminated.

This leads to an entirely new set of problems.  I mean, imagine if your standards were applied to the following banner:

Christmas Day

By your reasoning it would need to read:

xxxxxxmas Day

I take that back.  Upon further reflection, that "y" looks dangerously close to a cross.  So, to be safe, you would no doubt want that removed as well.  Let's see that leaves us with:

mas da

This is potentially dangerous on two fronts:

1) In Spanish this roughly translates to "more gives".  I am afraid that the illiterate portion of your Hispanic community (legal or not) is bound to believe that you are offering handouts.  Think of the lines!  Someone could get hurt.

2) Speaking of getting hurt, what if the black community sounded out your new politically correct banner?  They might see this as a throwback to the plantation days of yore.  Granted, some might phonetically convince themselves that a foreign car dealership has taken up residency, but I believe most would be looking for the pot of gold at the end of the Rainbow Coalition.

I hope this has helped.  I'd hate for folks to think you were just some hyper-sensitive, spineless bureaucrats enforcing a politically correct agenda in order to avoid potentially offending someONE.  Worse yet, what if they thought you were some elitist with a secular agenda who looks condescendingly on people of faith?

However, you must know best as you have "Human Resources" attached to your non x'd out names.  I assume your names are not x'd out as billions throughout history probably have not looked to you for spiritual guidance or risked life and limb for you.  Phew!  You really dodged that bullet.  Now at least you can still find your office with minimal difficulty.

If only the same could be said for your heads.  Let me see if I can help there.  First, stand up.  Now yank three times really hard.  Trust me the view is so much better outside your own anatomy.

Merry Christmas.

Bob Atchisson
St. Louis, MO

p.s.

The courage you have shown in this matter is very inspirational, and I would very much like to apply for a job in your department.  Please forward an application.

I am even willing to legally change my potentially offensive middle name to "xxxxxxopher" if you think that might increase my chances.  Thanks.

As a fan of Billy Joel’s music over the years, I’ve always found both his lyrics and music conveyed a wit and intelligence that I always assumed offered a fair portrait of the performer himself.  Over the years, interviews, stage banter, and a few personal conversations proved my theory correct.  Joel was sharp, funny, and personable.

One of the smartest things about Joel was, I found, to be his stance that politics should be left to the politicians.  He has adamantly held firm for years that his place was to perform and not push an agenda.  As recently as a 2001 Q and A session at Princeton University, Joel reiterated that point "Do I have a political message I'm trying to put out? No. I'm a friggin' piano player." 

Now that seems to have changed.  Joel has just released a new pop single, the anti-war “Christmas in Fallujah”.  In the past, he has tackled Vietnam in “Goodnight Saigon” and the Cold War (inclusively, albeit indirectly) in “We Didn’t Start the Fire”.  But “Fallujah” is different in two ways.  For one, the song is not sung by Joel himself.

He is quoted as saying he felt that, at 58, he was too old to sing it, and that it would be better off being performed by someone closer to the age of the soldiers whose letters reportedly inspired the lyrics.  Joel found that someone in the form of 21 year old Long Island performer Cass Dillon.  The other difference is the overtly political message with which the song is infused.

Lyrics compare the current war to the Crusades (“We came with the Crusaders / to save the holy land / It’s Christmas in Fallujah / and no one gives a damn”) and even seemingly draw an analogy between the current War on Terror with the ambitions of the imperialist Roman Empire (“We are the armies of the empire / We are the legionnaires of Rome”).  All of this is done with Joel’s characteristic ability to weave in personal touches of the average middle-class Joe.  As he describes a soldier’s fear that he is fading from a loved one’s memory so he’s “just as good as dead”, it’s hard not to imagine any number of our brave men and women agonizing over just such a scenario.

Yet, there is more to the song and the tone.  In it Joel, who confesses to be a student of history, shows either a distinct lack of knowledge about it or a poetic irony gone wildly off mark when he says that “we came to fight the infidel”.  Joel goes on to recite (or at least reference) the usual liberal talking points like implying this war is for oil or that we are fighting in the wrong place (“they say Osama’s in the mountains / deep in a cave near Pakistan”).  So what happened?  What caused a seemingly keen student of history and smart musician to jump off the fence and embrace the Cindy Sheehan element in his audience?

Perhaps he grew tired of not voicing his opinion while contemporaries like Bruce Springsteen or relative upstarts (comparatively speaking) like the Dixie Chicks made headlines by espousing the left’s agenda. That is not to say that his political inclinations were unknown.  He has previously contributed to the Clintons and described himself as “practically a socialist”.  But, until recently, those attitudes or ideas were not spotlighted.

“Christmas in Fallujah” seems destined to change that.  While he has flirted in the past with social relevance in muted tones and railed against everything from the commercial fishing industry (“The Downeaster Alexa”) to urban sprawl (“No Man’s Land”) to the plight of the steel workers (“Allentown”), Joel has amped his stance and begun actively attacking .  And he is more than welcome to do just that.  That is a right afforded him by the freedoms of this country.

As a matter of fact, it is a bi-product of the freedom about which he sings (“we come to bring these people freedoms”) in this song which decries our efforts to supply just that.  How many Iraqi’s who died in rape and torture rooms considered themselves poets?  How many played the piano or liked to sing?  We will never know.

We do know that Billy Joel doesn’t like this war.  How convenient for him that he doesn’t have to fight it (and this time he won’t have to burn a draft card to avoid service). How convenient for him that he doesn’t have to live with the daily fear that speaking his mind could cost him his life.  How convenient for him that he can turn the letters of soldiers in the field into a personal statement of angst penned in the comfort of his waterfront home.  And how very convenient that he chose to let someone else sing the song and, more than likely, be forever associated with its sentiments that will likely only resonate with college students and Move On.org  while leaving the Red State portion of his audience cold.  Too old?  No, maybe just too smart. 

    Last week, I assigned my Sophomore English classes a journal entry "What I Am Most Thankful For..." It was the day before Thanksgiving break, seemed appropriate, and most importantly, allowed them a certain amount of introspection.  I like these kids because not only are they capable of introspection, they take the time and various opportunities to practice it.  Not every kid, mind you, but most.

    Seven of my last eight years in education have been spent in academic situations which went out of their way to embrace the feelings of individuals over the good of the general populace, the path of least resistance over the rule of law, and common ground over common sense.     

    This year that all changed.  I find myself in a district that actively encourages individuality but not at the expense of accountability.  It believes in rules and consequences even if some rogue students or parents grouse.  And it recognizes the basic fact that just because “everyone else does it” doesn’t make it acceptable. 

   So, when one of my kids decided that turnabout was fair play, and asked me for what I was most thankful, I didn’t hesitate.

   “You guys”, I replied.  There was a round of chuckling and some understandable skepticism, but I was never more certain of an answer in my life.  As proof – for me, not for them – after class, I found a rough transcript I had written just about ten months before.

     It was a particularly rough class in one of those afore-mentioned districts wherein I was forced to handle my own discipline as the principals chose to treat each student referral as a failure of the teacher and an opportunity to offer multiple “second” chances to even the most thuggish.  I took to documenting these instances for my own protection, as a way to vent increasing frustration with the field of education, and for my friends’ amusement.

January 23, 2007

Kicked a kid out yesterday.  He mouthed off all the way out the door.  I
don't bother to write him up because around education, that is basically
status quo -- well at least education for a certain demographic.
 
Today I stop him before he comes in.
 
ME:  So, are there going to be any more problems today?
 
KID:  Nah man.
 
ME:  I just ask because yesterday when you left it sounded like you had some
things to say and I wanted to know if you had anything left to say to me
today here in the hallway.
 
Kid silent.
 
ME:  Nothing, huh? (Why did I assume he would apologize????) Alright, then I
need you to go in there be quiet and handle things better
 
KID:  I did handle it.  I didn't like how you came to me.  You ain't gonna
come to me no way and spect me to take it.
 
ME:  Sure I am.  This is MY room.  You follow MY rules.  And do what I SAY. 
It's actually pretty simple.
 
KID:  Nah man. I told you you aint gawn come to me no way.
 
ME:  You know what the problem is here?  You think we're equal.
 
KID:  We is equal.
 
ME:  No.  No we really aren't.  You see I'm the teacher, and you're the
student. I make the rules and you follow them. I also follow rules. 
Including basic grammar....
 
KID:  All I’m sayin' is you ain't gawn come to me no way you want.  I'm a
person and you a person and you gots to talk to me so I want to talk to you.
 
ME:  I don't care if you ever talk to me.  Actually, if this is how you do
it, I'd prefer you didn't.
 
KID:  Man, look I done your work just let me go in there and don't bother
me.
 
ME:  See there you go again being wrong.  You actually haven't done ANY work
and you don't make the rules or set the agenda.  That's my job.
 
KID:  Then do your job, but don't come at me any way you think you gawn want
to.
 
ME:  Do you really want detention?
 
KID:  Go ahead, but I aint gawn go.
 
ME:  And why is that?
 
KID:  You aint no principal.  You just a teacher.
 
ME:  Wrong.  My room. My rules. The district backs that up.
 
KID: Yeah well...
 
ME:  Yeah well, here's how this is going to go.  You're going to go in
there, sit down, be quiet, and do your work and I don't want to hear another
word out of your mouth until May.
 
KID:  (Starting to speak)...
 
ME:  UNTIL MAY.  Keep your head down, stay off my radar, and make me forget
you exist like I do when I go home at night.  You do that and maybe, just
maybe you have a chance to get out of this class. And if you don't like
something, you go to a principal, a parent, whatever, but don't ever think
you can speak to me like that again.  You want to do that graduate, get a
job, and earn a position of responsibility.  Don't just assume one.
 
KID:  I'm my own man. I don't got to get anybody to annul my problems for
me.
 
ME:  I think you do, and I'd start with my vocabulary. If no,t I guarantee you
will still be here when you are actually a grown man....well, grown at
least.
 
He is now sitting in class with his head down and four zeroes out of four
assignments on the grade book.   Teaching rocks.
 
 Does anyone have a McDonald’s application they can fax over.....preferably
one in Chesterfield...off the bus line......???

    Now, no doubt, someone will read that and think 1) it is racist – it’s not, it was written by memory as phonetically as I could make sense of it or 2) it is exaggerated  --  it IS exaggerated….I fudged some of the grammar to make it understandable.

    Inner city kids are getting a horrendous education, and it has NOTHING to do with the three R’s.  It has EVERYTHING to do with the three E’s:  accountabilit-E, respectabilit-E, and sensibilit-E.

    They are used as political pin balls bounced to and fro over the educational landscape blocked by low performance, trapped in the coddling of enabling administrators, and ultimately careen past the flippers of actual education.  And all the quarters in the world won’t change a thing.  The real world eventually, and unfortunately, greets them with an open-hand slap of expectation – a blow they are ill-equipped to counter. 

      Because they have been taught for so long that they are grown men and women (they aren't), that they set the agenda (they don't), and that they have no one to answer to but themselves (true but also several million other citizens).  Jails, park benches, and drive-thru’s are full of former students who were forced fed a 13 year diet of Victimocracy which repeatedly told them that they couldn’t help it, they weren’t to blame, and they never stood a chance against a cold, cruel world.    This philosophy did not benefit them and never could.  It is, by nature, a losing proposition, but it did keep some under-achieving school districts in business and allow some race barons like Jesse Jackson to send his own kids to private schools.

      That was my reality for seven straight years.  Some days I miss it.  Most days I don’t. And as I sat looking around my room and thinking of the kids that now occupied the desks before me every day, I am very glad no one faxed me that McDonald’s application.  Because I might have actually taken it.  Because I might have missed the opportunity to actually enjoy teaching again.  And because today I might have had to listen to the fry guy telling me “You aint gawn to come to me no way…”

    Explain to me once again the theory of relativism.  I don’t mean the theory of relativity.  Mastering that oft-stepped tango on the physics dance floor is a cake walk compared to understanding the convoluted, arm-flailing jig set to the arrhythmic “Every opinion is every bit as valid as another” intonations of post-modern thought.

    Let's be realistic.  Yes, everyone can have an opinion.  No, they can not all be right.  Eventually SOMEONE will be wrong.  Time, space, and the opening of the Academy envelopes will bare that out. That’s the nature of the game. 

    Ultimately, no matter what the difference of opinion, one side will be vindicated.  Parents believe that moment comes when offspring sire their own.  Persons of faith believe that moment comes at our death.  Certain politicians believe that moment comes when you slink out of the White House having confounded the media over the definition of “sex”.

    I was recently chastised by a colleague for holding firm to my belief that, to put a very fine point on it, Christ is King.  I believe that.  I always have, and I suspect I always will.

    I was told, "Come on now, I have a lot of friends, and they don't believe that."

    My answer: "So."

    Her response:  "SO you have to be tolerant of other people's views."

    My point:  "I do tolerate them.  It doesn't make them right."

    And that seems to be the problem relativists have missed:  toleration does not equate endorsement.  It simply means that I respect their right to be every bit as wrong as they so desire.

    Unfortunately, somewhere along the relativism railroad, we allowed the conductors of compromise to punch our tickets with regards to tolerance.  By not saying WHAT WE BELIEVE, we gave a taciturn wink and nod to those with differing, opposing, or even openly antagonistic views. We, unwittingly at best or complicity at worst, seem to endorse or encourage those with whom we have substantial differences.

    So many people have heard the line about tolerance that the word itself has lost all meaning.  According to Merriam-Webster, “tolerate” means “to allow to be or to be done without prohibition, hindrance, or contradiction”.  I am on board for about two thirds of that definition.  I will gladly stand aside as you think, say, and even in some cases do the ridiculous.  That’s what this country is all about.      

    However, far too many in the tolerance soup line have chosen to drop their ladle into the third cup of porridge, the one that says “without contradiction”.  Espousing that ideology is one thing, remember we have already established that being wrong is fine – in fact, it’s downright constitutional.  But when you begin to honestly believe that my tolerance is only evident when I sit idly by as you denigrate my faith, my forefathers, my government, and the men and women protecting my country, then quite frankly you have become intolerable.

    Listen, I know of a guy, perhaps you've heard of him who announced a few thousand years ago that He was the way and the light.  He was the truth.  OK.  There it is in a nutshell.  He said it. 

    Do you believe it?  OK You don't.  Move along.  Nice to know you, sorry I won't be seeing you at the after party.  Now is that a guarantee that I'll make it?  Not necessarily, but I sure as heck like my odds better than someone who won't even buy a ticket to the concert!

    You do believe it?  Great, then tell me how YOU can be right AND EVERYONE WHO DOESN"T BELIEVE THIS can be right at the same time? 

    How?

    Simple:  You can't.

    And guess what....Time and space will bare one of those two groups out.

    Does that mean that we shouldn't be caring, kind, concerned, perhaps even apostolic neighbors?  No.  In fact, I'd say just the opposite.  More than ever we need to open our hearts.  But opening your heart does not mean closing your mind.

    It is and often has been fashionable to dismiss Christians as simple-minded inbred dunderheads walking barefoot to the bathroom out back, arguing against science out of fear, and invoking God's name with trembling.  Well, one out of three isn't bad.  I've got in-door plumbing.  I am not afraid of science so much as I am mystified by its complexity in what it reveals about the nature of our existence.  But do I tremble at the thought of God?  You better believe it.

    Because contrary to what the tragically hip on the Left Coast or the Esoteric Elite back East want to believe, there is only one opinion that matters to me, and His word his final.  No hedging. No fudging. And it is certainly not relative.

    And here's the rub:  in order to celebrate personally with Him, all we need to do is understand, embrace, and reflect the truths He has shared.  Like the old television show suggested, Father knows best.

    And in the end, I'd take a Heavenly relative over Earthly relativism any day.