I had really intended to post on a non-political topic last week, but life has been extremely busy as I juggle my various responsibilities as husband, teacher, father, pastor, and writer. By the time I got through Sunday, I realized that it was past time for a new blog post, but almost time for the next GOP debate! Since I had already told my students we'd be doing another watch party, I figured I'd just wait and post my reactions here for this week's post.
First of all, my hearty thanks to the nine students who came out tonight to share this time with me. High school kids are incredibly busy these days, and the fact that they were willing to come and spend this time with their government teacher outside of normal school hours makes me very happy and proud of them. Every day, my students fill me with hope for the next generation.
Secondly, shame on CNBC for NOT providing free streaming video of the debate like EVERY OTHER network has done! It just wasn't nearly as interesting not being able to see the candidates interact, although I did try to overcome the situation a little bit by setting up a slideshow with pictures of all the candidates and flipping to whoever was speaking at the moment. (That got a little difficult during the more rapid-fire exchanges!) Double shame on CNBC for the blatant bias of the moderators. Every other question was some sort of "Gotcha" moment, and some of the follow up questions were so obviously loaded that the audience actually booed the moderators. (Good on you, audience!)
Briefly, I want to mention the "undercard" debate. I only caught the last half of it because I was busy setting things up for the kids, but I will say that Lindsey Graham did dominate the part of it that I heard. I was a bit torn during the whole thing though - on the one hand, I firmly believe that any of these men would be a better President than the current occupant of the White House. On the other hand, not one of them currently has 2 per cent support in any poll. Seriously, guys, you gave it a good try, now drop out already! (That being said, Lindsey Graham NEEDS to be Secretary of State. His foreign policy knowledge is truly impressive!)
Now, for the night - Most of the candidates got in at least one or two good licks, and none of them imploded on the stage tonight. The moderators did (to give them credit for the one thing they did well) try to give roughly equal time to the candidates. I think the spread between the one with the most talking time and the least was maybe two or three minutes, so that's pretty egalitarian. So here are my winners and losers:
TOP THREE:
MARCO RUBIO - What a night my man from Florida had! I've always liked him, and he really shone this evening. He handled the questions well, and when the moderators tried to spring a "gotcha" moment on him about his absenteeism from the Senate, he turned it around on them and delivered a huge applause line. I was very impressed with his performance.
TED CRUZ - I have never been a fan of this guy - his "do it my way or I will shut down the government" style leaves me pretty cold. That being said, I will give him the courtesy of saying that he is one of the most consistent candidates on the stage, and he gave a bang-up performance tonight. He is in this for the long haul.
CHRIS CHRISTIE - I can't help but like this guy. He's funny, quick to jump on opportunities, and genuinely compassionate for those who are hurting. He is not my first choice as President, but I bet he jumps up a few places in the polls next week.
MIDDLE OF THE PACK:
DONALD TRUMP - I've made no secret of my dislike of Trump, but that being said, he didn't have a bad debate, or a particularly good one. He was mellow, made some good points here and there, and generally refrained from the abrasive mannerisms that are the hallmark of his style. But, on the other hand, he had very little new to offer, and honestly, I still hear "I-I-Me-Me!" every time he opens his mouth.
CARLY FIORINA - The feisty lady from California had the most talking time of anybody on the stage, and she was solid, as she always is, but she didn't shine tonight like she did in the first two debates she took part in. She'll probably stay in 5th place or so.
BEN CARSON - It is virtually impossible not to like this calm, unflappable man. He is genuinely nice, undeniably brilliant, and has a sincere charm that has served him very well. But, while he gave a couple of very good answers, he just came across as sounding almost sleepy. I don't think he'll get a huge bump out of the evening.
MIKE HUCKABEE - I voted for him in 2008, even though he had actually dropped out of the race by the time it got to Texas. I've lost some respect for him this time around because of some of the extreme positions he has embraced, but at the same time, he had a pretty good night and may stick around a while longer.
BOTTOM OF THE BARREL:
JOHN KASICH - The Ohio Governor is a very solid candidate, but he's spinning his wheels at this point. His brand has not caught fire, and despite his impressive resume, I think he's not long for the race at this point.
RAND PAUL - Go away already! No one is buying your brand of isolationist, libertarian Republicanism. You may have been the darling of the Tea Party at one point, but now you are just an annoying gadfly using up airtime that could go to a worthier candidate.
JEB BUSH - It saddens me to write this. I love the Bush family; I have enormous respect for Bush 41 and genuine affection for "W". But while there may be another President Bush someday, it's not going to be Jeb. He needed to hit a home run tonight, and he got a double AT BEST. His campaign is entering the "circling the drain" phrase; the only question is how long its death throes will drag on.
So that's how I felt about the evening. Tomorrow I'll ask my students to give me their essays on who won; I look forward to reading them.
NEXT WEEK: Non-political, I promise!!!
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
A CONSERVATIVE PERSPECTIVE ON A LIBERAL DEBATE . . .
Well, I'm proud of myself. I sat through an entire Democratic debate. It wasn't easy - I disagree so profoundly with so much of what the Democrats say that I have a hard time not throwing stuff at the screen. But, I am a government teacher, and it's important for me to hear both sides. Here are my takeaways:
First, the "Forbidden Words."
NATIONAL DEBT. Not one candidate, not one questioner, not one journalist ever mentioned the fact that Barack Obama has accumulated more debt than all previous Presidents combined. Every single one of them is proposing more government programs, more spending, more regulatory power, and higher taxes. Are we ready to owe $30 trillion five years from now? That's where they would take us in a heartbeat if it meant they could control the Presidency and the Congress.
Second, the "name your enemies" question at the end.
With the exception of Jim Webb (who incidentally had the worst performance of the night), every one of them named their fellow Americans. Whether it be the Republicans, the corporations, the banks, every one of them named groups of Americans as the enemy whose hostility made them the most proud. The Democratic party is a party of never-ending class and race warfare.
Third: Biggest cop-out of the night - the answers to the question "Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?" Shameless pandering from every one of them. If all lives DON'T matter, then how CAN black lives matter?
NOW - Winners and losers.
Hillary Clinton - she had a strong, solid performance, she never lost her cool, and gave fairly strong answers to most of the questions. I'd just as soon chew my arm off as to vote for her, but she didn't have a terrible night (and let's be honest, she couldn't afford one right now!). I'd call her the winner.
Bernie Sanders - Holy cow, I REALLY do not like this man. Every word out of his mouth breathes hatred for the rich. He wants to make every American successful by destroying every American who succeeds! He is closer to communism than socialism IMO, and his policies would double our debt even faster than Obama managed to do it!
Jim Webb - This guy put up a horrible performance. He spent most of his limited air time complaining about his lack of air time rather than making his points. I thought this might be his breakaway night, but he really did not debate well.
Martin O'Malley - This may be the rising star in the polls next week. He was clear, lucid, and reasonable, gave solid answers, didn't whine about his time constraints, and is rather likable.
And, finally -
Lincoln Chafee. Can you say "self-righteous"? How many times did he refer to his lack of scandal and high ethical standards? That's the kind of thing that other people should say about you if it were true. I seriously doubt he'll gain much ground after tonight.
Last of all . . . the BIG LIE, repeated in one form or another by every single Democrat on the stage: "There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." How did Saddam Hussein gas 20,000 Kurds then? By farting on them???? But don't believe me - here is the proof, from that famous conservative rag the New York Times. Thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq. Admittedly, the program was dormant. But that which has been deactivated can be reactivated, and the leftist mantra "Bush lied, soldiers died" is as false today as it was when first uttered - and THIS proves it!
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/
First, the "Forbidden Words."
NATIONAL DEBT. Not one candidate, not one questioner, not one journalist ever mentioned the fact that Barack Obama has accumulated more debt than all previous Presidents combined. Every single one of them is proposing more government programs, more spending, more regulatory power, and higher taxes. Are we ready to owe $30 trillion five years from now? That's where they would take us in a heartbeat if it meant they could control the Presidency and the Congress.
Second, the "name your enemies" question at the end.
With the exception of Jim Webb (who incidentally had the worst performance of the night), every one of them named their fellow Americans. Whether it be the Republicans, the corporations, the banks, every one of them named groups of Americans as the enemy whose hostility made them the most proud. The Democratic party is a party of never-ending class and race warfare.
Third: Biggest cop-out of the night - the answers to the question "Do black lives matter or do all lives matter?" Shameless pandering from every one of them. If all lives DON'T matter, then how CAN black lives matter?
NOW - Winners and losers.
Hillary Clinton - she had a strong, solid performance, she never lost her cool, and gave fairly strong answers to most of the questions. I'd just as soon chew my arm off as to vote for her, but she didn't have a terrible night (and let's be honest, she couldn't afford one right now!). I'd call her the winner.
Bernie Sanders - Holy cow, I REALLY do not like this man. Every word out of his mouth breathes hatred for the rich. He wants to make every American successful by destroying every American who succeeds! He is closer to communism than socialism IMO, and his policies would double our debt even faster than Obama managed to do it!
Jim Webb - This guy put up a horrible performance. He spent most of his limited air time complaining about his lack of air time rather than making his points. I thought this might be his breakaway night, but he really did not debate well.
Martin O'Malley - This may be the rising star in the polls next week. He was clear, lucid, and reasonable, gave solid answers, didn't whine about his time constraints, and is rather likable.
And, finally -
Lincoln Chafee. Can you say "self-righteous"? How many times did he refer to his lack of scandal and high ethical standards? That's the kind of thing that other people should say about you if it were true. I seriously doubt he'll gain much ground after tonight.
Last of all . . . the BIG LIE, repeated in one form or another by every single Democrat on the stage: "There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq." How did Saddam Hussein gas 20,000 Kurds then? By farting on them???? But don't believe me - here is the proof, from that famous conservative rag the New York Times. Thousands of chemical weapons were found in Iraq. Admittedly, the program was dormant. But that which has been deactivated can be reactivated, and the leftist mantra "Bush lied, soldiers died" is as false today as it was when first uttered - and THIS proves it!
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/
Saturday, October 3, 2015
MAKING SENSE OF ANOTHER MASS SHOOTING
Once more, an armed gunman comes onto a gun-free campus with multiple loaded weapons. Once more, innocents are brutally killed and maimed. Once more, the cowardly monster (whose name I refuse to write) kills himself when the sirens begin to sound. Once more, the police arrive in time to identify the dead and help paramedics treat the wounded. And once more, before the bodies are cold, our President goes on the air and demands tougher gun laws.
Then the Facebook wars begin.
I am a historian by training and an observer of humanity by choice. I'm an avid consumer of cinema of nearly all genres. I've been a pastor since I was 24 years old (I'm now 51.) I've taught school at the same campus for 20 years now; I also teach night classes at our local community college. I'm a navy vet and a published novelist. In short, all things considered, I have a variety of real world experience and would probably be considered "smarter than the average bear." But this phenomenon has me stumped.
Americans have ALWAYS been a heavily armed society. The founders wrote the Second Amendment into our Bill of Rights for a reason, and it certainly had nothing to do with hunting. They wanted our country to be an armed society, both to fend off possible foreign incursions, but also to protect liberty from the tyrannical overreach of government - something that they knew a thing or two about. So Americans have always owned guns. And America has always had a reputation for violence - a reputation that newspapers and the entertainment industry have always exaggerated in order to sell newspapers/books/movies. Every single movie about the Old West features a gunfight, if not multiple gunfights. But actual study shows that the Western frontier was considerably less violent than the cities back East were in the late 19th century. Even today, listening to the news, you would think we were in the middle of a horrific spike in violence, when in fact violent crime in America, according to official FBI crime statistics, is at a 40 year low. That's right - the 1970's were much more violent that the second decade of the twenty-first century. The number of gun deaths per 100,000 population is about 3 - in 1993 it was about 6. So we've cut gun homicides in half just in the last 20 years.
Something else to chew on: there were no restrictions whatsoever on the ownership of firearms in the 19th century. Yet to my knowledge - and I do know a thing or two about history - there was not a single mass shooting of school children during that time (black schools were the target of violence in the South during and after Reconstruction, but that violence was primarily directed at the teachers of black students and the school buildings themselves, which were often vandalized or torched). For the first half of the Twentieth Century, there were very few restrictions on gun ownership - and again, to the best of my knowledge, there was not a single case of a person coming onto a school campus and randomly shooting students.
Even in the 1980's, when I was in High School, there were guns everywhere. During hunting season, many of the pickup trucks in the High School parking lot had rifles or shotguns in the gunracks attached to the back window. We never worried about someone grabbing one of them and using us for target practice. We knew the story of Charles Whitaker, the 1964 University of Texas tower sniper (I knew it better than most because my parents and siblings were there that awful day), but we also regarded that as a crazy fluke that, God willing, would never happen again.
Then came Columbine, that horrible day when two evil Goth students came onto their campus and murdered 13 people, then killed themselves. And since then, with depressing regularity, these psychotic monsters have invaded our campuses, military bases, theaters, and churches, slaughtering innocents and then usually ending their own lives. And this week, the latest outrage. This fellow had a deep-seated hatred for organized religion and primarily targeted Christians. The Virginia Tech guy had it in for women. The Fort Hood shooter was out to kill American soldiers. The Columbine pair were out to avenge their lack of popularity on the "beautiful kids."
It's easy to blame the gun. Frankly, that's a cheap out. We've always had guns, but we haven't always had school shootings. No one has yet explained to me how more gun laws will prevent episodes like this from happening. I guess some folks want to ban handguns altogether, but there are two huge problems with that: 1. Addictive drugs are banned, but addicts get their hands on them anyway. How will a ban on handguns be any different? 2. It goes completely against the clear language of the Constitution. Our Founders were a pretty bright bunch, and setting aside their wishes is risky business.
On the other hand, it's much easier to envision how one student with a conceal and carry permit and a steady hand could have stopped this tragedy in its tracks. That being said, he could also hit an innocent bystander, get shot by the police by mistake, or simply miss his shot and get killed by return fire. Personally, I would argue that this theoretical gun owner has a better chance of stopping the next mass murder in progress than some legislative solution coming out of Washington. But who knows?
But both these standard talking point positions miss a larger point: What is making these evil young people (only the Fort Hood shooter was over 40) think that the best solution to their problem is to pick up a gun, kill a dozen innocent people, then shoot themselves or commit "suicide by cop"? Some point to psychotropic medications. It is true that many of these shooters were on meds, but were they psychotic because they were on meds, or were they on meds because they were psychotic? That's the problem - no one can distinguish between correlation and causation. It's easy to blame guns, because guns were used in all these cases. But guns don't fire themselves! Others point out the pathetic state of America's mental health care system - it's virtually impossible to have an individual involuntarily committed until AFTER they kill someone under current law. By then it's too late.
There simply are no easy solutions. If there were, we would have found them by now.
Some Americans simply have a sickness of the soul. That's the bottom line. There are wretched, evil people out there. Some of them need medical and psychiatric help, with which they can possibly lead normal lives. Some are so purely evil - or so deeply sick - that they simply need to be locked up for the safety of everyone else. But above all, what we need is a return to the values this country was based on, that all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights - especially the right to life. We have devalued life across the board in this country, in our politics, in our entertainment, and in our laws. If all of us cherished life more, there would be fewer tragedies like the events in Oregon. At least, that is this writer's opinion.
Then the Facebook wars begin.
I am a historian by training and an observer of humanity by choice. I'm an avid consumer of cinema of nearly all genres. I've been a pastor since I was 24 years old (I'm now 51.) I've taught school at the same campus for 20 years now; I also teach night classes at our local community college. I'm a navy vet and a published novelist. In short, all things considered, I have a variety of real world experience and would probably be considered "smarter than the average bear." But this phenomenon has me stumped.
Americans have ALWAYS been a heavily armed society. The founders wrote the Second Amendment into our Bill of Rights for a reason, and it certainly had nothing to do with hunting. They wanted our country to be an armed society, both to fend off possible foreign incursions, but also to protect liberty from the tyrannical overreach of government - something that they knew a thing or two about. So Americans have always owned guns. And America has always had a reputation for violence - a reputation that newspapers and the entertainment industry have always exaggerated in order to sell newspapers/books/movies. Every single movie about the Old West features a gunfight, if not multiple gunfights. But actual study shows that the Western frontier was considerably less violent than the cities back East were in the late 19th century. Even today, listening to the news, you would think we were in the middle of a horrific spike in violence, when in fact violent crime in America, according to official FBI crime statistics, is at a 40 year low. That's right - the 1970's were much more violent that the second decade of the twenty-first century. The number of gun deaths per 100,000 population is about 3 - in 1993 it was about 6. So we've cut gun homicides in half just in the last 20 years.
Something else to chew on: there were no restrictions whatsoever on the ownership of firearms in the 19th century. Yet to my knowledge - and I do know a thing or two about history - there was not a single mass shooting of school children during that time (black schools were the target of violence in the South during and after Reconstruction, but that violence was primarily directed at the teachers of black students and the school buildings themselves, which were often vandalized or torched). For the first half of the Twentieth Century, there were very few restrictions on gun ownership - and again, to the best of my knowledge, there was not a single case of a person coming onto a school campus and randomly shooting students.
Even in the 1980's, when I was in High School, there were guns everywhere. During hunting season, many of the pickup trucks in the High School parking lot had rifles or shotguns in the gunracks attached to the back window. We never worried about someone grabbing one of them and using us for target practice. We knew the story of Charles Whitaker, the 1964 University of Texas tower sniper (I knew it better than most because my parents and siblings were there that awful day), but we also regarded that as a crazy fluke that, God willing, would never happen again.
Then came Columbine, that horrible day when two evil Goth students came onto their campus and murdered 13 people, then killed themselves. And since then, with depressing regularity, these psychotic monsters have invaded our campuses, military bases, theaters, and churches, slaughtering innocents and then usually ending their own lives. And this week, the latest outrage. This fellow had a deep-seated hatred for organized religion and primarily targeted Christians. The Virginia Tech guy had it in for women. The Fort Hood shooter was out to kill American soldiers. The Columbine pair were out to avenge their lack of popularity on the "beautiful kids."
It's easy to blame the gun. Frankly, that's a cheap out. We've always had guns, but we haven't always had school shootings. No one has yet explained to me how more gun laws will prevent episodes like this from happening. I guess some folks want to ban handguns altogether, but there are two huge problems with that: 1. Addictive drugs are banned, but addicts get their hands on them anyway. How will a ban on handguns be any different? 2. It goes completely against the clear language of the Constitution. Our Founders were a pretty bright bunch, and setting aside their wishes is risky business.
On the other hand, it's much easier to envision how one student with a conceal and carry permit and a steady hand could have stopped this tragedy in its tracks. That being said, he could also hit an innocent bystander, get shot by the police by mistake, or simply miss his shot and get killed by return fire. Personally, I would argue that this theoretical gun owner has a better chance of stopping the next mass murder in progress than some legislative solution coming out of Washington. But who knows?
But both these standard talking point positions miss a larger point: What is making these evil young people (only the Fort Hood shooter was over 40) think that the best solution to their problem is to pick up a gun, kill a dozen innocent people, then shoot themselves or commit "suicide by cop"? Some point to psychotropic medications. It is true that many of these shooters were on meds, but were they psychotic because they were on meds, or were they on meds because they were psychotic? That's the problem - no one can distinguish between correlation and causation. It's easy to blame guns, because guns were used in all these cases. But guns don't fire themselves! Others point out the pathetic state of America's mental health care system - it's virtually impossible to have an individual involuntarily committed until AFTER they kill someone under current law. By then it's too late.
There simply are no easy solutions. If there were, we would have found them by now.
Some Americans simply have a sickness of the soul. That's the bottom line. There are wretched, evil people out there. Some of them need medical and psychiatric help, with which they can possibly lead normal lives. Some are so purely evil - or so deeply sick - that they simply need to be locked up for the safety of everyone else. But above all, what we need is a return to the values this country was based on, that all men are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights - especially the right to life. We have devalued life across the board in this country, in our politics, in our entertainment, and in our laws. If all of us cherished life more, there would be fewer tragedies like the events in Oregon. At least, that is this writer's opinion.
Friday, September 25, 2015
WAIT A MINUTE . . . WHOSE BIRTHDAY?
September 23 was the birthday of the ruler of the world.
In his lifetime, he was called Imperator, the Greatest, and the Son of God.
He was born Gaius Octavius in the year 63 BC. His mother was a niece of the most famous Roman of the day, indeed, according to many scholars and his contemporaries, the greatest Roman who ever lived - Gaius Julius Caesar. Young Octavius - also called Octavian - caught the eye of his famous great-uncle when he was in his teens, and Caesar named him as his conterburnalis (junior military aid) when Octavian was 19. By that time, Caesar had defeated the Gauls, conquered three new provinces for Rome, and defeated his enemies in the Senate. What was left of that august body of legislators had proclaimed Julius Caesar as dictator for life. Caesar had implemented a huge slate of reforms for the city of Rome and the Republic's government and was preparing to march east, to bring down Rome's last remaining rival, the mighty Parthian Empire. His friend Crassus had died fighting the Parthians, and Caesar wanted to avenge his death and recover the seven Eagle standards the Parthians had taken from the legions they vanquished when Crassus fell at Carrhae. Before he could depart, though, a jealous band of conspirators ended Caesar's life by stabbing him to death.
To the surprise and shock of everyone - especially Caesar's cousin and chief military legate, Marcus Antonius - Caesar's will named young Octavian as his chief heir. No one expected the frail, asthmatic lad to last long in the brutal world of Roman politics. But within eleven years of his uncle's death, the self proclaimed "Son of the Divine Julius" had vanquished Antony and Cleopatra, driven his enemies from Rome, and united the squabbling Republic into a well-run, centralized Empire with himself as its head of state. Wielding power with an iron fist concealed in a velvet glove, he restored peace and order and made Rome the greatest power in the world. Of all his accomplishments, he took the most pride in the fact that he had extinguished the fires in the temple of Mars - which signified that Rome was at war - more often and for longer periods than anyone could ever remember. The government that he founded would endure till Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 476 AD, and then it would transfer itself to Constantinople and endure for another thousand years as the Byzantine Empire. Needless to say, his birthday was a great holiday in Rome.
So why does it pass unnoticed except for a few history geeks like me? Because of another birthday, one that took place around the thirtieth year of his forty-five year reign. This baby was not born into a wealthy patrician family, nor was he adopted by a rich uncle. His youth was so unremarkable that only one story about it survives. He worked with his hands, supported a houseful of siblings after his father's death, and traveled on foot wherever he went. He never held a sword, never wrote a book, never took a single life. Yet today HE is the one we remember as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Son of God, and the most significant life in the history of the Western world. There is no doubt that Caesar Augustus changed the world, and that those changes were generally for the better. But it was not his birth that split history in half - it was a birth that took place in a humble barn, many miles from Rome. That is a birthday that no one forgets!
In his lifetime, he was called Imperator, the Greatest, and the Son of God.
He was born Gaius Octavius in the year 63 BC. His mother was a niece of the most famous Roman of the day, indeed, according to many scholars and his contemporaries, the greatest Roman who ever lived - Gaius Julius Caesar. Young Octavius - also called Octavian - caught the eye of his famous great-uncle when he was in his teens, and Caesar named him as his conterburnalis (junior military aid) when Octavian was 19. By that time, Caesar had defeated the Gauls, conquered three new provinces for Rome, and defeated his enemies in the Senate. What was left of that august body of legislators had proclaimed Julius Caesar as dictator for life. Caesar had implemented a huge slate of reforms for the city of Rome and the Republic's government and was preparing to march east, to bring down Rome's last remaining rival, the mighty Parthian Empire. His friend Crassus had died fighting the Parthians, and Caesar wanted to avenge his death and recover the seven Eagle standards the Parthians had taken from the legions they vanquished when Crassus fell at Carrhae. Before he could depart, though, a jealous band of conspirators ended Caesar's life by stabbing him to death.
To the surprise and shock of everyone - especially Caesar's cousin and chief military legate, Marcus Antonius - Caesar's will named young Octavian as his chief heir. No one expected the frail, asthmatic lad to last long in the brutal world of Roman politics. But within eleven years of his uncle's death, the self proclaimed "Son of the Divine Julius" had vanquished Antony and Cleopatra, driven his enemies from Rome, and united the squabbling Republic into a well-run, centralized Empire with himself as its head of state. Wielding power with an iron fist concealed in a velvet glove, he restored peace and order and made Rome the greatest power in the world. Of all his accomplishments, he took the most pride in the fact that he had extinguished the fires in the temple of Mars - which signified that Rome was at war - more often and for longer periods than anyone could ever remember. The government that he founded would endure till Rome was sacked by the Visigoths in 476 AD, and then it would transfer itself to Constantinople and endure for another thousand years as the Byzantine Empire. Needless to say, his birthday was a great holiday in Rome.
So why does it pass unnoticed except for a few history geeks like me? Because of another birthday, one that took place around the thirtieth year of his forty-five year reign. This baby was not born into a wealthy patrician family, nor was he adopted by a rich uncle. His youth was so unremarkable that only one story about it survives. He worked with his hands, supported a houseful of siblings after his father's death, and traveled on foot wherever he went. He never held a sword, never wrote a book, never took a single life. Yet today HE is the one we remember as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, the Son of God, and the most significant life in the history of the Western world. There is no doubt that Caesar Augustus changed the world, and that those changes were generally for the better. But it was not his birth that split history in half - it was a birth that took place in a humble barn, many miles from Rome. That is a birthday that no one forgets!
Thursday, September 17, 2015
PIZZA AND POLITICS - Debate Watching With My Students
I teach Senior Government every year at our little Christian School, and Government class is always more interesting when it happens in an election year . . . or in this case, during the election pre-season. I had talked with my kids about the debate process, primaries, and the general election, and we've been tracking the average of national polls every week (as found on my favorite political website, www.realclearpolitics.com). I asked them to watch the GOP debate this week as an assignment, and several of them said something to the effect that they wish they could watch it with me. One thing led to another, our headmaster was consulted, and so it came to pass that, at 7 PM Wednesday evening, I streamed the debate live from the CNN website onto my projector screen, and some 18 students - mostly juniors and seniors - joined me to watch the festivities!
Many of them had never seen a political debate before, while others are hard-core political junkies like me. No one really cared for Donald Trump much, while everyone seemed to enjoy Carly Fiorina's quick wit, Marco Rubio's polished eloquence, and Chris Christie's earnest good humor. We hung around together for about two hours, but the kids' patience wore out around 9:15, so they filed out one by one while I waited for a commercial break to log off the PC, lock up the building, and drive home, where I was able to catch the finale (Over three hours? This was the TITANIC of political debates!). I had also been able to catch the last hour or so of the early debate between the junior league candidates, so by the end of the evening I was politically sated, happy, and ready for bed. Today I got to listen to the students' impressions in class, and I look forward to reading their post-debate essays Monday morning. In the meantime, since this is my blog, I'll share my own impressions. First of all, the "Happy Hour" debate -
The candidates got a LOT of speaking time, because there were only four of them. Rick Perry has officially dropped out, and I don't know what happened to Jim Gilmore, but he's been polling less than .1% pretty much from the get-go, so I guess he's given up too. That left the stage to Lindsey Graham, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, and George Pataki. Bearing in mind that I only heard about half of the debate, here are my rankings -
LINDSEY GRAHAM - Winner! The man's knowledge of foreign policy is impressive, and his grasp of the nature of the threat we face is solid. He also has the advantage of experience, and his comments about working together with Democrats a la Reagan and O'Neill were a welcome break from the constant demonization of the opposition so current in Tea Party circles. Plus, how can you not like a guy who says that, in his White House, "we'll do more drinkin'!!" Can he be elected President? Not a chance! But would he make an incredible Secretary of State or Defense? You betcha!
RICK SANTORUM - A great performance, eloquent, heartfelt, and inspiring. He's another who will never be President, but he has many of the qualities that would make him a great one. Maybe if there was a freak KING RALPH-style accident (1990's comedy with John Goodman. Check it out!) he'll get the chance. Otherwise, he may not last much longer.
BOBBY JINDAL - Not that great. A few good points, and an inspiring biography, but he's desperate and it shows.
GEORGE PATAKI - He really ought to go run as a Democrat. He would get more support in their party, and he might even get the nomination.
On to the main event - this was more a WWE brawl than a debate. The moderators made it clear from the outset that they intended to promote sparring between the candidates, and boy did they! From Donald Trump's tasteless assault on Rand Paul to Carly Fiorina's magnificent contempt for his shallow compliments, it was "open season on Donald" all night long! Frankly, I was happy to see it. The man is a world-class boor in my opinion, and he's been throwing down some pretty ugly rhetoric from Day One. Obviously, in a debate with 11 people, no one person "wins," so here is my evaluation of the candidates' overall performance. First of all -
THOSE WHO HELPED THEMSELVES:
CARLY FIORINA: If I were to name any one person as the winner last night, it would be the lady from Hewlett-Packard. She dominated the Junior League debate last time, and she pretty effectively dominated the debate last night. From her initial head-to-head with Donald Trump to her beautiful and eloquent closing remarks, she was cool as a cucumber and smart as a whip throughout. I've been thinking of her as a great running mate for someone; now I am thinking of her as a viable - indeed a formidable - Presidential candidate. Well done, milady!
MARCO RUBIO - I have always admired this man. He is thoughtful, eloquent, with an inspiring biography and some excellent policy ideas. He avoids the extreme rhetoric and borderline racism that the Donald and his minions have embraced, and he also looked Presidential - poised, calm, and unflappable. He has been my first choice from the get-go, and while I am also considering supporting Mrs. Fiorina, Rubio would certainly be a fine standard-bearer.
CHRIS CHRISTIE - I am not a huge fan of Governor Christie, but he needed to bring his A-game last night and he did. Alternating between self-deprecating humor and earnest populism, his performance may well have taken him from the brink of elimination and vaulted him back up to the middle of the pack.
THOSE WHO HELD THEIR OWN:
DONALD TRUMP: I don't like this man and never will like him. The fact that he was polling at 30% going into this debate is a discredit to the party. He is a bloviating, narcissistic windbag with no concrete policy ideas, just cheap shots at his opponents and rhetoric that sells well to angry, low-information voters. That being said, he handled himself with aplomb, reserving his sole childish cheap shot of the evening for Rand Paul. Otherwise, he listened, gave decent answers, and managed to not look like a buffoon most of the time. I'm still hoping he'll have a "Howard Dean moment" at some point and go away for good, but it didn't come last night, and may not come anytime soon. He's learning how the game is played.
BEN CARSON: All my students were saying today: "He's so nice." That is his greatest strength and his greatest weakness. In a field where hardball politics is the rule of the day, he has gained a strong following by being courteous, deferential, and humble while still projecting intelligence and competence. It's an impressive feat that he carried forward last night, but I just don't think he is aggressive enough to secure the nomination, much less be elected. They're right, though - he surely is a nice man.
JEB BUSH - He really needed to come out swinging after his boring and lackluster performance in the previous debate, and that he did. Most of his swings were strikes, with a couple of singles scattered through. He definitely improved on his last showing, but despite his skills at fund-raising, he is a long way from securing the nomination. His spirited defense of his brother was the high point of his remarks.
TED CRUZ - While I don't have the visceral hatred for this man that all liberals and many mainstream Republicans do, his brand of confrontational, burn-the-bridges and take-no-prisoners politics, as well as his saber-rattling foreign policy, is a turnoff to me. I don't doubt his sincerity, but he forgets too easily that in our Constitutional Republic, compromise is a necessity to keep the will of the majority from turning to tyranny.
MIKE HUCKABEE - I have always loved this man and still love him, but his grasp of basic civics is pretty weak at times. The power of judicial review has rested with the Supreme Court for over 200 years, and belongs there. We can't ignore rulings just because we disagree with them. That being said, his essential goodness and decency combined with his excellent debate skills made him a strong performer. He'll continue at the middle of the pack for a while longer, I think.
JOHN KASICH - What an impressive resume this man has! He took a very active role in balancing the Federal budget for the only time in my life, and then did the same with the State budget as Governor of Ohio. He also balances Christian compassion with political realism in a way many in the GOP do not. However, the problem with all of those qualities is that they scream "establishment" in what is almost certainly going to be an anti-establishment year.
Now, finally:
THOSE WHO HURT THEMSELVES LAST NIGHT:
SCOTT WALKER - I like this man and I wanted to see him do well. While he definitely tried, the fact is that he came across as flat and rather insipid - a pale shadow of Marco Rubio in more ways than one. He's a young man and I hope he'll be back at some point in the future, because he has great promise. But tonight was not his night.
RAND PAUL - For once, The Donald was right. Paul didn't belong on the big boy stage. I could not help but be reminded of a ten year old tagging along with his teenage brother's gang of friends. His desperate bids for attention and relevance screamed: "Me too! Me too!!" Go away, Rand, and try again another day. This one's gotten past you.
All in all, I enjoyed this debate a great deal. The biggest missed opportunity of the night: Given the location of the debate and the mementoes of the last truly great Republican president that were hanging all around, someone, at some point, should have looked at Donald Trump and said:
"There you go again!"
But for me, the most satisfying moment of all came this morning, when one of my students came up to me and said: "Mr. Smith, I've never cared about politics before. But last night's debate party was so much fun, and I'm really interested now."
My work here is done.
Many of them had never seen a political debate before, while others are hard-core political junkies like me. No one really cared for Donald Trump much, while everyone seemed to enjoy Carly Fiorina's quick wit, Marco Rubio's polished eloquence, and Chris Christie's earnest good humor. We hung around together for about two hours, but the kids' patience wore out around 9:15, so they filed out one by one while I waited for a commercial break to log off the PC, lock up the building, and drive home, where I was able to catch the finale (Over three hours? This was the TITANIC of political debates!). I had also been able to catch the last hour or so of the early debate between the junior league candidates, so by the end of the evening I was politically sated, happy, and ready for bed. Today I got to listen to the students' impressions in class, and I look forward to reading their post-debate essays Monday morning. In the meantime, since this is my blog, I'll share my own impressions. First of all, the "Happy Hour" debate -
The candidates got a LOT of speaking time, because there were only four of them. Rick Perry has officially dropped out, and I don't know what happened to Jim Gilmore, but he's been polling less than .1% pretty much from the get-go, so I guess he's given up too. That left the stage to Lindsey Graham, Rick Santorum, Bobby Jindal, and George Pataki. Bearing in mind that I only heard about half of the debate, here are my rankings -
LINDSEY GRAHAM - Winner! The man's knowledge of foreign policy is impressive, and his grasp of the nature of the threat we face is solid. He also has the advantage of experience, and his comments about working together with Democrats a la Reagan and O'Neill were a welcome break from the constant demonization of the opposition so current in Tea Party circles. Plus, how can you not like a guy who says that, in his White House, "we'll do more drinkin'!!" Can he be elected President? Not a chance! But would he make an incredible Secretary of State or Defense? You betcha!
RICK SANTORUM - A great performance, eloquent, heartfelt, and inspiring. He's another who will never be President, but he has many of the qualities that would make him a great one. Maybe if there was a freak KING RALPH-style accident (1990's comedy with John Goodman. Check it out!) he'll get the chance. Otherwise, he may not last much longer.
BOBBY JINDAL - Not that great. A few good points, and an inspiring biography, but he's desperate and it shows.
GEORGE PATAKI - He really ought to go run as a Democrat. He would get more support in their party, and he might even get the nomination.
On to the main event - this was more a WWE brawl than a debate. The moderators made it clear from the outset that they intended to promote sparring between the candidates, and boy did they! From Donald Trump's tasteless assault on Rand Paul to Carly Fiorina's magnificent contempt for his shallow compliments, it was "open season on Donald" all night long! Frankly, I was happy to see it. The man is a world-class boor in my opinion, and he's been throwing down some pretty ugly rhetoric from Day One. Obviously, in a debate with 11 people, no one person "wins," so here is my evaluation of the candidates' overall performance. First of all -
THOSE WHO HELPED THEMSELVES:
CARLY FIORINA: If I were to name any one person as the winner last night, it would be the lady from Hewlett-Packard. She dominated the Junior League debate last time, and she pretty effectively dominated the debate last night. From her initial head-to-head with Donald Trump to her beautiful and eloquent closing remarks, she was cool as a cucumber and smart as a whip throughout. I've been thinking of her as a great running mate for someone; now I am thinking of her as a viable - indeed a formidable - Presidential candidate. Well done, milady!
MARCO RUBIO - I have always admired this man. He is thoughtful, eloquent, with an inspiring biography and some excellent policy ideas. He avoids the extreme rhetoric and borderline racism that the Donald and his minions have embraced, and he also looked Presidential - poised, calm, and unflappable. He has been my first choice from the get-go, and while I am also considering supporting Mrs. Fiorina, Rubio would certainly be a fine standard-bearer.
CHRIS CHRISTIE - I am not a huge fan of Governor Christie, but he needed to bring his A-game last night and he did. Alternating between self-deprecating humor and earnest populism, his performance may well have taken him from the brink of elimination and vaulted him back up to the middle of the pack.
THOSE WHO HELD THEIR OWN:
DONALD TRUMP: I don't like this man and never will like him. The fact that he was polling at 30% going into this debate is a discredit to the party. He is a bloviating, narcissistic windbag with no concrete policy ideas, just cheap shots at his opponents and rhetoric that sells well to angry, low-information voters. That being said, he handled himself with aplomb, reserving his sole childish cheap shot of the evening for Rand Paul. Otherwise, he listened, gave decent answers, and managed to not look like a buffoon most of the time. I'm still hoping he'll have a "Howard Dean moment" at some point and go away for good, but it didn't come last night, and may not come anytime soon. He's learning how the game is played.
BEN CARSON: All my students were saying today: "He's so nice." That is his greatest strength and his greatest weakness. In a field where hardball politics is the rule of the day, he has gained a strong following by being courteous, deferential, and humble while still projecting intelligence and competence. It's an impressive feat that he carried forward last night, but I just don't think he is aggressive enough to secure the nomination, much less be elected. They're right, though - he surely is a nice man.
JEB BUSH - He really needed to come out swinging after his boring and lackluster performance in the previous debate, and that he did. Most of his swings were strikes, with a couple of singles scattered through. He definitely improved on his last showing, but despite his skills at fund-raising, he is a long way from securing the nomination. His spirited defense of his brother was the high point of his remarks.
TED CRUZ - While I don't have the visceral hatred for this man that all liberals and many mainstream Republicans do, his brand of confrontational, burn-the-bridges and take-no-prisoners politics, as well as his saber-rattling foreign policy, is a turnoff to me. I don't doubt his sincerity, but he forgets too easily that in our Constitutional Republic, compromise is a necessity to keep the will of the majority from turning to tyranny.
MIKE HUCKABEE - I have always loved this man and still love him, but his grasp of basic civics is pretty weak at times. The power of judicial review has rested with the Supreme Court for over 200 years, and belongs there. We can't ignore rulings just because we disagree with them. That being said, his essential goodness and decency combined with his excellent debate skills made him a strong performer. He'll continue at the middle of the pack for a while longer, I think.
JOHN KASICH - What an impressive resume this man has! He took a very active role in balancing the Federal budget for the only time in my life, and then did the same with the State budget as Governor of Ohio. He also balances Christian compassion with political realism in a way many in the GOP do not. However, the problem with all of those qualities is that they scream "establishment" in what is almost certainly going to be an anti-establishment year.
Now, finally:
THOSE WHO HURT THEMSELVES LAST NIGHT:
SCOTT WALKER - I like this man and I wanted to see him do well. While he definitely tried, the fact is that he came across as flat and rather insipid - a pale shadow of Marco Rubio in more ways than one. He's a young man and I hope he'll be back at some point in the future, because he has great promise. But tonight was not his night.
RAND PAUL - For once, The Donald was right. Paul didn't belong on the big boy stage. I could not help but be reminded of a ten year old tagging along with his teenage brother's gang of friends. His desperate bids for attention and relevance screamed: "Me too! Me too!!" Go away, Rand, and try again another day. This one's gotten past you.
All in all, I enjoyed this debate a great deal. The biggest missed opportunity of the night: Given the location of the debate and the mementoes of the last truly great Republican president that were hanging all around, someone, at some point, should have looked at Donald Trump and said:
"There you go again!"
But for me, the most satisfying moment of all came this morning, when one of my students came up to me and said: "Mr. Smith, I've never cared about politics before. But last night's debate party was so much fun, and I'm really interested now."
My work here is done.
Thursday, September 3, 2015
"Of Personal Pronouns and Perennial Pronouncements . . ."
Is it any wonder that so many Americans hold higher education in contempt these days?
The University of Tennessee has announced that its faculty and students should stop using traditional, gender-based pronouns in order to "create a more inclusive campus." Seriously, it's no longer enough that men can call themselves women and can have themselves surgically altered in order to resemble women, now the King's English itself must be modified in order to accommodate the deification of their delusions! I can't make up something this silly, so here it is in its entirety from the official "Tennesseean" website:
University of Tennessee students have been asked to use gender-neutral pronouns such as "ze."
The University of Tennessee Office for Diversity and Inclusion is asking students and faculty to use the pronouns in order to create a more inclusive campus, multiple media outlets report.
"Transgender people and people who do not identify within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth," the University of Tennessee's Pride Center Director, Donna Braquet, wrote on the university's website Wednesday.
Braquet requested that teachers, rather than calling roll, will instead ask each student to provide the name and pronoun he or she — or ze — wishes to be referred by. She says it relieves a burden for people expressing different genders or identities.
"The name a student uses may not be the one on the official roster, and the roster name may not be the same gender as the one the student now uses," Braquet wrote.
University spokeswoman Karen Ann Simsen said there is no mandate or official policy to use the language.
"The information provided in the newsletter was offered as a resource for our campus community on inclusive practices," Simsen said.
Braquet said if students and faculty cannot use pronouns such as ze, hir, hirs, xe, xem or xyr, they can also politely ask.
"'Oh, nice to meet you ... What pronouns should I use?' is a perfectly fine question to ask," Braquet said.
So instead of perfectly good words that have been standard practice in the English language for as long as there has been an English language, we get a jumble of letters created by some bureaucrat that mean absolutely nothing! And for what purpose? Darned if I can tell. Even if you are a transsexual, don't you want to be referred to by the gender pronoun that you "identify with"? What is 'ze' anyway? A straight man who dresses like a woman, a gay man who dresses like a woman, a straight woman who dresses like a man, or someone like my friend Josh who fervently claims he is a dolphin trapped in a man's body? And what if someone whose personal bent is different from yours steals your pronoun of choice? Do you fight a duel with rolled up copies of The San Francisco Chronicle on the college green for who gets to be 'ze' and who gets to be 'xe'?
Bear in mind, according to Google, parents are paying $45,000 per semester for their kids to attend this university. Is this what they want them to learn? What, after all, is the purpose of college? At one time, it was to learn a valuable skill that you could then use to earn a better living for yourself than you could get without the degree. Or perhaps just to explore a scientific or academic discipline that has always fascinated you, and try to do something practical with it. But now it seems as if the purpose of many institutes of higher learning is simply to indoctrinate students with a boatload of leftist nonsense that has no practical application anywhere in life. What's going to happen when these earnest young graduates go to their first job interview and ask the manager to refer to them as 'xim' rather than 'him'? I doubt the result will be this young applicant being forwarded to the management fast track!
Once upon a time, I got out of the Navy and attended a fine independent university in East Texas, earning a Bachelor's Degree, a teaching certificate, and a Master's Degree. I was exposed to every conceivable point of view during that time. I had professors who were Marxists and one who was an avowed monarchist (he had framed portraits of Louis XIV and Catherine the Great in his apartment!). I had classmates who were gay, straight, Christian, Jewish, liberal, conservative, communist, and borderline fascist. The beauty of the place is that we all sounded off on a regular basis, in the classroom and in the coffee shops, in our professors' presence and in their absence, about whatever came to mind. We debated God and Darwin, Marx and Montesquieu, Locke and Lenin, with passion and force and silliness and all the earnestness that twentysomething adults can muster at that marvelous age when they know the exact solution to all the world's problems, if only someone would put them in charge.
But today's college campuses have become a wasteland of soul-stifling political correctness and liberal intolerance. While the movie GOD'S NOT DEAD is indeed fiction, look up the thirty or so lawsuits listed in the credits to see how those who hold traditionalist or Christian perspectives on almost any issue have been hounded, persecuted, and expelled for refusing to toe the line. All opinions are welcome in academia - unless they come from a traditional or religious perspective. Then they must be shamed into a different way of thinking!
One of the first things I teach in my government class is that free speech means FREE speech. That includes speech that we disagree with, speech that disgusts us, speech that offends us. If the most vile and obnoxious verbal expressions we can imagine are not just as protected as the most innocuous statements, then we are not a free society at all. I may despise the hate-spewing idiots of Westboro Baptist Church, but I support their right to speak their minds. Otherwise, the whole concept of freedom of speech is meaningless. But more and more, our college campuses seem to be dominated by moronic thought police whose sole goal is to shame everyone who doesn't share their "enlightened" view of humanity into compliance. Sorry, that's not what we are paying $45,000 a semester for our children to learn!
At any rate, that's all I can make myself write about this nonsense for now. Excuse me . . . no, sorry!
EXCUSE ZE!!!!
The University of Tennessee has announced that its faculty and students should stop using traditional, gender-based pronouns in order to "create a more inclusive campus." Seriously, it's no longer enough that men can call themselves women and can have themselves surgically altered in order to resemble women, now the King's English itself must be modified in order to accommodate the deification of their delusions! I can't make up something this silly, so here it is in its entirety from the official "Tennesseean" website:
University of Tennessee students have been asked to use gender-neutral pronouns such as "ze."
The University of Tennessee Office for Diversity and Inclusion is asking students and faculty to use the pronouns in order to create a more inclusive campus, multiple media outlets report.
"Transgender people and people who do not identify within the gender binary may use a different name than their legal name and pronouns of their gender identity, rather than the pronouns of the sex they were assigned at birth," the University of Tennessee's Pride Center Director, Donna Braquet, wrote on the university's website Wednesday.
Braquet requested that teachers, rather than calling roll, will instead ask each student to provide the name and pronoun he or she — or ze — wishes to be referred by. She says it relieves a burden for people expressing different genders or identities.
"The name a student uses may not be the one on the official roster, and the roster name may not be the same gender as the one the student now uses," Braquet wrote.
University spokeswoman Karen Ann Simsen said there is no mandate or official policy to use the language.
"The information provided in the newsletter was offered as a resource for our campus community on inclusive practices," Simsen said.
Braquet said if students and faculty cannot use pronouns such as ze, hir, hirs, xe, xem or xyr, they can also politely ask.
"'Oh, nice to meet you ... What pronouns should I use?' is a perfectly fine question to ask," Braquet said.
So instead of perfectly good words that have been standard practice in the English language for as long as there has been an English language, we get a jumble of letters created by some bureaucrat that mean absolutely nothing! And for what purpose? Darned if I can tell. Even if you are a transsexual, don't you want to be referred to by the gender pronoun that you "identify with"? What is 'ze' anyway? A straight man who dresses like a woman, a gay man who dresses like a woman, a straight woman who dresses like a man, or someone like my friend Josh who fervently claims he is a dolphin trapped in a man's body? And what if someone whose personal bent is different from yours steals your pronoun of choice? Do you fight a duel with rolled up copies of The San Francisco Chronicle on the college green for who gets to be 'ze' and who gets to be 'xe'?
Bear in mind, according to Google, parents are paying $45,000 per semester for their kids to attend this university. Is this what they want them to learn? What, after all, is the purpose of college? At one time, it was to learn a valuable skill that you could then use to earn a better living for yourself than you could get without the degree. Or perhaps just to explore a scientific or academic discipline that has always fascinated you, and try to do something practical with it. But now it seems as if the purpose of many institutes of higher learning is simply to indoctrinate students with a boatload of leftist nonsense that has no practical application anywhere in life. What's going to happen when these earnest young graduates go to their first job interview and ask the manager to refer to them as 'xim' rather than 'him'? I doubt the result will be this young applicant being forwarded to the management fast track!
Once upon a time, I got out of the Navy and attended a fine independent university in East Texas, earning a Bachelor's Degree, a teaching certificate, and a Master's Degree. I was exposed to every conceivable point of view during that time. I had professors who were Marxists and one who was an avowed monarchist (he had framed portraits of Louis XIV and Catherine the Great in his apartment!). I had classmates who were gay, straight, Christian, Jewish, liberal, conservative, communist, and borderline fascist. The beauty of the place is that we all sounded off on a regular basis, in the classroom and in the coffee shops, in our professors' presence and in their absence, about whatever came to mind. We debated God and Darwin, Marx and Montesquieu, Locke and Lenin, with passion and force and silliness and all the earnestness that twentysomething adults can muster at that marvelous age when they know the exact solution to all the world's problems, if only someone would put them in charge.
But today's college campuses have become a wasteland of soul-stifling political correctness and liberal intolerance. While the movie GOD'S NOT DEAD is indeed fiction, look up the thirty or so lawsuits listed in the credits to see how those who hold traditionalist or Christian perspectives on almost any issue have been hounded, persecuted, and expelled for refusing to toe the line. All opinions are welcome in academia - unless they come from a traditional or religious perspective. Then they must be shamed into a different way of thinking!
One of the first things I teach in my government class is that free speech means FREE speech. That includes speech that we disagree with, speech that disgusts us, speech that offends us. If the most vile and obnoxious verbal expressions we can imagine are not just as protected as the most innocuous statements, then we are not a free society at all. I may despise the hate-spewing idiots of Westboro Baptist Church, but I support their right to speak their minds. Otherwise, the whole concept of freedom of speech is meaningless. But more and more, our college campuses seem to be dominated by moronic thought police whose sole goal is to shame everyone who doesn't share their "enlightened" view of humanity into compliance. Sorry, that's not what we are paying $45,000 a semester for our children to learn!
At any rate, that's all I can make myself write about this nonsense for now. Excuse me . . . no, sorry!
EXCUSE ZE!!!!
Monday, August 24, 2015
Back to School Days . . .
Wow, has it really been nearly two weeks since I last updated this blog? Oh no!
I don't know how many of you have been waiting with bated breath to drink up the bon mots that flow forth from this fountain of scribbled insight, but I'm willing to bet that you've worked up a powerful thirst by now! So, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, and know that your long wait is now ended.
So what to write about? I've been pretty busy lately . . . to use an old Texas phrase, as busy as a one-armed man with a bad case of poison ivy! It's the beginning of school - a week of in-service followed by the kids coming back to class last Wednesday. We're also caregiving for my mother-in-law, who is 87 and increasingly frail these days. She broke her arm in a fall a few weeks back and needs our help to get around. My Dad's health has also deteriorated over the summer, so I am checking in on him at the nursing home even more often than I normally do. That's part of the season of life my wife and I are in right now - our girls are in college and more independent of us than they once were, but our parents need us more than ever.
But the stress and worry of that situation is alleviated by my wonderful job - and no, that's not sarcasm. I teach in a small private school, and I single-handedly comprise our History Department. Once they hit junior high school, our students have me every single year. I get to watch them grow up from seventh grade until they graduate, and it is a wonderful experience. I have six regular classes plus one elective that I started teaching this year that meets twice a week. Let me tell you about them.
First of all, there is Seventh Grade Texas History. This is the "Happy Meal" of history classes - predictable, simple content that is still enjoyable and informative, with a great "toy" thrown in - the annual trip to the Sulphur River to collect fossils and Indian artifacts. We cover the maps of Texas, the Indians, the Spanish, the Alamo, and Texas in the Civil War . . . it's always fun. I'm still getting to know my Seventh Graders, but they seem to be a bright, fun-loving bunch with an interesting mix of personalities.
Then there is 8th Grade U.S. History. One of my favorite courses, content-wise, and this year's 8th grade class is lively, fun, smart, and sassy. The girls are all well-read and belong to various TV show fandoms, and most of the guys love Star Wars - it's neat when you have a group of young people who are unashamedly willing to embrace their inner nerd. What a cool group of young men and ladies!
Ninth Grade is World Geography, a relatively new course for me (this is my 4th year to teach it). I've learned a lot about the world these last 4 years and am having fun sharing it. The freshmen are another great bunch to hang with - they are smart and full of questions about everything from politics to movies to why the Middle East is so messed up.
Tenth Grade World History is probably my favorite content area of all. I'm an absolute sucker for the ancient world, especially "the splendor that was Greece, the glory that was Rome." And I get to share it ALL with them this year - from the campaigns of Julius Caesar to the tyranny of mad Caligula, and then we move on to Mohammed and Buddha, the Byzantines and the Han Dynasty, Henry VIII and his half dozen spouses to Peter the Great and his penchant for amateur dentistry. Plus we watch some great movies this year - GLADIATOR, Kenneth Branagh's HENRY V, and the wonderful LUTHER with Joseph Fiennes in the title role. Not to mention this is a very sharp, funny, and eclectic young people that keep me on my toes every day!
Eleventh grade is Dual Credit U.S. History, a super-accelerated course that offers six hours of college credit by the end of the year. I re-cover all of 8th grade history in the first semester, then in the spring we do a whirlwind tour from Reconstruction to the present. I require the students in this class to write me one book review per quarter; I have a huge library that they can check out titles from. It's always fun to watch as a student picks up David McCullough's 1776, or Barbara Tuchman's THE MARCH OF FOLLY, or perhaps Doris Kearne Goodwin's magnificent TEAM OF RIVALS, which I consider to be the best book ever written on Abraham Lincoln. My juniors are a big class, full of life and fun, with some marvelously quirky personalities - and some amazing talents as well.
Last of all, there is Senior U.S. Government. It's a one semester course, but it's always more fun to teach in an election season. I have a huge Presidential Election Leader Board drawn up, and I adjust the poll numbers once or twice a week to show who's up, who's down, and who's dropping out. We cover everything from the Constitutional Convention to Roe vs. Wade in this class, and it's fascinating to watch as these now young adults form the political convictions that will guide them for a lifetime. This year's group is a special bunch, and it's going to hurt to let them go - we've had a great journey together, but this last trip promises to be an entertaining ride.
But wait! There is one more class, something brand new, so much so that I am writing the curriculum as I go along this year - it's called MODERN AMERICA: Pop Culture, History, and Politics from 1980 to the Present. I've lobbied for this course forever, since in teaching U.S. History 2 in the spring I very rarely get much past Viet Nam and Watergate. Now at least some of my students will be instructed about the world their grandparents built and their parents grew up in.
My days are full but joyous; the sound of "learnage" carries out my door and down the hall as we daily declare war on ignorance and come forth leaving a little bit less of it in the world. On any given day, my students might discuss anything from the Trump phenomena to how crowded Japanese trains are to how three cigars may well have determined the outcome of the Civil War. I tell them every year: "You may like me or not, you may like history or not, but I promise you one thing - you will never forget me!" And for 20 years now, none of them have.
I don't know how many of you have been waiting with bated breath to drink up the bon mots that flow forth from this fountain of scribbled insight, but I'm willing to bet that you've worked up a powerful thirst by now! So, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa, and know that your long wait is now ended.
So what to write about? I've been pretty busy lately . . . to use an old Texas phrase, as busy as a one-armed man with a bad case of poison ivy! It's the beginning of school - a week of in-service followed by the kids coming back to class last Wednesday. We're also caregiving for my mother-in-law, who is 87 and increasingly frail these days. She broke her arm in a fall a few weeks back and needs our help to get around. My Dad's health has also deteriorated over the summer, so I am checking in on him at the nursing home even more often than I normally do. That's part of the season of life my wife and I are in right now - our girls are in college and more independent of us than they once were, but our parents need us more than ever.
But the stress and worry of that situation is alleviated by my wonderful job - and no, that's not sarcasm. I teach in a small private school, and I single-handedly comprise our History Department. Once they hit junior high school, our students have me every single year. I get to watch them grow up from seventh grade until they graduate, and it is a wonderful experience. I have six regular classes plus one elective that I started teaching this year that meets twice a week. Let me tell you about them.
First of all, there is Seventh Grade Texas History. This is the "Happy Meal" of history classes - predictable, simple content that is still enjoyable and informative, with a great "toy" thrown in - the annual trip to the Sulphur River to collect fossils and Indian artifacts. We cover the maps of Texas, the Indians, the Spanish, the Alamo, and Texas in the Civil War . . . it's always fun. I'm still getting to know my Seventh Graders, but they seem to be a bright, fun-loving bunch with an interesting mix of personalities.
Then there is 8th Grade U.S. History. One of my favorite courses, content-wise, and this year's 8th grade class is lively, fun, smart, and sassy. The girls are all well-read and belong to various TV show fandoms, and most of the guys love Star Wars - it's neat when you have a group of young people who are unashamedly willing to embrace their inner nerd. What a cool group of young men and ladies!
Ninth Grade is World Geography, a relatively new course for me (this is my 4th year to teach it). I've learned a lot about the world these last 4 years and am having fun sharing it. The freshmen are another great bunch to hang with - they are smart and full of questions about everything from politics to movies to why the Middle East is so messed up.
Tenth Grade World History is probably my favorite content area of all. I'm an absolute sucker for the ancient world, especially "the splendor that was Greece, the glory that was Rome." And I get to share it ALL with them this year - from the campaigns of Julius Caesar to the tyranny of mad Caligula, and then we move on to Mohammed and Buddha, the Byzantines and the Han Dynasty, Henry VIII and his half dozen spouses to Peter the Great and his penchant for amateur dentistry. Plus we watch some great movies this year - GLADIATOR, Kenneth Branagh's HENRY V, and the wonderful LUTHER with Joseph Fiennes in the title role. Not to mention this is a very sharp, funny, and eclectic young people that keep me on my toes every day!
Eleventh grade is Dual Credit U.S. History, a super-accelerated course that offers six hours of college credit by the end of the year. I re-cover all of 8th grade history in the first semester, then in the spring we do a whirlwind tour from Reconstruction to the present. I require the students in this class to write me one book review per quarter; I have a huge library that they can check out titles from. It's always fun to watch as a student picks up David McCullough's 1776, or Barbara Tuchman's THE MARCH OF FOLLY, or perhaps Doris Kearne Goodwin's magnificent TEAM OF RIVALS, which I consider to be the best book ever written on Abraham Lincoln. My juniors are a big class, full of life and fun, with some marvelously quirky personalities - and some amazing talents as well.
Last of all, there is Senior U.S. Government. It's a one semester course, but it's always more fun to teach in an election season. I have a huge Presidential Election Leader Board drawn up, and I adjust the poll numbers once or twice a week to show who's up, who's down, and who's dropping out. We cover everything from the Constitutional Convention to Roe vs. Wade in this class, and it's fascinating to watch as these now young adults form the political convictions that will guide them for a lifetime. This year's group is a special bunch, and it's going to hurt to let them go - we've had a great journey together, but this last trip promises to be an entertaining ride.
But wait! There is one more class, something brand new, so much so that I am writing the curriculum as I go along this year - it's called MODERN AMERICA: Pop Culture, History, and Politics from 1980 to the Present. I've lobbied for this course forever, since in teaching U.S. History 2 in the spring I very rarely get much past Viet Nam and Watergate. Now at least some of my students will be instructed about the world their grandparents built and their parents grew up in.
My days are full but joyous; the sound of "learnage" carries out my door and down the hall as we daily declare war on ignorance and come forth leaving a little bit less of it in the world. On any given day, my students might discuss anything from the Trump phenomena to how crowded Japanese trains are to how three cigars may well have determined the outcome of the Civil War. I tell them every year: "You may like me or not, you may like history or not, but I promise you one thing - you will never forget me!" And for 20 years now, none of them have.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)