Quotes, Pics, and Clips VI

I’m resurrecting an installment I used to do, a bite-sized anthology of things I had recently seen or been thinking about in the various areas that interest me.  Here are the first five parts of this series: Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, Part V.

ARTS

Like him or not, it’s fun watching Jackson Pollock work:

EDUCATION

“The more computers we have, the more we need shared fairy tales, Greek myths, historical images, and so on….The more specialized and technical our civilization becomes, the harder it is for nonspecialists to participate in the decisions that deeply affect our lives.”  –E.D. Hirsch, Cultural Literacy, 1987.  (I highly recommend this great article about Hirsch’s new book.)

HUMOR

I’ve used this clip in Forensics and English 102 classes to make a point about the nature of debate and persuasion:

LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE

Something I’ve been impressed by as I pick my way through this masterpiece is how Tolstoy dwells at intervals on both the honor and heroics of conflict as well as the strain and loss.  His vision is truly majestic.

“What’s this? Am I falling? My legs are giving way,” thought he, and

fell on his back. He opened his eyes, hoping to see how the struggle of

the Frenchmen with the gunners ended, whether the red-haired gunner had

been killed or not and whether the cannon had been captured or saved.

But he saw nothing. Above him there was now nothing but the sky–the

lofty sky, not clear yet still immeasurably lofty, with gray clouds

gliding slowly across it. “How quiet, peaceful, and solemn; not at all

as I ran,” thought Prince Andrew–”not as we ran, shouting and fighting,

not at all as the gunner and the Frenchman with frightened and angry

faces struggled for the mop: how differently do those clouds glide

across that lofty infinite sky! How was it I did not see that lofty sky

before? And how happy I am to have found it at last! Yes! All is vanity,

all falsehood, except that infinite sky. There is nothing, nothing, but

that. But even it does not exist, there is nothing but quiet and peace.

Thank God!…”

–Leo Tolstoy, War and Peace, Part III, chapter XVI

LIVING WELL

The older I get, the more I enjoy sports.  I’ve watched a lot of clips like this:

POLITICS AND SOCIETY

 ”The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If `Thou shalt not covet’ and `Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”

–John Adams, “A Defense of the American Constitutions,” 1787

RELIGION

I love this story, which I call “the parable of the kite.”  I’ve used it in teaching struggling disciples and my own children:

The second thing that has helped me receive these blessings is the principle of courageous obedience. I am so grateful for God’s gift of laws and commandments. Peace, hope, and direction are outcomes of striving to live the teachings of Jesus and obeying His laws and commandments. The scriptures teach, “Great peace have they which love thy law” (Ps. 119:165). They also teach that “he who doeth the works of righteousness shall receive his reward, even peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come” (D&C 59:23).

While Brother Pinegar served as president of the Provo Missionary Training Center, as you can imagine, we often talked to the missionaries about the feelings of happiness and peace that accompany courageous obedience to true principles. We talked of the influence of the Holy Ghost that comes to those who are obedient. We encouraged the missionaries to make obedience their quest. I enjoyed telling them the story of the little boy who went to the park with his father to fly a kite.

The boy was very young. It was his first experience with kite flying. His father helped him, and after several attempts the kite was in the air. The boy ran and let out more string, and soon the kite was flying high. The little boy was so excited; the kite was beautiful. Eventually there was no more string left to allow the kite to go higher. The boy said to his father, “Daddy, let’s cut the string and let the kite go; I want to see it go higher and higher.”

His father said, “Son, the kite won’t go higher if we cut the string.”

“Yes, it will,” responded the little boy. “The string is holding the kite down; I can feel it.” The father handed a pocketknife to his son. The boy cut the string. In a matter of seconds the kite was out of control. It darted here and there and finally landed in a broken heap. That was difficult for the boy to understand. He felt certain the string was holding the kite down.

The commandments and laws of God are like the kite string. They lead us and guide us upward. Obedience to these laws gives us peace, hope, and direction.

–Patricia P. Pinegar, “Peace, Hope, and Direction,” October 1999 General Conference

“He’s such a good kid”

A police officer was shot by a group of young men as he came home from work two nights ago.  One of the young men is an 18-year-old junior and basketball player at Mojave High School, according to the newspaper.  Reading the comments section below the article, some people say that they know him and that he’s “a good kid,” including someone called “Mojave Parent” commenting at 10:10. 

This reminded me of a similar tragedy here in Las Vegas three years ago: another basketball player at Mojave High School was part of a group that went around assaulting strangers on a spree one night.  After he was arrested, people came out of the woodwork to call him “a good kid.” 

When Gerald Davidson shot and killed Chris Privett after school at Palo Verde High School a year and a half ago, I don’t remember anyone calling him a good kid, but I wouldn’t be the least bit surprised if someone did. 

I have no further commentary than this: get a clue, everybody.

I Predict KSM Will Become The Left’s Media Darling

A few days ago on Instapundit I saw a joke about the upcoming trial in New York of terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, namely that “KSM sounds like an early 90s techno band name.” 

The reference is to the one hit wonder band KLF, but I was instantly reminded of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, who has inspired a slew of thoughtless, baseless, anti-authoritarian protests in his favor, for no better reason than because it’s politically correct and the media has decided that he’s cool. 

Here’s the worst case scenario for the farce of a trial for KSM that this administration has now foisted upon us: Bush Derangement Syndrome is still so strong that Hollywood and their media will campaign for his exoneration, without directly addressing the substance of his actual acts of terrorism, of course, but will plead that he is a “patriotic insurgent” whose rights have been denied him, that he’s been tortured (he’s one of the few people who was ever waterboarded), and that releasing him will be a gesture of goodwill to the middle east, etc.  Or something like that. 

And it may well be feasible that somewhere in the middle of this mess we will hear an updated version of an early 90s techno hit on the radio: “KSM!  Uh huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.  KSM is gonna rock ya!”

Idea For Public Service Announcement

Camera opens on a bus interior from the front; passengers settle in as the bus prepares to start moving.  A subtitle shows, “1955.” 

A new shot gives a close up of a black woman sitting near the front, looking seriously but distractedly out the window.  A voice with a Southern accent off camera says, “You need to give up your seat and move to the back of the bus.”  She looks over and up at the man off camera and, after a brief pause, says, “No.”  Camera cuts to a side view of bus driver standing over her, grimacing menacingly.  Camera cuts back to the woman, who turns her head slowly now and looks resolutely ahead of her.  The bus driver’s voice is heard saying, “If you don’t move, I’ll call the police and have you arrested.”  The woman calmly says, “You do that.”  Camera cuts once again to the back of the bus, where several rows of black passengers look on; camera then shows a few quick close-ups of black passengers nodding in approval.

Fade out and back in: camera now shows the same scene as at the beginning, but this time the subtitle says, “Today.”  Several black boys are shown from behind walking down the aisle of the bus.  They have sagging pants, bandanas, etc.  The bus is mostly empty, but they swagger past every seat to the very last row, where they rough house and yell.  Camera pans to the side, showing an elderly black woman sitting near the front.  Her head sags a bit and she sadly, slowly shakes her head in disapproval. 

Scene moves to the outside of the bus, behind it, showing it pull out and drive away.  As it moves, a narrator reads a slogan that appears on the screen: “Don’t move back.  Keep moving forward.” 

[Note: I realize this is a drastic simplification of Rosa Parks' protest, but it's necessary for brevity.]

Idea For “V”

The massacre at Fort Hood only two days after the premiere of the new science fiction series V, about hostile plotters hiding in our midst, has me thinking about how current events might further factor into the show’s plot.  Specifically, I’m inspired by the leftists in our society who misdirect our attention from the real problems here–violent anti-Americans operating in the open because we’re too politically correct to combat them–to their weird pet projects of multiculturalism and diversity.

The strangest and most revolting example of this must be General George Casey’s assertion that a loss of diversity in the military as a result of this shooting would a greater tragedy than the shooting itself.  This kind of self-flagellating defeatism, of course, plays right into the hands of terrorists.

So here’s my idea for the show: as rebels try to expose the alien invaders for the hungry reptiles they are, the “Visitors” should respond by smearing their critics, slamming them for their lack of open-minded compassion.  Bloggers or talk radio hosts who ask tough questions about the Visitors’ motives should be met with press conferences by aggrieved, indignant aliens who look sternly into the camera and ask, “Why are you so afraid of things that are different or that you don’t understand?  Why are your hearts so full of hate?”

UNLV Sponsors Youth Sexuality Activism Conference For CCSD Educators

A disturbing email went out to my school’s electronic bulletin board today.  Presumably it went out to every school in the district.  The message included two attachments giving details about an alternative sexuality conference on the UNLV campus on November 14 which will feature a series of workshops.  Are these workshops meant to help educators with their personal lives?  No, nothing like that.  Is it to assist them in avoiding the creation of a classroom environment where teasing and bullying of homosexual students might occur?  Partly. 

But the most unnerving thing about this conference is the inclusion of sessions meant to instruct teachers in training students “to get involved with the LGTBQ community in order to effect positive change. We will look at already established youth LGBTQ community groups, recent movements and types of youth activism.”  Is this serious?  Is UNLV actually promoting, and CCSD tacitly allowing, public teachers preparing to indoctrinate young people in alternative sexual lifestyles, to the point where these children will be encouraged to go out into the community and advocate for them? 

This is beyond political. 

The Underdog in the Culture War

I had a letter printed in the Las Vegas Review-Journal this morning.  In response to local citizens’ and the media’s universal lambasting of parents who are protesting a high school’s performances of Rent and The Laramie Project, I wrote:

As soon as news broke of a parental protest to Green Valley High School’s productions of two socially progressive plays, a chorus of indignation started singing the praises of the brave teachers and actors and decrying the “obvious” hatred and ignorance of the parents. What actually bothers me far more than the political agenda at work in the play selections or the reflexive mob sanctimony of the aggrieved is the monolithic, vitriolic reaction of the community — including the Review-Journal — to the parents’ opposition.

What lessons will the children who likewise oppose the performances learn from this controversy? If your opinion is different from the majority, be quiet. If you question the assumptions of the majority, they will have free rein to slander you. If you think something is deeply wrong but it’s popular, you have no right to oppose it.

If these aren’t the true lessons to take from this matter, then we have to ask why the media isn’t also sympathetically profiling the students who oppose the biased selection of plays, or why local commentators aren’t applauding the courage of a handful of people for standing up to a smug establishment.

This treatment appears to be just another example of the mainstream’s one-way tolerance.

 

UPDATE: The comments section at the end of the page on the newspaper’s web site where my letter was printed has some very interesting debate, which largely illustrates my point–only those with officially sanctioned views should participate in cultural discussions.  All others should stay home, and will be stigmatized as knuckle-draggers if they dare speak up.  The democratic process is moot–the decisions about culture have been made for us. 

Also, apparently, someone in those comments thought to “expose” me by googling my name and listing the results.  How strange and sad. 

 

Harry Is Running Scared

Remember the last time Harry Reid was up for reelection?  He barely campaigned at all, running a few token ads near the election, featuring people from his hometown telling folksy stories about him, and calling him “Pinky.”  He could afford to run those nonsense ads because it was a slam dunk campaign–there was no chance he would lose. 

Fast forward a few years and now he’s one of the most radical, despised politicians in America.  Today, well over a year before the next election, he’s already running a series of serious ads pumping himself up as the savior of Nevada’s economy, pulling out his powerful friends this time (not the hometown buddies) to testify to his miraculous powers. 

It’s a desperate tactic, and it makes it plain to all of us that Reid knows he’s in for an uphill battle this time.  The majority leader’s on the ropes…right where we want him. 

My prediction–he’ll get even more aggressive as the campaign goes on.  Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian, look out.  There’s an angry pit bull after you!

Yes, You Should Judge a Book By Its Cover!

Before I eviscerate this ridiculous bit of old folk wisdom in its metaphorical interpretation, may I please point out how foolish it is in a literal application?  Of course you’re supposed to judge a book by its cover–that’s part of what the cover is for.  It protects the book, helps hold it together…and advertises the contents.  If you pick up a book and the cover pictures a blushing maiden, corset unlacing, in the brawny arms of a topless pirate who leans in towards her for a passionate kiss, it’s a pretty good bet that you’re not holding a physics textbook. 

The same simple method of intuitive observation is true for people.  We might reflexively regurgitate the popular culture’s mantra that you don’t really know anything about anybody until you know them well, and that people are complicated and defy easy classification, but no matter how much Hollywood wants us to see fascinating iconoclasts behind every trendy appearance, the fact is that almost everybody is transparent, predictable, and very cleanly in line with our expectations for how people with certain appearances will act and think.

Take mohawks, for example. 

Nothing New Under the Sun

The bulk of the Declaration of Independence–the entire body section–is devoted to a laundry list of complaints against the failures of British rule, meant to justify to the world why the colonies were revolting.  Among the intolerable items that pushed our Founding Fathers over the edge was this:

“He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.” 

Whoa.  Can you imagine that?  Being subject to a powerful, sprawling, bureaucratic federal government with infinite departments staffed by busybody stooges with nothing better to do than persecute law-abiding citizens, robbing them of their property?  Living in a nation like that would truly be a nightmare.  No wonder our forefathers had to rebel against it.  I know if I lived in similar circumstances, I’d want to change the system. 

Luckily, nothing like that exists anymore.

A Pair of Pessimistic Political Predictions

I’m not saying that these things will happen, but the way our society is going, I think it’s likely that they might happen. 

1.  Any straight people who get married will be seen as inherently oppressing gays who can’t marry.  This came to mind as I heard recently about a growing slew of celebrities who refuse to get married, saying they won’t do it until everybody can do it.  The logical end of that train of thought will be stigmatizing anybody who doesn’t get in on this “boycot.”  Cohabitation will explode even further as marriage rates drop drastically.

2.  The concept of nationality will come to be looked down on as narrow-minded, old fashioned, and akin to racism.  Under the guise of embracing all of humanity and “celebrating diversity,” many will decry those who assert that being an American–or any other nationality–has some intrinsic meaning.  Valuing your country over other countries will be the new “racism,” as the more “enlightened” among us will disavow their allegiance to any one nation and declare themselves “citizens of the world.” 

I know, I know–the seeds of both of these are already well sown into our society.  My fear is that they will become far more prevalent, that within a decade they will be the mandatory mantras of the mainstream, the same way that gay marriage, amnesty, and socialism suddenly became orthodox doctrines during the last ten years.

Conservative Media’s Ironic Misunderstanding of “School Indoctrination”

A perceptive colleague alerted me to this story out of Chicago, where the mother of a boy investigated in that awful student beating recently told reporters that schools should be responsible for monitoring students outside of school hours. 

This perfectly illustrates something I’ve seen constantly in my years of teaching.  We conservatives worry that schools are brainwashing our kids with government propaganda, just as the mainstream media does, and though there are certainly programs and policies that clearly emanate from the left, this concern is essentially baseless. 

If the government’s effectively indoctrinating our kids, then where are the hordes of glassy-eyed teenage zombies chanting, “I love Big Brother?” 

No, our children are strongly resistant to any attempt to exert authority over them or persuade them to accept ideas in school…to a fault!

The irony here is that while conservative media gets itself into a tizzy about schools usurping too much authority over American children…that’s precisely what too many parents want us to do!

I’ve written plenty of stories on here about clueless parents who expect teachers to raise their kids.  It’s an epidemic.  These lazy, incompetent losers make teachers’ lives miserable.  Teachers spend a large percentage of their parent conferences trying to convince parents to do the work that a lot of conservatives are afraid we’re actively trying to steal away from them!

Schools taking over the job of parents?  Trust me, not a legitimate concern.  Now, the fuzzy teaching methods employed in too many classrooms–that’s a real problem to keep your eye on.

Girls and Self Destruction

Every year after I teach Lord of the Flies–the classic novel about a bunch of young boys who crash on a tropical island and have to survive on their own–I point out to classes that the novel was inspired by the brutality of World War II, in which the author saw the worst aspects of humanity run amok.  In the novel, the boys form a mildly successful society for a while, with authority and chores, but it eventually degrades into savage anarchy and chaos–the author’s grim commentary on his lack of faith in human nature. 

Among other things, since the book is based on unchecked masculinity, I ask students to then consider how they think the book might have been different if a plane full of girls had crashed there, instead of boys.  Their answers always fall into two clearly demarcated camps.  The vast majority of boys, every year, say that stranded girls would just “have tea parties and paint each other’s toenails and stuff.”  Far more disturbing than this simple stereotyping, though, is what an even larger majority of girls almost always says: “No, they’d all kill each other by the end of the first day.” 

A pessimistic confession of their own burgeoning awareness of the social flaws inculcated into their gender?  Hardly.  That wouldn’t explain why most of the girls who say this tend to say it while laughing and smiling, almost proud of their prediction of massive failure.  They practically high five each other while saying it. 

How exactly have we apparently taught our young women to expect so little of themselves, in stark imitation of their masculine counterparts, to the point of competing with the boys for who can be the least successful?  I wonder if this is the dark side of social progress, a worrisome elephant in the room: As we have tried to encourage girls to be more assertive and involved in the public realm over the last few generations, have we inadvertently also magnified within them or brought to the front of their personalities those negative characteristics that we traditionally associate with young men–the violence, thoughtlessness, and nihilism that we’re warned about in Lord of the Flies?

Balloon Boy’s Airhead Parents

I can’t add much to the country’s comments and complaints about the poor 6-year-old Colorado boy who may or may not have “accidentally” spurred an emergency.  I just want to add one important thing that I haven’t heard anybody else say yet.

Why the heck are these parents pimping out all of their kids on every news show they can get on?  Their scared little boy was on Larry King last night and on the Today show this morning, where he threw up.  This kid is clearly terrified.  Nevermind what kind of parents would have put this kid in the situation where he might have floated off in an experimental balloon in the first place–what kind of parents celebrate their joy at finding him safe and sound by immediately shuttling him around to every TV camera they can find?  Where’s their concern about his emotional welfare? 

In fact, doesn’t that make it seem more likely it was a hoax?

An Open Letter To The Rebel Yell

There are really only two reasonable responses to the controversy surrounding your paper’s printing of The Burger Grind’s ad featuring “Juicy Lucy:” you could apologize to the community for a lack of good taste, or you could defend the ad as not overtly offensive.  People might not agree with one or the other, but at least we could all respect such a stand.

But what you’ve chosen to do is not reasonable, respectful, or responsible.  Your official editorial response to the controversy is to say that you have no connection to your advertising content, and to essentially step out of the way so you can egg on the crowd that’s gearing up to storm the Burger Grind, torches and pitchforks in hand. 

I’ve never seen such a shameless example of throwing someone under the bus.  The majority of your critics may be complaining of your lack of consideration towards women, but I’m more bothered by another failure of character.

Shame on you for being cowards.