jump to navigation

The End of Parenting is Near June 20, 2008

Posted by Administrator in Creepiness, Cultural Pessimism, Family, Idiots, Leviathan, Liberal Hypocrisy, Liberal self-loathing, Mechanistic Relativism, Parenting.
add a comment

The Nanny State shows increasing signs of ascendancy when a Quebec court decides that dad has been too harsh in forbidding his daughter from attending a school trip.

Madam Justice Suzanne Tessier of the Quebec Superior Court ruled on Friday that the father couldn’t discipline his daughter by barring her from the school trip.

The judge’s decision, made from the bench, applies only to the girl’s unusual circumstances, lawyers for both sides said, trying to dispel visions of grounded teenagers rushing to the nearest courthouse to overturn their parents’ punishments.

Madam Justice’s “logic”?

Lucie Fortin, the lawyer representing the 12-year-old, said the judge found that depriving the girl of the school trip was an excessive punishment.

She said the girl has already been forbidden to use the Internet and her father also punished her by cancelling her participation in an extracurricular event.

The trip, a three-day outing within Quebec supervised by teachers and volunteer parents, marked her Grade 6 class graduation from elementary school.

“She’s becoming a big girl. … It’s a unique event in her life,” Ms. Fortin said.

How in the name of all creation does a freaking court decide if poor little Spoiled BratGirl is a “big” enough girl to override Dad’s legitimate discipline concerns?

This crap is going on in Canada, I know. But it may well meander its way down here, at which point, if I am still a parent, I must consider moving to another country that still recognizes the family as the primary social unit of society.

What is the logical end of this sort of State intervention? What kinds of kids can we look forward to?

See, now little spoiled Mackenzie can now sue her dad and get the correct car with the correct color.

This is no little cavil I am ranting about here. This is nothing less than the huge signpost that society as we know it is about to crumble.

Talk about rising divorce rates, homosexual marriage, rising teen pregnancy and STD transmission rates. Yes, those are all there as well. Take away a parent’s right to discipline, and now the State is signaling that it is the primary arbiter of society. And we all know how well the State does when it manages the monopoly on some service/commodity: It all goes to hell.

This is, simply put, really bad, bad news.

ANCHORESS as usual has more info, as well as coverage on the Canadian school that called Child Welfare on a family because a teacher’s aid felt the child was being abused based on what a local psychic had been telling her, and the school administration bought this nonsense!! Anchoress also talks about Canada’s outlawing of spanking and its lockdown on free speech.


Ben Stein tells people off. . .again? September 8, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Blogging, Cultural Pessimism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mechanistic Relativism, Parenting.

I’m not sure this is him, but what the heck, let’s take a look at it.


Think About This

If they know of him at all, many folks think Ben Stein is just a quirky actor/comedian who talks in a monotone.   He’s also a very intelligent attorney who knows how to put ideas and words together in such a way as to sway juries and make people think clearly.


The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary:

Herewith at this happy time of year, a few confessions from my beating heart: I have no freaking clue who Nick and Jessica are.  I see them on the cover of People and Us constantly when I am buying my dog biscuits and kitty litter.  I often ask the checkers at the grocery stores.  They never know who Nick and Jessica are either.  Who are they? Will it change my life if I know who they are and why they have broken up? Why are they so important?

I don’t know who Lindsay Lohan is either, and I do not care at all about Tom Cruise’s wife.  Am I going to be called before a Senate committee and asked if I am a subversive? Maybe, but I just have no clue who Nick and Jessica are.

If this is what it means to be no longer young.  It’s not so bad.

Next confession:

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish.  And it does not bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees.  I don’t feel threatened.  I don’t feel discriminated against.  That’s what they are: Christmas t rees.

It doesn’t bother me a bit when people say, “Merry Christmas” to me. I don’t think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto.  In fact, I kind of like it.  It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year.  It doesn’t bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu.   If people want a creche, it’s just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don’t like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don’t think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians.  I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period.  I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country.  I can’t find it in the Constitution, and I don’t like it being shoved down my throat.

Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship Nick and Jessica and we aren’t allowed to worship God as we understand Him?  I guess that’s a sign that I’m getting old, too.

But there are a lot of us who are wondering where Nick and Jessica came from and where the America we knew went to. 

In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it’s not funny, it’s intended to get you thinking.


Billy Graham’s daughter was interviewed on the Early Show and Jane Clayson asked her “How could God let something like this Happen?”  (regarding Katrina)


Anne Graham gave an extremely profound and insightful response.  She said, “I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we’ve been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.

And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out.

How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?”

In light of recent events…terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.  I think it started when Madeleine Murray O’Hare (she was murdered, her body found recently) complained she didn’t want prayer in our schools, and we said OK.

Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school.  The Bible says thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself.   And we said OK.

Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn’t spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self -esteem (Dr. Spock’s son committed suicide).  We said an expert should know what he’s talking about.   And we said OK.

Now we’re asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don’t know right from wrong, and why it doesn’t bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out.


I think it has a great deal to do with “WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.”

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world’s going to hell.

Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says.

Funny how you can send ‘jokes’ through e-mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing.


Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you’re not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Pass it on if you think it has merit.  If not then just discard it…..no one will know you did.   But, if you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in

Berserk April 26, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Parenting, Personal.
add a comment

I cannot recall a more miserable Easter season.

The family is fine. Other than that, I have a boss who is ill and overworked, and consequently not making good decisions; a fellow co-worker who is also a good friend fearing she will be fired -and if this does happen it will be a serious miscarriage of justice-; another good friend who is considering looking elsewhere for a job because of the above injustice; an absolutely INSANE discipline issue I am managing where the parents involved are doing everything in their power to act like spoiled children and "save their little child from unfair consequences" -when in fact the child in question acknowledges his error, is more than happy to pay the piper, but will not disobey his berserk parents when they tell him not to comply.

The father in question has legal training, and is using his not-inconsiderable rhetorical skills to challenge everything; "the other kid is guilty; you aren't doing your job correctly." His logic is fantastically flawed, but he won't listen to reason, so I am not even going to begin engaging him in debate. It will too quickly degenerate into a swearing episode -on his part, I've already endured one of them- and I don't need to listen to anymore of that than necessary.


The crowning glory of all of this is that this same parent demanded -in the name of being rigorous- that I all but expel other kids who committed a rather serious infraction some months ago. But now that his kid is guilty? All kinds of excuses and prevarications come to the fore.

See, other kids can -and should- pay the penalty. But his kid can't.

Disgusting. Hypocritical. Offensive.

Oh yeah: And this same set of parents pride themselves on their piety.

Idiots like this give MoonBat lefties all kinds of ammunition for their claim that Christianity is fraught with hypocrisy.

And in dealing with this lunatics, I have to agree.

De-Humanization of life April 23, 2006

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Liberal Hypocrisy, Mechanistic Relativism, Parenting.

I do not dislike the French from the vulgar antipathy between neighbouring nations, but for their insolent and unfounded airs of superiority—Horace Walpole, 4th earl of Orford (1787)

A Frenchman must be always talking, whether he knows anything of the matter or not; an Englishman is content to say nothing when he has nothing to say—Samuel Johnson (1790)

I have heard some say homosexual practices are allowed in France and other NATO
Countries. We are not French and we are not other nationals. We are British, thank
God!—Viscount Montgomery of Alamein (1965)

Actually, I do not post this to promote some type of fictional "francophobia" that I might have. I use them as illustrations of a pervasive anti-French sentiment that has existed -particularly amongst the English- for centuries.

The reason for this antipathy would seem to be almost self-evident:

Hilberg’s observations apply equally to today’s nuclear age, when destroying one’s “enemy” carries with it the possibility that one may kill most of humankind and devastate the earth in the process. To remove the moral obstacles to such a course, leaders, both political and religious, euphemize killing and the weapons of destruction and dehumanize the potential victims in order to justify their extermination.

Dr. Haig Bosmajian

There we have the basic reason why this dehumanization occurs. Killing is repugnant. Nevermind the Commandments and an "objecive, moral law that no one can touch or prove." Killing is not pleasant. It causes distress in the killer unless he is a sociopath. Veterans of the most moral of wars wrestle for the rest of their lives when they go home. My own grandfather had to kill a Japanese with his knife on a nameless South Pacific beach. He hated doing it, and it troubled him until his death over 45 years later.

Killing causes cognitive dissonance, a fundamental feeling of disorder, when one has information that somehow contradicts previous learning. The dissonance is often lessened by the sufferer somehow rationalizing the new information in such a way as to allow the previous thought patterns to remain intact.

Which brings us back to the discomfort that killing brings in the killer. Taught that killing is bad (or more likely, recognizing on a basic level without teaching that it is repugnant) the killer then rationalizes that in some fashion, it was OK. My grandfather essentially said; "It was either him or me. If I didn't kill him, he certainly would have killed me." Or others may say such things as; "I had nothing against him, but he was fighting for a bad cause."

When killing needs become widespread, such as in war or widespread repression, Bosmajian's words require re-visiting:

To remove the moral obstacles to such a course, leaders, both political and religious, euphemize killing and the weapons of destruction and dehumanize the potential victims in order to justify their extermination.

To de-humanize the potential victims in order to justify the extermination. The English de-humanize the French during the Hundred Years War, so as to better justify the taking of French land the killing of French soldiery.

Or lets look at a more contemporary example:

By dehumanizing Jews, the Nazi leaders began to prepare for Hitler’s “Final Solution.” The Nazi leaders knew that when the deportations began it would be much easier for the German people to watch friends and neighbors shipped away if they associated them with rats or with age-old stereotypes about cheating with money. The propaganda was able to play off the existing racial difficulties in Germany has well as to enhance the original nationalistic pride of the German people that they were somehow chosen or holy. Anti-Semitic propaganda was common in wartime Germany, and often depicted Jews in league with communists or another hated group causing harm to Germans.

To soften the beachhead of German moral thought (Germany being a highly moral culture), Hitler and the Nazis systematically de-sensitized the German people to the humanity of the Jews, as well as the Gypsies, Catholics, Russians, English and anyone else who stood in the way. By removing the fundamental armor of the humanity of the Jews, any atrocity against them became acceptable; little different than looking at them as cattle, and culling out the defectives so that the overall herd might be strengthened.

One of the principal means through which the perpetrator will attempt to clear his conscience is by clothing his victim in a mantle of evil, by portraying the victim as an object that must be destroyed. (Link)

The Nazis of course are an obvious example; almost excessive to the point or comic if it weren't so tragic. The French and English might appear to be a tad less obvious, but the reality of the dehumanization is there all the same. And there are so many other examples:

  • Americans and Native Americans. General Sherman to General Sheridan: "it would be wise to invite all the sportsmen of England and America… for a Grand Buffalo Hunt, and make one grand sweep of them all." Where here the Buffalo are a metaphor for the Native Americans
  • Militant Islam and the West (Find your own examples, they are everywhere)
  • Current Democratic and Republican party rhetoric (again, find your own examples, they are everywhere).
  • Materialistic atheism and the unborn.

Now perhaps this last one may not seem to fit in. But it is the reason I wrote this little exegesis in the first place. I have often wondered at the remarkabl callousness of the abortion lobby towards unborn life. How, with so much evidence in place that abortion itself is murder, can this lobby still pursue it so relentlessly?

OK, maybe I'm dense, but I finally got it fully when reading the following exchange (From Indian Cowboy):

1. The ‘it’s a parasite’ argument. This discussion took place on a blog that deals with evolution day in and day out. You’d expect better from these people. I mean, if you ascribe to evolution, then you kinda have to accept that the ultimate point of sex and well, life, is making babies. To call a baby a parasite when you are evidently an evolution enthusiast just shows you how dogmatic some of these people are.

And there it is. I had never yet seen the fetus described as a parasite, but Indian Cowboy had been involved in a discussion here that suggested that very thing. And the Cowboy (a noted libertarian) said "ridiculous."

Then, PZ Myers (of Pharyngula infamy) responds:

Not at all unreasonable, and actually, fits right in with modern evolutionary theory. The interests of the fetus and the interests of the mother are not entirely coincident. The mother’s evolutionary goal is to produce as many babies as possible; the fetus’s goal is to maximize its fitness, even if it means Mom is too exhausted to have more kids afterwards.


"We must be rid of the Jews, they are subhuman."

"We must eliminate the Native Americans; they are little better than animals."

"We must eliminate the godless Western infidel."

"We must eliminate the French; they have no culture and they smell bad."

We must kill our babies. Until they are born, they are simply the same thing as a tapeworm.

And the MoonBat Left wonders why we of the Pro-Life movement find their morals so repugnant. To reduce a helpless child, one that evolution has programmed us to protect, nurture and care for to the level of a tapeworm is to trod the same ground all the moral equivocators from Julius Caesar on down to Hitler, bin Laden and Stalin have trod in their time.

And so we pave the path of our own destruction. At least those others assaulted aliens. In reducing life to parasitism, we make war upon ourselves.

Daughter November 29, 2005

Posted by Administrator in Family, Parenting.
add a comment

I’ve spoken of my elder son elsewhere (too lazy to find the link).

Now, my daughter has a poster of these fellows on her wall (I just mounted it, in fact:):

Sigh. Oh well. Certainly not the worst choice ever. After all, it could be Eminem or System of a Down. 😛

Judicial Usurpation of the State, Anyone? November 18, 2005

Posted by Administrator in Cultural Pessimism, Education, Parenting, Politics.
add a comment

Get this:

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, the same judge who ruled that the Pledge of Allegiance is unconstitutional, wrote that parental rights stop at the “threshold of the school door.”

This in a decision the 9th Circuit (that same group of moonbats in Frisco that the Bush Adminstration says needs to be broken up) that denies parents the right to keep their children from intrusive questions about their thoughts on sex.

So, Judge Steve thinks that the State (undoubtedly led by his judicial wisdom) ought to do all the parenting for kids while in the schoolhouse?


Original link here.

Update on the Loretto/Sills controversy November 16, 2005

Posted by Administrator in Catholicism, Education, Parenting.
add a comment

Katelyn Sills and her family have released a number of letters and e-mails from them and from Loretto that paint the Loretto admin in a less-than-flattering light. Granted this is only the Sills family version. But is would seem upon reading this material that the administration simply wanted rid of what they felt was a troublesome parent. . .thereby committing a rather flagrant act of injustice against Katelyn Sills.

Read them for yourself. . .

The comments are almost funny. . .and fascinating how most admitted Loretto students and alumni are opposed to the Sills family. . though that is no surprise. Rebels are rarely welcomed in insulated communities.

Catholic Schools, Crazy Parents. . et al.

Parenting and the kids one ends up with November 13, 2005

Posted by Administrator in Parenting.
add a comment

This may be an ongoing post, as I am ruminating over a number of different sub-topics. . .I’m simply going to post what I come up with and then edit and add as I can. So, my small readership, you might want to re-visit as this post evolves.

And now I am going to lunch. So, more later.

And back from lunch. One of the ruminations stems from the consideration of two children that are friends with two of my own kids.

Ever considered whether the behavior traits we exhibit are functions of genes (inherited traits, “nature) or are learned behavior (nurture)? This is a perennial topic in the psychology class I teach, and the answers always seem appealingly easy. . .and then we come across anecdotes that blow our handy little theories right out of the water.

Often, the conclusion we come to is that a majority of our traits are learned. The odd facial expression that a person exhibited we later discover was also made in almost exactly the same fashion by the boy’s father. The studious girl is found to have been mothered by a woman with a Ph.D and the same penchant for careful scholarship.

There are exceptions. There are studies out there that have determined with fair surety that there are many kids that are born with an inherited (genetic) tendency towards either shyness or boisterousness. (Twin studies. . I won’t bore you with the details.) But even then, one may be born with these tendencies and later on habituate themselves into the opposite behaviors: The wallflower may turn into a good public speaker, while the born extrovert may learn to quietly meditate for hours on end. And of course, there are some behavior-pattern disorders that have a very clear genetic component (mood disorders, alcoholism).

But, for the most part, random polling (at least that I have conducted) indicates that most people believe the majority of their behaviors are learned. And in general, I would agree with them.

From this belief model comes a very heavy burden upon parents. Since much of behavior would seem to be learned, we as parents have a tremendous responibility to then teach our children as best we can to “behave” properly (whatever that looks like). And this burden is well illustrated in society. The parents of Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris (the Columbine terrorists) came in for a great deal of public opprobrium after that tragedy; the basic nut of the criticism was that the Harris and Klebold parents were bad parents; if they had done their duty properly, none of this would have happened.

Some of the onus was also placed upon the school itself; in allowing bullying behavior, the school helped send the terrorists “around the bend”; in short, their environment led them to anti-social actions.

That is an extreme example. But I cannot count the number of times some poor social misfit blundered about the landscape, and the question then arises: “What were the parents of that poor sap doing?” Even the parents flagellate themselves, staying up hours upon end, asking themselves what they could have done different so that poor Joey wouldn’t have turned into such a whatever.

So much of learning, of what we are, comes from our parents. Freud, somewhat deranged sex-fiend that he was, is greatly admired by many current therapists, not least because of his insistence on this piece of reality.

And yet, it doesn’t always parse.

Let me give you a series of examples:

Example #1: I have an uncle whom I greatly admire. He and his wife had 9 children. Interestingly, the first one suffered organic brain damage due to some serious birthing complications. . . he has needed some type of institutional care his entire life. It was evident when he was born that he would need this care. And yet, my aunt and uncle went on to have 8 more children. But I digress.

Now, save for the aforementioned disabled cousin of mine, 7 of the remaining 8 are well-adjusted, devout, “pillar-of-the-community” type citizens. But the 8th, a female cousin, is not. Was rather the rebel as a teen, and has had spotty marriage record, not very devout. . .I need not go on.

Example #2: We recently played host to a young person whose mother and step-father were out on a hunting trip. This young person comes from a family environment that is essentially agnostic, verging on white-trash, indifferent to the general welfare of their children. Yet the kid in reality is remarkably polite, devout, friendly, considerate, hard-working. . .destined, I would think, for great things.

Example #3: We have another young person who is a friend of the household. This young person is raised by devout Christians, who run a loving, tight household generally free of “redneck” strife (sorry for the generalization. . but I am trying to reach for a common understanding in few words), and who are most solicitous of the overall welfare of their child. Yet this child is generally speaking spoiled, self-centered, rather inconsiderate and possessed of a teasing streak that often verges on being outright malicious.

Now, if our behavior traits are mostly learned particularly from our parents, then we would expect the following outcomes for the previous three examples:

Example 1: The 8 cousins with no devlopmental disorders would be expected to turn out more-or-less consistently. The black sheep really ought not to exist. Yet we all know of large families with at least one kid who simply did not fit the mold in some fashion or other. For large families, the black sheep syndrome is seemingly very common.

Examples 2 & 3: You would expect that the temperaments/tendencies of the kids in question would be exactly reversed. Kid #2 ought to be the hellion and miscreant, while kid #3 ought to be more. . .”angelic”.

Granted, we are talking about individuals, and we all know that such limited anecdotes are not good for making future predictions. Furthermore, there is -I am sure- a great deal of mitigating data that I have not reported (and probably do not know) that could shed some further light. . .at least on examples 2 & 3.

But they will serve as illustrations of a greater whole.

There is no mistake that parents bear a huge responsibility for the formation of the children they are blessed with. And a large portion of their future behavior will come about from the modeling that my wife and I provide. Therefore, we have a solemn and sometimes enormous burden of fulfilling that responsibility properly. And, God willing, our kids will turn into the generally good people most of my cousins have. Every parent should sometimes stagger under that awesome responsibility.

But they should not be paralyzed by it. At the end of the day, God loans us our kids, and in that loaning, suffuses them with the same free will that He has given to us and the rest of humanity.

And some of humanity may choose to use that same Free Will poorly, to the grief of their parents.

Just so long as that grief is not paralyzing.

Catholic Schools, Crazy Parents and Second Chances November 2, 2005

Posted by Administrator in Catholicism, Education, Parenting.
add a comment

The story can be found here.

It seems that in Sacramento, an all-girls Catholic high school, Loretto, hired a new drama teacher by the name of Bain this year. This woman had been observed in the past, escorting women into the Planned Parenthood so as to facilitate their reception of PP’s hideous offerings, bypassing the protesters who object to PPs murderous activities, thereby also giving implicit blessing to PP and its activities.

Note, I said she had been observed. She had been observed, apparently during the summer, by a young woman who attends the Loretto school. When this young woman, Katelyn Sills (her website is here ) mentioned this to her mother, Wynette, Mrs. Sills apparently then approached the administration of the Loretto school, suggesting that Ms. Bain was not a good role model as a teacher for the school and ought to be removed. The administration refused.

Mrs. Sills then took the next logical step and approached the Bishop of Sacramento, William Weigand, and appraised him of the situation. At some point thereafter, Bishop Weigand essentially ordered Loretto to fire Ms. Bain. Which, while disagreeing with the Bishop, they did under holy obedience.

Two weeks later, the school expelled Katelyn Sills, apparently with little or no prior warning.

Now, having read all of this, my (limited) faithful readers are probably breathing fire and wanting to go down to Sacto and set fire to the Loretto administration.

And I was right there with you.

Except for this critical paragraph found in the Sacramento Bee’s coverage of this little foofaraw:

The teacher, Marie Bain of Sacramento, who ceased volunteering before taking the Loretto job, was fired Oct. 14.

Now, if, IF the Bee is correct on this and not spinning the truth, this places the entire story in a much different light (see here for an example of why the MSM may not be trusted to be telling the truth here).

In this light, the Bishop may well have been premature in ordering Marie Bain’s removal, and the intrepid Sills family is barking up the wrong tree.

As a principal, I once hired a woman who was engaged to be married. She was not a Catholic, yet understood and accepted our morals code for hiring. She revealed to me that she had been living with her fiancee (av ery public act of poor moral behavior), but they both agreed that if they were to pursue the position, they would have to separate the household until they were married. I added that they ought to lead fully chaste lives, but that I also wasn’t about to police their behavior. And I hired her, because she was (and is) a good teacher. I also told her that if I received knowledge that they were not living chastely, I would terminate her employment immediately. There is little doubt that if parents discovered that I had hired a woman who had been living with her fiancee, I would have had parents at my door questioning my wisdom. And I would have said (as I was expecting that pressure to come about) that while she was behaving in error, she was not now, and so long as she stayed within the employee Code, I would retain her, and that would be that.

But I never did get confronted.

Here, it seems that we have a similar problem. We have a woman engaging in a public act of poor moral behavior (assisting at a Planned Parenthood), before being hired at a Catholic school. She terminates this behavior prior to her hiring, as did my own hire. Yet in this case, parental pressure forces the firing of the woman for behavior that predates her employment. (in the end, the administration acted not out of pressure, but out of Holy Obedience)

If I had refused to hire the teacher I hired despite her obvious qualifications and her desire to reform her behavior, I would have been doing both her and the school and injustice. If the Sacramento story is correct, a similar injustice has been done here. Marie Bain should not have been fired.

People must be allowed the opportunity to repent of their errors and move on in a spirit of forgiveness and charity. Marie Bain, it seems, was denied that opportunity.

Now, there remains the issue of Katelyn Sills expulsion. And here I will say that the school is in further error, in that -and I am speculating here- the girl was removed not because she was a menace, but because her mother was intolerable. And I am foursquare opposed to the removal of a child from a school because a parent is a tyrant. I might invite them to leave, but an expulsion requires the child acting in such a way as to require removal, not the parent. A similar case is occuring in Orange County where an openly gay couple has had theur child removed from the school because of their public behavior. Whether or not one agrees with homosexual behavior is beside the point. The child should not be punished for the indiscretions and idiocies of their parents.

And for one really pragmatic reason: Parents are ALWAYS acting like idiots with their children. If I had to throw one out, it then becomse way to easy to throw 50% of them out. The only way I would ever have a child leave for parental idiocy would be for their utter refusal to pay their bills to the school. Even then, I would simply refuse them the ability to register for a new year.

Even outright craziness, like having berserk parents stalk the halls can be overcome by restraining orders and a well-placed SRO; but it is a travesty of justice to expel a kid for parental foolishness.

Drama rears its head again October 16, 2005

Posted by Administrator in Drama, Family, Parenting.
add a comment

I have been asked -based upon my success playing Crazy Ol’ Maurice- to now play Mozart in a benefit show. I am once again highly flattered.

There are some good points and bad points to this:


1) The only other performer is my son, Eric, who will be playing the part of Mozart’s son Karl. Lots of opportunity for fun there, not to mention that fact that most of the rehearsals can take place in the comfort of my own home.
2) There will be one performance (1). Much less stress there.
3) This is a piece that is similar to Peter and the Wolf, in that it is a kids piece to play along with an orchestra. The dialog Eric and I manage serve to augment our orchestra introducing Mozart (most notably, the Magic Flute) to local kids. Great fun potential there as well.

The bad:
1) Not the strongest script ever written, AND
2) I have four weeks to memorize 40 pages of dialog!!! This is hands down the most intense line memorization load I have ever encountered. I’ve had more wordy roles, but I also have had at least 10 weeks to put them together. 4 weeks is insane.

Here we go again.