Say Anything Blog

School choice?  I would think that pulling a stunt like this ought to get some teachers fired, if not flat out put in jail. 

And look at the dialogue; a “man” talks to “Louis.” It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that NAMBLA must LOVE that scene.

Do you want your kids reading gay porno in their literature class?

GAY porn… you mean ANY porn.
This is not English literature material and certainly is not a necessary dialogue for any person to be subjected too.
This type of material is repulsive and I would say the same thing if my college professor’s suggested I read anything like this.
This is inexcusable and education is getting out of hand.

So....I wonder what that school’s reaction would be if a teacher read passages from the Bible in class?

Just asking.

Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Uhh, have you guys ever actually read Angels in America? You claim to have an open mind, put your money where your mouth is.

Either way, I agree that it would be nice if parents had vouchers and could just take their kids to a private school of their choosing. But for now, since we don’t get vouchers, those of us who care about education don’t want our kids to be subject to the PC Dumb it Down machine (that includes political correctness from either Wing).

Why don’t we take Coleridge’s poetry out of lit while we’re at it. I mean, isn’t Kubla Kahn a euphamism for menstruation?

Sure, it depends on the kid’s age—I wouldn’t teach some of Shakespeare’s sonnets to third graders. But really, you think a 13 year-old doesn’t know about gay sex?

BTW: Pilgrim is right, it is a shame that schools don’t teach the bible. That’s an example of the left extreme of dumbing down the system. Consequently, you ought to learn from that and not allow yourselves to equally impose on education from the other end.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

But really, you think a 13 year-old doesn’t know about gay sex?

I don’t believe there is anyone who would disagree with you on this Hairy, but at the same time, I strongly believe there is a place and time for everything and public school is not the place for Angels in the City.
Part of a recommended list perhaps and most certainly available in the library for optional choice, but not a requirement.

The bible, that book of harlots and concubines, polygamy, masturbation and murder.
You want kids to read that book?

I don’t know Anna, it’s a tough question. Parents should definitely have a say in what their kids learn, but, unfortunately, we don’t have a public school system that allows one parent to make such a decision without impacting another parent’s rights. I would err on the side of knowledge and not censure anything—let the parents teach their kids their views on homosexual sex after school.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Let’s get a couple things staight here.  “Angels in America: A Gay Fantasia on National Themes” is not a novel, it’s a play.  Secondly, “parents” in Deerfield, Ill. are upset, but not the parents of the students in the class.  Before the play was read, a permission slip was signed.

As a parent, I would hesitate if the passage you quoted above was the only reference point for the entire play, but you have to look at the whole play and its relevance.

It’s a fact that President Bush had a drinking problem and then found God, well couldn’t I focus on his drinking only and not look at the man as a whole.

I have not read the play and doubt that the writer of “Public School Offers Homosexual Porn” or the commentors have read the play.

Someone commented about reading the Bible in class.  Let’s narrow the argument to the reason you commented.  If the same teacher in the same school in the same AP English class in Deerfield, Ill. wanted to read the Bible and then sent a permission slip home and the students read the Bible, so what.  I wouldn’t have a problem with that.  I would be more interested to know, if it were my son or daughter in the class, what kind of class discussions did they have, what part of the Bible did they read.  I would want to know the same kind of information regarding “Angels in America...”.

I think I would feel and I better damn well feel that if my kid is smart enough to test in to an AP English class, then my kid has the capacity to read a wide range of literature and have the presence of mind to have an opinion on it.  My son is 4 and my daughter is 2.  When they are 17 and 15 and if they have the ability to test into an AP English Class, I hope they will read books or plays that will make them think because they’ll be in a class full of thinkers with a class full of opinions and to me, that’s great education.

Hairy, if we are to believe that the imagery of Kubla Khan is that of the vagina--though many experts do differ on this--we must infer a level of thinking through an obviously symbolic treatment of the subject.

Not so with this garbage.  There is no thinking required to figure it out at all--it’s a man taking an advantage of a boy in a despicable, vile way.

That is, in a nutshell, the difference between erotic art and smut, between porn and literature.  The brain must be involved, not just the eyes and the glands.  The fact that these teachers apparently cannot tell the difference in what is supposed to be their own specialty suggests to me that they really need to be fired.

Angels in America is powerful theater. Watch the HBO DVDs . The productions won every award imaginable. Treat yourself.

The messenger has arrived.
The great work begins.

First of all, the scene is between two grown men. Louis is a NY County Clerk if I remember correctly. Secondly, if Nate is correct and there was a permission slip signed, then this is a non-issue. The parents of the kids deemed it okay. So it’s okay. End of story.

Finally, if I remember the play correctly, it was a commentary on 80s (or was it 90s?) cultural issues/themes. Thinking was involved.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

It is not the role of public schools to help a girl get an abortioon, to pass our condoms, to teach biology as a sexual intercourse how-to lesson, heterosexual or homosexual. They need to teach reading, writing, mathematics, science, history, geography and other such fundamental courses and stop being liberal indoctrination centers, wherein teachers have the latitude to teach anything not on the publically avaiable curriculum. These other things are for the parents to deal with and in the absence of parents, grand parents or other close family members; or by the health department as appropriate for promoting optimal health care.

We need vouchers and healthy competition for the public school system. Yes, there will be an exodus of a strong percentage of children to available private schools; but when the public school system gets the freaking point and gets out of the family planning and partisan politics business and begins competing with private schools on the basis of quality of education only, they can grow again and be one of several school choices available to parents.

Presentation of explicit pornographic material, with or without pictures, is a crime and those involved here should be prosecuted and never again allowed to teach in this country.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

That is, in a nutshell, the difference between erotic art and smut, between porn and literature.  The brain must be involved, not just the eyes and the glands.  The fact that these teachers apparently cannot tell the difference in what is supposed to be their own specialty suggests to me that they really need to be fired.

Thank you, Bike Bubba.
You couldn’t be more correct. I was fortunate to take A P English Lit & Comp classes throughout my HS and college years. There is endless material available that exposes students to the art of literature. Students need not read this type of material to experience the wealth of artistic literature.
When a teacher has the talent to properly expose the students in a well-balanced manner to the grandest works of cultured literature those students will have the desire to broaden their scope of readings on their own.

I dont understand why this is an issue when permission slips were signed. Are you guys saying that these parents shouldn’t have had the right to decide what their children learned?

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Also I’m amazed at how close minded you’re being. You just read a passage from a play and decided, based on the one lude passage, that the play had nothing of intellectual substance in it? I can quote more than a few passages from the bible that, taken alone, would lead me to conclude that anyone who even bothers to read, much less believe, it is brainless.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

1) Permission slips or none, this is not the proper role of our failing, far too costly education system. So, to answer directly, the school had no business teaching anything with any explicit homosexuial or heterosexual conduct material. A little less ‘butt fucking 101,” and a little more math and science would be of much greater benefit to our children and fit better within the public school system’s appropriate role.

2) Why would it help if 99.9% of the material was anti-homosexual conduct in nature and only the tiny balance contained explicit language or images, it is still wrong and not within the proper role of a public school.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

I dont understand why this is an issue when permission slips were signed.

I don’t have an issue with permission. I have an opinion though, and that is what I’m expressing. T’is all.

I guess I can’t argue against your personal opinions. It is my opinion that Angels in America is good literature, and that studying it is a boon to any student who wishes to one day find himself among intellectual society—perhaps in a literary career. I suppose that if you prefer to leave that opportunity to kids whose parents can afford prep schools, that is your perogative.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

any student who wishes to one day find himself among intellectual society—perhaps in a literary career.

How does exposure to any degree of explicit sexual words or images impact one way or another, whether one can interact and succeed in your ‘intellectual’ society, whatever the hell that is; or, to find success in a literary career? When did the absence of exposure to homosexual oriented literature handicap any student’s career in any field?

At the elementary through high school level, anything that takes away one second from basic education, especially when it involves liberal philosophies such as homosexual conduct, is inapporopriate and that does handicap our childrens futures.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Hairy, yes, there still is a problem.  First of all, Deerfield has deceived parents at least once before on this very kind of thing with a freshman homosexuality indoctrination--whether there was actual consent for this is still dubious.

More importantly, the work isn’t serious literary art, despite its awards--you do remember that they award Pulitzers and such whether there’s anyone deserving or not, right?  Remember Walter Duranty?

Reality is that this ain’t Shakespeare; this is the “story” between the Jimmy Carter interview and the April Playmate.  To present it as real literature does students a great disservice, as it’s time spent that could have been spent on any number of real icons of literature.

I take a harder tack than Anna here; this doesn’t have any place in any school library, let alone on any reading list for literature class.

"Students need not read this type of material to experience the wealth of artistic literature.”—quote from Anna

Says you and if you’re the teacher in an AP English class, by all means show the students your interpretation of artistic wealth in literature.

“When a teacher has the talent to properly expose the students in a well-balanced manner to the grandest works of cultured literature...”—quote by Anna

What exactly does “well-balanced” mean?  And what are the “grandest works of cultured literature” because if you asked 10 people that question, you’d get at least 10 different books so who is going to choose the literature read in an AP English class?  People who think like you?  Like me?  Like Hairy Polemic? Like Rob Port (say anything blogger)? Like Woof? Pilgrim? or Bike Bubba? or perhaps the teacher who teaches the class?  The Dept. head?  The Principal?  The school board? The town?  The state?  The federal govt?

Who?

I taught High School English.  There are 30 students, let’s say, in a class.  You think I just say:

“We are reading this, take out your notebooks, read chapter 1 and there will be a quiz tomorrow.”

I think not, this is how I see it:

“Here are some choices we have in the books we can read, this handout describes what each book is about, let’s vote on it.”

OR

“Hey class, I really like this book and I think we should read it as a class, there are some issues in it that are of a mature nature so before we read it, I am sending a permission slip home.  Your parents are free to call or email me if they have any questions about the content.  They are also free to read the book along with you.”

You forget that teachers have phone number extensions, email addresses, alot of teachers have their own websites where they post the content of their class.  They also teach in a specific room at a specific location and are not averse to holding meetings with parents.

You look at a work of literature and your brain registers only the sexually explicit language. How am I supposed to explain the rest of what you’re asking me to someone like that? I give up.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Bike,

What are your kids going to read then?  Who decides the reading list?

Nate,

Give up. Just stay quiet and keep voting Republican: Lower taxes, greater property rights. All the socially conservative elements will be washed away by the wealth (this is what the libertarian Dems don’t get).

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

I can’t believe how close minded I am.

I never realized how much four-letter words can enhance the literary content of a play, book or movie.

My shallowness has led me think that writers such as Blake, Frost and Fitzgerald were intellectuals whose prevenance allowed them to create classics whilst disregarding the mundane and obscene.

My oh my…I’m desperately in need of some eclectic indoctrination.

*sarcasm*

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Nate, Are suggesting those who are not exposed to such materials, are less sophisticated in the world of literature?
I am fairly confidant there are millions of intellects who were not enlightened by the contents of sexually explicit literature while in high school.
As I mentioned to Hairy, and just as with most things in life, I believe there is a place and time for all literature.

Nate, I hate to say this, but I’m frankly glad if you’re out of teaching, as your posts really betray the fact that either you’ve never been taught, or have rejected what you’ve been taught, about the canon of great literature. 

What a shame, especially as it’s really not that hard to figure out what fits, and what does not.  You can look at the selections in the McGuffey Readers (yes, really), and see who’s cited.  You can look in the syllabus of the English department of a more traditional school--or even that of “liberal” schools until a few decades ago.  You can look at Mortimer Adler’s “Great Books” series.

In all of these, you’ll find a remarkable agreement about what is, and is not, part of the canon of literature. 

If you don’t know what fits, here’s a start:

http://www.veritaspress.com

Good reading!

You said this about an hour ago:

“I don’t have an issue with permission. I have an opinion though, and that is what I’m expressing. T’is all.”

And no i am not suggesting anyone is less sophisticated—never implied that, never said that.

it is pretty clear what i asked in my previous comment to you and it bears repeating:

What does “well-balanced” mean?

What are the “grandest works of cultured literature”?

Who decides?

Like I said, if you were teaching an AP English class, the books your students read would be different than the books the students in “Deerfield” are reading and would be different from the books the students would read in my AP English class and the list goes on.

Let me know what you or anyone else thinks of this book, here’s the quote:

“She loosened one side of the blanket and bared her breast.  ‘You got to,’ she said.  She squirmed closer and pulled [the man’s] head close. ‘There!’ she said.  ‘There.’ Her hand moved behind his head and supported it.  Her fingers moved gently in his hair.  She looked up and across the barn, ad her lips came together and smiled mysteriously.”

Is this appropriate?

Bert,

Adler said this about Christianity

“My chief reason for choosing Christianity was because the mysteries were incomprehensible. What’s the point of revelation if we could figure it out ourselves? If it were wholly comprehensible, then it would just be another philosophy.”

McGuffey books were revised as America became a “melting pot” of cultures.

Veritas Press.  Here’s a review by someone who used Veritas Press:

“I tried using this curriculum last year, and it just got to be to much for us. First of all, all the supplemental materials we needed were waaaaay to expensive for us to buy. So when we studied each card, I had to search, and search for extra things to go into depth about the subject. It really did get tiring, and frustrating!!”

Sounds great Bert—

Make schools use books that are to expensive.  We can revise the books to fit with what’s going to happen tomorrow or we can take Adler’s advice and throw ourselves into the mystery of literature.

I think YOU have betrayed the facts and like most people we’ll just call them what they really are—opinions.  So I have betrayed your opinions.

How does exposure to any degree of explicit sexual words or images impact one way or another, whether one can interact and succeed in your ‘intellectual’ society, whatever the hell that is; or, to find success in a literary career? When did the absence of exposure to homosexual oriented literature handicap any student’s career in any field?

Profanity doesn’t make a book unworthy of being read. Or a play. Or a movie unworthy of being seen.

The movie American History X deals with racism. Seeing as half the cast are neo-Nazis, racial epithets are thrown around like crazy. It’s still an amazing movie. Objecting to a single scene in a play (I haven’t read it myself) is crazy. Comments such as this:

2) Why would it help if 99.9% of the material was anti-homosexual conduct in nature and only the tiny balance contained explicit language or images, it is still wrong and not within the proper role of a public school.

are just assinine. “It doesn’t matter what the actual message of the thing is! It says fuck! And has gay buttsex! Must be worthless!”

Such hardheadedness cannot be argued with.

Kenny,

i agree with you, but look at your own dialogue.

You mentioned a film called American History X.  A film that shows how a hardheaded Neo-Nazi is converted with the help of his high school principal.  i’m not sure how fictional the story is, but hardheadedness is not a terminal illness and patience is a virtue.

Those are some nice personal attacks, Nate, but they have absolutely nothing to do with the subject at hand; whether there are, or are not, certain books that are more important for an educated man to understand than others.

Would you care to provide some actual evidence, or would you prefer to engage in some further personal attacks, heightening my joy if you are no longer in the teaching profession?

As for me, I am going to take the side of Adler, Veritas, and virtually every college until just a few decades ago.  There are some books that are far more important than others, and it is Deerfield’s shame that they haven’t figured out that this play isn’t among the greats.

Must be worthless!

Words of any type are never worthless… in a time and in a place, all literature is valuable.
When literature is introduced at an inappropriate time or place, this is when the seed of censorship will take root. Controversy leads to fear, and a general illiberal intolerance.
Unfortunately, this type of paranoia is what brings negativity to certain literature and then many great literary works are passed over because of its misrepresentation in the wrong time or the wrong place.

Profanity doesn’t make a book unworthy of being read. Or a play. Or a movie unworthy of being seen.

There are other criteria for what is proper to teach in school at the secondary level.
There might be other priorities and certainly other pre-requisites.

As there are other important works both classic and current which could serve as an example for children of this age.

Such hardheadedness cannot be argued with

It’s not hardheadedness to denounce something on even a small portion of the work. This act of being “non-judgmental” (the tried and true liberal dogma) often extends itself to a parallactic view of right and wrong.

We continue to move further to the left with casual acceptance of what just a short time ago was considered improper.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Bike Bubba,

Veritas seems suspiciously skimpy on the literature. No Voltaire, no Oscar Wilde, no Joyce… too profane? I suppose that one ought not risk too many words when he aims for “truth”.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

laydownSally,

This act of being “non-judgmental” (the tried and true liberal dogma) often extends itself to a parallactic view of right and wrong.

You’re welcome to be judgmental after you’ve read the whole work—otherwise, you’re not merely “hardheaded”, you’re also ignorant.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

When literature is introduced at an inappropriate time or place, this is when the seed of censorship will take root. Controversy leads to fear, and a general illiberal intolerance.

As was pointed out though, the parents approved. If the parents are willing to give it a go, then so be it. Hard to call it the “wrong time”.

There are other criteria for what is proper to teach in school at the secondary level.
There might be other priorities and certainly other pre-requisites.
As there are other important works both classic and current which could serve as an example for children of this age.

And there are works read in school that are considered classics ("Old Man and the Sea” for one) that aren’t fit to line my birdcage (full disclosure, I don’t have a birdcage). There are beautiful texts ignored while lackluster ones are studied for a quarter. A teacher tried a new text, and parents approved.

It’s not hardheadedness to denounce something on even a small portion of the work. This act of being “non-judgmental” (the tried and true liberal dogma) often extends itself to a parallactic view of right and wrong.

Do I strike you as a non-judgemental person? I’m extremely confrontational on a great manner issues. I have been called a great many things in my life, but “non-judgemental” has never been one of them (Ask Hannitized). You’re simply conflating reserving judgement with being non judgemental. And the two aren’t the same thing.

Back to the movie “American History X”, there is a VERY graphic homosexual rape scene. Taken alone, it is disturbing and disgusting, and if the movie was judged by it...it wouldn’t pass this muster either (it’s quite a bit more graphic than the above scene). But in the context of the movie, it’s part of the reason he changes, and is very important to the story. This Angels in America may very well be crap, but I won’t make that judgement based on one scene 13 lines long. Because I like a great many movies with as bad or worse scenes: American History X, American Beauty, Saw 2-4, Rambo (the new one), etc.

It IS hardheadedness to pass judgement on something based on 13 lines, without even knowing the storyline of the play.

You’re welcome to be judgmental after you’ve read the whole work—otherwise, you’re not merely “hardheaded”, you’re also ignorant.

A bit pretentious, aren’t you Harry?

But I suppose someone with your vituperative arrogance can’t possibly imagine another human with values that differ from your own distorted interpretations.

Or is it that you embrace any dialogue, written or otherwise which is reminiscent of a romantic encounter you had with some former bisexual lover. The scent from the candles and mignonettes mixed with the bitter taste from a prolonged and passionate embrace.

If you had only mentioned you particular orientation from the beginning…we would have understood.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Keeny,

American History X, American Beauty, Saw 2-4, Rambo (the new one), etc.

Your tastes are impeccable, but you left out Lethal Weapon 6, surely a classic.

I’m not going to make the argument that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate cake. You prefer one, I the other. When I was very young I enjoyed Bill Bixby in the TV series The Hulk, but I never said it was a great show. Can you see the difference? Probably not, nor does it matter.

I would hope you can see that your personal preferences in literature, or mine, should not be the determining factor in what is taught at that level of education.  The fact that Harry and Nate think this is a remarkable and outstanding play is telling of their lack of discriminatory prowess.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Sounds like just the ongoing story of NEA-AFT-inspired homosexual recruiting of straight people’s kids and don’t they dare say anything against it!

Let’s face it.  Homosexuality is deviant and dangerous behavior, usually accompanied by other mental problems and neuroses.  Actuarially-speaking, all moral judgments aside, it is an extremely high risk lifestyle (if it can be charitably called that) leading to opportunistic infections up to an including —yes—AIDs / HIV, which bears repeating is still incurable and still fatal.

DUH!

Why, oh why, would anyone in their right mind consider teaching such deviant and perverted behavior to children?

...for great justice

Sally,

I don’t see any vituperation in labeling someone who refuses to learn anything about that which he denounces ignorant. I believe that is the definition of ignorance.

As for…

The scent from the candles and mignonettes mixed with the bitter taste from a prolonged and passionate embrace.

Someone has been reading too much Daniel Steele.

Vituperative. Good word.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

Forget the vulgerness of this book, I’m more concerned about teaching our children poor hygiene practices:

Louis pulls his hand out, smells and tastes his fingers, and then holds them for Joe to smell

Ewww. I hope Louis doesn’t work in the food industry.

Also, as someone who isn’t familiar with this piece of work, I’m not going to judge it’s merits as a whole. However, can someone tell me the literary significance (or talent) of the passage in question?

Zig,

It’s their never ending quest to remain open-minded.

Labeling anything as wrong, especially when it’s a product of a progressive society, is unthinkable.

Hairy, I’m not familiar with

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Zig,

It’s their never ending quest to remain open-minded.

Labeling anything as wrong, especially when it’s a product of a progressive society, is unthinkable.

__________

Hairy, I’m not familiar with Daniel Steele, but it sounds like he is another I would prefer at an advanced and adult seminar...not one for children.

Also I could be ignorant (emphasize could) of the work and still denounce it. I’m ignorant of many things I find repugnant.

Are you saying you have an intimate knowledge of all things you find distasteful?  Or do you just refuse to pass judgment on rapists, drug dealers and their ilk?

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Uhh, have you guys ever actually read Angels in America? You claim to have an open mind, put your money where your mouth is.

It may actually shock you to learn, Hairy, that what is and is not “great literature” is a very subjective thing.  Much as with the music thread we were both commenting on, we could spend hours arguing about what sort of literature is good and what is not.

The question here is whether or not “I want you to f*** me, hurt me, make me bleed” is age-appropriate for high school kids.  Some of us here feel it is not, and frankly it is not for you to tell us otherwise.

I’m also a little tired of the rather snooty, arrogant assumption that those who do not find any real literary worth in certain books such as this are somehow against literature in general.  Again, it is not for you or anyone else to dictate to us what is and is not great literature.

And, for me at least, this has nothing to do with the homosexual aspect.  Homosexuals don’t bother me.  I think they should be able to marry one another, adopt kids, and do all the homo stuff to one another they want.  I’m fine with it.

But that doesn’t excuse this kind of nonsense in high schools.

By the way, the signed permission slips don’t exactly make this all better.  Sure it’s choice, but what happens to the kids whose parents won’t sign?  Do they get shuffled off to the library or something while this book’s questionable literary aspects are discussed?

This is what’s wrong with our education system.  Countries like India and Japan are pumping out scientists, engineers and mathematicians while our kids are busy reading smut about morons who want to make each other’s assholes bleed while the hoity-toity types swoon about what great literature it is.

Give me a break.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

It’s their never ending quest to remain open-minded.

Labeling anything as wrong, especially when it’s a product of a progressive society, is unthinkable.

Absolutely (as always)

But ‘open-minded’ is Psycho-Babble for a one-way ratchet to deviant or Leftist practices, but then again, I am repeating myself.

That pamphlet on Psycho-politics remains as true today as the day it was first printed.  In essence it showed that the long-term Gramscian objective of the Left was to destroy all the institutions of any society that make it strong, productive and resilient and replace it with such a depraved, weak-kneed, atomized and corrupt society that it could offer no real defense against a Socialist coup, be it a slow-motion political encroachment or an all-out assault, such as that against South Vietnam, El Salvador or Afghanistan.

The Status Quo in America, the America that although weakened by the long Depression, sucked in its gut and stopped the German and Japanese onslaughts butt-cold and drove them back, and held the Soviets at a stand-still until the Commies finally collapsed under the contradictions built into their own system, was one built around a nuclear family. A family unit that very often had religion play a strong role in discerning right from wrong.  It had gender roles, role models, heros, not anti-heros. 

It was in many ways built upon Norman Rockwell ideals.  That ideal had to be dragged into the mud, religion, the Constitution, our national heritage, our heros, our morals, all subornated, corrupted and dragged into the sewer.  Natural divisions between the sexes, parent and child, citizen and government, worshipper and church expanded and exploited.

The new heros would not be John Wayne, June Lockhart and Chuck Conners, but a drunken Nick Nolte, a cynical Jon Stewart, a lisping Stuart Smally or a deviant Michael Jackson.  The traitorous Jane Fonda replaced the heroic Henry Fonda and Gloria Steinem replaced Betty Crocker.

Aside from interior decoration and floral arrangement skills perhaps, there is no advantage to homosexuality, and yet a whole wealth of reasons why this deviant practice presents a clear and present danger—if only as an efficient vector of a deadly plague, along with a raft of other dangerous diseases—to society.

Make no mistake about it: Hollywood, the NEA-AFT and other Leftist-controlled organizations are forcing homosexuality onto American society through browbeating, threatening school grades and continued employment, as well as legal sanctions—and most disgustingly—going after the minds of children.

I see it as evil and destructive.  I see no good to come from it and yet see much that is absolutely vile, both in the practice itself and how it is being imposed on America against its will.

...for great justice

From PsychoPolitics: Chapter V - An examination of loyalties

See if it matches the combined efforts of Hollywood, (the moral examples of Lindsay Lohan, Paris Hilton, Britney Spears, Madonna and the like) the Record Labels of Wilshire Blvd (Kop Killa, NGA, etc… ) , the NEA-AFT (Timmy has Two Daddies) and Feminist Jurisprudence (all sex is rape) and the anti-father skewing of family law (see Glennsacks.com).

In order to change loyalty it is necessary to establish first the existing loyalties of the individual. ....

In rearranging loyalties we must have a command of their values. In the animal the first loyalty is to himself. This is destroyed by demonstrating errors to him, showing him that he does not remember, cannot act or does not trust himself.

The second loyalty is to his family unit, his parents and brothers and sisters. This is destroyed by making a family unit economically non-dependent, by lessening the value of marriage, by making an easiness of divorce and by raising the children whenever possible by the State.

The next loyalty is to his friends and local environment. This is destroyed by lowering his trust and bringing about reportings upon him allegedly by his fellows or the town or village authorities.

The next is to the State and this, for the purposes of Communism, is the only loyalty which should exist once the state is founded as a Communist State.

To destroy loyalty to the State all manner of forbidding for youth must be put into effect so as to disenfranchise them as members of the Capitalist state and, by promises of a better lot under Communism, to gain their loyalty to a Communist movement.

Denying a Capitalist country easy access to courts, bringing about and supporting propaganda to destroy the home, creating and continuous juvenile delinquency, forcing upon the state all manner of practices to divorce the child from it will in the end create chaos necessary to Communism.

Under the saccharine guise of assistance to them, rigorous child labor laws are the best means to deny the child any right in society. By refusing to let him earn, by forcing him into unwanted dependence upon a grudging parent, by making certain in other channels that the parent is never in other than economic stress, the child can be driven in his teens into revolt. Delinquency will ensue.

By making readily available drugs of various kinds, by giving the teen-ager alcohol, by praising his wildness, by stimulating him with sex literature and advertising to him or her practices as taught at the Sexpol, the psychopolitical operator can create the necessary attitude of chaos, idleness and worthlessness into which can then be cast the solution which will give the teen ager complete freedom everywhere --Communism.

Should it be possible to continue conscription beyond any reasonable time by promoting unpopular wars and other means, the draft can always stand as a further barrier to the progress of youth in life, destroying any immediate hope to participate in his nation’s civil life.

By these means the patriotism of youth for their Capitalistic flag can be dulled to a point where they are no longer dangerous as soldiers. While this might require many decades to effect, Capitalisms short term view will never envision the lengths across which we can plan.

If we could effectively kill the national pride and patriotism of just one generation, we will have won that country. Therefore, there must be continual propaganda abroad to undermine the loyalty of the citizens in general and the teen-ager in particular.

...for great justice

Your tastes are impeccable, but you left out Lethal Weapon 6, surely a classic.
I’m not going to make the argument that vanilla ice cream is better than chocolate cake. You prefer one, I the other. When I was very young I enjoyed Bill Bixby in the TV series The Hulk, but I never said it was a great show. Can you see the difference? Probably not, nor does it matter.

Except for the Saw movies (which are great story telling, and filmed very well), the rest of those on there are indeed great movies. Rambo, while admittedly clumsy, is a nice commentary on how it’s not possible to be a humanitarian and a pacifist, which is a message that is needed in today’s society. American History X is a superb movie on racism. American Beauty is a great movie about a man overcoming deprevity to become a good person in the final seconds of his life. I didn’t include movies on the list that I enjoy, but know aren’t classic movies: Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, American Ninja, Highlander, and yes, the Lethal Weapon Series (they stopped at 4, just so you know).

You are being insanely petty and childish. Because I disagree with you, you attack me personally (nice insinuation that I’m too stupid to understand fun vs good movies, by the way). You’re judging something you’ve never seen, never read, and have probably never even heard the plot of (Granted, the plot to this is bad). So because Harry says “Watch it first”, he has no discrimination? That’s not even remotely fair.

I at least looked up the plot before making up my mind. It glorifies the Rosenbergs, so it’s not something I’ll be adding to my blockbuster queue, but at least I looked further into it than 13 lines. You not only refuse to do so, but you villify anyone who reserves judgement til they check it out. You’ve hinted that I’m stupid and offhandedly called me a liberal. I don’t appreciate either. I’ve been more than courteous to you when I’ve disagreed. I expect the same in return.

I’m also a little tired of the rather snooty, arrogant assumption that those who do not find any real literary worth in certain books such as this are somehow against literature in general.  Again, it is not for you or anyone else to dictate to us what is and is not great literature.

I didn’t see that argument made here, Rob. If anything, the only snootiness I’ve seen is from people telling us we’re stupid for saying that the entire play can’t be judged on 13 lines. Comments such as:

I would hope you can see that your personal preferences in literature, or mine, should not be the determining factor in what is taught at that level of education.  The fact that Harry and Nate think this is a remarkable and outstanding play is telling of their lack of discriminatory prowess.

But ‘open-minded’ is Psycho-Babble for a one-way ratchet to deviant or Leftist practices, but then again, I am repeating myself.

I think both of those are rather haughty.

This is not about whether or not this is a great play (from what I’ve seen it isn’t). As you say, it’s about whether or not it’s age appropriate. And the answer is that it is. The parents made the call that their kids could handle it. Right or wrong, they made the call. If the argument is that these kids shouldn’t be exposed to the F word...too late, most of them already use it. Deviant Sex? Hell, this is comparable to what’s on TV and in the theaters. Kids have already dealt with much of this stuff. And if the parents aren’t willing to let their kid deal with this...then they sit it out, like dissecting a frog.

Except for the Saw movies (which are great story telling, and filmed very well), the rest of those on there are indeed great movies.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

Due to a perturbation in scheduling, one beyond my ability to orchestrate, I can either reply now or wait until some temporal and indeterminate period arises. Despite the late hour, and my inebriated condition, this rebuttal is as appropriate as can be expected.

That these ‘others’ are great movies (American History X, American Beauty and Rambo) is decidedly subjective; certainly a less critical eye may consider them so. That I attacked you personally…I don’t think so. I pointed out that movies, like literature, are a matter of taste.  If these are your favorites, so be it.

Do I think you are stupid or a liberal? The abbreviated answer is “No”. However, I should point out that the similarities between “stupid” and “liberal” are to vast to enumerate at this juncture. That you are an unwitting shill for the liberals? Most assuredly.

You defended this phantasm as a work of art that while disturbing in some portion should not be rejected on the whole. I obviously disagree. Literature such as this should be subjoined to the perverted incubus at a bath house or a back-alley adult book store, hopefully, to be forever lost to the annals of creative writing.

America, as Zig pointed out, has developed a fondness for the absurd; dedicating itself to the ingenue and the liberated male. Not until we extricate ourselves from this terminal ideology will we prevail.

It’s simple really; change course or perish.

“To love is not to stare steadfast at one another...it is to look forward, in the same direction.”
Saint-Exupéry

It is my opinion that Angels in America is good literature

Fine. What better pieces of literature have been abandoned to fit this one into the curriculum?
Ah! Probably one of those “dead white males”, no doubt!

Those who think the party or the country, will be “taught a lesson” by handing the levers of power over to the liberals will learn a lesson, but it will be at the expense of our country and her liberties. And there are no guarantees that the party or the country will come out stronger, more conservative or better positioned to win elections against the incumbent liberals.

Rob,

By the way, the signed permission slips don’t exactly make this all better.  Sure it’s choice, but what happens to the kids whose parents won’t sign?  Do they get shuffled off to the library or something while this book’s questionable literary aspects are discussed?

I point out that, perfect or imperfect, these parents are making the choice that you guys are constantly bitching that parents should have, and you are going through unprecedented lengths of casuistry to argue that away because you personally find the material distasteful. You are hypocrites. And the fact that Sally resorted to ad hominem attacks by concluding that I’m gay because I’ve actually read the work in question and think it is worth teaching more or less proves it.

“Behind Communism, Fascism, behind all occupations and invasions lurks a more basic, pervasive evil… a parade of people marching by with raised fists and shouting identical syllables in unision.” - Milan Kundera

I point out that, perfect or imperfect, these parents are making the choice that you guys are constantly bitching that parents should have, and you are going through unprecedented lengths of casuistry to argue that away because you personally find the material distasteful.

Good point.

Some of you would do well to take heed.

Also, nice ten dollar word there: casuistry.

Veritas seems suspiciously skimpy on the literature. No Voltaire, no Oscar Wilde, no Joyce… too profane? I suppose that one ought not risk too many words when he aims for “truth”.

Or perhaps these don’t make the first string when it comes to great literature, and perhaps some of the adult themes found there aren’t exactly well suited for high school?  Perhaps in an atmosphere that’s already sexually charged, it’s a bad idea (even with SUPPOSED parental permission) to stoke those fires more?

I would argue that Kushner’s minimum nadir does fulfill an important purpose; it shows us the vile depths that this lifestyle sinks to, and in its critical acclaim, it also shows us the bizaare tendency among the “elite” among us to applaud that.

However, it’s not great literature, and it certainly ought not be displacing Shakespeare, Bede, Homer, Cicero, Dickens, Melville, Jonson--more or less, the literature that by its importance gives us the very cadences, proverbs, and quotes that lend significance and perspective to our lives.

Sounds like just the right thing for children of perverted Conservatives. Larry Craig, where are you?

Vast difference between emailing someone over the age of 18 and perverting children under the age of 18 and while they are a captive audience, Wasashiwa.

Communism is evil