This ought to tickle the many who say I read too much into normal things. I've been a good boy, lately, going to the gym six days a week for a month, now. I'm surprised to find myself loathing the treadmill less and less as I feel better and better (although I still feel like a rodent on a stationary wheel). On the machines at this gym there are a variety of programs, two of which I alternate between. Both are advertised as involving "intervals" and this appeals to a chubby kid because perpetual movement is just out of the question, for now. I'll call the one I used today "Program 1". This one is surprisingly nice because it takes what you do in the first two-minute-walk-two-minute-run cluster and automatically switches speeds every two minutes. The first time I used it was fantastic. There was no guess work, there was no having to put forth my chubby little finger and hit the "slow the heck down before I hurl" button, and I still felt like I was getting a work out. This is in stark contrast to "Program 2" which claimed to be an "escalating interval" but offered no sort of assistance other than blinking lights to remind me where I was in the time line. I have to do all the thinking for Program 2 on top of all the technical maneuvering. To a lot of people the choice would seem pretty simple. However, this morning I knew that I could jog longer than two minutes. My body remembered the morning a few days ago when it went for more than five minutes. I wanted to see if I could do it again, so I planned to watch the clock and once the machine warned me it was applying the brakes I would simply keep the speed up. Program 1 doesn't deal well with dissenters, evidently. I ended up messing with my rhythm and bowed my head in submission. I still got a great workout, but I felt like I hadn't pushed myself enough. I had given the machine the ability to make my exercise decisions for me. With no opportunity for me to choose to grow, I stayed just the same. I see this same choice placed before me in the upcoming elections.

When it comes to human knowledge there is one simple principle to remember. Our minds are the direct results of what we see (or hear, smell, etc.). If we choose to limit what we see only to what we are shown, then we are at the mercy of those in positions to show. This is one of the basic governing principles behind propaganda. But propaganda has an antithesis, an offset: information. Enter the supreme responsibility of those within and surrounding the business of education. This is not a new passionate area for me, but gasoline was thrown on the fire this week with the story of the university professor in Colorado who assigned his class a paper citing three negative criticisms of Sarah Palin. As disenchanted as I've become with Glenn Beck, I still hold in high regard his clear sense of reason (though I've not heard his take on this particular story) and his standpoint on higher educators seems to be spot on. The problem does not reside only with tenured professors, as Glenn suggests. Tenure is a pretty ugly concept in a free society (along with unions) because it removes the threat of consequence or responsibility. But even educators who do have to worry about keeping their position in the event of their spewing forth of intellectual swill can still do plenty of damage. It's not always intentional, for no matter how impartial we all try to be we are still biased by our own method of finding joy, but educators should be held to a higher degree of accountability when it comes to non-partisanship. It all starts with publicly funded school systems. For example, instead of the constant childish bickering over whether to teach Creationism or Evolution in public schools there should be solutions being worked toward on teaching both fairly. The concept of publicly funded institutions is not abstract. If we all pay for it, we are all represented by and within it. Making policies that contradict this is the direct responsibility of intellectual simians who cower in fear of parents behind the sheer curtain of bureaucracy. The parents' part in this rigamarole goes right back to what I've said about protecting loved ones. Their judgement is rooted in a combination of compassion and fear of the unknown (if they don't understand something it must not be good for the kids). This is understandable, but fallacious. One of the most beautiful things about human existence is the concept of choice. To reasonably choose between two options one must have an adequate amount of information on both. How does this relate to education? Sharing only one side of any story serves to deny the student the ability to accurately judge that story. Whether it is intentional or out of ignorance that you don't offer the learner all the information on all the subjects you are still guilty of manipulation. Some who are of similar thinking say that the classroom is no place for the teacher's opinion. I say that it is the perfect place for opinion. Let the students see one logical conclusion to the material. But also let them see one that's different. Let them see a dozen different views. My main argument here is that there needs to be balance and equality at all stages of the education process. To deny anyone the opportunity to choose for themselves the path they feel is best is the real oppression. I once had an instructor who described his child-rearing philosophy as "doctrinal" as opposed to "behavioral". He explained to his children why they should be obedient instead of saying, "Because I'm the boss and I told you to." The same goes with education. This is quickly becoming "The Neverending Blog" so I'll cut it short here. I'll end on this note. I am only realistic enough to recognize the problem. I am mostly optimistic in that I know improvement is, not only possible, but very probable.

Here's another little twig on the tree of my frustration. About two months ago there was a report of a Texas official filing a complaint about a Dallas county official using the term "black hole." To what was he referring? The county's collection office (yes, I was also surprised to read that a government economic entity is an inescapable matter-sucking void). The official went on to complain about "devil's/angel's food cake" and "black sheep," too. So there's a taboo trio to add to the list of things I can't say now. Then last week there was the infamous "swine cosmetics" comment. "Putting lipstick on a pig" is a rhetorical expression that is, not only vividly illustrative, but one of my personal favorites for its imagery and accuracy. Without sounding like an Obamaniac, Barack is innocent of the "travesty" of calling Sarah Palin a pig because he was referring to policies... and they weren't even her policies! I actually quite agree with the statement, although it is the very picture of irony since both campaigns exude the heady aroma of the sty. But that's a whole different branch (my sarcastic apologies to all arborists and dendrophiliacs). The ultimate basket I'm driving toward is that sparing each other's feelings will eventually get everyone hurt. Again, I'm not a monster and I personally try to be respectful of others, especially the innocent or naive. But to be so prone to offense that common and unrelated terms have the power to "offend" can only logically be inferred as a result of insecurity. Enter the constant battle for the freedom of speech. Noam Chomsky stated that "if you believe in freedom of speech then you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like...you are in favour of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise - otherwise you're not in favour of freedom of speech." I subscribe to that whole-heartedly. Everyone has the right to say insulting things just as much as those in a position to be offended have the right to express their offense (and the provoker really shouldn't be all that surprised). We should celebrate the fact that both the strong and weak can express their respective views. Complaints of resentment are little more than the gripings of the vulnerable, however. The fuzzy logic of the day dictates that we just eliminate hurtful speech altogether and thereby feed (almost to the level of gluttoning) the weak-willed's unnecessary insecurities. Being PC is the slang of censorship. On a governmental scale this is a soft step toward fascism. Luckily we're not there because in a "government by the people" there are still people who demand the right to expression. There are volumes more to say on the subject, but I fear this post has already drowned out my main point. That point is that acting appalled by discourteousness and taking it personally speaks as much for the insecurity of the receiver as it does for the ignorance of the aggressor.

If you want some nerve-wracking entertainment, check out the Muzzle Awards given out by the Thomas Jefferson Center for violations of free speech.

You're witnessing the buckling of a man's will. I attribute to fear my hesitation to add my voice to the "blog choir." I'm open about things like this these days. Nelson Mandela said that courage was the conquering of fear, not the absence of it. So here I am, a frightened boy putting on a brave man's clothes and parading around a bit. On a cautionary note I don't personally subscribe to A.D.D. Quarterly, but the wide range of topics that snag the stray thread on my interest can change at any moment. So reading this post will most likely feel like watching Felix the Cat reach into his magic bag of tricks. As a heads up, two of the books I'm reading right now are "Dreams From My Father" by Barack Obama and "A Casebook on Existentialism" by William V. Spanos so the next posting title could either be "A Lesson in Vocabulary Coated Incompetency" or "Why Is Evil So Much Fun?" Whatever the title, I'll try my darndest to make the content as painless as possible.