Savant Satire
What we need is a rebirth of satire, of dissent, of irreverence, of an uncompromising insistence that phoniness is phony and platitudes are platitudinous. - Arthur Schlesinger
Views: 84
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on -
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Townhall.com
February 27, 2012
Dean Faces Bad News for Banning Good News
By Mike AdamsDear Dean (Name Withheld):
I am writing today with some very bad news for you. It would appear that, by the end of the year, you may be removed from your position as Dean of Students at (University Name Withheld). But, first, let me share the Good News – that is, if you will promise not to prosecute me for it.
I used to be an atheist. When people tried to share the Gospel with me, I would hurl profanity at them. I would even use a word that begins with “f” and ends with “u-c-k.” (I’m not talking about “fire-truck,” by the way). The Gospel offended me, so I told people to take a hike whenever they tried to share it with me. Now that I have converted, I no longer suffer from that kind of extreme emotional insecurity. And that is Good News. Now it’s time for the bad news.
Recently, a student at your university tried to share the Gospel with another student at your university. That makes sense. You do work at a Christian University. But then three things happened that made little sense. I will present them in chronological order – and in order from the least to most ridiculous event:
1. The student who was hearing the Gospel told the one sharing the Gospel that it was “offensive.” Of course, the Gospel has always been offensive. They would not have nailed Jesus to a cross if it were not. Then, the student demanded that the sharer of the Good News end the conversation. Fair enough. Maybe he was just having a bad day.
2. The next day, the still-offended student filed a speech code complaint over the Gospel sharing incident. The conduct he was engaged in, by the way, is considered sin by the Bible and “diversity” by the student handbook. At many “Christian” universities, the pages of the student handbook that deal with diversity carry more weight than the pages of the Bible that deal with sin. So the real sin is often using the word sin. And that is tantamount to banning the Gospel, which is the only means of dealing with sin – in part, because it confronts sin directly. So you have a choice between the speech code and the Gospel – unless, of course, you were born with the speech code gene.
3. Finally, and most ridiculously, you actually took the complaint seriously and forced the student to stop sharing the Gospel unless someone specifically asked to hear it. The incident was isolated. There was no accusation of harassment. The offending student had no intention of speaking to the offended student again. But you had to permanently ban him from initiating conversations about salvation at a so-call Christian university. The more universities speak of tolerance, the more they reek of intolerance. The paradox is that you’ve demonstrated that principle with your indifference to principle.
But this is the last time you are ever going to silence a student who wishes to share the Gospel. By my count – I have been talking with and mentoring the “offending” student daily - you had approximately five meetings in which you threatened disciplinary action. At each one of these meetings you spoke. Each time you spoke, you offended the Gospel-sharing student. And, worse, now that other Christians are hearing of the incident, they are also offended and intimidated into silence. Put simply, they are now afraid to share the Gospel at your “Christian” university. One could say you are bullying them with the speech code. And you can’t defend yourself by saying this was an “isolated” incident. You prosecuted the Gospel-sharer based on an isolated incident. Remember?
So I have done what I must do. I have begun by organizing a series of five counter-claims against you – one for each time you spoke to the Gospel-sharing student. These five claims will come from five different students whose speech has been chilled by your conduct. They will all be delivered at once in the form of hate speech charges. In other words, you have used the speech code as a sword against others and now the sword is about to be taken from you. And it will be pointed directly toward your heart. Unless you relinquish it voluntarily you will die by it.
Let me be very specific – even at risk of repeating myself: If you don’t get rid of the campus speech code within the next ten weeks we are coming after your job. That is only bad news if you do not repent of your sinfully censorious ways and allow students to share the Good News. As always, your fate depends upon your courage and willingness to do the right thing. It is my fervent prayer that you will learn from the example of your student-accusers. They are showing what it means to be bold in the face of emotional weakness masquerading as intellectual diversity.
You’ll be hearing from us soon,
Mike S. Adams
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
WRITING SATIRE IN AN AGE THAT SATIRIZES ITSELF
By Lee Duigon
March 8, 2012
NewsWithViews.comThe following is a satire.
A thirty-year-old college student, testifying before the United States Congress, has asked the government to force her Catholic university to provide her and her fellow students with free birth control pills. These poor women, she said, are not able to keep up with the cost of contraception. She sees their sad, oppressed faces every day, and is haunted by the injustice of it all. The only alternative would be to engage in sex less often, which is obviously unacceptable.
Oops! It isn’t satire, after all. It really happened. In fact, the “student” is actually a hardened, veteran activist for “reproductive justice,” which is feminist-speak for the prevention of reproduction at all costs. She only enrolled as a student at this college to make trouble for the Church. Be that as it may, this profoundly silly story turns out to be true. So, if I want to write it up as satire, I’ll have to try again. Thus:
A 46-year-old college student told Congress that the government ought to force the university to provide him and his fellow students with free beer. The cost of beer, he said, is getting to be too much for him. “I am haunted by the sad faces of my thirsty fellow students,” he said. The only alternative would be to drink less, which is obviously unacceptable.
Shoot! That doesn’t work, either. Readers still won’t be able to tell the spoof from the real thing. And another problem with this attempt at satire—it doesn’t touch on the religious angle. The true story involves a Catholic university: and the Catholic Church teaches that the use of contraceptives, to facilitate recreational sex outside of marriage, is… well… wrong. Therefore, in this case the Church is being pressured to aid and abet an activity which it finds morally repugnant.
Let’s try again:
A 61-year-old student at a Catholic college has asked Congress to force the school to provide her with free Viagra, “because,” she said, “a lot of my dates, these days, just aren’t up to it, if you know what I mean.” Moreover, she went on, the school also ought to be compelled to provide her with young male students’ phone numbers and email addresses, “because some of those young guys don’t know what they’re missing.” A feverishly active sex life, she added, “is every woman’s right, and the college has no right to withhold that.”
Now we’re getting somewhere, I think. Forcing the administrators at a Catholic university to be go-betweens (betcha thought I was gonna say “pimps,” but nothing doing—I saw what happened to Rush Limbaugh) for this woman’s sexual liaisons—no federal government would ever do that. Or would they? Maybe the satire needs to be pushed just a little farther. Let’s try this:
A 73-year-old college student who has been camping on the grounds of St. Dubricius’ Church—he prefers the word “occupying”—has demanded that Congress order the church to buy him “an erection pump machine,” order the pastor to drive him to the brothel of his choice, pay for his “dates” with prostitutes of both sexes, and make large cash donations to Planned Parenthood in his name.
“There’s no way I can pay for all of that myself,” the student told a Congressional committee chaired by Beelzebub (D-Hell). “I mean, it’s all I can do to just keep paying my tuition every year. And when I finally do get my degree in Gender Deconstruction Studies, I’ll have… let’s see… about $175 million in student loans to pay off. Like, I can’t even afford to live in the dorm anymore. But I’m occupying the church grounds to protest their unfair practice, over the centuries, of interfering with my sex life. It’s time the Catholic Church learned that it’s a hate crime to stand in the way of anybody’s pleasures. There can be no social justice until every man who needs one has an erection pump machine.”
“Reproductive freedom is for everybody,” Representative Beelzebub said, “and especially for college students. Nowadays, with 68% of America’s adult population still enrolled in college, we must take steps to ensure their reproductive rights.”
There! Now we’re cooking. Of course, it’s totally impossible that such a wild story as the one above could ever turn out to be true. We can all have a good, hearty laugh over it, knowing all the while that we are, and will always be, perfectly safe in the free exercise of our religion.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Open Doors and Closed Minds
Mike Adams - Mar 15, 2012 - TownhallThere is simply no intolerance like that of so-called gay rights activists. In recent years, they have passed feminists as the most censorious political faction in higher education. Homosexual activists at Ohio University demonstrate that the gay rights movement is not about equality. It never has been. It is about forcing your views on others and forcing your opponents into closeted lives as second class citizens.
The most recent outbreak of homosexual hysteria began in the Fall Quarter of 2011. The Senate Appropriations Committee (SAC) decided to fund religious speaker Frank Turek. Then, Open Doors, the campus LGBTIQQA (alphabet soup of victimhood) union protested due to Turek’s opposition to same-sex marriage. In other words, Open Doors wanted OU to close its doors to Turek because he is not as tolerant as they are. How queer is that logic?
The SAC is a commission of the Ohio University Student Senate that uses a portion of student general tuition to fund student organizations and student events. Any student organization program that uses university funding is under the direction of SAC’s general assembly. That includes Ratio Christi, a religious student organization that I have spoken for on more than one occasion.
Ratio Christi focuses on logical reasoning for the belief in the Christian worldview. So it made sense for them to invite Frank Turek to speak at OU. Turek spoke about his book “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.” He did not, however, speak about his book “Correct, Not Politically Correct: How same-sex marriage hurts everyone.”
Despite the fact that Turek came to speak on matters wholly unrelated to homosexuality, Open Doors opposed SAC’s allocating of their tuition money to fund Turek. Even when the subject is not homosexuality, the homosexuals have to change the subject to homosexuality. Their lives revolve around it. They simply cannot function unless they are proclaiming their victimhood.
The SAC did not capitulate to Open Doors demand that the Turek speech be cancelled. However, they did something almost as bad: they apologized to Open Doors. This is totally unacceptable.
Imagine what the conversation must have been like as SAC apologized to Open Doors. Maybe it went something like this: “We are truly sorry that you had to endure the thought that someone was present somewhere on campus – even for a couple of hours – who did not share your views on a subject he was not discussing. We know this was a trying time for your emotionally fragile constituency. We also know you were upset that not all student funds go to people who agree with you at all times and on all issues. So, we’re going to make it up to you. We’re buying extra condoms and contraceptives this year and using only student fees to do it. That will make the Christians just as angry as you were!”
How stupid are these people? Well, “stupid” is not a good choice of words. Let’s listen to their own words as quoted by a local newspaper reporter: “We were really confused and kind of pissed off,” said Open Doors co-chair, Michael Pistrui, after learning about SAC’s decision to fund Turek.
“Confused” and “pissed off” pretty well sums it up, doesn’t it. Gay activists are confused by a First Amendment that applies equally to everyone. And that pisses them off because they don’t really support equality.
But the story at OU gets worse. SAC is actually considering changing funding rules to ensure that such an incident never happens again. And that should be easy, shouldn’t it. Keeping homosexuals from getting angry is a pretty simple task. You just reward them for being angry and censorious and suddenly they become happy and tolerant, right?
Wrong.
SAC Treasurer Chris Wimsatt was quoted by The New Political as saying “We can’t decide to de-fund it after we already decided to fund it” suggesting that the principal moral and legal issue concerning the speech was contractual, not constitutional. In other words, cancelling the speech would have offended an isolated contract rather than offending a bedrock constitutional principle. Wimsatt said the effort to protest the matter was, “too little, too late” somehow suggesting that an earlier protest might have succeeded.
Regardless, the way forward is very simple. Conservatives should sponsor a speech next year called “The Gay Assault on Free Speech Equality.” When the Open Doors Gaystapo succeeds in shutting the doors to the speaker, they will humiliate themselves in the court of public opinion. Then my friends at the Alliance Defense Fund will come in and sue the SAC for viewpoint-based discrimination in the allocation of student activity fees.
What is needed is a plaintiff willing to put his finger in the glory hole of gay hypocrisy. Shaming the shameless will never be enough to prevent the fall of Athens.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Our Dangerous Dependence on Foreign Chocolate
FOX News ^ | April 2, 2012 | Ernest IstookAmerica is addicted to chocolate. Foreign chocolate.
A majority of us consume chocolate each day. Although the U.S. produces only 6% of the world’s cocoa, we consume more than 20%.
The threat is obvious. It’s time for government to step in and promote alternatives.
Any day now, President Obama will be barnstorming the country to tell us, “If we really want chocolate security and chocolate independence, we've got to start looking at how we use less cocoa and use sources that we can renew and that we can control, so we are not subject to the whims of what's happening in other countries.”
* * * Fortunately, alternatives exist. With proper federal loans and subsidies these can relieve our cravings and wean us from our addiction to chocolate.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Allison Wonderland
Mike Adams - Jan 03, 2012 - TownhallShe wasn’t always like this. She was raised in a middle class home by educated parents – both of whom are lifelong self-described liberals. They loved her and cared for her. But they also gave her some poor advice, which largely accounts for her downward spiral over the course of the last several years.
Trouble began for Allison when she was in junior high school. A boy named Barry fell in love with her and started asking her out on dates. She wasn’t interested in Barry. She did not even think she was old enough to start dating. But Barry was persistent to the point of making Allison nervous. So she talked to her parents in the hopes that she could get some good advice.
Because Barry was black, Allison’s parents urged her to go out with him at least once. As old 1960s hippies, they had marched with Martin Luther King, Jr. They wanted to make sure Allison gave Barry a chance and that her initial rejection of Barry wasn’t due to latent racism. “Who knows? You might end up liking him,” they told Allison. So Allison went on the date. It was an unmitigated disaster.
It should go without saying that Allison had a much more difficult time with Barry after agreeing to go out on a date with him. But she firmly and steadfastly rejected his advances even as they grew more assertive. When things started to overwhelm her, she did what she always did: she talked to her parents.
Both of her parents urged her to go out with Barry a second time. This time, however, the point of the meeting would be to negotiate the intensifying conflict between the two of them. “Let him know how uncomfortable he is making you and, above all, make sure he knows it’s just a matter of personalities. It has nothing to do with race. There’s no conflict that cannot be resolved by free and open communication.” Allison went on that second date. The evening concluded with Allison being sexually assaulted by Barry.
It took her several weeks, but Allison eventually told her parents. They reluctantly alerted the authorities. Because Barry was only 13, he was tried as a juvenile. He was adjudicated to be delinquent in Illinois, the first state to create completely separate juvenile and adult justice systems back in 1899.
Prior to the disposition hearing, Allison’s parents pleaded with the juvenile court officer. They asked him not to recommend incarceration for Barry. Instead, they urged him to recommend probation and intensive counseling. The juvenile court officer complied with their request. And the judge affirmed the juvenile court officer’s recommendations.
Five years later, Barry sexually assaulted a second woman. He was tried in adult court for second degree rape. As a result of a negotiated plea, he was sentenced to just four years in prison. Upon graduation from high school, Allison took a job working in a topless bar.
Allison paid her way through college with the money she earned doing lap dances in The Alchemist, a local gentlemen’s club. Her degree in Women’s Studies was supplemented with a minor in African American Studies. She used the degree to get a job working as an intake counselor for Planned Parenthood. Two years into her tenure with Planned Parenthood, Allison told a pregnant teenaged woman (of African extraction) that abortion was “not a big deal.” She went on to say that, “Most black babies are aborted anyway.” Planned Parenthood fired her for sharing that well-kept secret with a non- white client. So Allison moved back home with her parents. Today, she works for billionaire George Sourpus as a paid commenter on various conservative websites.
Her story is a sad one. But it is also educational. It teaches us four important lessons about the liberal mindset:
1. For liberals, group judgments supersede the judgment of individuals. In their zeal to make certain they are not engaging in racism, liberals often take race into consideration – even when it is simply irrelevant. This means they often form relationships they would not have formed by merely judging an individual as an individual – rather than evaluating the individual as a group representative. This happens most often in the context of employment relations. It is not always confined to race.
2. For liberals, faith in negotiation is more important than concerns over personal safety. When it comes to avoiding war or violent confrontation generally, negotiations sometimes fail. Liberals understand this. But the threat posed to their own physical safety must be weighed against other threats. When it comes to faith in the inherent goodness of man, evidence is often deemed irrelevant. The view of the “good man” corrupted by “bad society” is the lynchpin of the liberal worldview. It cannot be disturbed by anything, “facts” included. Additionally, a liberal’s confidence in his own capacity to negotiate differences is often central to his self-image. His preoccupation with his self-image explains his constant search for “solutions” to societal “problems.” When he appears to be fixing “society,” the liberal is often trying to fix himself.
3. According to liberals, crime is simply a disease that only man can cure with the benefit of science. The notion of sin has no place in the liberal worldview. The only solution to sin is a Savior. Liberals prefer to use disease terminology – whether they are talking about sociological or psychological maladies. This allows them to step into the role of savior. It also provides them with government employment opportunities.
4. Liberal ideas are not only emotionally driven but also emotion driving. Liberals eventually realize that man isn’t good and that the world does not operate according to liberal principles. But the emotionalism that draws them into liberalism never dissipates. The naiveté simply congeals. Usually, it hardens into anger. In some cases, it permanently confines the liberal to a life of anonymous posting on conservative websites.
The story may be a simple one but that is okay. Liberalism is a simple way of viewing the world. It lacks the complexity and even the nuance of conservative thought. Although simple, this story is not actually true. It is an Ally-gory meant to show the depth of the divide between conservatives and liberals in America today. It is a divide so deep that it simply cannot be negotiated away. Barry can only get what he wants by forcing himself upon us all. Right-thinking people judge him according to his merits and not according to his race.
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
April 22, 2012 - AmericanThinker
Help GAIA Save the Planet
By Anthony J. Sadar and Susan T. CammarataToday is Earth Day 2012. This quasi-religious holiday has been celebrated with reverence and fervency since 1970. And as the saying goes, "We started out to 'do good' and ended up 'doing well.'" Such is the story of much of contemporary environmentalism. The Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Greenpeace, Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends of the Earth, and other major non-profits began small and are now multi-million-dollar businesses. In their early years, even with little financial support, these organizations wielded much influence and helped to accomplish great strides in environmental improvement.
Today, though, as with many major corporations, they have enormous budgets; and, as their goals are impacted by Government, they have grown to be a substantial presence on Capitol Hill, with congressional connections and activities rivaling any of the hundreds of other lobbying groups. However, leftist environmental lobbying groups are ostensibly distinguished from the garden-variety influence-peddlers in that most other lobbyists represent "evil, profit-motivated corporations," while environmental lobbyists defend our mother -- Mother Earth. And so, while the dirty-industry lobbyist lusts after more money for the insatiable Corporation, the wholesome environmentalist longs to comfort and protect Mother.
Inspired by such an unassailable motives, and the Herculean efforts anticipated following the Durban, Copenhagen, Cancun, and (soon) Qatar climate summits, we unveil our new organization purely dedicated to our mother. Our devoted order, named after Gaia, the Greeks' earth goddess, is GAIA -- the Group Against Industrial Activity. Here are some snippets from our exciting forthcoming brochure introducing GAIA to the world community.
The Need: To aid our ailing mother, ravaged for years by industry and 7 billion germs (people), we need cash fast. Trust us. We are as serious and sincere in our mission as any eco-warrior, so you know your money will be spent wisely. Also, like other eco-groups, we believe in sacrifice. Your sacrificial offerings will go to the time-tested tactics of demonizing DDT and humanizing climate change. And, although such an approach will most assuredly sacrifice the health and welfare of the world's poor, you can rest assured you did your part to rescue Mother Dearest. Besides, we will use your gifts to campaign against disease and poverty, to wipe out their negative influence on the advancement of progressive environmental policies.
Climate Change: We know Gaia is getting exceptionally hot under the collar from her children's carbonaceous tomfoolery. Amazingly, some still doubt this fact! So, we will shovel much of your contributions into the honorable fight against any "deniers" who dare to challenge the oracle of an intolerably hotter planet by the end of this century? (Sidebar: since the public may soon tire of the moniker "deniers," we welcome any new, creative derogatory names that can be used to smear contrarians, especially those taking advantage of the unfortunately named "Climategate." Note that "court jesters," "anti-environment, right-wing zealots," and "Flat Earthers" have already been taken.)
Climate-Crisis Awareness: Additional money will be funneled into a movement dedicated to making sure that every last human being knows of his or her culpability in the planet's imminent doom brought on by merely existencing. The plan is to lobby Congress and indeed the U.N. for funding to have all delivery rooms, birthing suites, and freelance midwives supplied with DVD players cued up with An Inconvenient Truth ready to roll upon crowning.
Cap-and-Trade: Just the mere mention of carbon trading can make any environmental lobbyist turn green with potential profits. GAIA jumps right into the cash barrel with its own exceptionally simple, yet profitable and eco-lobbyist-friendly, 1,200-page cap-and-trade scheme. A special supplement to the plan describes our greenhouse gas "siphon fee" for new and old coal-fired power plants to power down the nation's energy supply in order to power up our growing organization. Join us as we make green history (in more ways than one)!
We could go on and on about our salvific projects, but you get the idea -- we're sincere, creative, and above all committed. Plus, pending sufficient contributions, we hope to have the brochure finished before the continuation of the U.N.'s fabulously momentous climate change conferences -- this time in Qatar later this year.
We end with optimism for a bountiful future. We suspect that as global temperatures rise, so will the dollar level in activists' coffers. Therefore, we encourage our fellow eco-crusaders to make an earthy petition for a reversal in the cooling now underway. After all, environmentalist-organization lobbyists old and new can look at a continued warming (or shall we say radiance?) of Gaia as a financial blessing from the gracious goddess herself.
(Note to fanatic environmentalists: this essay is satiric. Please do not send any money to the authors or this fictitious organization.)
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
WASHINGTON—Confirming years of speculation, a new study from the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Animal Health Monitoring System has found that red meat significantly increases the risk of premature death in cows. "Our research suggests that by having red meat, a cow's life can be shortened by as many as 10 years, sometimes more," Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said in an interview with CNN Tuesday. "Unfortunately, in some cases, even just a single daily serving of red meat can hurt a cow's chances of surviving past the earliest stage of life." On a more positive note, researchers found that other high-protein foods like milk, cheese, and butter only decrease a cow's life by 7 to 9 years. - The Onion
-
Permalink Reply by James Robertson on
-
Slapping That Booty
By Mike Adams
2/13/2012 - Townhall
Dear (Name Deleted): I want to take the time to thank you for turning in your paper assignment on time and for conforming to the minimum word requirement. Unfortunately, I have some bad news: You turned in the paper assignment for your political science class. I am not your political science professor and my name is not Dr. Johnson. The mistake was understandable as you are only a senior. I am certain that such errors will be less commonplace by the time you get your doctorate. In the meantime, the good news is that I went ahead and graded your paper. The bad news is that you got a zero. It really had nothing to do with the requirements of the class you are taking under me. I hope you understand.
Please note that I am aware that you suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder. I know this because you have told me in writing, over the phone, and in person. There is no need for you to repeat yourself. I generally pay attention when people speak to me. But I am giving you the zero - not in spite of your ADD, but because of your ADD. I really think that attaching a consequence to your conduct will help you grow out of it.
Dear (Name Deleted): Thank you for your concerns over the content of our last murder lecture. These lectures can be tough and sometimes offensive – although I am rarely able to predict just what will offend students these days. In your case, you have been very specific with the basis of your personal offense. Regrettably, however, I will be unable to act upon your request. Let me explain.
When you asked me to refrain from using the term “pit bull” (when I discuss the People v. Berry dog mauling case) you were simply asking too much. I understand your concerns that “pit bulls will be unfairly stereotyped as dangerous” if (after they kill someone) we refer to their specific breed. But what you fail to understand is that the dog’s breed was a relevant fact in the murder trial. Berry chose the dog on the basis of its reputation in the hopes that it would keep people away from the illicit drug business he was operating out of his back yard. He had a pit bull but no fence. That is how the little child ended up being mauled to death.
Generally speaking, I have more concern for the lives of small children than for the reputations of dogs who cannot ever know the status of their reputations. I think if you reflect upon this you will understand that people may speak badly of pit bulls without them actually knowing it.
On a positive note, I have taken your concerns to heart. The next time a Yorkie or a Poodle mauls a small child to death I will make sure to emphasize their specific breed. That way, people will understand that pit bulls are really deeply misunderstood creatures.
Dear (Name deleted): I hope you don’t mind this unsolicited email concerning your status in my criminology class. As you know, I have a policy against coming into class late. You are always in your seat before class begins. But, recently, you have been getting up and walking out during the middle of my lectures. In fact, you do it every class period at about the same time. As you walk out of class, you generally reach into your right hand pocket. I suspect that is because you’re reaching for your cell phone in order to call your girlfriend.
Ever since I banned cell phones, guys have been getting up and leaving class to “go potty” with some regularity (no pun intended). But we all know that my cell phone policy did not really cause grown men to go potty more often. Instead, it began to interfere with their girlfriends’ rule that they must either call or text them at least once every half-hour. Since I am aware of what’s going on, I am going to implement a rule you will not like: I am hereby declaring that upon re-entry into my class, you are officially considered late. This means you will lose a point from your final average every time you step out and then step back in during my lecture.
This may seem harsh, but it will be of tremendous benefit to you. It means you will now be forced to act like a man, take charge of your relationship, and stop letting your girlfriend monitor you like a suspected terrorist. Furthermore, it may actually save your relationship. When a woman monitors you she is most likely cheating on you. She is making sure you are not nearby so she will not get caught in the process. If she isn’t cheating on you, she is very close to dumping you for someone she cannot control. Women love a challenge more than having a lapdog. Please think about what I have told you.
Dear (Name deleted): This is just a quick note to remind you of my policy concerning cell phones in the classroom. At no time am I to see or hear one of these annoying devices during one of my lectures.
I know that when your cell phone went off during our last class that it was a complete accident. I appreciate how quickly you reached into your pocket to turn it off as I was answering a student question on the topic of aggravated rape. This brings us to another issue. Please hear me out.
I know that I have not established any rules concerning the content of cell phone interruptions in my class. But I am considering a new policy in light of the nature of the incident with your cell phone.
Please, don’t get me wrong. I certainly support your right to listen to rap music celebrating the joys slapping a “booty.” I mean, DAT is your right if you’re really into booty slapping. However, (especially given that we sometimes forget to turn off our cell phones) it is perhaps unwise to program the ringer in such a way as to celebrate booty slapping every time someone calls. Know what I’m saying?
Anyway, I just thought I would share my insights with you. I wasn’t really offended. But the sensitive topic of rape should be discussed free from unanticipated celebrations of booty slapping. After all, the women might not share your love of booty slapping. And they might turn on you faster than a Yorkshire terrier.
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington
© 2012 Created by Norm Fisher.
Powered by
