Cultural taste 5.2: The case for Miley Cyrus…

Having recently been notified that Miley Cyrus is an example of a pop culture icon these days, I took it upon myself to learn a bit about this teenage chanteuse in order to better form an opinion on a subject I care little about. I will be the first to admit that my efforts were somewhat disingenuous as I cannot understand why the life and times of a children’s entertainer is somehow worthy of front-page intrigue; however, what I found surprised me: she appears to be a normal (in the 21st century version of the term), well-adjusted teenager who enjoys what she does and doesn’t appear to take life too seriously- an altogether refreshing image in this era of despondent, self-absorbed misanthropes who bemoan the ‘burden of celebrity’ while shopping for $600 sunglasses (of poor quality and even poorer taste).

And then I saw the deluge…

Evidently, in a “Twitter” conversation (sic), Miley informed Perez Hilton that although he is gay, she is a Christian and believes that God (I will use capitalization to avoid hate mail) loves him anyway and just wants us to be happy. For the time being I will leave the Christianity issue alone and remark that I thought her comment revealed an inner strength of character that is seldom seen amongst the current flavor-of-the-month celebrities.

Evidently, I was wrong….

It seems the American Family Association feels that her comments were inappropriate (especially that blasphemous idea that Perez Hilton was “no different”) and merit rebuttal in the form of a solicitation to “please send a letter to Miley” because “clearly she is confused and does not understand the bible. Please pray for the Lord to open her eyes to the truth.”

Well…

Thank goodness the American Family Association is there to ensure that the comments of a 16 year-old girl are corrected for biblical accuracy. The sheer gall of this organization defies belief; then again, perhaps belief in the incredible is all that is required for membership in this poor excuse for an intellectual forum. Here’s a news flash for the AFA:

– Miley Cyrus is entitled to her opinions.
– You are not the moral authority in the United States.
– Perez Hilton, though annoying and inconsequential, is nonetheless a human being who is deserving of the same respect and acknowledgement as anyone else who fits your bill of “acceptable behavior.”
– The depth of your ignorance and presumption is matched only by your inferior intellect and trivial concerns.

In short, Miley Cyrus is a typical teenager, and the AFA is a typical Christian extremist organization: both are guilty of inanity, febrile positions, elevation of the trivial to the profound and outright gaseous eructation…at least Miley has an excuse.

Cultural taste 5.1: What is this Pop Culture of which you speak?

From time to time, I like to scroll through the latest snippets of “news,” courtesy of America Online (AOL for you cool kids). These are deep, hard-hitting stories of piquant flavor and Conrad-level prose; I could rhapsodize over their relevance to (and intense impact on) the human condition. Witness the following titles:
– “Robber dons empty beer carton as mask.”
– “Demi Moore rocks the ‘Deliverance’ look.”
– “Mom and daughter Botox addicts.”
– “Bizarro game of strip vandalism damages 14 cars.”
Just think- all of these wonderful images in a single scanning of the top 10 featured stories!
At any rate, it boggles the mind to read what passes for news (I can almost hear my grandparents saying the same thing fifty years ago). We (meaning people who are not me, of course) have devolved into a nation of shallow, vapid caricatures- poor shadows of our former selves; we elevate the mundane, laud the mediocre, and celebrate the trivial. If you need proof, I submit the following five question quiz; try it out on a few colleagues and see what happens…

1.) Whose picture are you more likely to recognize: Paris Hilton or Aaron Copland?
2.) Name three national parks other than the Grand Canyon or Yellowstone. Name three cell-phone service providers.
3.) In what year was your home state founded? Whom did Tom Cruise marry?
4.) What does the phrase ‘E pluribus unum’ mean? Who made the phrase ‘that’s hot’ popular?
5.) Name the first five Presidents of the United States of America. Name five “Reality-T.V.” programs.

The results should sicken you if you have any conscience whatsoever; if not, you needn’t despair: you are firmly in the ranks of the vast majority.

Cultural taste 5.0: READ THE DISCLAIMER FIRST!

*DISCLAIMER*: If you watch “reality” television, find meaning in the comic strip “Cathy,” or see a point in the continued existence of Paris Hilton, this posting is not for you.

I have decided to devote this topic to cultural taste and the translation thereof to contemporary life; as such, I am sure that half of you will be lost within minutes. I do not make this comment to be unnecessarily mean (I know, I know, but there are outliers to every situation that falls within the confines of fundamental probabilities; as non-linear mathematics posits that there are, in fact, no fundamental probabilities in the first place, I leave the reader to his or her own assumptions); rather, I propose a simple reductio ad absurdum:

1.) People, in general, are morons.
2.) People, in general, are vain.
3.) People, in general, will seek (as a function of proposition 2) to mitigate proposition 1.
4.) People, in general, thus contribute to the propagation of proposition 1.

I thought perhaps I might begin with a quiz to test the cultural literacy of you, the reader. Make no mistake- there are plenty of wrong answers. While I am well aware of the trends in contemporary education, I have no problem with explaining to you why you are an inconsequential sub-moron who will never amount to anything in life. Good Luck!

1. One of the greatest composers of all time is:
a. J.S. Bach
b. Johannes Brahms
c. Anton Bruckner
d. Billy Ray Cyrus

2. An example of a worthwhile cultural event is:
a. A symphonic performance.
b. An opera (not a late 19th century Italian example- none of these qualify as art).
c. A visiting ballet troupe.
d. The Arkansas State Fair.

3. Outstanding literature has been produced by (with example given):
a. William Shakespeare: Hamlet
b. T.S. Eliot: The Wasteland
c. Joseph Conrad: Heart of Darkness
d. Barry Lyga: Goth Girl Rising

4. A “musical” is an example of:
a. A staged travesty.
b. Something that does not qualify as a “play.”
c. What happens when a hack composer joins forces with a hack writer.
d. The best $60 I ever spent on a ticket.

5. Great artwork can be found at:
a. The Hermitage, Saint Petersburg
b. The Louvre, Paris
c. The Guggenheim, New York
d. Applebee’s, Everywhere

6. A “film” is distinguished from a “movie” in that:
a. It has a discernable, non-formulaic plot.
b. It does not star Vin Diesel, Julia Roberts, or Pauly Shore.
c. It was most likely produced before 1965.
d. There is no difference.

7. An investment to “feed one’s soul” could be:
a. A personal library of leather and buckram-bound volumes.
b. A set of the complete works of Gustav Mahler.
c. A collection of classic silent films.
d. A new app for my iPhone.

8. “Pop Art” is:
a. A contradiction in terms.
b. Yet another example of why “the Sixties” should be forgotten.
c. Why few people of any sophistication go to new showings.
d. Proof that graffiti is a viable form of self-expression.

9. Fashion Week in New York is:
a. The only serious challenge to the notion that we are evolving.
b. The largest collection of vapid and shallow personalities in one single area.
c. Confirmation that wealth does not necessarily equate to taste.
d. The only reason I haven’t killed myself.

10. A sensible criterion for selecting a wine for dinner is:
a. Matching the wine’s region of origin to that of the cuisine.
b. Highlighting textural and/or flavor contrasts.
c. Complimenting the sauce or lack thereof.
d. Whatever is cheapest and preferably sold in a box.

The scoring for this quiz is relatively simple: if you answered “d” for any of the questions, you failed the question- all other answers were viable. To analyze your aggregate responses, use the following chart:

1. 10 correct: Congratulations! You may pass for a human being.
2. 9 or less correct: Please take every effort to ensure that you do not procreate- the human race simply cannot tolerate any more of your ilk.

Hopefully that settles any doubts.

Music, of course 4.2: Contemporary music…

I am tired.

As a composer, I am tired of the constant complaints about the “weirdness” of modern music. I am well aware that Stockhausen does not sound like Brahms. I know for a fact that Crumb chamber works cannot be mistaken for Mozart serenades. I understand that the octatonic scale only faintly resembles a major scale. I sympathize with the reality that polyrythmns are much more difficult to discern than homogeneous ostinato patterns.

And I don’t care in the slightest.

I am not so naive as to pretend that I don’t know who funds the majority of symphonies, opera companies, ballet troupes, and chamber associations. I am, however, concerned with human mortality. The inescapable fact remains that the little blue-haired ladies will soon pass away. I wonder who will be left to fill the void. Whom have the elderly patrons trained to take their place on the boards of civic orchestras? Have they passed on their tired, outdated prejudiced opinions to the vapid and listless generation that followed them? Will I hear more inane comments such as “Ooh, I don’t know about that Schoenberg fellow…his music just isn’t very pretty…”

Pretty?

Schoenberg’s groundbreaking period began in 1911. For the mathematically challenged, that was over 98 years ago. Does this honestly still qualify as “modern music?” He is dead. Mozart is dead. Beethoven is dead. Their music lives on of its own accord. Mozart’s Cosi Fan Tutti doesn’t need your help anymore. It lives and breathes simply because it is transcendent.

I used to think that modern composers needed your help as well. We asked for your support, but you found our language to be too challenging…so you gave up trying. When the harmonies became too lush, when the melodies became secondary to tone-color, and when the rhythms became too dense, you decided to stick your heads in the sand and stop trying to understand art for what it is rather than what you wish it to be. You turned us into beggars. Not anymore.

I quit.

I will write, you will listen. Or not. I need not depend on it for my livelihood, so the choice has now become relatively arbitrary to me. I will no longer try to please your aesthetic dustbin of a collective mind. Listen to the same insipid Brahms symphony over and over. Music will continue to grow without your assistance. Who killed the symphonic tradition?

You did- by never allowing it to evolve.

Music, of course 4.1: Remembering Stockhausen…

Karlheinz Stockhausen is dead; with him is lost a unique musical voice that occupied the rarefied air of revolutionary genius. Sometimes controversial, always challenging, he was a composer’s composer- and a performer’s nightmare. His mature works spanned more than a half-century, encompassing all genres and facets of modern music. Instead of pushing boundaries, he redefined them. His music was not necessarily aurally pleasing- that was never the point. Rather, it was the constant prodding, cajoling, and downright forcing of listeners to broaden their definition of musical acceptability that was his hallmark. For some he was a purveyor of the musical equivalent of pornography, an assault on the senses and good taste in equal measure. For others he was a mad puppeteer, his fingers weaving strands of sound into unrecognizable masses bereft of logical form or aesthetic function. For me, he was neither.

I found Stockhausen to be the personification of what a composer should be: a medium through which musical ideas are transmitted, regardless of the popular reception. He did not succumb to the tired image of the typical avant-garde artist, namely the borderline sociopath who believes only in “weird for the sake of weird.” That is not, however, to imply that any number of his works did not leave me confused and disjointed. I fail to see how this can be considered a shortcoming, though. Music need not always be pleasant, relaxing, and simplistic. The longer we accept the banality of aural comfort, the further our senses slide into mediocrity. Were it not for the incessant push of modern trends in music, we would still be listening to classical-era styled works. For some this would present no great conflict. To them I would pose a question: how much closer could classical (in the historically-oriented use of the word) music approach perfection than Mozart?

At the risk of generalization, most timeless music was considered brash and shocking in its day. Without Mozart there would have been no Beethoven. Without Beethoven, there would have been no Mahler. The list continues unabated.When one mourns the passing of another the tendency to wax philosophic is an immutable force. Having bowed to such, I believe that Stockhausen represented a turning point in the history of music. He affected such a dramatic break with past traditions that the course of music history was irrevocably altered. In the eyes of some, this is the single grievance that damns him. To me, it serves as the guiding principle to new generations of composers: full speed ahead. Karlheinz Stockhausen opened the doors to the future of music; one wonders if humanity as a whole will ever gain the courage to step through them.

Music, of course 4.0: A Russian awakening many years ago…

The other day, a scene came to mind: a concert in Cincinnati MANY years ago. As a faithful symphony enthusiast, I had attended scores (pardon the pun) prior to the concert I have in mind, but few since have had such a deep impact. It was the holiday season in Cincinnati. I had heard the Rachmaninoff 2nd piano concerto dozens of times.

I had found it to be adequate.

It is a Russian work- brooding, emotionally manipulative, overwrought, sentimental, and virtuoistic…like I said, Russian. I didn’t think much of it.

Jean-Yves Thibaudet is an excellent performer at the top of his game. His technique is flawless, his interpretations are solid, and his stage presence is commanding. He strode out onto the stage, sneering at the audience. To be honest, it was more of a glower- very offsetting. He took up his position, in white tie and tails, at a nine foot Steinway grand, and then turned his body so he faced down the audience. For what seemed like an eternity, he just stared at us…and kept staring. With the slightest hint of a smile, he gave a quick tug on his pant-legs, hiking them up a few inches to reveal:

Bright red socks.

With Santa Claus faces on them.

Oh yes, and he played also.

After the initial gasps from the blue hairs in their regal box seats (worst sound quality in the hall, by the way- I guess money never has bought good taste) and a few sniggers from the rest of us, the concerto started. The opening chords were soft, muted, and distant; they were perfect. As they rose in intensity, an emotional roller coaster took off that ended only after the audience was completely exhausted.

And so was Thibaudet.

By the coda he was drenched, pouring every bit of his power into the flaring double-octave runs that dominate the ending. It was horrific and intoxicating simultaneously. His arms were flying as his hands crashed down on the keys from nearly nine inches in the air so forcefully that the entire massive piano was literally shaking under the strain. When he finished, the audience erupted: shouts of bravo and furious clapping raised a furor in the hall.

He looked utterly wasted by the effort.

Pale and somewhat unsteady on his feet, he nonetheless returned to the stage for a dozen calls. When he finally retired to the Green room, I noticed something: I liked Russian music on some discernable level. I don’t know what the true catalyst was. For a while I thought it was pure sensationalism, but I had seen him play Mozart before with no such theatrics. I finally figured it out; this unassuming man, capable of humor in the most formal of settings, had shown me the true depth of passion and art in Russian Romantic period compositions.

Damn it. I thought I knew everything.

A final blast from the past: Contemporary politics 3.2 (guaranteed to offend quite a few of you)…

(A letter in response to “outrage” over Harry Potter originally published in Fall, 2007)

Dear Reverend (REDACTED),
With the precepts of literary response firmly in mind (though your letter certainly calls into question the premise of literary creditability), I have chosen to respond to your letter point by point. Having suppressed a laugh, I have swallowed my intellectual pride (a portion of the seven deadly sins, or so I am told) and decided to belie the image that all atheists are cynical elitists who sniff at religion and find nothing but a putrid farce foisted on an unwitting public. Instead, I find you have joined the veritable pantheon of talking heads that have done nothing more than to increase the ranks of my fold by leaps and bounds, if the vernacular may be employed. Your singular intolerance and support of a nominally subsidized witch-hunt have done nothing more than to convince “average” Americans that organized religion incites frenzy, hypocrisy and intolerance for the most innocuous of literary genres: the novel. With due respect to copyright process, I reprint your letter for the consideration of tertiary readers:

“As a Christian minister with more than 20 years experience helping people who have been hurt by “magic,” I can state authoritatively that any discipline which communicates or contracts with spirits other than the one loving, creator God is dangerous and should be studiously avoided.” I will avoid belittling the term “authoritative,” and instead question by what metric you judge “hurt.” Innocuous though such a term may be, are you to imply a demon has added an extra arm to said practitioner? Has the practitioner come down with a devilish case of the chills that can only be plausibly attributed to demonic intervention? “The essence of magic does not rest in rituals, incantations and spells, which in themselves have no power.” If this is the case, then why do you brim with indignation over a powerless straw man?

“Real magic- not the entertainment variety- constitutes dealing with forbidden forces, that cooperate in some petition for supernatural help, but whose end is the destruction of the practitioner.” By whose edict are these forces forbidden? A supernatural being? If one does not acknowledge such a being, are the aforementioned forces still verboten? What exactly do you mean by destruction? Have you personally witnessed the disintegration of a magician? If you meant the psychological degradation of an individual, is magic the only possible explanation? I realize it is much easier to attribute deep-seeded psychological problems to matters of occult practices rather than a chemical imbalance, but this smacks of superficiality at best and outright chicanery at worst. “Terms more descriptive than “magic” that help better define components of the subject include sorcery, witchcraft, divination, séances, psychic consultation, spirit guides, tarot cards, Ouija boards, talismans, Satan worship, paganism, Wicca, etc.” Allow me to substitute the following on a word-for word basis from an outsider’s perspective: ministry, evangelism, prophecy, Sunday services, prayer, Holy Spirit, icons, bibles, crucifixes, Jesus worship, Protestantism, Catholicism, etc.

“All these hide behind the gentler, more acceptable word, but clearly represent magic’s premise. That premise is to collaborate with forbidden forces for the pursuit of personal will, to the endangerment of the practitioner and those around them, to the insult and anger of God, who expressly forbids such behavior.” Although you restate your thesis, you now bring the image of an insulted divinity. Have you spoken with him as regards the subject? Has your god of love and tolerance mentioned how he intends to vent his anger? “This holds true even with benevolent intent, for the end does not justify the means.” Have you ever noticed that it never does when Christian dogma is invoked?

“There is nothing funny or amusing about real magic.” Magic IS quite humorous when it allows us to view the image of a grown man throwing a verbal tantrum over a children’s book of FICTION. “Parents and other guardians should carefully review the wisdom of making a sorcerer the hero of children’s books and movies.” At the risk of repetition, in the realm of children’s literature what will draw your ire next as an inappropriate role model? The Cat in the Hat (unscrupulous harbinger of disobedience that he is)? Winnie the Pooh (an obvious glutton and example of sloth)? “Childhood imagination and role-playing has its unquestioned place.” One can only assume that this is the case when and if such activities conform to a rigid set of Christian ethics. “But any subtle invitation into real-life experimentation in the occult by a child or adolescent can lead to deadly consequences.” We seem to be on this soapbox again. To what deadly consequences are you referring? “There are too many good and real heroes around us to which we can point our children.” It seems we are finally in agreement on something. However, I tend to doubt that our lists would match (Watson and Crick, Einstein, Mendel, Bohr, the Curies… I suppose we are somewhat divergent on the subject).

“Stooping to the level of Harry Potter gets a little too close to child endangerment.” I wonder if Harry Potter is offended despite the notable handicap of being a fictional character. More to the point, when I view children in tears over the images of hellfire and damnation, I am of the opinion that Christian indoctrination more aptly borders on child abuse. “In real life, the greatest victim of magic is always its practitioner.” So you have repeatedly mentioned. The only victims here are the children who have been deprived of yet another piece of imaginative prose because of the outright zealotry of a few closed minds.

Reverend (REDACTED), the works of J.K. Rowling are not the sound of the seventh trumpet. They are pieces of literature. They do not have a life of their own until a reader digests them. The seventh seal has not been broken. We are not hurtling towards the apocalypse because one woman has brought joy into the hearts of millions of children worldwide while your moribund system of an angry and insulted god has not. When you persist in your inquisition, you relegate yourself to the level of a street corner prophet- in the words of a personal hero “full of sound and fury signifying nothing.” A nominal Christian tried banning books he found unsuitable for his “chosen people” over seventy years ago. A world war later, he passed into history as yet another lunatic, drunk on his own self-righteousness.

(JUNE 09: UPDATE) Iam still in shock…the local paper didn’t print my response…

Another blast from the past: Contemporary politics 3.1…

(Originally published in Spring, 2008)

With acerbic wit, formidable command of the English language, and a supreme intellect, W.F. Buckley dominated conservative political thought for over a half-century. Hated by the Left, venerated by the Right, he cut a path through the morass of contemporary politics with all the precision of a neurosurgeon. He would slouch in his chair, look thoughtfully at his debate opponent, chew his pen for a moment,…and then destroy his interlocutor with a single carefully polished phrase.

Possessed of an elegant arrogance that was not a mere affectation, Buckley reveled at the verbal dismemberment of an opponent. After all, it confirmed that he was quite simply smarter than anyone who dared cross him. It didn’t matter who was speaking; such a person was an annoyance who must be dealt with accordingly. He would openly mock the enraged letter writers whose inflated sense of self-righteousness was only eclipsed by their incredible ignorance of the subject upon which they wrote. Likewise, when faced with a fierce opponent such as Noam Chomsky or Gore Vidal he would merely bide his time while they gassed on about whatever esoteric topic consumed them for the moment, and then quietly and with great dignity, he would gently point out a fatal error in their argument.

A talented harpsichordist, prolific writer, amateur painter, first-class yachtsman, Bordeaux connoisseur, “WFB” was in a class of his own. While it comes as no surprise, he was the subject of many attacks. The very nature of the scathing editorials and letters to which he was subjected are instructive as to the nature of the man himself. As he could not be defeated in the arena of public debate, ad hominem screeds were the best most could muster.

While his economic ideas were mostly Libertarian, many of his social thoughts were decidedly of the Conservative ilk. As such, I found that I only agreed with perhaps 50% of what he said- but I was always amazed at how he said it. In a society where intelligence is not as desirable as wealth or fame, William Buckley managed all three. In a society where politics is emotion-driven, he advanced arguments built on pure reason and sequestered them in castles of unassailable logic. In a society trained to expect writing and thoughts dumbed-down to the point of catch-phrases or monosyllabic blather, he peppered his essays with Latin and always sought “le mot juste” (even if it happened to be tortfeasor, sesquipedality, lapidary, or eristic). In a society that values change for the sake of change, he embraced as founding principle for The National Review “to stand athwart history, yelling ‘stop’.”

William F. Buckley was a polarizing figure that was loved or hated; there simply was little middle ground to be had. An intellectual giant among unwashed hordes of the ignorant and the apathetic, he left his mark on history in an unusual way: he showed that intellect and reason attract as many enemies as friends. R.I.P.

A blast from the past: Contemporary politics 3.0…

(Originally published in the Fall of 2008)
Mozart’s “Concerto for Flute and Harp” is on the stereo and an excellent Bordeaux has long been decanted and poured into an exquisite glass. The remains of a five course dinner have been cleared and the chill of the evening air floats heavily through the open window; my thoughts naturally turn to pop culture…

I have never shied away from my inherent elitism; rather, I have tended to embrace it openly- much to the chagrin of those who would use it as an indictment against me. As such, I am blissfully unaware of the latest manufactured dramas that encompass the lives of lesser mortals: I have no idea what Brad and Angelina are up to these days, I am utterly uninterested in the latest outrage perpetrated on the American people by Wall Street “fat cats,” nor do I know who is currently in the lead on whatever reality (does anyone wonder if the producers chuckle each time they describe their programs as such?) show is in fashion these days.
Why, then, the thoughts on pop culture (a term that should be used only in the loosest sense)? Elizabeth Hasselbeck, of course. Having had the misfortune of catching a few moments here and there of “The View,” I was not surprised to see the latest headlines screaming “Guess who called Hasselbeck a reject?”- it has been my experience that AOL never ceases to be on the cutting edge of significant contemporary events.

For the record, having briefly researched Ms. Hasselbeck, I disagree with nearly everything that comes out of her mouth; I do not, however, consider her to be the personification of evil in the modern world. I have never quite been able to understand how people on both sides of the bipartite political spectrum can muster such vehement rage to be directed towards those with whom they disagree. Does the mere fact that an opinion differs from yours automatically make it open to scorn and derision as the product of a third-rate mind? If facts are absent from a dialogue, do emotional outbursts qualify as acceptable substitutions?

The sheer vigor with which…well…everyone who graces this televised abortion attacks this woman is amazing to me. Dismissing her as an incompetent stooge of a political party would be one thing- if it were Noam Chomsky or William Buckley (RIP) doing so. Forgive me, however, if I do not bow to the intellectual prowess of Whoopi Goldberg or the incisive rhetoric of such a towering mind as Rosie O’Donnell. It is a sad commentary that sub-morons insulting each other are foisted on the American people as worthwhile entertainment.

I must state, however, that I admire Elizabeth Hasselbeck for the same reason I despise her. Not for her positions- she is every bit as cognitively handicapped as the rest of the co-hosts. Rather, she has stayed true to her views in the face of disturbingly vindictive drivel shot from the mouths of charlatans. I am not sure whether I could do the same; I would, in all likelihood, burn the set to the ground- that she hasn’t is the reason I have such a duality of empathy/disdain for her.

Is this how the American story plays? Have we come this far to gain so little? Will our legacy be one of revolutionary political thought in the essence of Thomas Paine or will it be in a sound bite from a View co-host describing her opposition to Sarah Palin due to the fact that “she’s just…y’know…MEAN, right…?” I shudder involuntarily at the thought. Will we remember the final words of Nathan Hale that defined patriotism or will we follow the stories of Hollywood celebrities who have “threatened” to move to Europe if anyone but Barrack Obama is elected (I see a benefit vice a threat- I’m almost tempted to vote for McCain…but the moment has passed)? Will our story be one of perseverance and fortitude in a rapidly changing world, or will we rely on press-board political hacks to suborn the word “change” into a meaningless aphorism?

Devolving into cliché, only time will tell…

Educated, eh? 2.1: Charleston skools dun stiruk us a homer agin…

So it would seem that Charleston finally has a claim to fame in the world of education. Its Academic Magnet High School recently made the list of top ten high schools in the nation. Granted, everything else in the Charleston educational system is near the bottom, but why quibble. Homer Simpson once said “You can use statistics to prove anything- 63% of all Americans know that.”
Naturally, as soon as a school is noticed for being successful, the powers that be will immediately seek to marginalize any gain. To wit, the issue now before the school board is that the admissions requirements must be changed to fit those of other county schools- a lottery will decide who goes and who does not.

Good work, folks. You finally have a system that works (if you want to go to a school that stress academics, you must be academically adept)- therefore, it must be dismantled. Sure, there is the usual hand-wringing about “fair” and “opportunity.” Hmm. Would you let a child into the Charleston school for the Performing Arts as a piano studies candidate if they could not successfully identify a piano by sight? Would you let said student into the Math/Science honors program if their answer to every equation was “science doesn’t prove anything, only god does”?

Redistribution is not the answer to all of society’s ills- real or imagined. If Charleston wants to teach students that it does not matter how hard they try, and allow random chance to be the deciding factor in a quality education, I will gladly continue to pay my son’s tuition at his private school.

Bottom line: Rewarding effort, ambition, and intelligence is (ostensibly) what this nation’s value structure requires. Opening the floodgates to random chance for the sake of some esoteric understanding of the term “equality” leads to exactly what the current philosophy behind public education so richly deserves: another generation of brain-dead leeches whose only ambition is to own a better cell phone than the person behind them in line at McDonald’s.