English Class Is Not Free-Speech Alley

             How did our topics of conversation change so dramatically? I remember back to seventh grade—the good ole’ days—when the most significant and pressing issues in our lives were last recess’ football game, our current social standing (relative to the “popular” and “unpopular” groups), and Pokemon. Speaking of which, I was the Pokemon king. With my possession of the blue version, I traded my two-dimensional warriors with whomever I wanted, and that was that. Everyone else thought red was such a cool color and purchased their “version” accordingly, but, no, not me. I was something special, the true Pokemaster. But those images now only exist as a mere flashbacks to an era long past, for as Juniors in high school we have progressed, or at the very least transformed into hot-headed attention-seekers searching for any method to release our brewing teenage angst. While the focus of this insecurity can range from how absolutely ridiculous the female human being can be to how absolutely ridiculous, say, our American History teacher’s interview projects can be, the rant will almost always devolve from such high levels to a downright dirty discussion of politics.

             Another sad truth is quite patent to any student caught somewhat awake during a class allowing group discussion; this inherently evil topic seemingly becomes so ingrained in a few students’ minds that they begin to use any opportunity given to transform the class into a soapbox from which to spew biased political rhetoric (that a month later they may or may not still agree with). An innocent speech class question along the lines of, “Given the situation and assuming you are on Mary Miller’s parole board, would you recommend that the governor pardon her?” could spawn a response such as, “Well, no, I would not. Only a Democrat would do that because Democrats are wimps, stupid, and dumb. I hope none of you are pro-Kerry because all Democrats need to go to France and are lacking souls.” This complete disregard for unbiased reasoning—and logic in general—is not limited to one side of the fence, however. If directed toward another student less interested in carbon-copying what their parents and/or Rush Limbaugh is saying and more interested in saying whatever “the man” is not advocating, the answer may come out as, “Well, yes, I would. Goodness knows that we need to release as many rehabilitated prisoners as we can to save money since we’re wasting so much fighting a pointless war over fictional weaponry that Bush invented to take everyone’s attention off the fact that he has lost more jobs since any president since Herbert Hoover and—“. “Thank you for answering the question,” the teacher finally cuts in to everyone’s relief.

             These exact scenarios make me wonder exactly what it is that the political experts of Catholic High School, class of ’06 really have weighing down on their minds. Is the constant bickering over who will be the government’s new talking head just a way of expunging the thoughts of lost love, lost grades, and lost minds? Or perhaps the lost days of old where we could simply sit around the school’s modest bell tower and beg Erick Piller for his level ninety-nine Pikachu? Whatever the true qualms are, I may never know, as I am never guilty of such a crime. As a matter of fact, there is only one dilemma stressing me out from time to time—the fruitless attempts to understand the thought process of those whose opinion on **edited** marriage is not identical to mine.

             Honestly, I mean, what is with the Grand Old Party being fundamentally against homosexuals taking part in the act of a marriage as opposed to a mere civil union? In my most humble opinion, Republicans marching stoutly along party-lines in regard to **edited** marriage are off their rocker. The question is not, “Why allow **edited** marriage?” No, the question to ask is surely, “Why not allow **edited** marriage?” The largely conservative bloc of the media—talk radio—says that it destroys the institution, but I argue that it will strengthen it! Homosexual couples do not wish to hold the sacred title in order to subvert marriage or because they despise it, but because they believe in and cherish the concept of that union so strongly. And as for the definition of the term being “between a man and a woman”, well, one could point out that for the longest time the definition of marriage was “a contract where a woman is the legal property of her husband”. In ages past women could not vote, blacks could not attend the same schools, and in the present, homosexuals cannot marry. The United States of America was founded on ideas of equality, protection of the minority, and progressive thinking, so why must we move away from the ideals of our founding fathers?

             In any case, today is a new day and we have our entire lives ahead of us—we should not waste precious time arguing aimlessly at every given chance. I mean, for crying out loud, very few of our classmates can even vote! Worry about the important things in life such as your friends, your English class, and Pokemon while those are still the most grave and significant metaphorical objects in our once-again metaphorical perspectives. I understand that this rant has been lengthy, so I will sum up the entire address: English class is not free-speech alley (or a place for unfairly biased political rhetoric), and Republicans are dumb.

 Well done Ejp414. It was well written and in my opinion you make some very valid points.  Good luck with reading it.

You ejp are a fine writer .

oh...you mispelled block in the second to last paragraph.

nice paper

about what? and why would one want to turn in a paper with a word not spelled correctly?

even the best can overlook a mistake