The debate between evolution and religious creation is always fun for me to watch, perhaps because it typically leaves proponents on one side or the other with a rage-induced aneurism after choking on the bitter pill of defeat.

I fail to understand, however, why this debate repeatedly arises in our public high schools, spurred by our teachers, no less.

If you ask me, it’s a shame that the argument is even given consideration in public high schools to begin with.

Amidst the soggy clump of mail I retrieved from a severely over-crowded box after a Spring Break jaunt to Florida, I found a rather ornate invitation to a “Christian Creation Conference” right here in Springfield, which is supposed to take place later this month.

Fantastic. Here in the “buckle of the Bible Belt” as Springfield is sometimes lovingly penned, it seems that one can hardly go through the day without over-hearing (or being caught in) the argument for either creationism or the evolutionary theory.

Since and before the Scopes showdown of the 1920s, this debate has pervaded the press, the pulpit and the university without end.

Recently, this centuries-old cesspool of fury and literary styling has leaked into our courts system for it seems the 4.6 billionth time.

A lawsuit filed in the spring of 2008 against California high school teacher James Corbett was decided earlier this month. Corbett was sued by the parents of one of his students for “using his classroom as a ‘bully pulpit’ to express ‘derogatory, disparaging, and belittling’ views about religion and Christianity.”

The plaintiff student apparently recorded a series of Corbett’s classroom lectures as ammunition for the lawsuit, including one in which Corbett described the creationism story in the Christian Bible to be “religious, superstitious nonsense.”

The court dismissed both the plaintiff’s demands for damages and an injunction which would’ve prevented Corbett from expressing any disdain for religion in the classroom; however, it was upheld that any belittling of creationism by a teacher constituted an “improper disapproval of religion in violation of the Establishment Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. Apparently, both sides intend to appeal.

The argument over creationism vs. evolution being taught in public schools has drawn grievances from philosophers, scientists, parents, lawyers, preachers, teachers, and maybe even Texas, yet what the argument lacks these days is the perspective from the most novel crowd of all: the students.

I’m not suggesting that we ask students what they want to learn in school. Most would probably just say “nothing.” Let’s be honest with ourselves though—this argument stopped being about the well-being of our students a long time ago. Like any heated topic these days, what it’s really about is being right.

The creationist people are chomping at the bit for the opportunity to outsmart or humiliate the heathen evolutionists, while the evolution people are foaming at the mouth at the thought of students being told that anything but a Big Bang and four billion years of Einstein’s, Hawking’s, and Dawkin’s created the world and built the A-bomb.

Has anyone ever asked proponents on both sides, “Why does either argument belong in our public schools?” Any answer would surely have nothing to do with what is best for the students.

I mean, how exactly does evolutionary theory inform our current ninth-through-twelfth grade science curriculum?

Does it have any bearing whatsoever on chemistry? Physics? Baking soda volcanoes? By the same token, let’s face it, studying creationism likely leads into studying theology, which also has no place in public school.

As a future teacher, I’m all about prompting our students to think critically, but not over issues so trivial and useless when compared to the rest of the curriculum.

This guy Corbett, for example, was a European History teacher. European History, people. Is there not enough history to pass the day with? Must we resort instead to creationism vs. evolution? Please.

In summation, Corbett was being an ideological quack who used his classroom not as a “bully pulpit,” but rather as a soapbox on which to vent his frustrations about creationism. He apparently found this more suiting than teaching history and facilitating the learning of his students.

And this kid who recorded Corbett’s lectures so that mom and dad could swat the mean-old-teacher on the wrist with a nasty lawsuit? A quack if I ever saw one. He probably spent more time cooking up that little scheme with the tape recorder than he did on his homework.

Both sides plan to appeal. Both sides believe they’re right. Neither side really cares about what happens to our students. Let’s all just stick with what works, shall we? Readin’, writin’, and ‘rithmatic rarely cheese anyone off, after all.

Do you know what a protest is? If you were asleep in your grade school history classes, protesting is that little addition to our Constitution that makes it legal to peacefully and publicly disagree.

If this is review for you, why haven’t you taken action? You’re a college student! Surely there must be something you disagree with. Every new generation’s youth is bound to get riled up to the point of mass public assembly.

What is it that pushes your buttons? Bummed out bud’s not legal? Feel the failure of Prop 8 is blatant integration of church and state? There’s lots to choose from, and unless you’re in a coma (be it clinical, technical or medical), something irks you, and it’s time to take action!

Sadly, most of us shrug off our chosen sentiments at this stage, and Springfield streets, full of potential for activism, are viewed routinely, and with the same bland indifference.

What is the source of this protest-procrastination, this inability to take action? I provide the reason— reality —in three parts.

First, many college kids don’t think protesting is necessary. Others doubt the effectiveness of suggesting change at all. There hangs a cynical haze over us, a cloud ever-murmuring “there’s nothing we can do.”

To them I say, shout louder! Protest gives us citizens the perfect opportunity to usher in change. Consider the civil rights movement of the 1960s – if protest worked to change the law then, why then is it absent now, when the law makes many angrier than I’ve ever seen any hippie get?

Another factor in our inactivity is the fear of backlash. I’ve overheard students planning to attend a tea party rally, nervously speculating the legality of holding a sign in a public place. As they worked themselves into a theoretical frenzy of canines and cop cars, I again think back to my history lessons of women suffragettes being beaten, political radicals starving in prison, rock stars and presidents (pretty much all our good orators) murdered and wonder why they did it. I like to think it was because they couldn’t help but stand up for what was important to them. Have 50 years changed this?

The final source for the lack of protest is the fear of being labeled an extremist. The words “protestor” and “radical” are not synonyms, yet a relationship persists between the two. The horrendously cruel actions of sickos like Osama Bin Laden on 9/11 and more recently Joe Stacks from last month suggest ramming a plane into a building makes a bigger statement than a peace rally does. It is our duty to actively disagree, to model the life of a true American revolutionary — in dedication of ongoing service to a cause.

Protest is not a dirty word! Our country was bred and fed on internal protest. It is our civil responsibility not only to stay informed on what affects us, but to act accordingly to keep the laws and legal practices that govern us in sync with the times. American law is not etched into stone. We would do well, as socially sensitive beings, to recognize this, and dare to not just question out government, but to demand our voice be heard.

Public schools in Texas may be required to teach “ethical capitalism” during economics class if an idea bandied about by conservative Christian and self-declared historian David Barton goes through.

Judging by this latest economic debacle in the U.S., Barton has concluded that capitalism is only sustainable when it comes handcuffed to the Golden Rule – treat others as you would like to be treated.

This set off my oxymoron-o-meter. Lately I’ve imagined the Golden Rule to be more like a Jesus-Wesley Snipes hybrid that comes along every so often to stab capitalism in the heart with a wooden bailout (or blow its brains out with a sawed-off guilt-trip).

Can capitalism and the Golden Rule coexist? I’m far more inclined to say “no.”

When economic times are good, prosperity abounds and unemployment is licking the dust, who the hell wouldn’t abide by the Golden Rule? I mean, why not?

As long as my pension (I don’t actually have one) is safe and sound, gas prices are low, and Bernie Madoff can lather up with Ben Franklins every night, what’s there to worry about?

I’ll gladly treat you the way I would like to be treated, so long as the game of Life treats me good first.

If there’s one thing that the latest fallout from Wall Street has shown me, it’s that when the rubber meets the road and times aren’t so great, self-interest wins out in the end.

True, the Golden Rule was still celebrated in corporate brothels such as Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase; however the good will stopped at the board room door with Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein and four other board members each receiving around $9 million in bonuses for 2009. I can just feel the warm fuzzies from here.

Honestly, I suppose I’m no less guilty in the end than Goldman Sucks—er, Sachs.

When bills are piling up and payday is still two weeks away, you probably won’t see me just dying to write checks to the Salvation Army.

Even churches (and a few televangelists, believe it or not) around the country have been cutting coupons and scraping the bottom of the barrel due to a sudden drop in the giving habits of their congregations.

On the other hand, when this economic crisis turns around, unemployment rates go back down, and my boss feels better about giving me a raise,

I’d probably give my left thumb to the Salvation Army in a fit of joy.

This is also the part in the story when Bernie Madoff writes a mushy, heartfelt memoir from his prison cot talking about an impoverished childhood and just how wrong he was to be such a jerk-head with other people’s money.

When times are good, people tend to be good too, no matter where on the socio-economic jungle gym you happen to sit.

Recent events may suggest slightly otherwise, I admit.

The outpouring of money and other forms of relief from the American people to assist a disaster-stricken Haiti has moved and inspired me, while proving that although many of us may be under the financial gun, we can still recognize needs greater than our own and give what we do have to help.

You see, people make these ethical decisions.

People decide to abide by the Golden Rule all the time.

Simply re-branding American capitalism in school curricula will surely do very little to inspire altruism, much less force us to make charitable decisions when the going does get rough.

Adding the Golden Rule into the equation would make a lot of things sound just dandy.

Ethical unemployment, anyone?

How about some ethical textbook prices?

Ethical Republicans (just kidding)?

Ethical war?

Ethical capitalism is just as ridiculous as any of these, and adding it to a few school books in Texas won’t make it any less of a fantasy, no matter how badly Barton and his cronies would like it to be.

You might want to think twice next time before swooping in on that perfect parking spot. According to the Springfield News-Leader, a young woman allegedly pulled out an ice-pick and stabbed a man repeatedly after she felt he stole her parking spot at Chili’s Grill and Bar on Sunday.

Luckily for the victim, his injuries were not life threatening. The woman was caught after fleeing the scene but has not been charged yet.

Now this article does leave some unanswered questions. Did she argue with the man first, before pulling the ice pick, or did she just come at him with it immediately? Why did she have an ice pick with her, anyway? How good of a parking spot was it? 

In any case, you know the holidays are almost here when people start stabbing each other over parking spaces. Still, an ice-pick to the baby-back ribs is nothing compared to what people will do to get a Christmas deal on Black Friday (like pushing over a 78-year old woman at Toys R’ Us, or trampling a Wal-Mart employee to death). Unfortunately, sometimes it seems we live in a road-rage, move-it-or-lose-it society. Common courtesy extends only to those we know or like; everyone else be damned.

I guess I should count my blessings, though.

A couple months ago, my truck battery died while my wife and I were parked in the TJ Maxx parking lot. I called my uncle to give us a jump, then pushed my truck back so it was in two stalls so he would have room to pull his car in to jump me. We were just sitting there waiting (obviously with some problem to my vehicle) when I saw these two female teenage Maxxinistas in the rear view looking for a spot to park.

I honestly think they considered ramming me before they noticed the two of us in the vehicle. Instead, they literally crammed into the spot behind me with their tail half out in the road. In the rearview, I see them flipping the bird. As they walked by going into the store, they yelled all manner of profanities our way.

I came out of that situation with a stabbing feeling of how callous and selfish people can be, but perhaps I’m lucky I didn’t come out with a stab wound.

Every so often, I find a book that absolutely moves me. Unfortunately, Jodi Picoult’s “My Sister’s Keeper” failed to do that. Still, I read the 430 or so pages in four days, so surely that means something.

Of course, this book was made into a major motion picture. Another book of this sort comes to mind: I have read/listened to most of the Nicholas Sparks books. While the puffy non-reality of said books is bothersome, it is fun to drive deserted roads and act out the scenes with more realistic dialogue. Anyway, I did finish “The Notebook” in one sitting, the only book that make that claim, but the movie was terribly disappointing.

I am no book critic, but Picoult’s book starts with a great premise: a young girl wants to take control of her body at the cost of denying her sick sister a chance at a healthy kidney.

As I am not a book critic, I will stay mostly away from critic-type thoughts. Briefly, though, I hated all the little quips. Just coming off Maugham’s “Of Human Bondage,” I like long, thoughtful paragraphs. So many contemporary authors put in little quips of this and that to draw out the characters or make something relevant. It seems like weak writing to me, and it’s made all the worse when a 13-year old is the one having these profound thoughts.

Most of the characters seem pretty cliché: the attractive, self-centered attorney; his overly attractive love interest; a brother who lashes out criminally to garner attention. The book changes viewpoints frequently, yet the writing styles do not change much from a 13-year girl to a high-level attorney.

Then there is the ending. Honestly, I did not see it coming. I will not be a spoiler, but I thought the last few pieces of story really brought down the entire book. There are about three things that all seem better fit for filling pages with twist ending than for the rest of the story.

Regardless, I do like the book for one reason: it makes us think about death. I cannot give too many details regarding the book without being a spoiler, so I will use generalities.

A few weeks ago, Newsweek’s cover story was about killing granny. It was a poor choice of words, but got your attention. The article was a response to the idea of death panels and health care rationing.

In college, I learned of the Nancy Cruzan case and subsequently read the book “Long Goodbye: The Deaths of Nancy Cruzan.” Already a believer in right-to-die, this book cemented my ideals. Years after she finally died, Terri Schiavo’s case was put into the spotlight in a similar set of circumstances. She died in 2005, after being declared brain-dead in 1990.

Picoult’s book reraises these issues though not in the same manner. A young girl has had many bouts of life-threatening illnesses by the age of 16, and a battle ensues to determine how far her family can go to attempt to save her life. All the while, I am thinking maybe death is the best answer.

I consider myself a thoughtful humanitarian, but it seems like this is a late-20^th century problem. Prior to that, a child plagued with these illnesses would have died early on. Obviously there are cons with that, but I think there are pros as well. For one, that child’s suffering would be limited. The child would not have to battle years of terrible illness just so the parents could avoid death. She could die in relative peace, and the family could move on as well.

This is precisely what the Newsweek article was about. We don’t want anyone to die, especially when we have the means to keep them alive. But think about that: with today’s technology, we could virtually keep someone “alive” infinitely. Schiavo had no brain waves for 15 years. Her body was kept “alive” by a breathing machine and nurses who probably could have helped someone else. This could have continued for decades longer. Who among us really wants to exist and cause so much difficulty for others? A paraplegic can still communicate and such. In other words, he can still offer a reward for his existence. A brain dead body offers nothing. To be kept alive by machine merely means those who make that decision do not have to deal with death.

All this life may be killing the world. This planet was not made to sustain so many billions of people and their wants, needs, and byproducts. That a fundamentally destructive gene mutation or illness can live long enough to reproduce goes against millions of years of evolution. It is not a pleasant thought, but the greater reality is this: people die. Perhaps it is not in our best interest to live beyond life expectancies, suffering through illness but remaining alive because of technology. Likewise, it is sad, but maybe some babies should not be strung along by science for years. Who benefits from this other than the families who cannot handle death?

This is not to say I am entirely pro-death. What about the 30-year old in a car accident. Sure, save him (assuming he’s not brain dead). At all costs if necessary. An accident is not the same as an illness. An accident victim can recuperate and get better. A terminally ill patient merely struggles.

Obviously, this is a tough topic. I’ve had family and friends with serious illnesses (cancer, leukemia, etc). One person had leukemia as a child and fully recovered. A friend from college had cancer and battled for a couple years before dying recently. In both these cases, I cannot argue against treatment. The leukemia was beat. A rational adult made the decision to fight his cancer, and he was able to live a great life while doing so. But what if the leukemia came back, in a rare form (I am no doctor, but in Picoult’s book, this is the case, and the medical problems are never ending…use that example)? The child in this book never did lead a normal life. And what if my friend had been reduced to endless pain and immobility from the beginning? What if he’d wanted to give up? What if it were a child who did not have control over his own care in that same situation?

I’ve long believed there should be a certain dignity in death. If a person wants to fight it, so be it. But that same right should exist to those who don’t want to fight. The problem arises when the young or old are the sick ones, and decisions are being made for them. Like society, it seems Picoult, despite hundreds of pages of medical jargon and emotional scenes, wasn’t quite ready to face the realities of this heavy topic.

I avoid “reality” television like former President Bush avoided books and Vietnam. The Jon & Kate Plus 8 saga, however, has recently crossed over into the ‘interesting’ category.

There are many allegations coming from all parties involved, and I am not hip enough to know about all of them. After watching Jon Gosselin on Larry King this weekend, I am able to string together a few questions about the entire drama.

First, it remains to be seen who is the true monster in this story. Did TLC, in all its corporate glory, find a couple it could exploit? According to Jon Gosselin, that is just what happened. Naturally, parents of eight children could use a few easy bucks. Jon alleges he was not allowed to consult an attorney per the contract, so does anyone really expect corporate attorneys to draft a fair contract? Did the Gosselins really know what they were getting into?

Then there is Jon’s behavior. Though I do not make excuses for such behavior, let everyone remember that sudden celebrity and access to money is often a road to infidelity and/or substance abuse. It is easy for the common person to say he will never do drugs or cheat on his wife. Put in a situation where attractive women are constantly available, however, and many a strong men have broken.

Again, I do not condone that behavior, but it would seem odd that America wants to chastise a man for doing what so many men in history have done; seemingly a bit of human nature, if the corporation truly is the monster in the room.

Then there are the legal issues. Did TLC have the right permits? Permits are not necessary to film documentaries. Jon Gosselin’s statements prove that these shows are not ‘reality’ at all. If they are directed, rehearsed, written, etc., then TLC would have needed a permit to shoot the show when it seems they did not. Another case of a corporation trying to cut corners to make some money?

On the matter of money, what are the eight children being paid? According to Jon, the children are paid nothing directly. The family of 10 makes about $1 million a year, to be divided evidently how Jon and Kate see fit. Some experts say the show brings TLC $186 million a year. With so much income generated by the show, how is the family, especially kids who should not be employees at their respective ages, not compensated accordingly?

Finally, there is the issue of renaming the show. According to Jon, he made the decision to cancel the show on some of the grounds stated above. He says the papers were filed before TLC decided to pull his name from the show. He seemed rather adamant about this, and it would be easy to prove. Will we find that TLC is merely pulling his name from the show to undermine his attempts to cancel the show for the sake of his children?

As this show and others have proven, ‘reality’ shows are a joke. Though the Gosselins may be repugnant characters willing to sell the privacy of their children, what about the corporation that would offer to buy such a thing? Though the story of this family of 10 has never interested me, the new legal issues have caught my attention. Will the verdict point towards Jon Gosselin’s lack of character or something far more sinister: the character of a network willing to exploit a family, and the Americans who would enjoy such a concept?

Seriously, what’s the deal with e-books? I recently read an article about all the advantages of these “electronic books” and how they were going to change the face of education and make reading available to everyone.

Um, sorry, but since when was reading not available to everyone? Pretty sure books aren’t hard to come by. We have libraries, which are free. This means everyone can read them. I just want to cry when I think about how in 20 or 30 years, most textbooks will be available only online. What is going to happen to studying outside? Are libraries going to turn into computer labs?

People that promote e-books clearly haven’t lain outside underneath a tree with a beloved book in hand. Can you imagine the future of this scenario? “Dangit, the glare from the sun is totally making it hard to see my computer screen.” “Ants are getting in my keyboard!” “I don’t want to sit my computer on grass…” The whiny possibilities are endless.

And what about reading in the bathtub? Not an option. What if you were careless and dropped your computer in the tub? It would be a disaster. And what if you need to look something up quickly and discreetly? Forget opening a book quietly and checking it out. Oh no, those days are gone. Haul out the laptop, open it up, make that annoying typing noise and find it. And everyone knows what you’re doing.

Underlining a favorite passage? No, now there is electronic highlighting. Somebody bugging you while you’re walking? Well, while you used to be able to use a lovely heavy textbook to hit their elbow, now you can’t because you’ll damage your computer.

Call me a book purist, but there really is nothing like sitting with a good book in my hands. It’s the weight of it; the smell of a new book; the sound you hear when you crack a new binding open; the feel of that heavy paper in your hands with the tiny raised letters of black ink all over the surface; taking a pen and writing in the margins what you think a certain passage means.

Books are beautiful and we should value them. The computer has already taken over so much of our lives. I vote we keep our novels, poems, autobiographies, textbooks, and essays in the form they were meant to take— in a book.

When I walk the crisscrossing sidewalks up to Blair-Shannon, or by the row of trees to the south entrance of Cheek, or up the steps to Meyer Library, what do I find when I get there? Three or four pairs of glass doors, with another set of doors just beyond. This double set of doors traps the air and keeps it from escaping the building, making it somewhat cheaper to heat and cool the air inside.

I see what they did there.

But more and more often, I’m seeing something else as I approach these storied halls. The automatic doors for the handicapped standing open.

The first time I saw this, I naturally strolled on through. I figured someone handicapped must have just used the doors. Or maybe someone with a cart or heavy load couldn’t find anyone to hold a door open.

I actually stopped and looked back at the doors, feeling the heat billowing in from the outside. No one needed them open anymore. I tried to shut them, the hydraulics were locked in place. I supposed the doors were just timed to stay open a really long time.

But they weren’t.

No, as time went on, I realized what was really going on. Students, faculty, maintenance personnel, visitors, mail carriers, a vast cross section, from all walks of life, were pressing the big, blue, square button and taking advantage of the automatic doors for the handicapped without any apparent need.

I see what they did there.

Of course, it’s a waste of energy. Of course, it thwarts the very reason for having a double set of doors in the first place; to keep the heated or air conditioned air inside the building…inside the building.

So why do people do this? Is it sheer laziness? Are these people so important or in such a hurry they cannot spare the half second it takes to push open a door?

And don’t give me the germ argument. Some people seem to think touching a door handle is like getting to second base with everyone else who opened that door. Wear gloves if you’re really that afraid or use a sleeve. Just be sure to scrub yourself down in the bathtub afterward, muttering the word “quarantine” over and over.

I have a suspicion it’s related to this strange impulse people have to use technology in utterly unnecessary ways. It’s the same part of the culture the electric scissors came from, or the Roomba or auto-tune. These are the people that get online to find out the current temperature… outside… right now. The inner child thinks it just cooler to make doors open by themselves.

Remember when you were six years old at the grocery store and you were walking in and out of the sensor, opening and closing the automatic doors, and your mom said, “That door is not a toy!” Neither are the automatic doors for the handicapped. So stop it.

See what I did there?

Also, push in your chairs when you get up from the table in the dining hall, for Pete’s sake!

Greetings, readers.

To all of you, from freshmen to grad students, I’d like to extend to you an invitation to contribute to this publication.

We’d love to add your name to our list of contributors.

As a completely independent student newspaper, we want to comprehensibly cover the MSU campus.

But we need your help, rather it be as an occasional contributor or as a full-fledged staff member.

You don’t need previous experience to contribute, you just need a passion for the product.

We strive to make The Underground a learning environment, a place where you can really build your resume and portfolio.

And it’s a lot of fun to be a part of a dedicated team.

Email us at msu.underground@gmail.com.

I was recently at a baseball game, and when I did not place my hand over my heart for the Star-Spangled Banner, a nearby gentleman asked me if I was unpatriotic. He could not have known his question would kick off a series of questions and tirades inside my head.

To begin with, there is the issue of placing the hand over the heart for the National Anthem. This used to be reserved for the Pledge of Allegiance, but in the past few years, has worked itself into the ritual of opening athletic events. As part of me feels that empty symbolism is one reason nothing useful gets done, I am not ready to comply with this extra requirement.

Then there is the much larger issue of patriotism. What exactly is patriotism? Is it blindly supporting a cause or an idea? Or is it trying to better a cause or an idea, even if it means judgment and criticism of said idea? I promote the latter.

Patriotism is kind of an outdated concept for me. It reeks of the same nonsense that comes out of the two political parties. To suggest a mandatory allegiance to anything is against every tenet of a nation that believes in freedom of thought and speech. Whatever happened to principle?

That said, I understand that the United States is among the best places to live on the planet. Is it the best? I cannot say as I only read about other countries, but it can be assured that the French, or the English, the Canadians, or a host of other nationalities do not regret where they live. To love where you live, and to support it, is natural. Ever notice how your favorite team never gets the calls at a basketball game? It’s always the other team’s fault. Amazing how that works.

To assume America is infallible because I live here is plain irresponsible. For wealthy white men, the history of this country is something to behold. For minorities, including women, and the poor, it is something else. Though this side of history is kept out of our schools, Howard Zinn spells it out in the classic A People’s History of the United States. Sadly, A Patriot’s History of the United States was recently published because, for some reason, we would rather try to recolor history than learn from it.

I am well aware of this country’s past, but it is the past. We can learn from it, and we can fix the future. Right now, I work two jobs. That means lots of taxes, and one would think nice health insurance. To the contrary, something as simple as a broken bone would completely deplete my bank account. Should I be proud of a nation that cannot care for it’s workers? No, I want to fix it. And I don’t want to fix it for just me. I want to fix it for all Americans. If I were born 1,000 miles to the south, I’d want to fix it for Mexicans. Wanting to improve life has nothing to do with being American and everything to do with being human. Holding a concept like a country over the actual people that make up that country does not seem so admirable when applied to actual life.

The medical system is but one system that needs fixed. Our court system is a mess. Our education system does not compare to most industrialized nations. Because our government has made us so cynical, we have one of the worst voter turnouts in all world democracies. I think we all know about the economy. All of these things can be fixed, but not by pretending America is perfect and calling anyone who disagrees unpatriotic.

Fortunately, a few people have stuck their necks out to effect change. Cesar Chavez fought for workers and is rarely mentioned in the classroom. John Lennon faced deportation to stand up for peace. Bill Maher lost one of the smartest shows on television over an opinion, and the talented Dixie Chicks lost their careers. Before all that, Henry David Thoreau wrote Civil Disobedience on the principle that the truth, not an idea, is what we should follow. Over 100 years later, the greatest American of all, Martin Luther King, Jr., used Thoreau’s ideas to peacefully change the nation in very violent times. He was assassinated, not thanked, for his efforts.

I was bothered by the man’s question, but not because I value his opinion of me. Not because I am wrong either. His question merely served as a reminder that change is so difficult because people cling to ideals rather than the truth. Ideally, American is the greatest country in the history of the mankind. The truth is, we will never get there when we start believing that.