Here we go again with the bullying claims. But this time the
big bully isn’t a phone prank, it’s—are you ready for this?—Christmas carols.
No, seriously. Christmas carols.
A group of parents in Montana recently wrote a letter to
the Missoula County Public Schools superintendent saying that a Christmas
program featuring traditional Christmas songs, songs that reference Jesus, is
offensive, unconstitutional and perpetuates bullying.
Their argument is that, in an area that’s—according to
the letter—home to a fair number of non-Christians, school performances should
be entirely secular, with no reference to Jesus or his people; and, should the
district dare to disagree with them, the parents have threatened legal action.
Nice to see they haven’t lost their Christmas spirit.
I’m sure we all have our own opinions about whether
Christmas carols in a public school are unconstitutional or offensive, but what
I can’t imagine we’d disagree on is the bullying claim. This is simply NOT
bullying and to label it as such, again, lessens the power of true bullying
claims.
Fortunately, the parents don’t want Christmas canceled
entirely, so fingers crossed that Santa brings them a dictionary. Or a clue.
Ironically, these same parents have no problem with the
children singing songs like Rudolph
the Red-Nosed Reindeer, a song that has also come under fire for promoting
bullying. Why, you ask? Well, isn’t it obvious? Because the other reindeer
laughed at Rudolph and called him names, of course.
__________________________________
Sure, she had to cancel the very few charitable appearances—or
“work,” as she calls it—she’d had scheduled over the last few weeks because she
was so, so, so sick with morning sickness (a morning sickness that was
apparently contagious because her husband also missed an engagement or two), but,
fear not, because it appears that Lazy Katie has made a miraculous recovery. And
just in time to go party it up with the in-laws at Buckingham Palace.
Glad to see she has her priorities in order.
Actually, it’s probably a good thing that she was able to
fit the royals in before Christmas, as it’s now being reported that she and her
husband will not be attending the traditional royal celebration at Sandringham.
Why, you ask? Well, because it’s very important that poor, mistreated Waity spend
this last Christmas with her family, as next year, having finally spawned an
heir, she’ll be required to spend Christmas with the royal family.
Understandable, I suppose, except that every Christmas, vacation, birthday,
wedding, etc. is the “last.” And yet, she and her family still spend more time together
than the Mansons.
So why is Lazy allowed to choose her family over the
in-laws, something that no other royal consort has ever been able to do? The
answer is: I have no idea. Apparently Prince William Middleton has absolutely
no backbone—or interest in being a royal. There are painfully few things asked
of the young royals, but Christmas at Sandringham is one of them—especially for
senior royals. For some reason, though, this lazy broad and her husband can’t even be bothered to do
that.
 |
| The Worthless Twosome |
When the king-in-waiting shows absolutely no interest in
taking on royal duties, spending time with his family, or acting royal in any
way (except for benefiting from the perks), then what hope does the monarchy
have?
Before Kate conned William into marrying her, it was
widely reported that after the wedding her life would change quite drastically,
that visits with her family would be much fewer and further between because she’d
simply be too busy being a princess. Uh, count that as one more thing that the
media got wrong. Her life has changed not one bit in any way that matters. She’s
still as lazy as ever, only now she has grander homes and larger jewels.
Could someone please remind me why she’s considered such a great
role model?
__________________________________
Lazy Katie may be the Most Beautiful (and worthless) Woman
in the world, but for an Iowa dentist (and his wife), his dental assistant came
in a close second. And, because of that, she had to be fired.
Melissa Nelson, who had worked for the dentist for 10
years, was fired in 2010 for being too “irresistible” to her boss, Dr. James
Knight. And last Friday, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that it was a lawful
termination.
 |
| The irresistible assistant |
In light of this ruling, a lot has been made of Iowa’s all-male
Supreme Court, as if their decision was completely sexist. I take issue with this
implication. I agree that this was a stupid and totally unfair termination, but
was it unlawful? Apparently not. And if the law’s not there, what was the Court
supposed to do? Rewrite the law? It probably wouldn’t be the first time that a
Supreme Court has rewritten a law to make something legal, but they’re not really
supposed to do that. Their job is to interpret, not create.
That said, this is not a dentist that I would like to
patron. A man who has to fire his assistant because he doesn’t think he can control
himself around her, is not a man that I want around me while I’m under the
influence of sleep-inducing drugs.
Just saying...
No comments:
Post a Comment