Vouchers and Liars

This blog is in response to Rebecca Klein's article on school vouchers: https://www.yahoo.com/news/voucher-schools-championed-betsy-devos-151650433.html

Before we begin: I am not a registered Republican, I did not vote for Donald Trump as I am a 3rd party voter and I do not watch FOX News. Therefore, I am not interested in the same old tired accusations. 

Once again we have another article that is nothing more than irresponsible attempt to generalize institutions that obviously differ from Klein and Huff Post's ideology and in this case it concerns schools that benefit from vouchers. While Klein would probably deny my accusation since the author (I won't assume Klein is a "she" since a Huff Post employee might be horrified by the use of a gender identity) did admit that Huff Post researched other schools other than Evangelical Christian Schools I will show that Klein's method of presenting the material still sought to paint a general picture of all faith based schools that benefit from vouchers.


I Caught Your Bluff

If you look at the structure of the article it is more or less book ended by Klein's criticism of Evangelical Christian Schools. The middle section, which makes some mention of non-Evangelical Christian (and other religious) schools seems to be nothing more than a smoke screen and/or an attempt to appear diverse in the author's commentary while offering very little information in terms of what really goes on in these non-Evangelical Christian Schools.  To quote Klein: We did not assess Catholic Schools, which made up 29 percent of Christian Schools, since there is already a large body of research on the outcomes of students who go to these schools. Now, let me explain why this statement was both irresponsible as well as convenient for Klein's agenda.

First off, anyone who works at or attends a Catholic School these days knows that some schools are Catholic in name only while others are much more orthodox. With that being said, I can assure you all that Klein would agree with most of what the Catholic Schools in name only teach their students since they reflect the views normally promoted by Huff Post and other left leaning entities. Of course that wouldn't serve Klein's article well so there was no need to share such a thing. Further, if one reviews official Catholic teaching there is no doctrine that calls for the hatred or condemnation of anyone. Let me repeat that carefully, there is no official doctrine that calls for the hatred or condemnation of anyone. That means that even if your local bishop says something disrespectful to an individual or a group of people that he is speaking on his own as a flawed human being and not offering an official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. All one has to do is go to the Vatican website to access any official Church teaching because the Roman Catholic Church has never had a problem putting their official teachings in writing. In Klein's case, offering such a fact would not serve the author's purpose because the intent of this article was to disturb those who support vouchers to private schools due to the fact that they supposedly supporting some form of religious bigotry with their tax dollars.  Further, if Klein did the author's homework the author would see that it's more of the teachers at the Catholic in name only Schools that can teach whatever they want than the orthodox Catholic Schools because the administrators at the in name only school won't stand up to political correctness and hold such teachers accountable for not following both the curriculum as well as what was signed in their teacher contract.

Second, Klein's unwillingness to post any data on the results of students who attend and later graduate from Catholic (and other religious) Schools was just another example of bad writing. What did we learn in school when it comes to writing a research paper or doing a class presentation: we present the data as if the person reading it or watching us knows nothing about the topic. Does Klein really think that each reader already knows the data of those who have attended Catholic Schools and/or will take the time to look up the data that has already been documented? Also, what were we told in high school and college about using anecdotal evidence? Therefore, it is not thoroughly convincing to make one's point based only on Ashley Bishop's experience but Klein and many other political activists for that matter know that what little information they provide, even if done carelessly, is all that's needed to warrant the emotional response that they are looking for.

The consequence in this case is that most readers might walk away thinking that most schools cited in this article are just like the Evangelical Christian School that Klein cited at the opening and ending of the article. How convenient. Sadly, this method works very well and the track record for success when it comes to getting one's point across in this way is without question. Take for example back when the media gave so much attention to the homophobia displayed by members of Westboro Baptist Church. It actually led many in our culture to assume that most Christians believed and acted the same as these bigots, even if other Christian Churches had documented evidence or made public statements that didn't agree with Westboro Baptist. In other words, mission accomplished! 

So I ask now, is it really just an Evangelical Christian School that is guilty of brainwashing or does the media have a hand in this as well?

One other problem with Klein's supposed research is that it is so minimal that it presents Bishop's school like a chamber of brainwashing (sounds like a college, more on that later). I'm not saying that such things don't go on in some of these classrooms and I certainly would not agree with this type of teaching but Klein still failed to present all that we should know about this particular school because Ashley Bishop was not the only student to attend this particular school. For example, the left leaning Huff Post seems to be supportive of those liberal social justice warriors working in our society for the rights of those who are being mistreated and yet Klein didn't see (or chose not to report) if Bishop's school had any type of community service program, which of of course is a huge component among any type of Christian School. Or, did Klein seek out students who were peers of Bishop who might have had some positive things to say about their experience with the school along with how attending that school might have actually prepared them for success in their adult life? After all, does not the left support the idea of diversity and giving everyone a voice?

Were we misled by Klein? Did Klein purposely leave out some important data? Does Klein have a specific agenda to push a specific form of thought? If we can say yes to any of these then guess who else can be identified as a being dishonest? Exactly. The author of this article.


What is the Real World?

Let's start this next section with an inconvenient fact about the various forms of non-religious thought in the secular world: they too are all subjective! That means, they cannot be proven. They are an educated guess, a well thought opinion and in some cases, a conclusion that was a result of brainwashing. Some say that they are based on reason but the fact is that there are various methods of thought. After all, were there not famous secular philosophers who made careers out of refuting each other? How could that happen if they all used reason as the source of their thinking?

The answer is simple: there is no universal form of reason. No form of thought has ever or could ever be put through the Scientific Method and proven to be, once and for all, true. Everyone has a worldview and every worldview is subjective because even if it is based on some type of research one's personal experience also influences the way one sees the world. That means everyone is subject to some form of belief whether it's in God, the existence of aliens, if there was in fact one shooter in the Kennedy assassination or in Bigfoot. And guess what? It's okay to believe something because that is part of what makes us human.

Religious leaders are not the only ones who can use their podium to influence the masses. All it takes is an audience that believes anything one would say without question (Hillary Clinton comes to mind since no matter what mess she seems to get herself into there are those out there who simply, don't care). Take theoretical physicist and cosmologist Lawrence Krauss who is also a committed atheist. He pontificates around the world preaching his belief in the non-existence of God and does it in a way that looks a lot like a church setting. In that I mean that he speaks to groups of people who hang on every word he says based on the credibility he has in the minds of these people while he at times speaks of God's lack of existence as fact (plenty of You Tube examples to see). For his masses, that is enough because, after all, he is Dr. Krauss. However, when he speaks officially say in his book A Universe From Nothing he actually says: I can't prove that God doesn't exist, but I'd much rather live in a universe without one. 

So after all of this pontificating this is the empirical statement we get from this sacred cow of the world of non-belief? However, I must offer a genuine nod to Krauss since he was willing to admit this in any type of forum. Other leaders, including religious leaders, would have too much pride to do something like that. Meanwhile, the masses are still at the command of these very special people.

And that takes us back to Klein and others like the author who have enough readers begging to be influenced by their infallible words of wisdom. So let's go ahead and address another point, which is the separation of church and state. Klein states that the separation of church and state is a cornerstone of our democracy. False! It is an idea, not a law. Such words are not even in the Constitution as the idea of what it means today is a way of interpreting The Establishment Clause. Now I am not advocating a theocracy or anything similar to that but I am curious as to why one's subjective religious beliefs are excluded from interpreting the law but other subjective beliefs are welcome to be a part of the discussion. Well the answer is simple, many have taken on the task to demonize religious beliefs so we toss those beliefs without question because that is what we have been told to do. Meanwhile, we continue to allow two dangerous and corrupt political parties to interpret our Constitution even though it says nowhere in the Constitution that it must be interpreted and implemented solely by the Democrat and Republican parties. And we want to talk about religious people alone being brainwashed?

Some might say that we exclude religious beliefs because they are superstitious and that such beliefs are are not based on reason. I find that to be really amusing because the same person who has a problem with a biblical literalist  believing that Jonah was swallowed by a whale has no doubt about the things said on a biased news network by an news anchor that has been caught on more than one occasion fabricating the news. Tell me again, who has more influence on public opinion these days? And, in looking at the two examples, why is one a form of superstition and the other is not? After all, do people not in fact watch a particular news network based on the fact that they believe it to be honest and trustworthy, even when it's caught misleading the public? How is that different from a bible-thumper who believes that the bible is the very Word of God? I would argue that there is in fact more information out there to prove the bias and dishonest methods of a media entity than there are arguments against the myths of a holy book.

Okay, so maybe it is religious people who are superstitious, I'll go with that. So what word would you use to describe someone who believes FOX News, CNN, MSNBC or even Huff Post without question, even if it on a rare occasion? 

Still, there are those who will tell me that I am wrong and that religious people need to get with the times and embrace our modern ways of thinking. Okay, then let's look how many of these new ideas are sent forth. Sometimes we have powerful people like George Soros spending more money than any of us could ever dream of marketing the new idea in an attempt to make sure that everyone thinks the same way he does but again, that is somehow not a form of brainwashing. Then, as the idea takes flight it is further shoved down our throats by other political activists whether they are news casters or say, college professors.

Speaking of college professors, what better way to challenge Klein's claim that private schools do not have the same accountability and transparency rules as public schools? This was the funniest part of the article because if there was ever an educational institution that lacks accountability it's most American universities. (Do we also have time to discuss how Planned Parenthood refuses in many cases to inform parents of what they are teaching our children in our tax funded public schools? Criticisms from Klein or Huff Post for this lack of transparency?)

It is no secret that tenured professors sell their political and ideological biases in the name of academic freedom. Sure, being scholars means they can share their conclusions based on years of research and if this is done properly it also challenges students to really think for themselves and come to their own conclusions in the most responsible ways. Of course a good teacher will provide a specific rubric for each student to follow and the student should get a good grade if they do all that the teacher asked of them, even if they come to a different conclusion than the teacher, right? Wrong! Some professors will be disgusted at the ignorance of such a student who would have the audacity to disagree with them because they are so brilliant and give that student the "F" that they deserve. Do Klein and Huff Post agree with such methods at institutions that are also funded with our tax dollars?

That is why so many college students are forced to conform both socially and academically to both earn good grades and to be socially accepted in most American universities. To me this sounds like oppression and it's a heavy price to pay when some kids are leaving these institutions with 5-6 figures of debt. Meanwhile, Klein and Huff Post are silent on this issue because most universities that employ this method also lean more towards the Huff Post agenda, which is why they only have a problem with faith based schools that disagree with them.

Sadly, we don't see what we are creating in our next generation of young scholars. No wonder we need safe spaces, coloring books and cancelled mid-terms when someone like Donald Trump is elected to the presidency. After all, those who should be teaching these students how to wade through the real world of messy differences of opinion (that would be their professors) are big babies themselves! Did anyone stop to think that when universities all but shut down after the election results that they were in fact displaying a political bias? News flash folks, not all college students are liberal Democrats. Some are Republicans, some might even vote third party, some don't vote at all or are those wild rebels who identify as anarchists. Imagine that! What kind of society are we creating?

From what I can see Klein and Huff Post don't really despise brainwashing. They despise brainwashing if it creates people who would dare to go against their agenda.


Conclusion 

The true cornerstone of democracy is the fact that all people do not agree and are still allowed to live within that society. Snow flakes need to accept that as do religious people who disagree with another person's lifestyle. All of these people have opinions and each person should be given a voice. Sometimes we will have gridlock and when that happens, hopefully we can come some sort of compromise. But to silence people and/or to misrepresent them is not only irresponsible but also dishonest so while Klein wants to call certain people liars I invite the author to expand the author's vision on what a liar is.

Finally, if I appeared to take great exception to what I read in this article it is because I am a theology teacher at a Catholic High School and I would love for Klein to come and see me teach for a week. I would love for the author to see how I employ as many disciplines as possible when I teach my classes. For example, I use astronomy & geology to reinforce what the Gospels say about the events that occurred the moment of Jesus' death along with references to physiology and psychological studies to reinforce the Church's teaching on human sexuality. I also welcome any questions from my students regardless of what they believe. I would also welcome Klein to speak to any of my current or former students to find out the type of language and teaching methods I used in class because in my case, I use the allow me to propose rather than impose method because I respect my students as individuals. Then ask my students who disagreed with my religious views on the grades they earned on their assignments. Did they get good grades if they did all that I asked of them? I know the answer because I strongly believe in this quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson:

Then, if Klein has time to go even further, I would invite the author to speak to my former college students who had me in the Philosophy and/or Ethics classes that I taught at a small secular college. What type of hat did I wear at that school? Did they even suspect that I also worked at a Catholic School? Did I also grade them based on what I asked of them or did I mark them down for disagreeing with me?

Yes, I took exception to the presentation in this article because this narrow minded attempt to generalize schools that Huff Post would probably like to shut down failed. Finally, I am sorry to say that it appears more and more that people are seeing through the methods of such entities like Huff Post, which means that they knew of fake news long before President Trump used to word to exhaustion.

Just be honest and respectful and it's amazing how far you can go.

Carlos Arthur Solorzano
@csolorzano18


Sources

If you can read this blog then you have access to Google and none of the data I presented will be hard to find because there is already a large body of research that has been done on such topics.

Joe Morgan is Only Half Right

Recently former baseball player and Hall of Fame member Joe Morgan penned a straight laced letter to Hall of Fame voters regarding his feelings on the possible induction of players from what many call the steroid era. This is of no surprise because here is a guy who has always had strong opinions about the game and those involved with the game. No one denies his knowledge of the game and all that he accomplished as a player but his pompous attitude is something I have never liked.

He lost my respect during a game in 1998 during an on the air discussion (many times he would ignore the game and just rant about things on his mind) disregarded all of the home runs and offensive stats put up by Negro League star Josh Gibson (remember, this was the year of the home run) simply because he did not put up those numbers in Major League Baseball. Thankfully John Miller reminded Morgan that he played in the Major Leagues and was in the Hall of Fame so he was able to be acknowledged for what he did while Gibson's color at the time he played kept him having the chance to show the baseball world what he could do in the Major Leagues (I won't say the highest level because many Negro League players showed on many occasions during exhibitions games that they were in fact just as good as MLB players). One would figure that Morgan would have more appreciation for such a player because he came into the picture after players like Jackie Robinson, which meant that he didn't have to endure all of nonsense that Gibson and many other African America baseball players had put up. Then again, that pompous attitude of his got the better of him.

That is why one of the greatest moments of my life as a baseball fan was in November of 2010 when ESPN did not renew his contract. That meant we didn't have to hear the same old tired nonsense that we had to endure every time Morgan was on the air, which would include the following:

1) It always took him several innings to make his point about a disputed play. He would all but ignore the game that needed to be called so we can see the same replay over and over again, especially if he disagreed with the umpire's call. By the time he was done the horse was beyond dead; it was now a pile of dust.

2) His long standing love affair with Sparky Anderson. Sparky Anderson said this, Sparky Anderson said that...Joe, just write the book already! I have the perfect title: Sparky and Me. Get it all out at once and for all so we don't have to hear about it anymore. Geez!!!!

3) He reminded us at least once or twice a game that he won two consecutive National League Most Valuable Player awards. Yes Joe, we know.

4) The 1975-1976 Cincinnati Reds were the greatest team ever and that his teammates were the best ever at their positions. Ugh, no! In fact, how can anyone say that when there were in fact three teams in the 70's that won back to back titles including the Oakland A's who won three in a row with one of those titles being against his beloved Reds? Also, everyone knows that if the A's had been in a different city with a different owner that their legacy would be without question.

In other words, no one loved to hear Joe Morgan talk more than...Joe Morgan!!!

Okay, enough of the barber shop smack talk. Let's deal with the current issue at hand. Now that we are in a time where players from the steroid era are eligible to enter the Hall of Fame Morgan had some choice words to say about it. You can read a copy of his entire letter to Hall of Fame voters right here: https://sports.yahoo.com/joe-morgan-really-doesnt-think-steroid-users-belong-hall-fame-163744968.html#comments However, I would like to focus on something specific that he said because he sort of puts his foot in his mouth:

But it still occurs to me that anyone who took body-altering chemicals in a deliberate effort to cheat the game we love, not to mention they cheated current and former players, and fans too, doesn’t belong in the Hall of Fame. By cheating, they put up huge numbers, and they made great players who didn’t cheat look smaller by comparison, taking away from their achievements and consideration for the Hall of Fame. That’s not right. 

I don't necessarily disagree with Joe Morgan on this point but when he uses the word cheating I do have a problem with the fact that he only focuses on those who used steroids. Now while there is so much I can't prove with what I am about to say I do believe that there is enough material out there to prove that Morgan and many other baseball people are in fact hypocrites with their wanting to keep steroid era players out of the Hall of Fame.


Was It Really a Secret?

While Morgan rips the steroid era I have a hard time believing that he, his fellow broadcasters and most other baseball people knew nothing about it. It's no secret that the steroid era saved the game after the strike in 1994 and that would include Morgan's job as a then broadcaster (https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/14/we-cant-ignore-the-steroid-era-it-just-might-have.aspx). And while people like to pretend that no one knew about steroid use (just like public figures who don't recall groping their accusers) there is a very interesting part in Tom Verducci's book titled The Yankee Years that tells us otherwise (quote from former Yankee manager Joe Torre):

Though I don't remember ever having heard of this at the time, apparently former Texas Rangers pitcher Rick Helling was one of the first to blow the whistle on the steroid issue, at a players' union meeting in 1998. He challenged his fellow players to crack down on PEDs, to help make sure the game was played the right way, but his pleas fell on deaf ears. He repeatedly stated that, at least in his opinion, the increasing prevalence of steroids in baseball was forcing some otherwise clean players to consider using PEDs themselves, just to remain competitive.

I have a hard time believing that Morgan and many of his peers didn't at least hear whispers about steroid use being as close to the game as he was. And, if he did hear such whispers did it even come to mind every time Mark McGwire or Sammy Sosa came up to bat before a packed stadium of fans waiting to see the next moonshot? After all, how many of those home runs did Morgan see in person while he was also getting paid to be an announcer on national television (and ranting about the same old nonsense)? And let's not forget that Morgan started his broadcasting career in 1988, which was the same year people began speculating the use of steroids by Jose Canseco.

I would go as far as saying that Morgan not only knew about it but that he and many in the business of baseball didn't care because at that moment steroids were saving the game. Plus, at that time these players were still active so the possibility of them getting into the Hall of Fame was the furthest thing from anyone's mind. Well, perhaps everyone but Rick Helling. Of course Canseco would spill the beans years later on what was going on during the steroid era in two books as well as several interviews with many accusing him of lying. With enough patience and time it was revealed that Canseco was in fact telling the truth and was willing to break the code of silence due to the fact that he was giving it back to baseball since he felt that he had been blackballed. Man, that must have hurt since so many people to this day can't stand Canseco.

It was all about hype and making more money. Have we forgotten that in 1999 McGwire was named one of the greatest players of all time during the festivities at the 1999 All Star Game and World Series? Perhaps MLB was rewarding him for all that he did the previous year when he helped save the game since they were still counting all of the money that they made that year. Of course years later the truth reared its ugly head because...McGwire was now eligible for the Hall of Fame!

Now all of the sudden the same people who praised McGwire for what he did because they...didn't know he was using steroids (with how many of them being Hall of Fame voters) now referred to him as a one trick pony along with him being a cheater, which now meant that he wasn't Hall of Fame material. Right, the one trick pony that helped save the game.

Meanwhile, Morgan and all of his baseball brilliance was unavailable for comment.


What are Body Altering Chemicals? 

Does Morgan have a problem with body altering chemicals or just steroids? I ask this because we all know that his era featured many players who used amphetamines, which were popularly known as greenies. What exactly are greenies? Here is a quote from the following article: https://www.alternet.org/drugs/5-drugs-major-league-baseball

"Greenies" (Dexedrine) were a club house staple for decades beginning just after World War II, when ball players drafted into the military returned to the diamond having been exposed to the stimulant pills, which the armed forces dispensed by the millions. Another incubator of baseball speed-freakery was the winter Caribbean baseball circuit. There, players on seasonal hiatus discovered the two coffee pot system, where each club house had one pot with regular coffee and one with an amphetamine additive.  Talk about a morning wake me up!

According to: http://www.espn.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=kreidler_mark&id=2225013 greenies are ...amphetamines are classified by the federal government as a controlled substance (and that) it has been a federal crime since 1970 to use them without a prescription. Of course it gets even edgier when people identify greenies by their other nickname, speed. 

If this article is true we have a major problem here especially since claims that Hall of Fame players such as Willie Mays and Willie Stargell  supplied players with this substance. Of course the article also says that such players denied using or supplying this substance to other players and since its Mays and Stargell, who by the way also played the game for several years while Morgan was an active player, we know that without question that they are telling the truth. 

Interestingly enough, the article also tells us that Tony Gwynn stated that 50% of players during this time in the game used greenies before every game so are we to believe that the same wasn't true before his era? Or was greenie use something that reappeared during Gwynn's era after Morgan and his other righteous peers had already retired from the game?  Hardly, and if Gwynn was aware of what was going on around him who would really believe for one second that Morgan didn't know the same thing while he was playing? This could also lead many to wonder how many of those hallowed Cincinnati Reds (including Morgan) were also using this illegal substance.  Or was it okay because they had a prescription?


The implication is right in front of our faces so why don't we just accept what is most likely the truth? Consider what is stated in this article: https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/doc-darryl-dives-deep-into-strawberrys-amphetamine-use-goodens-struggle/

It's not breaking news that Strawberry used amphetamines, or "greenies," during his playing days, as did many players of his and prior generations (does this include Morgan's era). We've also known for a long time that greenies seem especially tailored to the six-month rigors of the season. They wake you up. They sharpen your focus.

Of course if you talk to players and coaches who will actually speak only about what greenies do for a player (I had this conversation with a neighbor of mine who is a former minor league manager and now a major league coach) they will tell you that it's the equivalent of several cups or coffee. Really?
Well one interesting thing that was stated by Darryl Strawberry in the 30 for 30 Doc & Darryl documentary was: "You take amphetamines, and the ball looks so big. It's like you could hit anything." 

This is very interesting because one of the things that many throw at players like Barry Bonds who were accused of using HGH was that this substance improved a batter's vision at the plate, which again gave him an unfair advantage. Ahem, and how many players were known to use greenies? And how many of these great hitters are currently in the Hall of Fame?

Perhaps Morgan should have been a little more particular with his choice of words because if he really has a problem with body altering chemicals then he also needs to call out many other players, including some of his own peers (and who knows, maybe even himself) who willingly cheated by using greenies.


The Elephant Grows Larger 

Of course there are those who will defend the achievements of some of the old time players when they take a particular back door route by saying that greenies, weren't banned by MLB at that time. Really? Do you know how long it took MLB to ban steroid use? That also means that certain players who padded their stats before the steroid ban also didn't break any rules so does that give them their pass to the Hall of Fame based on a technicality?

In other words, when it comes to doing good business MLB has shown in so many ways that they don't care what players do to their bodies or to the game. But now there is a problem with the fact that these cheaters who brought millions of dollars to the game are now eligible for the Hall of Fame. I disagree because I see not only a problem with those who are eligible for the Hall of Fame but also with many of those who are already enshrined in the Hall of Fame.

Reap what you sow MLB and while this is something that keeps many of you up at night know that you have more than enough funds to pay for the therapy. 

Of course no one wants to go down the road of holding players accountable for using other body altering chemicals. No one wants to call out the cheating that we know existed before the steroid era because that would taint the images of the baseball gods that we have revered for decades. I think we should because after all, we as a society are doing the same thing with other parts of our hallowed history. Are there not statues coming down and schools being renamed because of the truths that are coming out about other historical figures that we know and accept weren't quite as special as we once thought? Why should baseball be spared of the same thing if we know for a fact that crooked players go back further than the steroid era?

Now let's see if Morgan and others are willing to step up and take this argument even further.


Carlos Arthur Solorzano
@csolorzano18

Forging a New Path

On May 26, 2017 I loaded what was left of my classroom supplies into my truck and headed to the east side of Tucson to St. Augustine Catholic High School. I was going to add these items to my possessions that had already been placed in what was going to be my new classroom. It was a bittersweet moment to say the least as I had just finished a decade of teaching at a great school with great people but Providence takes us where we are needed and puts us in situations where we need to stretch ourselves in order to grow as individuals.

The summer was far from restful but staying busy is something I prefer to do because sitting around always makes the days feel longer. Aside from me joining the St. A's community my son was also going to be a part of the community as he was scheduled to start there in the fall. However, he was also going to take a pre-Algebra summer school class so I would drop him off and then stick around and do everything from and setting up my classroom to meeting with other teachers and staff members.

Once summer school finished I had some time to take my family on vacation before heading off the Philadelphia, PA to complete my final required course for certification through the Theology of the Body Institute. It was a wonderful experience and I remember being really excited at the idea of sharing this beautiful teaching with my new school community. My week in Philly went by really fast because I was so focused on finishing my class and learning as much as I could.

On July 25, 2017 I arrived to the Big Heart Coffee House to meet with my new colleagues. Everyone was very kind and welcomed me and the other new teachers with great love and kindness. I was really surprised how loud these people were but I was far from uncomfortable in this setting. That is because these people were filled with joy as they were having a great time being together again after their summer break. As we went around the room introducing ourselves I was really impressed with how many teachers shared how their faith journey brought them to St. A's with many of these teachers NOT being theology teachers. That was very moving because I had spent years at other schools where many of the non-theology teachers weren't exactly fond of the Catholic mission of the school, which at times made my job somewhat difficult since these same people would at times using class time to share their views with the students rather than focus on their own curriculum. Immediately I could see that I would not have the same problem at St. A's.  Aside from that it also made me to take a good look at myself to see how much I would have to live my own faith in order to fit in with this community so there was much work to be done on my part.

This new community included someone I had worked with at my previous school along with a former student who was in my class 10 years ago during my first run at St. A's. Everyone was genuinely interested in what I was going to bring to the school and offered their support in any way. Most people were really curious about the percussion ensemble as this was something that the school never had before. That was a great feeling to say the least and excited me as well.

Between all of our required meetings, compliance and training sessions I had time to work on both my theology classroom and my percussion room. It was especially exciting to see the percussion room come together once the instruments started to arrive. Everyone loved the look of the school logo on the cymbals provided by Soultone Cymbals.  Once the drums were tuned up I hit them and boy were these drums loud! We will definitely need ear plugs and some extra dampening on the drums.

Our first faculty Mass at neighboring St. Francis de Sales parish was very moving to me. Each teacher came dressed up a bit more than I am used to seeing and demonstrated great reverence for the presence of our Lord in the Eucharist. When the presiding priest offered his blessing to all of us for the upcoming school year everyone in the congregation offered their words of encouragement and then it was back to work for more beginning of the school year meetings. Again, I can feel how much this was going to impact me as a practicing Catholic.

Two more days of prepping before the students would arrive and for me the beginning of the school is never official until I have taught my first class. First we had freshmen orientation on August 2, 2017, which is also my 20th Wedding Anniversary (real life doesn't stop for milestone dates). Aside from this being my first day back with students at St. A's it was also my son's first day of high school with his entire class. It was a good day as volunteer students from grades 10-12 led activities and helped the incoming freshmen (and new teachers) find their way around the campus.

The next two days were spent splitting our 8 class schedule into what we call at St. A's the red schedule (periods 1-4) and grey schedule (periods 5-8). Therefore, it took me two days to meet and get acquainted with my new students. Four of my classes were sophomore theology, which is a class I taught or the first time last year. Most of these classes are smaller than I was used to but I appreciated the way that it allowed me to get personal with my students right away. Then I met with my beginning percussion class and that was very eye opening to say the least. First off, my son is part of the class so I am looking forward to sharing this experience with him but each of the other students were very excited once I told them what I had planned for them. We have a lot of work to do but their enthusiasm and my desire to pass on as much as I can to them is going to create something really special. Finally, I also have a freshmen seminar class where I am assisting these new high school students to all that high school has to offer both academically and personally. This is new for me but I am grateful for the fact that I am not working on this class alone.

Aside from my time with my new students I have also had some time to work with and spend some time personally with many of my new colleagues. Aside from them continuing to be so welcoming and supportive we have had some laughs, some great conversations about our teaching experiences while also having some time to share a little about ourselves. I am privileged to be a part of this faculty and look forward to working with and learning from these amazing people.

This new start has been a good one but I can feel the challenge that lies ahead. I am doing more work than I have done in years so the fatigue factor is already there. Aside from that, no school year is without obstacles and frustrations and I would be lying if I didn't say that such things haven't already occurred. However, as a veteran teacher I have lived with that my whole career and waited patiently for it to occur because that's just part of the gig. Thankfully, these things have been handled swiftly and properly and everyone involved dealt with the situation and moved on. I believe that this has already given me a glimpse of what to expect from my new colleagues so I am committed to being able to offer them the same response when it comes to helping them through similar things.

God is good but God also demands a lot from us. I have already felt these demands and they are indeed taking a lot out of me but the work has been rewarding so I have already felt the blessings that come from following what I believe was the will of divine Providence. Such a thing requires us to stretch ourselves while at times leaving things we love behind but in the end it is always rewarding for everyone involved. I look forward to the unfolding of this plan over the next several years.

Finally, my son's start to his high school career has gone very well. Each day I see a young man who is comfortable with his new surroundings so as a father I could not be happier.  He is in a place where he is safe because he is already loved and for a young man like him I couldn't ask for more.

Carlos Arthur Solorzano
@csolorzano18

Thank You Salpointe

Change is never easy but as my Kindergarten teacher once told my mother, it's the only constant in life. For the last few weeks I have been blessed with so much love from colleagues, former colleagues, students, former students and even future colleagues & students. All I can say is that I am not only blessed but thankful.

This past spring I accepted an offer to return to St. Augustine Catholic High School to teach theology and percussion after spending a decade of teaching theology at Salpointe Catholic High School. My time at Salpointe has been amazing and I have nothing but good things to say about an amazing school whose graduates have been making a huge impact all over the world. To be part of such a community as a member of such a distinguished faculty was always an honor and something I will never forget.

Anyone who teaches in a Catholic school setting knows that we identify our profession as a vocation and the one thing about a vocation is that it has a life of its own because it is in the hands of Providence. My journey back to St. Augustine's began as a parent in late 2016 when my son took the entrance exam and was later accepted. This was the school that my wife and I sought out for him because he is autistic and even though he wanted to attend the school where his father worked we knew that the size, the pace and the expectations would be too much for him. From that point on my wife and I started to make plans in terms of what we had to do in order to get him to and from his future school on the other side of town with the assumption that our work situations would be the same the following school year. There was never a thought of inconvenience because as any good parent knows you do whatever if best for your child without regard of what is most convenient for you.

Providence had other plans as within a few months I received an email from St. Augustine's that I didn't expect when they asked if I would be interested in a teaching position. I agreed to come in for an interview because as far as I was concerned, there is no crime in having a conversation. Once the conversation began they threw something at me that I didn't expect: they asked me if I would also be interested in teaching a percussion class with me having the freedom to teach the class they way I see fit while also being able to incorporate whatever I thought would be best for public performances.

The interview also went in depth with various other things from what we all thought I could bring to the school both in the way I teach as well as in what type of classes I could teach and/or create right now. This was more than enough to keep me awake the next few nights because I didn't know what to do. After spending ten years at Salpointe it was more than obvious that I was committed to this community with the belief that this would be my last stop as a teacher. I have taught so many great students, made lifelong friends among my peers, learned a lot about the teaching profession and had pretty much cemented myself in the proud Lancer tradition. This is why I was really confused as to what I should do once I received the offer of employment from St. Augustine.

There was so much more to consider aside from teaching because on a personal level Salpointe was right along side me when other important things happened in my life. When I started in the fall of 2007 my children were very small so many of my colleagues had a chance to see them grow to where they are now every time I brought my family to an extra curricular activity. I was also blessed to have my family close to me on daily basis as my wife worked for seven of these years at nearby Saints Peter and Paul Catholic School, which is a major feeder school for Salpointe. I have also taught many of my colleagues' children as well as many of my wife's colleagues' children while also seeing how my wife's experience at SSPP influenced her to seek entry into the Roman Catholic Church. My children also attended SSPP and would also receive numerous Sacraments at this parish so my family had a lot invested within these two great communities.

On an emotional level I have some memories that I will never forget. There were numerous Kairos retreats where I had a chance to get really close to many of my students. There were also service opportunities where I took students out into the community to serve the less fortunate, which was always a very powerful experience. Of course the main thing I will always remember was in March of 2012 when my father passed away. The Salpointe community was such a support system for myself and my family as we went through this difficult time. I will never forget that.

But there are times when God has other plans and in this case I could feel that He was pulling me back to St. Augustine. I know that there is more to this than just my son. Many of my colleagues have said that they are confident that I will have a great impact on my future students and how I would be a great benefit to that community. This really meant a lot to me because I was told the same thing by St. Augustine's administrators during my interview. This has been so overwhelming because I just don't see myself in this way.

So aside from obeying the will of Providence I must say that I do understand the weight of this new task. I do believe that 21 years of teaching has prepared me for this new challenge and that I really need to do this because after all, is there another theology teacher in the Diocese of Tucson who also has a percussion background that can fill this particular need at St. Augustine Catholic High School? And mind you, I have been performing music professionally longer than I have been teaching in the classroom so I know that I have a lot to share with my future students in both disciplines.

I have no problem in saying that I am both excited and scared but I welcome this bit of discomfort because it's time for me to grow as a teacher. Of course the first growing pain requires me to leave a place that has been a second home to me. Once I made the decision to move on I thought of Jesus' apostles after the Council of Jerusalem. It wasn't the council itself but the idea that once matters were settled they all returned to their individual ministries. History doesn't tell us if they were ever together again but from what I know this was the last time they were all in the same place. I'm sure they were scared and would have preferred to remain together but they had a job to do and they all knew that they were in the right place doing what they were called to do.

The goodbyes have not been easy.  Attending my last graduation was strange because I tried so hard to focus on the graduates and their big day but I kept walking through each moment of the day with the realization that it would be my last time doing whatever it was that I did. Seeing each of my classes go after their final exams has been harder than expected because I know that I won't see these students in the hallway next school year to get updates on their lives. When the theology department had its last meeting of the school year and used part of that time to wish me well they offered me a gift and a card with messages of gratitude that were very moving. When I sent out an email to the staff to offer my farewell and reasons for departing I received numerous replies of support with the main message being that I was doing the right thing for my son. Then there was the end of the year faculty luncheon when I was acknowledged publicly for my time at Salpointe. All of this has been truly unbelievable.

Then there is the other side of the story. I have been over at St. Augustine's a few times in the past month so I have spoken to teachers as well as students and that too has been overwhelming. My future colleagues have said that they have heard great things about me and are anxious for me to join their community. My future drummers are also anxious to get started as they are ready to make some serious noise here in the desert. Who knows, maybe one day we will find a way to combine my soon to be percussion ensemble with the Salpointe drum line for a special performance. That would be amazing because no one entertains a crowd like the Lancer drum line.

There are really no words to describe how I am feeling right now other than loved and appreciated. Aside from that, I know that there is a huge weight that I have to carry next school year in order to live up to whatever good things people have heard about me. I am especially indebted to the administration at St. Augustine's who have really put their faith in what they believe I have to offer the school. All I can say is that I will do my best not to let any of them down.

Finally, to Lancer nation...thank you for an amazing decade. Of all the schools I have worked these past 21 years Salpointe has been the most amazing time I ever had as a teacher. My students have meant the world to me, my friends on the staff are like family to me and I will miss you all very much. I wish you all of God's blessings and nothing but the best. It has been such a privilege to be part of what is a very special Lancer tradition. Thank you all for the invitation to come back and visit and I promise to do so when I get the chance because in my heart I will always be a part of Lancer Nation! 

Thank you Salpointe!

Through Time & Eternity: Back in Business

Today the ebook version of Through Time & Eternity has been re-released. you can get your copy now through the Crimson Cloak Publishing store at: http://www.crimsoncloakpublishing.com/#!/Through-Time-and-Eternity-ebook/p/82890473

I am very excited because it was a long process that brought us to this point. It required first lots of self-reflection on my part as well as patience in order to see the process through. But I am happy to say that I am most pleased with where we are right now.

As an artist I have always appreciated people who take the time to sit me down and explain what they think I need to do in order to make improvements. As a writer, I have always been creative with my ideas and decent with dialogue but struggle with certain particulars of the craft due to my raw background.

As a student in school I usually had no interest in English classes because I didn't care for most of the reading choices that were given to us. In fact, the only time I ever cared about a class assignment was when we got the chance to write an argumentative essay, which I usually did good on because I was always good with my research and had some clever ways of writing out my arguments.

In terms of my reading choices now and for the past several years, I prefer biographies because they move faster and because I choose to read books by people I admire or an curious about so I find myself wanting to learn more about their lives. I rarely read novels because I find many of them to be boring because they take too long to get going. You see, I'm a fan of Western and Martial Arts movies and everyone knows that such films do not waste time in terms of getting started with us knowing who is going to die in a blaze of glory at the end of the film.

So when I started writing Through Time & Eternity many years ago I had imagination, good research and clever words for dialogue but that was it. Now I realize more than ever how blessed I was to get the book published as it had been written before because in reality it was pretty bad. However, thanks to the efforts of my good friend Meg Villanueva, who is also an expert editor, I got some great feedback on some good writing concepts, which led me to want to reevaluate the story in its totality.

So as I started to proof the book yet again and that's when the artist also came out of me. I started to question some of my plot ideas as some of the previous material just didn't have the realism that I had originally intended. This also led me to go back to the religious folklore that I drew many of my ideas from. That turned to be a wise move because as I dove further into the traditions of the Nephilim I saw many great things that could help further develop the whole Angelic Conspiracy trilogy and not just Through Time & Eternity. Before I knew it I was now changing some plot ideas, which led to me to redefine some of the main characters while also adding new characters. I wish I could say more about the story but I don't want to spoil these changes for those who plan to read the updated version.

Fortunately my publishing company was most supportive of the idea and that is another reason why I love working with Crimson Cloak Publishing. To them I am not just a writer but also an artist and a person and they want me to be happy with the book as well. Aside from that I was also given a new cover to work with as well so it feels like a new start to say the least.

The first sequel is titled An Early Apocalypse and I have already made changes to that story based on the changes that were made to Through Time & Eternity. I am not worried about that book right now as we are now in full promo mode for the re-release of book one of The Angelic Conspiracy series. I am very excited to say that we have what I think is the correct version of this story. I am not afraid to admit my failings and need for refinement because life is all about learning and making ourselves better at what we do.

Finally, aside from promoting the re-release of Through Time & Eternity I have other writing projects to work on. I am finalizing my music memoir, which will be self-published on Amazon before my publisher re-releases it later. That will be an updated version that will feature many things that have happened to me in the last few months and boy will there be a lot to add! That and the fact that I will add many more pictures of things that I purposely left out of this version. After that I might explore some other literary ideas that are away from the supernatural genre in order to get a bit of a break from the world of angels and demons. But, I do have the outline of what will be the conclusion of The Angelic Conspiracy trilogy so once I get back to it I hope it won't too long to complete.

I am more than excited to say the least.


Carlos Arthur Solorzano
@csolorzano18

Your Arrogance Blinds You Master Yoda! The True Reason for the Demise of the Jedi Order

I am not ashamed to say that I am a Star Wars geek. The only reason it hasn't been a lifelong love is because the first movie came out when I was five years old. I still remember seeing Episode IV for the very first time in the theater with my family and have loved the series ever since (well, every movie except Episode VII but it's starting to grow on me). And, just like every Star Wars geek out there, I have spent years analyzing each film with other geeks, which usually causes those around us who are burdened with having to hear these intense debates to insist that we get a life. 

This is the first time I have decided to take some of my ideas on the series to a blog so I wanted to make it as edgy as possible. There is no better way to do such a thing then to take the most iconic character in the series, Darth Vader, and make him the center of most of the discussion. Aside from being an amazing villain he is also a key character since he is the one that was chosen to bring balance to the Force. Of course we would find out with the additional details we learned in the prequels that this balance occurred after Vader killed Sith Lord Emperor Palpatine in Episode VI. However, if you look closely at this prophecy we can see that all it did was foretell an event that was to come and NOT the circumstances that led to the need for this event.

With that, I propose that it was in fact the arrogance of the Jedi order that led to their demise and not just the deceit of the Sith. This arrogance was in fact so deep that it required the intervention of the Force to the point where it had to will the conception of Anakin Skywalker in the womb of a woman that was unknown to a man, at least at that time. This miracle if you will was due to the fact that the Jedi Order was incapable of doing what they claim to do, which was to be the keepers of the peace.


Blinded by the Dark Side 

The clues are everywhere. In Episode I the Jedi Council is aware of the prophecy of the one who will bring balance to the Force, yet are stunned to even consider the idea that Jedi Master Qui Gonn Jinn was in fact attacked by a Sith Lord when he reports of his duel with Darth Maul on Tatooine. The reasoning was expressed by two members of the Council:

Ki Adi Mundi: Impossible! The Sith have been extinct for a millennium.
Mace Windu: I do not believe that the Sith could have returned without us knowing. 

Right away this shows an arrogance on their part because it completely contradicts what we learn about the prophecy of the Chosen One in Episode III. While speaking with Yoda and Mace Windu (here, Windu has just stated that he doesn't trust Anakin), Obi Wan Kenobi defends his Padawan when he says, Is he not the Chosen One? Is he not to destroy the Sith and bring balance to the Force? 

If this prophecy were indeed true and the Jedi were faithful to the will of the Force then they should have in fact anticipated the return of the Sith and not concern themselves with whether or not they would actually sense the Sith. Further, when Yoda stated during the exchange between Mundi and Windu that, Ah, hard to see the dark side is, they should have also recognized their own shortcomings and realized that the return of the Sith was not only inevitable but also something they would struggle to identify.

Of course the consequences of their assumption and their arrogance would be catastrophic.

At the beginning of Episode II we have huge galactic problem as there is now a separatist movement led by a wayward Jedi named Count Dooku whose goal is to challenge the authority of the Republic. As this occurs there is an assassination attempt on Senator Padme who had just arrived to a Senate hearing on Coruscant to cast her vote on the creation of a clone army that some want to use to combat the separatist movement. When Padme suspects that it was in fact Dooku who was behind the attempt on her life the response she received was:

Mundi: He's a political idealist, not a murderer
Windu: You know milady, Count Dooku was once a Jedi. He couldn't assassinate anyone. It's not in his character.

Are the Jedi that naive where they cannot see that first, a political idealist that openly opposes the Republic is in fact a danger to their way of life as well as those that they have sworn to protect? Remember, Padme arrived to Coruscant to vote on the creation of a clone army. Why would such a discussion even be necessary unless the separatist movement was already seen as an actual threat? Further, if someone turned away the Jedi Order how could you not be suspicious of them especially if they are now leading the movement that openly opposes the government that the Jedi Order has sworn to protect? Have they not even considered the possibility that Dooku was being tempted by the dark side of the Force? After all, how often does Yoda of all beings (I guess that would be the appropriate word since he is not human) preach against such things?

Meanwhile, Chancellor Palpatine is in fact Sith Lord that they are now looking for and he is right in front of them with none of them being able to sense his presence. Perhaps this is possible since Palpatine has in fact done whatever he needed to do with the assistance of the Force to be able to maneuver among the Jedi as they continue to look inward with the intention of perfecting themselves at the expense of the changing reality around them. The results are quite disturbing because first off, he was able to influence enough senators to vote him Chancellor of the Republic, gave him even more power. Second, this power would allow him to lead the call for the creation of a clone army that would eventually be called upon to help destroy the Jedi Order.

Eventually the Jedi Order becomes aware of the complicated events that would lead to creation of the clone army, which led Yoda to respond with the words: Blind are we! Right! Blinded by your own arrogance, which Yoda recognized earlier in the film when he stated arrogance was, A flaw more and more common among Jedi. Too sure of themselves they are. Event the older, more experienced ones. 

Now which experienced Jedi was he referring to? Was it Windu who insisted that Dooku could in no way assassinate anyone because he was once a Jedi? Could it be Kenobi who would demonstrate arrogance on many occasions throughout the series? Or, was Yoda's comment a confession of what he discovered in some sort of self-reflection about himself? After all, prior to to his duel with Emperor Palpatine in Episode III he himself demonstrated some arrogance before the Sith Lord laid him out with a Force lightning attack before stating the words that are a part of the title this blog, Your arrogance blinds you Master Yoda. It is also rather strange that Yoda would address the Emperor with such an arrogant tone after Order 66 had already wiped out most of the Jedi Order. If anything, he should have been more focused than ever as he had to know that the survival of what was left of the Jedi Order hinged on what would occur between him and Palpatine at that particular moment.



False Righteousness 

One of the main expectations of a Jedi was to avoid attachments. Obviously one can see the benefit of a Jedi not focusing on material things as it left them open to the will of the Force without distraction. But how does that pertain to their loved ones? The best example of this was in how they dealt with Anakin and his mother.

In Episode II Padme questions Anakin on whether a Jedi is allowed to love and the context of her question seems to refer to romantic love, which the Jedi forbid. However, as we will see the Jedi order seems to take such an idea to a reality beyond reason.

When Anakin is first brought to the Jedi Council by Master Qui Gonn Jinn they claim that this nine year old boy is too old to begin his training. This means (and we also know this from Jinn's conversation with Anakin's mother) that the Jedi take Force sensitive children at an even earlier age from their families for a life of absolute service to the Force. Therefore, the Jedi Order believe that it is their right to choose both the career path and personal state of life for those that they train before they are mature enough to decide for themselves. Perhaps they believe in the one size fits all approach, which means that they failed to see that one could go through a specific type of circumstance that could challenge this way of life.   

A Jedi has a deep spiritual side so when Anakin has dreams that his mother is in danger it means something to him. Yet, his own Master Kenobi just blows this off when he tells him that, dreams pass in time, even after seeing how much these dreams trouble Anakin. It is certainly noble for the Jedi to serve everyone in the galaxy and not just those who are close to them. However, when did it become the will of the Force to ignore the needs of a Jedi's family member simply because there is a personal connection for a specific Jedi? Is this really selflessness or a selfish desire to concentrate on the development of oneself to the point where one needs to remove all emotion from their being? Perhaps the Jedi see the temptation one could face to over extend oneself for the sake of a family member. If that's the case then send another Jedi to do what should be done but don't ignore the needs of that person simply because they are a family member of a Jedi.

Anakin's dreams continue to the point where he knows that he must find his mother in order to help her. It is a tricky situation because he was given the order to protect Senator Padme but we can assume based on his conversation with Kenobi early in the film that these dreams had been going on for some time. That and the fact that he had obviously spoken to Kenobi about this before. Is Anakin to believe that his dreams don't matter, especially when we see throughout the saga that many of the visions and dreams that Jedi have are in fact the things that lead their actions? It seems like a bit of a double standard.

When Anakin finally decided to go and look for his mother it was a devastating experience. He does in fact find her and she is badly injured. She then offers her love to him one last time before dying in his arms. First off, this confirms that he was right in knowing that she was in danger. Second, he had to feel betrayed by the Jedi Order because the idea of him saving her didn't even cross their minds. After all, what was he supposed to do with all of these dreams? Was he to disregard them and do whatever he could to forget his own mother in order to perfect himself in the practice of not having any attachments? Then again, what do we expect from the Jedi Order as they are the ones who just take other people's children from them simply because they see that they are strong in the Force. Meanwhile, these same Jedi do whatever they can to serve what they know is a corrupt government while disregarding the well being of those who are truly vulnerable. Is that truly a group of selfless warriors or a group of fools whose oath to the Republic has in fact forced them to attach themselves to the powerful and corrupt? Seems like a trap that their supposed righteousness got them into.

Again, it exposes Jedi hypocrisy and this is something practiced even by rogue Jedis like Qui Gonn Jinn who was known to go against the wishes of the Jedi Council. Keep in mind that he is the same Master who told Kenobi that the Jedi could not get involved with the negotiations between Padme and Gungan leader Rugor Nass while she was trying to create an alliance with the Gungans in order to fight the Trade Federation after they invaded their home planet in Episode I. Meanwhile, he didn't hesitate to influence the movement of the chance cube in order to give himself the advantage while gambling with Watto in order to free Anakin from slavery. It's always interesting to see when and where the Jedi will involved themselves with the freedom of people's behavior and actions.


Opportunists

The original trilogy is the best place to expose what Chancellor Palpatine was trying to convey to Anakin in Episode III when they spoke at the opera theater. This is where he attempted to show Anakin that the Jedi were not much different than the Sith. In some way he almost seems to suggest that the only difference between the two is that the Sith are more open about how they use the Force along with what they seek to accomplish. There is no greater example of Jedi hypocrisy then in the way the remnants of the Jedi Order dealt with Anakin's son Luke Skywalker.

When Luke finally meets with an older Kenobi he doesn't invite Luke to join him on his mission to Alderaan, he more or less insists that he come with him. Of course Luke has a lot of his father in him and did seek to be a part of the Rebel Alliance but this was also the same time when Kenobi lied to his face when he chose not to tell him that Darth Vader, the most hated villain in the galaxy, was in fact his father. His reasoning in Episode VI when he is confronted about this lie by Luke was that life was all about having a certain point of view. Nonsense! One doesn't get to choose how to see if someone is in fact their biological father because either they are or they are not. Also, even though events can be interpreted Kenobi more or less suggested that Anakin committed suicide by the claim that he was betrayed and murdered by Darth Vader, which is not exactly the same thing as turning to the dark side. After all, these are not two separate people so it was obvious that Kenobi was really trying to deceive Luke, not share his point of view. Does Jedi righteousness also include honesty or is Kenobi going to use the same excuse for such deceit that he used when he asked Anakin to spy on the Chancellor in Episode III, we are at war!

Yoda was also part of this charade. Keep in mind that when Luke asked him on his final trip to Dagobah if Darth Vader was in fact his father Yoda tried to avoid the question since he needed rest. It wasn't until Luke insisted that his Master answer the question that Yoda told him the truth. His reasoning for not telling him sooner was that he didn't think Luke was ready for the burden. Again, nonsense! What was their plan, to hide the truth from Luke his whole life or tell him after he killed his father? How would that affect Luke's psyche as well as how he would see the Jedi Order after having such a thing happen to him? Further, would Yoda and Kenobi, who were both fully committed to the Jedi Order, be able to do what they asked of Luke?

This was in fact more careless than the way they handled Anakin while he was having dreams about his mother. Anakin had to live with the fact that following Jedi orders prevented him from arriving in time in order to save his mother's life. And now they wanted this man's son, who Yoda described in Episode V with the words: much anger in him, like his father, to kill his Sith enemy without telling him who this enemy really was. Is this another lesson on avoiding attachments? Did they not see that this was something that could set him off..like his father. Imagine what could have happened if the Sith were destroyed by a Jedi who then went into a fit of rage and fell to the dark side of the Force? Mind you, this process would have also eliminated the one who was supposed to bring balance to the Force so who would be left to save the galaxy from another potential disciple of the dark side? 

Of course the other geeks out there will point to the fact that Vader did in fact turn on the Emperor because his heart was moved by the suffering his son endured from the Emperor's Force lightning attack. In doing so he killed the Sith Lord, brought balance to the Force and returned to the good side before dying. Yes, all of this was true but none of it was through the actions of those who claim to be the true servants of the Force.

This was not the Jedi plan! The Jedi plan was for Luke to face Vader again in order to kill him. Nothing was said about him facing or destroying the Emperor. They wanted Luke to kill the one who would bring balance to the Force because he had turned to the dark side. What if that would have happened and now there was only Luke, a Jedi knight left to face both the Emperor? Unless Luke would have agreed to join dark side the Emperor certainly would have killed him right then and there, and easily since Vader would not be there to save his son. Meanwhile, again, the one who was destined to bring balance to the Force would no longer be.

What were the Jedi thinking? Was it their job to rewrite prophecy and if so what does that say about their faith in Force? Further, the Jedi always preach patience. This seemed more reactionary and careless since they risked both Luke's well being as well as what could have happened if the prophecy had not been fulfilled. At this rate it seems like the Sith were more trustworthy because what you saw with them was what you got, including deceit because after all, you would expect a Sith to stab you in the back but a Jedi?  

As we await the release of Episode VIII we are intrigued by the title, The Last Jedi as well as the comment that Luke makes during the trailer: the Jedi must end. So many wonder what this means. I am intrigued by the fact that Luke went looking for the first Jedi temple. Perhaps he sees not only how far they have come but also how much they have strayed from the right path. If that's the case, maybe he sees the need to begin a new order of Force users. Of course many think that Luke has found a way to tap into both the light and dark sides so he meant that the Jedi as we know it had to end. It's hard to say but I wonder what came to his mind as he had to stop and reflect on how the Jedi handled him when it came to fulfilling their will. I can't imagine that it is not something that would not be upsetting to Luke.

Okay...that was fun. Truth be known I am a big fan of many of the Jedi characters along with Lord Vader. This is just a glimpse of a typical conversation I have with my skeptical friends who also love to stir the pot. All comments and criticisms are welcome for those who want to continue the conversation.

Carlos Arthur Solorzano
@csolorzano10

The New Witch Hunt

I find it amusing when I see headlines on the Internet or top stories on the news and/or gossip shows that say: "Today, so and so unloaded on so and so on Twitter!" Or, when someone is chastised for something they said or did, which usually gets us an apology within a day or two in 140 characters or less including hash tags.

Now we see that some people are in trouble socially because they actually support President Donald Trump, disagree with climate change or have some other subjective point of view on some other issue where such a perspective could in fact have a negative impact on their businesses or social status. Then there are those public figures who find themselves on the end of a question to see if they are in agreement with the cause of the moment. These days that is some serious pressure because their career will continue to flourish only if their 30 second sound bite satisfies the thought police.

America, what the hell has happened to us?! 

Either we believe in freedom of speech or we don't. There are no conditions because it is the law! A person has the right to say what they want while another person has the right to not listen to something that they find distasteful. Why is this so hard to understand?

I have watched news stories, listened to interviews, read articles, seen dialogues in films and/or heard lyrics in songs that flat out offended me! There is no other way to describe how each made me feel. So whether it was changing the channel, tossing the article aside or turning off the radio...I turned my attention away from such a person and if I needed to, took a moment to gather myself because like I said earlier, I was offended. Once I reclaimed my emotions I reminded myself that the person had the right to say or write whatever they wanted and that was it. Why was it so easy to move on? Simple. Even though there are times I may choose not to share my thoughts with certain people I will be damned if someone is going shut me down if I choose to say what is on my mind. If someone doesn't like it, they don't listen. Or, to put it another way, if you don't like the answer then don't ask the question. 

But what if it is hate speech? What is hate speech? Is it racial? Is it homophobic? Is it personal? And are we consistent in calling everyone out when such words are used? If a word is disgusting then it shouldn't matter who says it. However, we know that we don't in fact live by such a standard because we create reasons to give certain people a pass depending on who that person is or the circumstances that led them to say such a word.

Aside from that, what about what I call bullying speech? Sure, it might not contain bigoted language but the methods behind it are meant to intimidate those with some type of criticism or rejection if they refuse to go along with a particular progressive or conservative idea so I would certainly question the integrity of someone who would use such a method. Sadly, many would not take the time to identify or even agree with me on such an idea because such a tactic is acceptable to these people so long as the bully in question is propagating an agenda that they happen to agree with.

Meanwhile, aren't we pointing fingers at people in the midst of also pushing a relativistic agenda? How can we say on one hand that every individual has the right to define truth as they see it and then turn around and hunt our others down if they say something that we disagree with? That just shows us that a supposed relativist is in fact nothing but a hypocrite because if they truly believed in the relativistic point of view then they would simply leave the other person be in the name of diversity and tolerance. Well, that is not the case for many and such people do not see the hubris of their actions. Therefore, it could be argued that the claims of tolerance that are asked for by these hypocrites is in fact only a smoke screen because what they truly want is for everyone else to accept their point of view and/or give them the room they demand in order to live as they wish while having no intention of offering others the same. One way or another, you can bank on this: If someone demands something of others please know that they will NEVER give it to anyone in return. 

Why it is so hard to accept the fact that people are really that different? I have plenty of family and friends that I don't agree with on anything. We sit, we talk, we even have it out at times and then we sit down and have dinner or watch a ball game. There are no hard feelings because we in fact respect each other and in doing that we give each other room to exist. At the end of the day, what difference does it make? Aren't we usually kicking and screaming over what people are simply thinking? It's not like many people are doing much these days because that would require them to get off of their phones.

The fact is, no one has anything to gripe about unless someone forces you to do something you don't agree with or want to do. Both the majority and the minority have the right to express their points of view and if there is a passionate disagreement then so be it. This is America, get over it. What a lack of maturity one must have if their response to an opposite point of view is to be offended and demand an apology simply because they can't convince another to take on their point of view. Maybe the problem is that such a person is not as clever as they think and it is their failure to communicate that keeps this supposed ignorant person in the dark. If that is the case then whose fault is that?

If someone thinks they have the right to force someone to apologize for what they said they should realize that they are no different than someone who would force someone to sit there and listen to something that offends them. What is the point of claiming to live in a free society if we have to fear answering a question simply because there are those who await another chance to attack those who disagree with them? Such peoples' actions display a lack of interest in honesty because for them it's really about what they want to hear and not what another person really feels. 

Finally, are we really turning into a nation of cowards? Why do we worry about what strangers and acquaintances think? Or, why do we really care about the beliefs of public figures? How much impact do these people really have on our lives? There are in fact very few people in this world whose opinion really should matter to any of us. Sure, our parents' opinion should matter but at the end of the day we won't always agree with our parents so it really comes down to being able disagree respectfully and finding a way to coexist. The same thing applies to our siblings and members of our extended family. Our close friends really know who we are so why would anything we say or do surprise them since they are probably the ones raising hell with us? Our spouses and our children? Of course their opinions matter because we make choices on a daily basis that impact their lives? Our employer? Sure because they help us provide a living for ourselves and our loves ones. Our co-workers? Maybe, but only if they are not in fact on the hunt to take us down. If that's the case then we better watch our backs and most importantly, stand up for ourselves.

In reality, none of us will be liked by everyone so why worry about it? Why do we care if someone around us doesn't talk to us? Why do you care if someone blocks or unfriends us on a social media page? God forbid they do something like that? Bottom line: if a person is shocked by what one of us said or did then they never knew us to begin with so losing their friendship really doesn't matter. 

The funny thing is that we glorify the biggest cowards of all. How many people boast on social media how they unfriended someone who disagreed with them? How many will have their spokesperson call someone's representative in order to cancel that person's scheduled appearance rather than do it themselves? How many times does someone call someone out while staring into a camera in a studio hundreds of miles away? Of course we already mentioned those who do it on Twitter. Then people get together and ask their peers, did you see so and so call out so and so last night on....wherever they did it?

Things have really changed because when I was growing up you called someone out when you...

...stood in front of their house and called them to come out here, right now! We need to talk or in some cases, let's settle this once and for all! 

If you have a problem with someone then say it to their face. If you're unable to do that then call them up. At least over the phone you can hear their reaction to what you said while also giving them a chance to respond. If you don't have their phone number then you're obviously not that important to them, which should tell you something right away about the value of your opinion to them. Or, to be fair...if you don't know this person well enough to have their phone number, why would their opinion even matter to you at all?

Aside from that, what is the point of making your issue with this person public? What, are you suddenly special because other people share your tweet? Or, are you so insecure that you need others to like your tweet so you can feel like you're not alone against the person that you have an issue with? If you're a public figure and feel the need to make your issue with someone public then wait until some public event that both of you will attend and say what you have to say to their face. I'm sure you're publicist can arrange the camera angles to your liking. People are interested in what you have to say because to many of these people you are in a leadership position. So with that being said, lead! 

All of us should lead and we all know that a good leader will lead by example. Throwing a fit is not a good example. Assassinating another person's character is not a good example. Lying is not a good example. Rioting is not a good example.

It appears that we all have a lot of work to do and the first person I am going to call out is the person I see in the mirror every single day.


Carlos Arthur Solorzano
@csolorzano18