Sunday, April 27, 2014

Excessive Preaching, or Glitter by the Bushel

  In my "spare time", whatever that finally proves to be, I have taken on a part-time job. I am working nights, at the local public schools, as a "custodian", which is a mild (and face saving) way of saying "janitor"! I will not tell you here which schools exactly we work nights at, but being the observant chap that I am, I do notice things after only one week on the job. I am not certain as to how best to go about mentioning it, since this is (clearly) a touchy subject, which is to say; women are involved. So, just be prepared (in advance) to be possibly offended by my profound "insensitivity"!
   Okay then, let us begin. Uhm, since when did classrooms become "eating stations"? Why am I finding pizza (?) boxes? Why is there popcorn on the floor in here? Is lunch time just too too far removed in time and space for these little rascals to "endure" hunger, without pounding down a few hundred calories, every hour or so? When was it exactly, between 1976 and the present; that the cafeteria and the classroom became interchangeably places to eat? I would also like to know, is all this grub being bought on the taxpayer's dime? Am I the one buying the pizza? Can I have some? Such constant eating, in order to "maintain one's strength", strikes me as "odd", at the very minimum. Is the big idea here to have the little rascals putting on some serious poundage? Who wins there? Teachers, who are nearly all female, actually believe that in order to lose weight it is "important" to keep-eating...have you noticed?
   For the past four months, I have been losing some weight, about forty pounds thus far. The shocking reality of the phenomenon is that; in order to do so, (1). I quit eating so much, and (2). I consistently work off more fuel than I eat. Uniformly, when presented with the fait accompli of such loss, not a single fem-bod which I have encountered..."approves"! Each one of them (in their own way), proposes the; "But, you've 'got to' eat!" theory. According to this view, the way to lose weight, is to continue to eat?...go figure. Women are (I think) generally opposed to the idea of quitting eating (it, as a kind of "anti-life" type of thing?), and in fact believe that such behavior is "dangerous". Dangerous to whom precisely, or just what said "danger" is, we are not normally informed of by our fem-experts. And as coincidence would have it, the vast screaming majority of government school's employees are fems, and well; you see the connection I am making then? It is a little bit like the last ten years, and it's weird-pants craze of water bottles. Just when was it (date-wise I mean), that it became "wise" to always and everywhere be taking tiny sips from a water bottle? I mean, just how "serious" is the dehydration "issue", when we consider that we discuss an air-conditioned, indoor space? Okay, so if a guy were out breaking rocks with a hammer in the sun for ten hours, without a drink, that (possibly) could present some hydration problems, but in the cool air?, sitting down in a classroom?, never once breaking a rock, nor even lifting (much less swinging!), a hammer? Please...Men and women really do differ, and at minimum, we really do disagree on just how to view "nutrition". Let's just start there! So, any other "custodial" insights you'd care to note then; Mr. Zany Misogynist Pants? Sure, how about that whole glitter thing?
   The politically correct view of "substances" is that some of them should be "controlled", and/or suitably "banned". I am quite sure that you (clearly) recall that portion of the constitution, in which authorization is granted to the the federal "gubmint" to regulate which chemicals you may lawfully pour into various orifices of your body? It is in the "controlled substances" part! You know, the whole "War on Drugs"(?), which has been such a rip-roaring success! So, as a "custodian", I am finding the true list of substances which the feds intended us to (by the founders) prohibit (for our own good of course!). Item number one on my "custodial" list of controlled substances to be banned by law from government schools, is...glitter? Not to be an insensitive boor at this juncture, but aren't we herein discussing "high schools"? This is not third graders we are talking about. No sir, these are the very-nearly "college ready", we yap about here? So, what's up with all this miserable glitter being used anyhow? In these toxic amounts, such represents; in this environ (such that it is stuck into practically every carpeted surface?), a true eco-hazard! Doesn't all this reflectivity also contribute to global warming? Talk about "scary"! Did we (the taxpayers); get a really, REALLY good deal on the junk, if we would but simply order the crud by the bushel, or something? Why are 17 year olds playing with glitter and glue anyhow? And if the goal of "education" is to make shiny (ugly) "posters" after all, rather than to master grammar, history, or logic couldn't we just do without the final five to eight years of state indoctrination? Couldn't ten year olds manufacture equally "pretty posters", just as well as our eighteeners? And it is this oafish chauvinism of mine, which brings us to my actual "custodial" gripe, the one I have (so far) only alluded to! Back when I attended the misery which is "high school", there was not nearly so much excessive preaching going on!
  The constant and nattering harangue, this self-righteous badgering, from the position of the moralist's "superiority complex", does not "belong" in our schools! Isn't this bellyache of mine here, just almost exactly what the schools themselves level against Christianity? Think for a moment of the yearly battles over manger scenes, or the moronic arguments about whether it is "legal" for a Bible study to meet, voluntarily on school grounds. Recall the outrage, the "danger" of preaching on school grounds by the "open minded, and educated professionals". Isn't such "danger" a bit like that of, in the classroom, just not "enough eating"? That is; this kind of "danger", exists mainly between your ears! What about those legal fights over whether a kid can have a picture of Jesus on his tee shirt, or "intolerantly" pass out candy with scripture verses attached? Aren't we always and everywhere warned about the "dangers of crossing that constitutional line"? Well guess what, as a part-time "custodian", I am deeply offended by the incessant, and narrow preaching going on at taxpayer expense, inside our schools! Do you doubt me?
   Enter one of our "schools" and just peer intently for about four seconds, at the walls. I swear; producing these propaganda posters must take the lion's share of our "student's" time! The glitter alone, weighing in at pounds, not ounces, (at least that portion of the stuff that stuck, and didn't end up in the carpet), is there in front of you, forming "important messages". I (for one), find the words to be disturbing. "End bullying at X-high now!", or how about "Excellence begins here!"? The sign proposing that "4 out of 5 Rap Songs Feature Drug Use", certainly makes one wonder. Is this an endorsement of drug use, or a pitch for the "federally mandated War on Drugs", it's "opposite"? It is hard to say for certain. In either case, glitter by the kilo; certainly catches one's eye. And recall that you are the one paying for this narrow-minded puritanism sir! Where, I ask, is the much vaunted "inclusion" for those drug-using, rap music addicted; deeply un-excellent bullies among us? Aren't they, (also) "our precious children"(!), being thus ostracised, by religious bigotry, and a hypocritical, intolerant fundamentalism here? If they can use that hammer, why can't we? The religion may be called marxism, but utterly religious it remains!
   To be clear here, I just hope you understand in this, that the preaching of righteousness, is itself a covenantal activity. Say it this way. When Mom said to you, in her threatening (yet endearing!) manner; "You better straighten up young man!", you instinctively grasped that such a thing was indeed, both desirable, and do-able! In short, the contractual aspect of the preaching of righteousness, supposes a kind of estate where-in the terms are either met, or meet-able. Are we on the same page here? Well then; that being said, the terms of true righteousness, that of meeting the expectation-demands of the Most High, are not, and cannot be met, nor are they meetable, by us. The standard remains "perfection", regardless of any "ability" on our part to ratify same. For this reason, and for this alone, the "world" hates and rejects faith. How "narrow", how "intolerant" is that? Just because a thing is impossible, they reject it? Likewise, for this reason, and for this alone, Christianity, (not Islam!) is seen as "narrow". And I am not eager to bring this up here, but this is the same thing we have been looking at all along (in this C.P.E. at least). This type of thinking, is (fundamentally) "feminine".
   The fem-bot view is essentially that it would be (by definition), "unfair" (therefore unjust?), to expect and demand terms of an agreement which one side could not, nor would not (supposing ability), ever, ever fulfill. And it is this feminine "righteousness" itself which we are observing here as janitor commentators. You "can" (indeed) "end bullying here at school X" supposing of course, that you are the one defining the theory and practice of same. You are (in fact), able to "strive for excellence", supposing you cared for a moment to do so. This would be true also, if that said "excellence" defined, meant mainly gluing on improbable amounts of glitter to propaganda posters... Sure, you could do so, but where is the hope in that?
   If hope turns out to be built upon the crappy, shallow foundation of my "inherent goodness", or my shabby "ability", then even I am unable to care! No sir. True preaching says two things at once. The standard-acceptable is perfection (and perfection alone), and this be true forever so! This formats point one. The second is that, the agreement, the contract (covenant really) is struck between the Father and the Son. It was never between "god and man". That kind of lousy half-wit agreement, is all about "Trying harder, to be a more loving, caring individual", you know? It is all that idiotic guck, and goo about "positivity", and "Trying your very-very best"? Melancholy molasses, maudlin sentiment we find here. In the end, it is just the flip-side to you blowing your (stupid) brains out. It is the "up-side" in "sui-cide"...hooray for that? What "hope" there is in it, is precisely what kills the heart, because the fem-hope is that maybe with enough make-up, lies, and wheedling I can skid across the finish line, on mere charm alone?
   Here is the covenant. Sampson (my personal hero!), alone, sad and beaten is chained to the posts in his foe's house. He calls to YAH, "One more time, give me strength!". He pulls with all there is in him. It is not, nor could it ever be; "good enough". With a shout, and in the Spirit, he proceeds to pull down, with a strength not his own, the house! He kills more in that one day than in all his other mighty exploits... This guy, you gotta love! Meanwhile, the "true Sampson", with one Almighty heave, pulls down...reality itself? All his foes, ALL of His enemies, are crushed. There are no survivors.
   Well, that is not quite true. The true Sampson, after wrecking the "Is", Himself emerges alive from that awesome catastrophe. But wait! There are others! Ah, I see it now, all them that were "hidden under (and with, Him)" in that crash, they too survived! That "tiny flock" made it, by hiding under Him! That is covenant, that is the real. Start there, and lose the glitter already!
   He says to Abe, "Yo Abe, get me a head-count on the stars will ya?". Then Abe will know the number of his descendants, the size of the tiny flock! "Hey Abe-ster, sit down at the beach, I need a count on the grains of sand, so that you can know the throng which is found hidden in His, the true Sampson's side!". The reality of hope is that you shall stand again, not by your power, not because you deserve it, not for your renown. The reality of hope is that you are loved, you really are! But was for "Another's" sake, all along, there never was "another option". The snake lied! The fact of hope is; you are welcomed, (you really are!) but it was always because He-first, was and is welcomed. Start there, and ditch the glitter will ya?

No comments:

Post a Comment