Sorry, no political rants today and I do apologize for my absence yesterday. We had a bit of a crisis. Let’s begin with a few rhetorical questions:

What do you do with a child you have loved and raised for sixteen years, one who is no longer a child but not quite an adult, who resists every attempt to learn and grow? One who finds himself jumping out of the frying pan into the fire more often than not, one who is consistently in some sort of trouble – whether it’s of his own making or involves another? One who has, actually, now been expelled from two schools?

These are the questions we are facing right now, and there seem to be no easy answers.

First there’s a phone call – and you must come retrieve your son, as quickly as possible. There’s information given, rather brusquely, and in shock you can think of no sensible questions. You call back, asking, pleading for reconsideration, but you maybe aren’t particularly coherent.

The next afternoon, your son is home. He seems calm and reasonable. You explain to him that you need the truth, the absolute truth about the situation. He tells you; he looks you in the eye, he sounds convincing.

You think about all the things he’s lost, all the positive progress he’s made, and you invoke no immediate punishment. Sadly, you really think he’s telling another whopper, but you want so badly to believe him. So you explain that, if he is indeed telling the truth, you are on his side; you tell him you’ll look into the accusations, try to find out what really happened, but also caution him that, if it turns out he’s lying yet again, he will have dug himself in even more deeply.

You ask again if he’s telling the truth. He replies, “Yes, ma’am, I am telling the truth.” You start to investigate; you talk to three people, you get three stories that almost, but not quite, match. Your son’s story doesn’t jive with any of them.

Meanwhile, the boy begins to rally the troops. He calls and emails students and faculty. Some respond, but their stories make no sense. A couple of adults respond as well, but the promised “evidence”, as per your son, is not forthcoming. The school calls on a related, but unimportant matter; the caller will not commit to an opinion, but urges you to call someone else and ask for more detail. Finally a well-regarded instructor responds that he cannot help.

He was expelled, and lied again. What he did could have potentially been quite dangerous. Or it could have been considered a prank. Obviously it was very, very serious. Who is telling the truth? Or there other issues, swept under the carpet? Or are those unimportant and unrelated?

I will not venture to second-guess the school. They have rules, by which students must abide. I do not jump to my son’s defense at each and every infraction; I have too much experience for that. Every incident over the last sixteen years has been taken with a grain of salt, so to speak. There’s always something not quite believable, and I must check and double-check. Too often I’ve found the source to be flawed and the culprit to be my son.

I was so hoping that things had changed. This tears me apart, inside and out, and I almost cannot bear to keep trying. But he is my son.

The consequences will be swift, and hard. But it still remains: will this change anything? At all? What will become of him, if he still hasn’t learned the lesson?

Lots of controversy these days, even after the election and the inauguration; you’d think folks would be sick and tired of arguing, but hey – maybe that’s what Americans do best?

Rush has been spouting off on the airwaves for years; he can be amusing. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not. His delivery is entertaining but, yes, frequently rather off-putting. Quite a few of my liberal friends think he’s a menace, and most don’t bother tuning in at all. That’s okay, to each his own. The reason Rush gets so much press is not because his opinions are so important, but because he’s so extreme in both conviction and attitude.

That said, I don’t know any conservatives who take him seriously. Well, okay, maybe one. There is probably another person out there too who believes “in Rush”. Seriously, though, giving much credence to what Rush says (and how he says it) is a little extreme; there are extremists everywhere, and most thinking people give them only about as much importance as they deserve. I’m thinking along the lines of cult members, holy rollers, terrorists, and so forth.

The current controversy is that Rush said he “hopes Obama fails”. Big whoop. He was referring to socialist or socialist-type policies. There are a lot of Americans who don’t want these things – they’re often called “Republicans” or “conservatives”. Look it up.

But the media reported this comment, out of context, then elaborated on the words themselves; most attributed the “failure” comment to the entirety of Obama’s presidency. Please. Those of you who agree with the media’s interpretation, take a moment to actually listen to what Rush said before you start clicking on commentary.

So, the next day or so, Obama retaliated. Is that too strong a word? I don’t mean it in the literal sense, as in “an eye for an eye”, but he did have a snappy comeback. He said that conservatives should stop listening to Rush; he said he’d won the presidency and that trumped anything else.

Well, okay. He did win. And it’s a pretty big job and all; the president even has a few things he can do without the approval of Congress. But unless we’ve changed over to a monarchy in the last week, being president doesn’t “trump” anything. Sure, you have better car service, a plane at your disposal, lots of traveling, great clothes, etc. And people do tend to listen to almost everything you say. And sometimes misinterpret those things.

Which is what the liberals say we’re doing. Oh, they tell us, Obama didn’t mean anything by that – he’s just being straightforward. Well, a person can be blunt and honest and still be insulting. I know. I have a mother who does that.

And they’re telling us we took what Obama said “out of context”. Wait a minute. Isn’t that what the media said about Rush’s comment? Hmmmm.

I’ve also heard several people mention that Obama shouldn’t tell us what to do as though we’re children, incapable of discerning rants from facts; treating us as though we’re sheep being led to the slaughter. Is he worried or afraid of something? I mean, seriously, Americans probably don’t have the best taste in music, books, television, or any type of entertainment, but I have yet to hear of anyone sending our President a letter telling him he should not listen to whatever radio programs or watch whatever television shows he likes. I don’t think anyone is presuming to tell him how he should spend any free time he can find.

Does he really think we vote based on commentary alone? Perhaps that’s why he has so many fan clubs and websites; after all, a celebrity needs to stay in the limelight in order to effectively maintain his base of admirers. If the media can continue to positively report his decisions, and quote him, ad finitum, if they can continue to spin things just right, Obama may very well be able to pull this off.