Editor's note: Michael Ackley's columns may include satire and parody based on current events, and thus mix fact with fiction. He assumes informed readers will be able to tell which is which.
"I'm so afraid we'll become an ecclesiastical state," whimpered Amy Handleman. Her hand shook so much, part of her triple vanilla latte spilled on the cafe table. "The religious right wants to impose its values on all of us."
"It sure does," agreed Howard Bashford. "Just look at the way President Bush keeps pushing his faith-based charities initiative. He wants to bring religion right into the government. Next thing you know, we'll be just like Iran."
A gentleman at the next table turned toward the pair, revealing his reversed collar.
"I couldn't help overhearing," he said. "I wonder if you'd mind hearing another viewpoint."
Amy appeared shocked, but Howard put on a roughly polite front.
"Sure," he said. "Sit down with us an explain how important it is for you to receive government funds to advance your doctrine."
The ecclesiastic scooted his chair around to join the pair, took a sip of his coffee (black) and smiled.
"I'm afraid you've got me all wrong," he said.
"Oh, right," Amy interrupted shrilly. "You just want government grants so you can witness for Christ – by fighting a woman's right to choose."
"No," said the cleric good-naturedly. "I don't want government money at all, and my church won't accept any."
"Well," said Howard, somewhat mollified. "Nowadays it's increasingly unusual that a church that recognizes the importance of keeping religious influence out of government."
"You've got me wrong again," the reverend chuckled. "I'm not worried about religion's influence on government. Without it, we wouldn't have the kind of country we have today. However, there is a much bigger threat to all of us than that."
"Then what is the problem?" asked Amy. "Why won't your church accept money for its charities?"
"The big problem – threat, if you will," said the divine, quite seriously, "isn't religion's influence on government, but government's influence on religion. All government money comes with strings attached, you know."
He rose as a waiter arrived with the bill.
"Let me get this," he said, seizing the check, "and, please, think it over."
Harmonic convergence: California's teacher unions, leading the charge against reforms proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, came to the state capital last week to characterize the governor's policies as attacks on the little people – like the teacher unions.
At the same time, the Legislature was looking over a bill by state Sen. Gloria Romero, D-Los Angeles, that would postpone high-school graduation "exit exams," for students in "low-performing schools."
The reasoning behind the proposal is that if we can't teach our kids well enough, it would be unfair to withhold their diplomas – "blaming the victims" in Romero's words.
Oddly, nobody seems to want to say explicitly who should be blamed. Implicitly, Schwarzenegger seems to be blaming teachers, but part of the answer lies in a teacher's letter to the editor of our local newspaper.
She wrote, in part, that students "don't know how to learn because it is foreign to them in their daily home lives. The best teacher in the country can't teach students who have no experience of being accountable for anything at home."
So, parents, if your kids aren't learning, basically it's your fault. But let us not spare the children. As they near high-school graduation, it is reasonable to demand some self-motivation.
You there, on the Right. Quit moaning because the U.S. Senate didn't drive a stake through the heart of the filibuster of judicial nominees. Sure, the Republican compromisers were spineless, but the deal still was a winner for the GOP. The written rules of the filibuster haven't changed, but the practical rules have. The so-called compromise allowed the Democrats a superficially honorable retreat.
And retreat they did, because Majority Leader Bill Frist and his minions – for once – showed some fight. It shouldn't be easy for the minority party to crank up the filibuster war again, but if it does, the rules change still awaits. So, stop complaining. You won.
In the wake of the filibuster debate, your nominations and votes are solicited for the honor of Most Supercilious Senator. Our nominees are Joe Biden, Charles Schumer and Patrick Leahy. And your nominees – and your reasons – are ...?