separate schools

Another Eye Weekly thing. I got a generously long e-mail response when I questioned an Eye assertion that "we" the general public fund separate schools and that they are anwerable to all taxpayers. I still say I'm right.

Separate School trusties or board members are elected by Catholics who in turn DON'T get to vote for public school board members. Board members should be answerable to those who voted them in and will vote them in again.

Even though head count determines how much tax goes into each school system, parents do get to indicate on tax forms which system they want to support.

Those two issues - the votes and the tax allocation - are an agreement already made. For someone from a competing system to step in and say "Gee, those tax dollars should be part of the whole pool, and you should conform to the values and mores of the faithful Eye Weekly reader and back pages patron" would be a betrayal of a contract.

Even those like myelf who attended a Catholic Secondary School and grew up to question some positions of the Catholic Church and its prejudices must acknowledge that Catholic is the brand chosen by the parent (and in some cases also the student) and it should follow the expected course. A gay student who knows he/she is gay might be wiser to choose a more accepting public board in which to start a club, as opposed to where it is going to provoke antagonism. By the same standard, there is nothing stopping such a group from being hosted by its members instead of asking a political body (a school board) to officially accept or endorse it.

But of course my argument and my e-mail was reduced to one sentence that stripped away any level of reasonableness and my name was printed in the editorial column with my out-of-context quote.

Here is a more full version:

I appreciated the generous e-mail I got in response to my concerns about this article, but I don't buy the idea that money going to Cathic schools should be diverted to the public system at the expense of agreements already in place. I still say that - like it or not - Catholic voters vote in the Catholic board members and do not have a voice in electing the public board, so their respective trustees are accountable ONLY to those who VOTED THEM IN. That's where their loyalty belongs. And even if it is head count that determines the amount of tax money a system gets, and not just the space filled on a tax form, by sending one's children to one or the other system that still is a CONTRACT and EXPECTATION that certain antiquated values will be promoted. And with the proposed gay club you are asking a political body to take responsibility for use of a school room after hours and openly endorse it to what end? To antagonize those who voted you in, or those whose taxes pay for the school? Or to satisfy the opponent or competition? The safety of gay kids is a worthy issue, and it's not a case where Catholic students are reporting bullies and not getting action taken by the staff. That would be another story. We're talking about what might be a reverse-bullying of the Catholics by uber-liberal media.


I much prefer the old way of printing even a truncated version of the letter itself.

Here are som older letters to the editor:

Outreach and grasp
I say the positive principles we get from religion or stories that are considered religious in origin will survive the badgering of skeptics and the like. As a Catholic I would much prefer that my religion and its leaders embody these principles rather than pay lip service to them. The God I continue to believe in would not be so insecure as to hold atheism against one of his/her/its children. All the same, there is something a little precious and stuffy about organized atheism. If you are not smart enough to be invited into Mensa, you may still have a club. It still boils down to wanking away intelligence. Want to be considered a "scientist" without getting a degree? Join the atheist club and pay lip service to science. That's how it reads.

Older blurbs printed in Eye Weekly:

Tony Scott was involved
Re your review of The A-Team: In all fairness, the movie was well done. I can’t say as much for the reviews I’ve looked at. In EYE WEEKLY’s review, the critic says the movie should have been done by Tony Scott. Well, it is a Scott Free production, so both he and Ridley Scott would have consulted on it. But I will say your review is not the worst sample I’ve seen. Most critics will have this movie reviewed before they actually see it anyway, knee-jerk politics being what they are. » William La Rochelle

PORNO-TASTIC
I don’t know what’s wrong with Jason Anderson in his review of Zack and Miri Make a Porno (On Screen, Oct. 30). I mean it can’t out-­subversive EYE WEEKLY, but this movie has the groove those of us who are Kevin Smith fans look forward to. It has the individual stamp that allows for extreme filth to co-exist with earned sentiment. It feels truthful even in its depiction of the cheap and false world of pornography, but it is more about community and affirmative vibes amid the mischief.

Jason Mews has the audacity to casually shock us and somehow the worst you can expect is OK. Brandon Routh even gets to thumb his nose at gossipmongers with an excellent bit of casting. Seth Rogan and Elizabeth Banks are, yes, a perfect fantasy match in my eyes and likely to enrage (and have enraged) some female critics who want to go off on the obvious tangential rant. That might account for the movie not having a more uniform high rating.

It’s a good movie, fun, and exactly what it should be. I’m shocked that anyone focused on having too few fake porn titles. It has a little fun with that, but the movie has better things to do. And it’s not Kevin Smith trying to do a Judd Apatow style; it is clearly, scene for scene, a Kevin Smith movie, right down to Zack’s inspiration about a last-minute shoot location. It still has a personal voice and hopefully will reach a wider audience for Smith. WILLIAM LA ROCHELLE