Posts

In recent news reports I read about a four year old pre-kindergarten Texas boy who has been suspended from school for having long hair.  Say what?  Is this 1959 or 2009?  I thought that the right of male students to wear long hair had been settled years ago.  Indeed, when I was in high school in the 70s, I wore long hair with nary a comment from the school, as did my son when he was in school in the late 80s into the 90s.

Taylor Pugh, who attends school in Mesquite, Texas, was given in-school suspension because school officials say that his hair, which  long on the front and sides, covering his earlobes and shirt collar, violates the school district’s dress code policies.   According to the district dress code, boys’ hair must be kept out of the eyes and cannot extend below the bottom of earlobes or over the collar of a dress shirt.

On the website of the Mesquite Independent School District, it makes reference to its dress code by saying:

“students who dress and groom themselves neatly, and in an acceptable and appropriate manner, are more likely to become constructive members of the society in which we live.”

Oh, really?  The Mesquite school district apparently has no problem with female students who wear long hair and do not believe that long hair on girls is inherently messy or ungroomed, nor does it doom them to being future societal losers.  But it would seem as if they believe that the same hair length on a male student automatically turn the same hair into a dirty mess, not to mention marking such boys as future bums or even criminals.

The school district’s rule about male hair length has nothing to do with hygiene or safety issues, as if it did, the same rules would apply to both boys and girls.  Requiring neat and clean hair for all students  is a reasonable rule — requiring short hair for one sex only is blatant sexism.

So far as hair length determining character and being a “constructive member of society” goes:

You’ll note the ribbon behind his head for his ponytail!

Though a bit thin on top, it’s long in the back!

I don’t think anyone would deny that George Washington or Ben Franklin were contributing members of society, long hair and all.

Likewise, short hair is not an inherent indicator of good character or potential to contribute positively to society:

I’m sure this style would be acceptable to Mesquite schools!

The point is, that male hair length is no reliable indicator of character or potential to contribute to society in a positive manner.   Hair length is simply a matter of personal preference, thus is an invalid thing to regulate when forming dress codes.

I’m not saying that dress codes in and of themselves are invalid, but they must be based on common-sense criteria that is applied equally to everyone and ideally be based on matters of safety and actual hygiene, rather than on matters of fashion.

In 1996, Bill Clinton made the following comment about school uniforms:

“I challenge all our schools to teach character education, to teach good values and good citizenship. And if it means that teenagers will stop killing each other over designer jackets, then our public schools should be able to require their students to wear school uniforms.”

While I don’t necessarily agree that clothing styles are necessarily linked to character, I do agree that rules pertaining to clothing are valid for employers especially and also for schools to a lesser degree. The reason I make the distinction between required/banned clothing and that of hair styles is that clothing is something that can be changed at the end of the day when the person is no longer at school/work. It’s not a permanent change, as people can wear what they prefer on their own time. And nowadays, rules about clothing are generally applied equally to both men and women, considering that women are now able to wear pants.

But hair length is a different matter. It’s a 24 hour a day thing. A male who prefers long hair can’t grow it back at the end of the day after school or work.

In conclusion, schools should have a single standard about students’ hair that applies to both boys and girls: that is be clean and neat, with no reference to length.

Thoughts?

I've not so far written about the Tiger Woods story because I viewed it as yet another story about a straying celebrity and that it would quickly become yesterday's news.  Reports such as these are now rather commonplace and are hardly worth reporting on, let alone commenting on.

But this story outlived its fifteen minutes a long time ago and, personally, I'm getting tired of hearing about it.  I don't see what all the shock and fascination is with this story.  It's not as if he's the first, nor will he be the last celebrity (or non-celebrity, for that matter) to fall off the monogamy wagon.

I also don't see why Woods is off the golf tour.  I don't see what one thing has to do with the other.  The state of his marriage should be a private matter between him and his wife and it in no way impedes his ability to play golf.  It's not as if being monogamous would make him a better golf  player. 

And it's not as if he beat his wife and had done something criminal.  Indeed, if anything, the shoe is on the other foot in this instance.  It seems the only reason he had an accident was because his wife bashed in the back window of his SUV, thus distracting him, as he tried to drive away.

I've read comments from people cheering her on for this; taking the opinion that he got what he deserved for his infidelity. The sexism of such statements boggles my mind, as I'm quite certain there would be no cheering if their roles were reversed in this drama.  People would be calling to have him locked up and the key thrown away if it had been him bashing a window in with a golf club while she drove away.  It seems when it comes to domestic violence and infidelity, the double standard is alive and well.

Other people are shocked, asking how could he do such a thing.  Again, with the ubiquity of stories about celebrity infidelity and its corresponding prevalence in the lives of ordinary people as well, I think that people are asking the wrong questions.  They take the view that people are failing marriage, but in reality, it would seem that our idea of what marriage should be is failing people.

Instead of asking why so many people are unfaithful, we need to be asking such questions as, why are all marriages expected to be monogamous, why was monogamy originally instituted in the first place, are the original reasons for monogamy still relevant in our society today, what is the exact nature of "fidelity" -- is it summed up by sexual exclusivity or can it refer to other aspects of a marriage and, if so, must sexual exclusivity always be a part of it. and so on.

Perhaps we need to be re-examining and re-evaluating the structure of marriage and the purpose it serves in our society and be willing to make some changes, instead of trying harder to cram people down into the same old, ill-fitting boxes.

Thoughts?

Reading the webpage of one of my local TV stations, I came upon a story about a man who had been arrested for bigamy.  He'd married his first wife in 2005, and had married a second woman this past October.

Neither wife had been the wiser until the first wife intercepted a text message for their husband from the second wife.  After texting back to the second wife and determining who she was, the first wife called the police to report him for bigamy.

After an investigation, police arrested him and charged him with bigamy.  The man is now out on bond awaiting trial.

Arresting someone for bigamy boggles my mind.  First of all, I don't think the government has any business meddling in the private relationships of consenting adults, except for cases of domestic violence.  If it were up to me, I'd abolish marriage as a legal category altogether.

Knowing that this isn't likely to happen any time soon, I think that as long as legal marriage exists, it should not be limited to monogamous couples.

That being said, with the law as it stands now, bigamy should not be a criminal offense.  At the most, it should be a civil matter.  In fact, I'd thought it was something that had been decriminalized -- that when discovered, the second marriage would merely be annulled and the offender given a fine.

The police have much more important things to do than being in the business of enforcing monogamy.  They should not be involved in the personal relationships of private citizens if there is an absence of domestic violence.  In my opinion, the first wife should have handled the situation herself, perhaps by contacting a divorce lawyer, rather than calling the police and keeping them from doing more important things.  Sue the guy for breach of contract or some such thing, but don't put him in jail.

Thoughts.

The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way.
--Bertrand Russell

While trying to come up with something to write about today, I visited a quote site where I found the quote above.  The first thing that popped into my mind was that of religion.   Wars have been fought over differences of opinion about religion and evangelicals of different faiths, particularly Christianity, attempt to convert others to their faith, believing that uniformity of belief to be a worthy goal to strive for.  Not merely content to share their beliefs with those who ask, some attempt to enforce their beliefs by changing laws to conform to such beliefs, while more extreme members of various religions will use literal force to impose their beliefs on others in what they believe is service to their faith.

In contrast, I read an entry on Wilford Tibbetts' blog today about the Amish.  Unlike many religious people, whose faith is largely a matter of securing their ticket to heaven, for the Amish, their faith isn't merely a belief, it's a lifestyle.  The Amish do not proselytize or spend a lot of time talking about their faith; they quietly live it, while content to allow their neighbors to live according to whatever beliefs they have.  They are content to coexist peacefully with their neighbors with different beliefs and lifestyles and have no desire to impose their beliefs on others.

It's too bad that more religious people don't follow the example of the Amish.

I've often considered what attracts different people to religion and what purposes religion has served in society.  Recently, I've been thinking of the converse: what makes people reject religion and the different reasons why people are either atheists or agnostics.

I think there are several reasons, often depending on each particular person's personality and outlook on life.  A few types immediately came to mind:

First, are the scientific types, who reject religion because there is no proof as to its claims, because it defies reason and logic.

Second, are the "pull yourself up by your own boostraps" types, who view religion as a crutch and a haven for the weak who refuse to stand on their own two feet.

Third, are the hedonists and non-conformists who view religion as a series of lists with arbitrary and outmoded rules about moral behavior that are negative in nature.  To them, religion can be summed up as "Don't Do This" and see religion as a way to suck all the joy out of life.

These are the three types that most readily come to mind.  Personally, as an agnostic, I'm a mixture of reasons one and three.  I'm not so much the second reason, because I have no problem with whatever gets people through the night, as it doesn't affect my freedom to do differently.

Feel free to chime in with more types of skeptics and unbelievers.

Can you imagine this bimbo explaining this one to her grandchildren forty years from now?  That is, if she can get laid to bear any children in the first place!

Another “classy” tattoo

Bible verses and tramp stamps — the perfect combo!

This last one isn’t a tramp stamp, but I’m guessing the owner of these tattoos has absolutely no desire to ever get laid again:

The other day while out driving, I was monitoring the Neal Boortz show, looking for ranty blogging fodder.  And, as is almost always the case, I found what I was looking for.

Because it was Veteran's Day, he was relating anecdotes with that theme in mind.  He told a story about a man attacked by four muggers in an alley in Milwaukee.  They stripped all his belongings from him, but when the gang's leader went through his wallet, he found the man's military ID card.  Seeing this, he told the other muggers to give everything back to the man.  After this had been done, the leader apologized to the man and thanked him for his service before leaving him to go about his business.

I'd thought this was a nice feel-good story -- and it was -- until Boortz had to open his big mouth at the end and turn it into a political opportunity.

I don't recall the exact words, but he said something to the effect that wasn't it something that these criminals had more respect for our troops than most liberals did.

What a fucking moron.   Many liberals may not support the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it doesn't mean we don't support the people over there putting their lives on the line every day.  Many of us have family members serving in the military and who have previously served or have served themselves at some point in time.  My father served in WWII, as well as several of my uncles.  I had cousins and younger uncles who are Vietnam era veterans.  The fact that I am proud of their service doesn't make me any less of a liberal, nor does my being a liberal make me any less proud of their service.

I did find it interesting, however,  that on the highlights of November 11th's show on his website that the reference to this story did not include the crack about liberals that went out over the air.  Instead, it said:

  This story caused me to think ... to wonder if all of us give our men and women in uniform and our veterans the respect these criminals did.  I think that generally we do ... I certainly hope I'm right.

If he'd said exactly this on the air, I'd have had no problem with him and I'd not be reporting about it today on my blog.

The difference was that the printed version was inclusive and the broadcast version was divisive.   But Boortz doesn't gain listeners by simply reminding everyone that our veterans deserve respect; rather, he appeals to the lowest common denominator by appealing to their baser instincts, thus throwing the jab at liberals in so his listeners could project their feelings out onto some group they could be self-righteously against.  He doesn't inspire people to think, but rather he whips up the amorphous outrage of the masses.

What follows is a trivia quiz about American Presidents:

1. Who was the shortest president?

2. Which two presidents share the tallest president title?

3. Who was the last president not to have a college degree?

4. Who was the only bachelor president?

5. Who was the only two-term president not to serve consecutive terms?

6. Which president published his own version of the New Testament?

7. Who was the last president not to leave the White House at the end of his term as a millionaire?

8. Who was the first president to be born in a hospital?

9. Who was the last president to be born in the 19th century?

10. Which president was married to a woman young enough to be his daughter?

11. Which president was married to his cousin?

12. Who was the only president who wasn't elected to be either president or vice president?

13. Which president sired an out-of-wedlock daughter with his mistress in the closet of his office when he was a senator?

14. Which president was the cousin of one president and the uncle of a first lady?

15. Who was the heaviest president?

As soon as this post has several comments, I will post the answer key in a comment at the bottom.