If You Don't Have Anything Nice to Say...

A few minutes ago, I saw a breaking news bulletin on Yahoo saying that Elizabeth Edwards had died. This came just a day after announcing that doctors had advised her that there was nothing more they could do and that she’d decided to stop treatments.

After reading the short announcement, I scrolled down to read the comments. Though many people posted respectful condolences, many others saw this as an opportunity to spew hateful, grammar- and spelling-challenged remarks. For some people, everything is an opportunity for partisan politics and no exceptions are made, even to respect the grief of those in mourning. To such people, if you do not believe as they do, then you have forfeited any considerations of courtesy and common decency and it’s open season on you and yours.

I would think the old saying, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say anything at all”, should apply in such instances for everyone who has any character and integrity at all. If you don’t like Elizabeth Edwards or her husband, fine, but simply don’t comment on such articles at all if you can’t be respectful. A person’s death notice is not the time nor the place for partisan politics.

But the literacy-challenged trolls who haunt the comment sections of Yahoo News and other similar sites do not limit their vitriolic political spewing to articles relating to politics. They post comments trashing their political bugaboos on nearly every article posted, even those that don’t have even the remotest thing to do with politics. Apparently, no one has told these simple-minded fanatics that not everything in this world has to do with politics.

There are several ultra right wing politicians I find completely reprehensible, but I would nevertheless grant them the respect of my silence if they or someone in their family were to die and allow them to grieve in peace. Time and place, people. There are certain niceties that are the hallmark of a civilized society, and respect for the mourning is one of them.

Thoughts?

Different Kinds of Ignorance

Today, while monitoring the Neal Boortz radio show, he had a segment featuring a survey taken at an amusement park where random people passing by were asked very basic questions about the history of Independence Day.

None of the people could answer any of the questions correctly, except for one man at the end,who was identified as a grandfather. One woman who said she was a teacher did not get a single answer right.

As I continued to listen, I was stunned by the level of jaw-dropping ignorance. The questions asked were quite simple, on the level of a third grader. These were questions I knew the answer to when I was ten years old.

Several people had no idea why we celebrate the Fourth of July. One person when asked which year the United States declared its independence said 1922. Another person named Winston Churchill as the general who led American forces during the Revolutionary War. Still yet another had no clue as to which country we were declaring our independence from.

I was just as appalled as Boortz was by the staggering ignorance.

But then, Boortz showed his own ignorance, which was an ignorance of another sort entirely.

He said that the level of ignorance surprised him because they were "all good-looking people; mainstream Americans." He went on to say that there were no people with "pot bellies with cigarettes dangling from their lips" nor were they wearing hoodies or had tattoos.

My jaw dropped then at his staggering ignorance.

Since when is a person's appearance, level of subjective attractiveness, fashion sense, or weight a measure of their intelligence? At his age, Boortz should know what a crock of shit judging a book by its cover is.

Thoughts?

Boortz the Boor

Listening to the Neal Boortz show on the radio the other day, I was yet again reminded of what a jerk he can be.

He mentioned being in the supermarket and seeing a large, fat woman with her nine year old little boy and how their grocery cart was filled with junk food. He proudly informed the listening audience that he went up to the little boy and told him that if he ate the type of food in the cart that he would end up big and fat like his mother.

WTF?

I don't know how he was raised, but I was raised to believe that you never direct criticism of a parent to a child, especially one that young. In my book, what he did was totally reprehensible; hurting a child's feelings with his rudeness about something the child had absolutely no control over.

First of all, what business is it of his what strangers eat? Last time I checked, this was a free country and people are free to eat whatever they can afford to pay for, even if their choices are not the best ones.

Secondly, I highly doubt if he'd have meddled into what was none of his business if the woman had been loading up the cart with booze and cigarettes.

Thirdly, what kind of a fucking coward goes up to a little kid and vents his spleen about a problem he has with the child's mother? Wasn't he man enough to state his opinion directly to her? Was he afraid she'd be better able to defend herself against such cattiness than a defenseless little boy would? Did it make him feel like a big man to hurt a child's feelings?

Thoughts?

An Excess Of Accommodations

Today, I went down to the county offices to pay the property taxes on my house. My county has a new building, opened last year, to conduct most business with the county. This new building is rather spacious, with about fifteen windows for people paying whatever fees applicable. I've been in this building a few times since it opened and there is never a long line.

One thing I immediately noticed the first time I went in there was that every one of the fifteen windows was at dinner table height, so that patrons have to bend way over in order to write out a check, with their butts poked in the air.

I figured that the reason was to make county offices more accessible for those in wheelchairs, an assumption that was confirmed when I asked the clerk about it.

I'm all for building alterations that make public buildings more usable for those with physical limitations, but the way it was done in this particular building was ridiculous. I saw no need to make ALL the windows at wheelchair height; three or four windows would have been more than sufficient, in my opinion. After making this comment to the clerk, she told me that they were obliged to do it this way in order to get federal funds to build the building.

Curious, I looked up demographic statistics once I'd returned home. Out of a total population of about 310 million, only around 2.7 million Americans are in wheelchairs, which tends to support my assertion that far fewer wheelchair-height windows would have been more than sufficient.

Thoughts?

Thoughts on Conservative Reactions to Health Care Bill

I was listening to the Dennis Miller radio show the other night and he was wringing his hands over the passage of the health care bill. He was of the opinion that this was a sign that the US would be going the way of the Roman Empire and would essentially be the end of civilization as we know it.

I admit to being completely puzzled by this attitude -- is allowing countless numbers of people to die in one of the richest nations on Earth simply because of a lack of funds to get adequate health care the mark of a civilized society? Is valuing money over people's very lives the mark of an enlightened and advanced society? I think not.

Miller went on to say that he believed guaranteed health care for all citizens was a bad thing because it would make people "lose their motivation to 'hustle'".

Again, I don't understand this reasoning. For one thing, all citizens deserve access to adequate health care simply because they are human beings, not because they work to "earn" it. Secondly, access to medical care is one of the basic tools that allows people to work hard in whatever endeavors they choose. It's hard to work up the motivation to "hustle" when you're sick and exhausted. Thirdly, having one's basic survival needs guaranteed will not kill people's desires to achieve and get ahead in life; as long as there are cars, electronic gadgets, luxury homes, season tickets to ball games, and so on to work for, people will be motivated to work. And for some lucky people in meaningful, creative jobs, work is its own reward well beyond the financial remuneration.

Another right-winger, Neal Boortz, said that he thought it was "too bad" for people who did not have health insurance, especially those who were denied because of pre-existing conditions, but that it wasn't his problem and that he considered having to pay taxes to help such people to be "stealing" his money. He also think it's an insurance company's right to deny such people as they don't make money off such people. Obviously, the making of money is the most important concern to him. I don't know how the man sleeps at night, knowing that people are needlessly dying, but that's not how I was raised.

Boortz not only is against the current health care reform; he also thinks that the current system is too lenient. He believes that all preventive and routine care, including pre-natal care, should not be covered by insurance; that it should be reserved only for catastrophic care. He has stated that those people who cannot afford to pay for pre-natal care out of their own pockets shouldn't be having children, anyway.

Never mind that access to preventive care is cheaper in the long run, as it often helps to prevent more serious and expensive problems down the line.

The new health care bill isn't perfect; far from it. But it's a start in the right direction.

Thoughts?

Why I Hate "Live" Albums

Over the years, when buying recorded music: LP albums, and later, CDs, I've always avoided buying "Live" albums. That is, music recorded live at a concert. There are several reasons why I hate "Live" albums in general, though there are a few exceptions:

1. The songs are generally rushed, as the musicians desire to cram in as many songs during a concert as possible.

2. The songs are often stripped down as well as being rushed: fewer instruments, simpler arrangements, etc.

3. Live albums are always marred by the sound of morons in the audience who feel they must accompany the musicians by emitting frequent and lengthy high-pitched whistles. I prefer to hear my favorite musicians unaccompanied by the sound of "FWEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!" every few seconds, tyvm.

I can only think of one live album that I like and that is Eric Clapton's "Just One Night", recorded at Tokyo's Budokan Theatre in December, 1979, which happens to be my favorite Clapton album.

Thoughts?

Petty Distractions

Recently, people have been making fun of Sarah Palin for writing crib notes on her palm. I even heard of someone referring to what she did as a "Redneck Teleprompter". I have to roll my eyes at this, thinking it a ridiculous thing to criticize someone about.

Don't get me wrong; I am most assuredly no fan of Sarah Palin and would never consider voting for this woman.

But fair is fair, even for Sarah Palin. Who among us hasn't written down a phone number, directions, or something else on our hands one time or another? What's it to anyone else if she wanted to do this to help her remember?

There's no need to stoop so low to criticize her about such petty things, as there are many more glaring faults that we should be calling attention to in these years before the 2012 Republican nominations for president. To concentrate on such insignificant matters distracts us from what really matters and only ends up making us look petty.

Thoughts?

Boortz on Ad Hominems

Thought I know it's not good for my blood pressure, I continue to listen to right-wing talk show host Neal Boortz, as part of my campaign of monitoring what the other side thinks.

Recently, he talked about a tasteless comment made by Keith Olbermann about Michelle Malkin, who called her a "mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it." While I heartily dislike Malkin, I agree with Boortz that this was an uncalled-for ad hominem.

That being said, however, it's no worse than the ad hominems spewed every day by many of his right-wing colleagues.

I have no problems with Boortz pointing out this inappropriate comment. That's his opinion and he has every right to express it.

But what he said to a caller about this incident nearly made me choke, with both laughter and disbelief. He asserted to the caller that liberals (and liberals only) resort to ad hominems because they have no reasoned arguments to make and because liberals supposedly argue out of irrational emotion and not logic.

Excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me?

Does he think his listeners are stupid and/or have no memories or is he that self-deluded about his own behavior and that of his right wing cohorts?

This assertion is coming from a man who has referred to Hillary Clinton as as "evil" woman who "hates marriage and children" and "makes a mockery out of the institution of marriage". (Boortz has been divorced himself). His personal nickname for her is "the Hildebeast".

He once opined that former Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) "looked like a ghetto slut". Referring to her hairstyle, he said, "an explosion at a Brillo pad factory," like "Tina Turner peeing on an electric fence," and like "a shih tzu."

In reference to the victims of Hurricane Katrina, he said, "When these Katrina so-called refugees were scattered about the country, it was just a glorified episode of putting out the garbage" and "I love talking to you about these Katrina refugees. I mean, so many of them have turned out to be complete bums, just debris." Boortz also described New Orleans as "a city of parasites, a city of people who could not and had no desire to fend for themselves."

He commonly refers to all fat people as "lardasses". He recently asserted that single mothers are "the biggest danger to America today" and refers to welfare mothers as "brood mares." I've heard him refer to southerners who have thick, country accents as "blithering idiots" and he's called those who work only 40 hours a week and/or live in a mobile home as "losers"

I could go on, but I think you get the picture..

Does any of this sound like rational, helpful debate to you? I didn't think so.

Thoughts on the John Edwards Fiasco

When I first heard of the John Edwards affair, my first instinct as a libertine was to yawn and tell people that his marriage was none of their business and that he wasn't running for the office of upholding monogamy.

But as the months have passed, I find myself more disgusted with Edwards' behavior with every new report from the media. I still don't care that he strayed from his marriage or even that he sired an extramarital child, which is entirely besides the point of my opinion.

Rather, my disgust stems from how he's handled -- or not handled -- this affair. Instead of owning up to what he'd done -- or simply telling the press that his private life was none of their business -- he first denied that he'd had an affair with the woman in question. Then he later recanted and admitted he'd slept with her. But when she had a baby girl, he denied he was the father, pushing it off on one of his campaign aides. More recently, he's finally admitted that the baby is his. And now it's come to light that sex tapes exist of him and the "other woman".

Can we give the man an award for insensitivity and general dumbassery? Having an affair and siring a child outside one's marriage happens and while it's a political liability in our society, it's hardly a unique thing. And while the timing of the affair was particularly insensitive, considering his wife's illness, he's made it all the much worse with his unwillingness to admit to the truth. He's further humiliated his wife, while at the same time left a public record of repudiating an innocent little girl who will one day grow up to know that her father valued his political career more than he did her.

It doesn't really matter that he strayed or why, as there are dozens of reasons why people do so. But if he was going to get some on the side, he should have used his brain and done it properly. First of all, Edwards in his in fifties and the woman in question in her forties. Had neither of them ever heard of birth control? Granted, he might have thought her past the age of conceiving, but he shouldn't have taken any chances.

And for fuck's sake, what kind of a moron makes sex tapes proving the adultery to all and sundry? It's shit like this that makes me question his power of judgment in other matters as well.

Edwards would have done much better to handle this as David Letterman handled being outed as straying from his marriage, instead of turning himself into a Jerry Springer sideshow.

Thoughts?

Odd Associations

Sometimes I make the oddest associations between two completely unrelated phenomena. What follows below is one such example.

I use Firefox as my browser, combined with slow-ass dialup. Frequently, after I've clicked on a page, the taskbar at the lower left corner will inform me that the loading is "done", when it is most certainly not "done". I'll see "done" when I'm looking at a half loaded page, a blank white page, or a blank green page; you name it.

When I click on "refresh" to get it to load again, I often end up with the same results, but the taskbar still stubbornly insists that it is "done".

One time when this happened, I was suddenly reminded of an old MASH episode. Hawkeye and his tentmates had gotten a Korean woman to come clean up the place. She didn't do a very good job of it, but she came up to Hawkeye for her payment and did kind of a curtsey and said, "Finish!!" in her broken English. Hawkeye looked around at the still messy tent and pointed out the things that she'd neglected to do. The Korean woman gave him an obdurate expression, then did her strange little curtsey and emphatically said, "Finish!!" again. Hawkeye gave up, knowing he'd not get her to do it properly, he simply paid her to get rid of her.

So, now, every time I get "done" on my taskbar with a page not properly loaded and hitting "refresh" doesn't fix it, I picture that Korean woman in my head emphatically saying "Finish!!"

What kind of odd associations do you have?

Extra points to anyone who remembers that episode and can tell me the name of it.

Sarah Palin: Part of the Dumbing Down of America

I think the rise of Sarah Palin is one of the manifestations of the dumbing down of America. I didn't think it was possible to find a politician on the national stage less intelligent than George Bush. But we have.

It used to be that Americans expected their presidents to be intellectuals; to be of superior intelligence and to have a healthy dose of common sense.

But it seems that many people are not only not bothered by Palin's lack of intellectual credentials, but see her lack as a good thing.

I was listening to the Dennis Miller show on the radio tonight and he made a comment: "Do I think she could win on Jeopardy? No. Do I think she could win the Presidency? Yes."

And Miller was in no way appalled by this, but has stated many times that he thinks she could make a good president.

Unfortunately, we have all too many people in this country who share this misguided opinion. I'm hoping , however, that she will use her new post at Fox News as a way to dig herself into a deep enough hole that more people will become disenchanted with her, rather than fascinated.

I'm not holding my breath, however.

Candidate For 2011 Banned Words List

I was listening to the radio today and an advertisement came on that used the phrase "we've got your back" several times. This phrase means "we're behind you", "we support you", "we stand behind you." Whenever I hear this phrase, I can't help but wonder how I'd manage to walk if someone else managed to "have my back".

As I heard this, I couldn't help but think that this obnoxious phrase should have been on this year's list of banned words. I think I'll submit it for next year's list.

2010 :List of Banished Words

Lake Superior State University has released its annual list of "banished words"; words they consider trite, overused, annoying, or a combination of all three. Following below is the list, with my comments in italics:

SHOVEL-READY

"Apparently, the generally accepted definition of this phrase is to imply that a project has been completely designed and all that is left to do is to implement it...however, when something dies, it, too, is shovel-ready for burial and so I get confused about the meaning. I would suggest that we just say the project is ready to implement.” – Jerry Redington, Keosauqua, Iowa.

"Stick a shovel in it. It's done." – Joe Grimm, Bloomfield Hills, Mich.

I'd like to take a shovel upside the head of the person who coined this obnoxious phrase.

TRANSPARENT/TRANSPARENCY

"In the lexicon of the political arena, this word is supposed to mean obvious or easily understood. In reality, political transparency is more invisible than obvious!" -- Deb Larson, Bellaire, Mich.

Someone throw a blanket over "transparent".

CZAR

Long used by the media as a metaphor for positions of high authority, including “baseball czar” Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, appointed by team owners as commissioner-for-life in 1919. U.S. president Woodrow Wilson had an “industry czar” during World War I. Lesser-known “czar” roles in government during the last 100 years include: censorship, housing and oil czars in 1941; rubber czar in 1942; patronage czar (1945); clean-up (1952); missile (1954); inflation (1971); e-commerce (1998); bioethics, faith-based and reading czars (2001); bird flu (2004); democracy (2005); abstinence and birth control czars (2006); and weatherization czar (2008).

I thought the Russians took care of "czars" in 1917.

TWEET

And all of its variations…tweetaholic, retweet, twitterhea, twitterature, twittersphere….

Jay Brazier of Williamston, Mich. says she supposes that tweeters might be "twits."

Personally, I'd go for "twats", myself.

APP

"Must we b sbjct to yt another abrv? Why does the English language have to fit on a two-inch screen? I hate the sound of it. I think I'll listen to a symph on the rad." -- Edward R. Bolt, Grand Rapids, Mich.

Put "cr" in front of "app" and you get crapp!

SEXTING

Sending sexually explicit pictures and text messages through the cell phone.

"Any dangerous new trend that also happens to have a clever mash-up of words, involves teens, and gets television talk show hosts interested must be banished." – Ishmael Daro, Saskatoon, Sask., Canada.

A "word" spoken by those who aren't getting the real thing.

FRIEND AS A VERB

Came into popularity through social networking websites. You add someone to your network by "friending" them, or remove them by "unfriending" them.

"'Befriend' is much more pleasant to the human ear and a perfectly useful word in the dictionary." – Kevin K., Morris, Okla.

I pretty much hate any noun that is made into a verb and vice versa.

TEACHABLE MOMENT

What might otherwise be known as 'a lesson.'

"It's a condescending substitute for 'opportunity to make a point,'" says Eric Rosenquist of College Station, Tex.

So, portions of time are now capable of being taught, hmm?

IN THESE ECONOMIC TIMES….

"Overused and redundant. Aren't ALL times 'these economic times'?" -- Barb Stutesman, Three Rivers, Mich.

I think this stuffy phrase has outlived its fifteen minutes of overuse.

STIMULUS

"Everything in the news is about the stimulus packages...it is no longer a grant, it's stimulus money, stimulus checks, etc. I think it is just being over-used." Teri Heikkila, Rudyard, Mich.

I've got your "stimulus package" right here!

TOXIC ASSETS

"Whatever happened to simply 'bad stocks,' 'debts,' or 'loans'?" -- Monty Heidenreich, Homewood, Ill.

This list wouldn't be complete without an oxymoron.

TOO BIG TO FAIL

"Just for the record, nothing's too big to fail unless the government lets it." Claire Shefchik, Brooklyn, NY.

Tell this to the owners of the Titanic!.

BROMANCE

"I am sick of combined words the media creates to make them sound catchier. Frenemies? Bromances? Blogorrhea? I'm going to scream!" – Kaylynn, Alberta, Canada.

I've been lucky to have never heard this one before.

CHILLAXIN'

"Heard everywhere from MTV to ESPN to CNN. A bothersome term that seeks to combine chillin' with relaxin' makes me want to be 'axin' this word." – Tammy, Sault Ste. Marie, Mich.

What? Does this mean to put an axe into the refrigerator?

OBAMA-prefix or roots?

The LSSU Word Banishment Committee held out hope that folks would want to Obama-ban Obama-structions, but were surprised that no one Obama-nominated any, such as these compiled by the Oxford Dictionary in 2009: Obamanomics, Obamanation, Obamafication, Obamacare, Obamalicious, Obamaland….We say Obamanough already.

Let's bomb all the Obama conages.

My personal contribution to this year's list would be:

FAIL used as a noun.

For example, a football team loses big in a game and it's dubbed "an epic fail". This one made me grind my teeth the first time I heard it. It may be an "epic failure", but it's NOT an "epic fail".

Good Riddance to 2009

2009 hasn't been one of my better years. My finances have become increasingly tighter this year -- I'm nearly as broke now as I was in college -- and I remain underemployed in a state with a high unemployment rate. I've spent much of the year robbing Peter to pay Paul just to barely make minimum payments on my bills. My son also lost a good job this year, and he has yet to find permanent employment.

I ended an important relationship this year out of necessity, yet I still miss her to this day. Intellectually, I know it was for the best, but my body tells me differently.

I also lost one of my cats this year and I likewise mourn his loss.

On the plus side, I remain healthy, and no one has died in my family or among my friends this year. That's always something to celebrate.

I finally paid off my car loan, so that should help to ease my finances a bit in the new year.

Plus, my "social life" is still as active as ever which is, again, always a reason to celebrate.

But I can safely say I'll be glad to bid 2009 good riddance and I look forward to see what 2010 will have to offer. I offer no resolutions, as it's not in my nature to do so, except to say that I will be alert to whatever opportunities present themselves in the new year.

The Annoyance of Ubiquity

While reading a message board the other day, I saw a thread about New Year's resolutions and rolled my eyes. My first thought was that nearly everyone would resolve to "lose weight" in 2010, as that particular resolution is typical and ubiquitous. There's absolutely no originality about it at all.

Sure enough, I was right. Every person who had posted on the thread put weight loss on their list. I seriously doubt that every person who posts on that large message board is in need of weight loss, hence my rolling of eyes. But no one ever wants to gain weight or just doesn't care one way (weigh?) or the other how much they weigh. No,everyone resolved to lose weight, even if they were underweight.

And what annoyed me most about this is not so much the desire to lose weight, but rather the ubiquity of this resolution and the total lack of originality in coming up with a list of resolutions, not to mention the ubiquity of New Years' resolutions themselves.

I got to thinking and I realized that it was ubiquity in general -- the ever-present, the predictable, and the typical -- that is at the heart of my annoyance. It connotes a lack of original or creative thinking and reeks of a lemming-like ordinariness. Thinking further, I thought of other examples of ubiquity that irritate me.

One example is the fact that nearly every rock band, without question, contains only two types of instruments: guitars and drums. Why do we not see wind instruments on a more regular basis? Why not pianos? There's nothing wrong with guitars and drums, per se, but the ubiquity of the guitar-and-drums-only bands annoys the crap out of me. I can't help but think of how much more opportunity for creative music is lost because most rock musicians just stick to the same ol' thing, instrument wise.

One petty example of ubiquity is that whenever you see a couple sharing a motorcycle, the woman is always the one on the back. What? Is this a freaking law or something? You think they'd want to switch up now and then for a little variety. A funny example of ubiquity is that whenever you are driving behind construction workers in a pickup, they always have a yellow plastic water dispenser with a red lid on top. Never any other colors.

Feel free to list other example of ubiquity in the comment box, particularly the kinds that irritate you..

Conservatives and Anti-Intellectualism

This morning, I read an interesting blog post by Paula Reed. Her entry was based on a quote she'd received by email:

“The Left: People who demonize those with whom they disagree.”

My first thought was to think of how so many neocons today are masters at the art of projection: they take what is commonly done by neocons and turn it around saying it's really liberals doing it.

Personally attacking one's opponents, instead of coming up with reasoned rebuttals to their ideas is intellectually dishonest and is a symptom of the creeping anti-intellectualism in this country; an example of the dumbing-down of America. It's much easier to blame liberals for everything that's wrong in our world today, than to come up with ideas on how to fix these problems together.

Gone are the days of erudite conservatives, such as William Buckley. Also largely gone are those conservatives, such as Barry Goldwater, who was able to often put ideological differences aside and work in a bi-partisan manner with his Democratic colleagues (now, I bet that is a word you don't hear too much in Washington nowadays) for the good of the country.

Now, it's neocon pundits, such as Limbaugh, Savage, and Coulter, among many others, who have brought the black and white, simplistic tactic of using ad hominems against their opponents in from the far right fringes of the tinfoil hat brigade into mainstream conservative thought. Or what passes for thought. This is not to say that the left is entirely free of such nonsense -- there are liberals, such as Rosie O'Donnell, who could hardly be called intellectual. But those such as O'Donnell hardly have the reach or the influence tha those in the pantheon on the right wing do

I heard a prime example of this type of anti-intellectualism the other night while listening to the radio. A man called the Dennis Miller show to express why he rejected intelligent design. Miller didn't give him much of a chance to speak. Instead he cut him off to say that he couldn't get on board with Darwinism because he just couldn't get into the idea of "worshipping a pile of amino acids" and that he liked the idea of an intelligent being creating life on Earth.

My jaw dropped when I heard this nonsense. I could not believe that Miller, a former liberal and former cast member of Saturday Night Live -- in other words, someone who should know better -- was spouting off such simplistic ideas. There was once a time when being a conservative did not mean one also had to accept intellectually bankrupt, fundamentalist Christian beliefs as well.

Instead of the Buckley types being the mainstream of conservatism, we now have the Archie Bunkers of the world running the Republican party, which is a sad thing for old-school Republicans and the party in general.

Thoughts?

Four Year Old Suspended For Long Hair

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?

Some Thoughts on Bigamy

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?

Lazy Helicopter Parents

While out driving on Halloween the other night, I drove through a neighborhood in full trick or treat mode. Though a minority of older kids walked from house to house, most kids were driven by their parents to each house, getting in and out of the vehicle (mostly ubiquitous minivans) ever 25 feet or so.

This meant that the road was clogged with pausing and slow moving vehicles, which made it very difficult for through traffic to drive down the street. It also made it more dangerous for drivers like me because it made it harder to see kids on foot, and made it more dangerous for the kids, as it made it harder for them to see through traffic, and because of the unpredictable movements of the minivan parade.

I don't know why the parents of small children just didn't park their vehicles and get off their lazy asses and walk with their kids to each house. And the parents of older children should have been home giving out candy and let those kids travel in groups to trick or treat on their own. It seems to me that if you're ten or eleven, having to spend the night getting in and out of a car with your parents there the whole time would suck all the joy right out of Halloween.

Halloween is totally different now for kids than it was when I was a kid trick or treating back in the sixties and early seventies. For one thing, only the smallest children had parents going with them to trick or treat, and even then the parents walked with their kids, they didn't drive them from house to house. And from about the second grade onwards (age 8), kids trick or treated on their own in groups in their own neighborhoods and the parents stayed home to hand out candy to other kids.

I lived in a huge subdivision where nearly every house participated. My mother would give me a king size pillow case and I'd fill that up, then return to get another one to fill. Trick or treating typically began at dusk, and continued for a few hours.

It was a lot more fun for us than it is for kids nowadays and I kind of feel sorry for kids now because they won't experience Halloween like most Baby Boom era kids did.

Religion Salesman

It seems as if I have a homing device to attract the religious of all stripes. I don't know what it is; perhaps it's my air of disrepute that attracts them like moths to a flame.

Recently, they hired a new guy at my place of employment, a squeaky-clean, straight arrow kind of person. I didn't have a problem with him until he started peddling his religion on me. He'd heard that I liked music and had some formal musical training, so he used that as a way to start preaching to me. Starting out innocently enough, he told me that he was the "praise leader" at his church, in charge of providing the music for their services, blah, blah, blah.

After a few moments of this, he got to his point of the entire conversation -- he wanted to know where I went to church. All the fundies do this, as they believe it's their duty to sell their religion to one and all.

Not really caring to discuss my opinion about religion with him, I simply told him that I didn't go, hoping to leave it at that.

No such luck.

He invited me to attend his church, telling me that I could be an asset to their "praise team" with my musical training.

I nearly choked and laughed myself to death all at the same time. Hell, talk about barking up the wrong tree! I'd probably burst into flames if I ever set foot into his smarmy, fundamentalist church.

Still not wanting to discuss religion in a work setting, I merely declined, citing the fact that I'm scheduled to work every Sunday.

Fortunately, at this moment, he had to get back to work, so I was spared being more blunt with him. But I'm guessing that some time soon, I'll have to tell him to fuck off in no uncertain terms.