Always Wear Sunscreen

Stories like this one make me want to strangle someone.  What we have here is a couple of kids who were at school and they went on a field trip.  They were outside for five hours, but the children were not allowed to put on sunscreen.  Why not?  Because according to either the "school policy" or the "statewide law" (it's a little unclear as to which means of asshattery was involved her) "...teachers are not allowed to apply sunscreen to students and students can only apply it to themselves if they have a doctor's note."  What the actual eff is going on over there? 

According to the Huffington Post, a one Jesse Michener of Washington had two of her children come home from a school field day with sunburns that were so bad that they "hurt to look at".  After seeing pictures of the kids, I'm going to have to agree with that assessment.  Behold!

.

The kid on the left looks just miserable.  Not that the kid on the right has fared any better.  But holy canoli, is that a bright red sunburn she's got there.  Ms. Michener has documented this incident on her blog, "Life. Photographed." She says that after contacting the principal and asking why her children were not provided with sunscreen for the outing, the response "...centered around the the school inability to administer what they considered a prescription/medication (sunscreen) for liability reasons."  And this is where my head starts to explode.  See, if you buy something in the store and you don't need a (wait for it) prescription in order to purchase it, then it is by definition NOT a "prescription".  And since when is sunscreen considered to be a "medication"?!  It's sunscreen, for cryin' out loud!  But wait!  There's more! 

 

In the telling of this tale of administrative idiocy, she mentions that during said field trip, "...their teacher used sunscreen in her presence and that it was 'just for her'."  Oh, so the teacher knew enough to put sunscreen on herself, but wouldn't put any on the children for fear of some sort of liability repercussion?!  You have got to be kidding me?  How much of a sheeple is that teacher?  Good Lord.  Follow the policy to the letter of the law or else!  Never mind whether or not it's an asinine rule that will do more harm that good!  That's what it says, so God forbid if you actually do some thinking on your own and do something about it!  Nope, just let those kids get massive sunburns and then you can sleep well at night knowing that you followed the ridiculous rule because that's what you are supposed to do!  Good job, moron.

Now, maybe you're sitting over there and I haven't quite incensed you just enough yet.  Maybe you're sitting there thinking, "Well, if they couldn't wear sunscreen, they should at least have worn a hat to keep the sun off of their faces."  You'd think that, wouldn't you?  But guess what?  No, really.  Go ahead and guess!  I'll wait.  Did you guess?  OK, if you guessed that hats are not allowed at school even on field trip days, step forward and claim your prize!  That's right.  They don't allow hats and they don't allow kids to use sunscreen unless they have a prescription and put it on themselves.  (Have you ever seen a little kid put on sunscreen?  Let's just say that they're not very good at it.  You know why?  Because they're little kids!  They're not good at much!  They haven't been around very long!)

As you can imagine, this received quite a bit of attention, mostly from Ms. Michener being angry as hell that she had stupid people in charge of her children during the day.  She actually received a call from the Director of Elementary Education in Tacoma Public Schools. According to her blog, "...a new law – just on the books since June 7 – allowed for districts to make their own distinctions about what is and isn’t allowed at school with regard to sunscreen and other over-the-counter medications."  And while all of that is fine and good, let's just back up a little bit.  At some point, I'm guessing that more than one person came up with the previous policy.  And more than one person had to have said, "Yeah, I think that's a good idea.  I think it's good that the kids need a prescription from a doctor in order to put on over the counter sunscreen.  And if they're out in the sun for an extended period of time and they don't have a prescription, I think it's a fabulous idea that they not be allowed to use any.  I completely agree with this policy.  Let's implement it immediately!"  And they DID.  Who ARE those people?  They need to be removed from their jobs because they are so concerned with "liability" that they can't DO their jobs effectively.  What sort of liability could their be with sunscreen?  Is the kid going to be too slippery for a little while?  I don't get it. 

People that are in positions of authority and decision making who only go by the rules in the book should not be in those positions.  It goes without saying that if something is going to be run by the rules in a book, then why bother having the person there in the first place?  Just follow the rules and things will be fine.  There's no need for personal intervention.  It's all right there in the book.  We are fast becoming an over-regulated society which is void of people who are able to think for themselves and on their own.  Couple that with a bunch of morons who make non-sensical rules and regulations in the first place and it's a recipe for the sort of disaster that Ms. Michener's small children got to experience first hand.  Doomed, I tell you.  We're doomed. 

Sphere: Related Content

Male, Female, Neither Or Both

Hoo-boy. I have a full head of steam today. Let me tell you what. Good Lord. People have gone off the rails when it comes to trying to build their utopia where everything is just perfect for everything and every environment is perfectly welcoming and comfortable. And do you know which topic just makes those self-righteous morons feel really good about themselves? Gender issues and gender roles. (Mmm...gender rolls.) God, they just love those. But I think that Roosevelt Elementary School in San Leandro, California has gone a little too far. No, I take that back. They've gone completely over the edge.

Apparently, there was a letter that was send home with kids at some point. Here is a link to said letter which is entitled "Strategies for Re-Thinking and Discussing Gender Issues". Remember, this was sent home by the school. This is how the school thinks that gender issues should be dealt with. The school, presumably where children are, thinks these steps are a good idea. Keep that in mind because you're going to think that a radical crazy person in need of medication came up with these guidelines. Let's begin...

The first thing on the list is this: Be proactive in your conversations, bring up topics of gender and gender identity; don’t wait for your child to bring it up or for an experience or incident to talk about." Now, I don't know what sort of an "experience" or "incident" they're referring to here. They make it sound absolutely terrible. (And by the way, the word "don't" was bolded in their letter. They are apparently very serious about your not waiting. Boldly serious.) But what I think sounds even more terrible is the idea of just out of blue bringing up gender identity to your, say, six-year old. I think that when I was six, if my parents had started a conversation with me like "You know, you're a girl on the outside, but that doesn't mean that you're a girl on the inside. It's perfectly OK if you want to be a boy." I think I would have been really confused. (I also think I would have thought my parents were lunatics because, at six, girls ARE girls and boys ARE boys and that's just how it is.)

Here's another one: "When someone says something gender-biased (e.g. He is all boy! Look at all the energy he has!), take the opportunity to mention counter examples (e.g. One of the girls he plays with has even more energy than he does!). Seriously, what is the point of all of this? Is someone really afraid that people are going to think that ONLY boys are high energy? For God's sake. If someone ever said something like that to me, I think I'd have to politely ask them to never speak to me again. What are you people so afraid of? Who cares?! The thing is that no one comes away from a conversation which includes "He's all boy! Look at all his energy!" and thinks that only boy can have a lot of energy! NO ONE! No one thinks that, so stop with idiotic guidelines that are clearly only for scared, utopia building softheads.

Moving right along..."Question and explore your own biases. For example, how do you feel about boys wearing long hair? Girls who “dress like boys?” Girls playing football or boys wearing earrings or fingernail polish? What messages are you giving your child(ren) about how they and others express themselves?" Wait a minute. I said WAIT! Are they actually playing the long hair card in the year 2012?! And guys with earrings?! Are they really trying to get us to believe that people are simply befuddled by these developments? Are they saying that children are confused as to whether a guy with long hair is a boy or a girl? I don't think that they are! I really don't. Whose grandfather came up with this one?!

Next up: "Watch TV shows and ads and discuss with your child(ren): 1) How gender roles are portrayed; and 2) what messages are being sent. Is the mom always making cookies or dinner with the daughter and serving the boys? Are only boys playing with the Tonka trucks or Hot Wheels?" See, I just don't understand the premise of this. Are the children in question only watching Leave it to Beaver? Serving the boys?! Are you dry shaving me?!

This one might be my favorite: Mix up gender language when reading stories to your kids – especially with typically male dominated characters. For example, if the story is about a “boy” animal, mix it up and make the lion a girl. Consider adopting this strategy for the people in a story, too." These people do not read a lot of children's books. I know that because there are a lot of pictures in children's books. And male lions look very different from female lions. (Perhaps the lion community could benefit from these little guidelines because I certainly don't see how these are going to help people.) So now you're going to confuse your kid to where he can't identify a male lion. He'll see a lion with a big bushy mane and he'll say "That can be either a boy lion OR a girl lion." And someone will have to tell him, "No. You're an idiot. That's a boy." Do we really want future generations not being able to easily identify large cats in the wild?! Because that's what's going to happen!

But here's my most favorite. Seriously, I laughed out loud at this one: "Consider asking the adults around you what, if any, pronoun they would like you to use. Ask politely; it is not rude, but rather respectful. Try asking that of everyone you know as a way to bring the topic up in conversation. Start with people you would feel comfortable having the conversation with. You might explain that you are working to create a more gender inclusive environment for all people. This is particularly supportive for people who are questioning their gender or in the early stages of transition."

::: blink ::: ::: blink :::

Ummm...what now? Ask adults...what...pronoun (pronoun, right?) I should use? Sooooo...like, "Hey, Bob. Nice to meet you. Listen, Bob....in the future, when I talk to other people about you, would you like me to refer to you as a he or a she or neither or both?" HOW is that "respectful"? It might not be "rude", but do you know what it is? Effing weird, that is correct! And I can only imagine that Bob would answer such an inquiry with, "It doesn't matter. We'll never speak again after a question like that." That's how I would be answering a question like that. And "Start with people you would feel comfortable having the conversation with."?! I don't think I'd EVER be comfortable asking someone what pronoun I should use when I meet them. Sure, I could explain that I am "working to create a more gender inclusive environment for all people", but that would likely lead to them responding that they are working to create a more lunatic excluded environment for all people. Wow.

These people who came up with these "guidelines" seem to be actively looking for something to be wrong when there really isn't a problem. It's like they want to have a world with all of these problems so that they can feel so danged good about themselves for "fixing" them. I got news for these yo-yos. These problems don't exist! They certainly don't exist on a massive, global scale as they would like you to believe. And I swear, I can't be held responsible for my actions if I meet someone and they ask me if I want to be referred to as he, she, it, all of the above or none of the above. We are so doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

More Ughs

The other day, I let you know of the ridiculous Ugg boot ban at Pottstown Middle school in Pennsylvania. The long and the short of this is that despite a ban on cell phones in the classroom, middle school students are still sneaking their phones into class and (apparently) using them during class time. Naturally, the solution to that is to ban Uggs. Wait. What?

Yes. Like I described the other day, they have banned Uggs. They have also gone into great detail as to what will happen if one wears Uggs. (They will get detention after the first offense. I'm not sure what happens with subsequent offenses. Firing squad maybe?) But while people keep talking about this, the one thing that no one talks about is what happens if you bring your cell phone to class! Isn't that the problem?! Why is everyone still talking about these stupid boots when it's the phones that are the problem?!

I'll tell you why. If the couple of people who are interviewed in the clip below (courtesy of the fine folks over yonder at Newsy) are any indication of the typical parent in that area or at that school, then that is why. Paste eating, mouth breathing morons is how they come across. And again, NO ONE TALKS ABOUT THE PHONES! The one guy says "Kids can't learn if their cell phones keep going off during the day." Right. So you're going them from wearing BOOTS?! And the other person interviewed in this clip says, "They wear school uniforms. They should just go as far as just having...shoes." What does that even mean!? Is this a joke? Why is no one talking to administrators who made this idiotic decision?! Seriously. You got me. I give! Please tell me that everyone is kidding? What's that? They're not? OK, then. Good Lord. We're so doomed.

Sphere: Related Content

Hide Your Chickens

A quick note:

I just read over at the LA Times that "Black Sabbath took to the stage Friday at the Whisky A Go Go to announce another reunion tour in 2012". Wow. Well, OK. But if you're expecting me to start bashing Black Sabbath for going on tour when they're all senior citizens (and when Ozzy seems barely coherent on his good days), you'd be wrong. Tour! Tour all you want. I wouldn't mind seeing me some old and withered Black Sabbath. You know why? Because it's Black Sabbath, for cryin' out loud! They tour, you GO! That's how it works with these awesome ancient bands whose members aren't dead (by multiple miracles) from either drug overdoses or multiple organ failures.

But here's the part that annoyed me: "The British heavy metal originators have begun working on an album of new material, their first since 1978." Uh huh. And..."Iommi said the set list will be much more than the usual hour of hits the band has performed since its first reunion in 1997." Yeah...um...no.

See, I don't think that I'm alone when I say that when these old guys go on tour, we want to hear the stuff that made us like them. We don't care about your new stuff. We want to hear everything you did before 1980. We're OK with hearing the individual band members hits (ie, if you leave out Crazy Train, I'm going to be pissed), but we don't care about your new stuff. We're here to hear the old stuff. I don't care about some ballad that one of them wrote after the birth of their child on a stormy night in 2002.

There are a few bands who are the exception to this rule. Not many, but a few. And Black Sabbath isn't one of them. If a band that old wants to play new stuff for folks, they need to have a "New Stuff Only" tour. I have no problem with that. But if I'm going to see a band whose greatest album came out in 1971, don't play me your new stuff because I'm not there to listen to that.

Sphere: Related Content

Not So Happy Halloween Treats

And Happy Halloween. Halloween is a weird-ass holiday if you're asking me. It's like the ultimate in contradictions when raising a child. You drill things into your child's head (Not literally! Yes, I know it's Halloween, but cranial drilling of one's offspring is never acceptable.) to keep them safe. Things like the old "Don't take candy from strangers." Then, after the kids think that they're clear on the concept, along rolls Halloween and BAM! Confusion runs amok. Not only are they going to be taking candy from strangers on Halloween, they're going to be encouraged to do so. AND they don't even have to wait for the strangers to come to them! No, they can randomly go to people's homes, knock on their door and ASK them to give them candy! And the strangers comply!! OH, but wait! There's a catch! You must ask strangers for candy only if you are dressed up in some sort of scary-ish garb. That's it? That's the catch? Deal! And the merriment begins!

Now if you're a grown-up, or you play one on TV, or even if you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, it is your job to get candy for these small people that you do not know. My advice is simple: Don't screw it up. You must remember what it was like when you were a child and you went Trick-or-Treating and ended up with horrible candy at the end of the night. It's not pleasant. And as a child, you really feel like you were ripped off somehow by coming home with a bag full of crap. You need to remember that feeling and make sure that you don't continue to pass it around to the hopeful and unsuspecting youngsters who will trample your flowers instead of using the perfectly good walkway as they traipse to your door in search of sugary handouts.

Thus, here are several items that you need to avoid distributing to jovial children who have donned bedsheets for the evening.

• First up are the inexplicable Boston Baked Beans. These are not good. Why someone thought that they could make a candy that looks like and is named after a picnic side dish is beyond me. No one wants candy that is pretending to be a bean. Beans aren't all that fun.
  


• Next up are the Dum Dums. First of all, Dum Dums are way too small for any good use. Second, they never taste like the flavor that the wrapper says. And third, you almost always, for some reason, end up with the cream soda flavored Dum Dums or the pineapple flavored Dum Dums. Probably because the folks handing them out took out all of the good ones. If you're going to hand out lollipops, go with a Tootsie Roll Pop. You can't go wrong with those

• Necco Wafers. From what I can tell, Necco Wafers are Tums antacid tablets that have been flattened out and dusted with sugar. They do not taste good. Contrary to what the waxy wrapper says down there, they are not "an American Classic" and the "flavors" are not "great." And of course they're "fat free". They're made out of chalk, what do you expect? Avoid these at all costs.

• The general assortment of hard candies. As a rule, if it is a candy that is typically found in a grandmother's purse, you really want to avoid handing those out on Halloween. Especially the butterscotch ones. Children do not like butterscotch. Adults do not like butterscotch. Those elderly women with the candies in their purses? Right, even they don't like butterscotch, that's why they're always giving them away.

• One of the more perplexing candies out there, the Idaho Spud. This is a candy that I guess is supposed to look like an Idaho potato. The thing is, it doesn't really look like that. It looks more like....well, um....OK, fine I'll say it, the thing looks like poo! And no one wants poo on Halloween. Ever. Hand out Necco Wafers before you hand out poo-like treats.

• Now we arrive at the Tootsie Roll. If you must give out Tootsie Rolls, give out a bunch of them to each kid. Those of you who give A Tootsie Roll to A kid are just angry, angry individuals who should probably seek counseling. You'll feel much better about things if you toss a handful of Tootsie Rolls into a kid's bag and watch them shriek with joy (until they realize they were just Tootsie Rolls). It's a lot better than watching them stare at you as you drop A Tootsie roll into their bag. Much better.
  

• Another candy that is not for children and is barely for adults is the Big Hunk. Big Hunk of what has always been my question. This thing is disgusting. It's like some sort of conglomeration of leftovers from another candy making process. Look at it! No one wants that.

• You want to see how close you can get a kid to crying on Halloween? Hand out raisins. What a waste of a walk from the sidewalk to the front door only to be given a very tiny box of raisins which you will not eat. You will use them as ammunition for torturing siblings. You will also use them as a counting aid when trying to figure out how many of them will fit up the dog's nose. You will not eat them.

• Finally, we arrive at the "feel good" treats. Oh, but they're not making the kids "feel good". No, they're making the smug, sanctimonious treat giver "feel good". Those kind of people like to be "practical" on Halloween. (Liking to be "practical" also seems to equate to "liking removing rolls and rolls of toilet paper from the front yard foliage the next morning." Go figure.) There is no place for anything "practical" when a bunch of people under four feet tall and running around the neighborhood, anticipating free candy AND getting it. Nothing practical about that and that's how it should be. Thus, no pencils, erasers, or any other type of school supply. If that was what the kids were after, they just would have gone over to Office Max and knocked on their door.

• The only folks who are allowed to hand out dental floss, toothbrushes or toothpaste are dentists and other professional individuals who do business inside of the mouth (preferably those with degrees and licenses, not hanging out on street corners under neon blinking lights that say "Massage"). But even then, they can only hand out those things at their office! At their home, they're not a dentist, they're a candy guy. So keep your floss to yourself and fork over the Snickers.

See? It's very simple. Avoid the stuff on this list, hand out stuff that kids want, and you'll be fine. Most importantly, whatever you do, just have a good time and just have good candy.

Sphere: Related Content

Let Him Play

Are we still in the Everybody-Gets-A-Trophy era? Or are people gradually weaning themselves from the idea that everyone needs to win every time they are in some sort of competition? I thought that we were in the weaning process. But after reading about a sixth grader who plays football so well that he is now formally limited from scoring more than three touchdowns per game, I'm thinking that we're not quite as weaned as I would have hoped.

See, Fox16 learned of a one Demias Jimerson. He's eleven. Apparently, Demias (pronounce that any way you'd like) is an awesome football player who can score just about any time he touches the ball (so they claim). Thus, the Wilson Intermediate School Football League instituted something called the Madre Hill rule. (They make a point in the article of telling us that Madre Hill was a Razorback at the University of Arkansas. Like we care or know who he is anyway.) Apparently, Madre Hill could kick ass on the football field as well. So they made a rule that after a person has scored three touchdowns in a game, if their team is ahead by more than 14 points that person can't score any more for the rest of the game. Wait. What?


Yes! That's the rule. The Principal of Wilson Intermediate School is a one Terri Bryant. She claims that "...the rule isn't meant to punish Jimerson. It's there to help the other fifth and sixth graders on the field develop as football players too." Hmmm. And it's going to do that by having them play against sub-standard players and teams? I'm not seeing how that is helping. I'm also not seeing why the game can't just be played without having to make stuff up!


Why is this happening? I understand that the kid is good. The other teams can't compensate? I don't know what to tell you. I don't think that the rules need to be changed because one guy is really good. Let's just dumb everything down for kids so that they won't have to try quite as hard. Let's just give everyone a chance...to think that they can do something that they can't. Are we supposed to make these sorts of exceptions for everything when one kid really excels? The answer, in case you're struggling, is NO! These things happen. Get used to it! Don't change the rules so that everyone doesn't feel bad! What is wrong with people?!

Sphere: Related Content

Well, That's Not Good

I need to figure out why this story hasn't gotten more attention in the news. I know that it's partly (largely) because the media sucks. That's a given. But I guess it could also be that it's a bad thing masquerading as a good thing. Well, masquerading to soft-headed individuals. Then again, since no one has seemed to catch on yet, maybe the masquerade is really good. Or maybe people just don't get it. Either way, a federal mandate that health insurers MUST cover birth control for women is NOT a good thing.

According to the Huffington Post, reported that the Obama administration has mandated that "Health insurance plans must cover birth control as preventive care for women, with no copays". Umm....OK. Wait. Why is this? Well, one of the reasons is because the administration wants to prevent unwanted pregnancies and for some reason, they think that the key to unwanted pregnancies lies with making sure that women can afford birth control. I guess we're supposed to ignore the fact that condoms are not exactly exorbitantly priced. Whatever. But that's not really my point here.

My point here is what is being overlooked. Woo-hoo! Everyone is just thrilled that women can have birth control for free! What a glorious day! Right?! NO! No? NO. What we have here is the federal government telling a private business what they are going to do. Shouldn't that concern people? A lot?! I think it should. But people are so freaking ga-ga over getting anything at all for "free" that they miss the overall point. (And I have "free" in quotes because someone is going to pay for this. The article says that "The cost will be spread among other people with health insurance, resulting in slightly higher premiums." Oh, good. I can't wait.)

The government shouldn't be telling a private business how to run their business! EVER. If the federal government wants to offer incentives for companies that offer free health care, that's one thing. (And I don't want to pay for those either. But I'd rather have it be an option rather than a requirement.) But to mandate that they provide birth control for women for free is out of line if you're asking me. Where does it stop? Or perhaps a better question is when are people going to realize that the government doesn't know better than they do? Anytime soon? Do you think? What's that? No? That's what I thought. We're doomed. Dooommed!

Sphere: Related Content

Infodots Versus Reality

I'm a big fan of the website Reddit. It's basically just a website for link sharing. The website calls itself "The voice of the Internet". I'm good with that. I realize that it doesn't help in describing it any sort of concrete terms, but since I included the link above, you'll be able to figure it out. I like it because they seem to be able to have interesting and on-topic discussions about a variety of subjects in a rather civilized manner. And oh, the things I have learned. Naturally, first and foremost, I've learned that we really are scroomed.

For example, one Redditor started this topic: "My teacher didn't allow us to say the term "bullet points" because it "promotes violence". Reddit, what are the stupidest rules that your teachers/instructors have made?" (The teacher made them use the made-up moniker "infodots" instead. And you thought the story couldn't get any more ridiculous this early on! That's not a word!) Naturally, I was hoping that it would turn out to be a very short conversation, as I was already in enough pain from smacking my head against the wall after reading about the forbidden bullet points terminology. (For reals? Who are those sort of people? Does the teacher who made that rule realize that the bullet points aren't made out of real bullets? Apparently not. I'm also guessing that the teacher in question didn't realize that the sort of things like the banning of the term "bullet points" is what really "promotes violence". Moron.) There ended up being at least 3,401 comments on this topic. And on the good side, I'm always looking for a reason to drink. Trust me, this gave me more than enough reasons. Let's begin.

Here we have a memory from someone with a clearly psychotic Spanish teacher who may or may not have had some sort of Hispanic 'Easy Rider' complex going on. "My spanish teacher deducted marks if we didn't get on our imaginary spanish motorcycles (hand gestures and everything) when we had to say a word with two r's next to each other (like perro)...Everytime we reved the engine (not quite sure what the correct term is when you put your hand on the handlebars and move your arm in a circular motion), we had to intensify the "rrrr" sound". I understand wanting kids to get the hang of the rolling r, but deducting points if you don't make yourself look like a jackass in class? I'd like to think that I would have failed that class out of sheer refusal to participate in such nonsense.

Reckoning back to a topic I touched on recently, "Children at my kid's school are not allowed to play tag because it would require someone to be "it". Why, yes! Yes, it would require that! It's not like you're going to be "it" forever! And it's not like you would have to do things like that scary-ass clown in that movie of the same name. The people who made up that rule must not understand the game very well. And that really explains a lot.

Even though there isn't any reasoning to any of this, here's one where there really wasn't a reason: "We weren't allowed to say 'brain storm' and had to say 'thought shower' instead. I don't think there was even a reason why." Maybe they were afraid it would offend epileptics? I don't know. Again, I'd like to think that I would have refused to follow that rule out of the sheer principle of the matter. That being I don't like to be told to do things that are patently ridiculous, not to mention completely inane.

Going from ridiculous to absolutely asinine..."A school I went to didn't allow running, you could only skip because some how that was safer. I kid you f***ing not". And as a result, the kids all played a FABULOUS game of flag football.

In the category of "Worst Advice Ever", we have this lovely nugget: "My sophomore High School English teacher instructed us that every essay should begin with "This essay is about..." He insisted that this is the format that college professors would expect." My response is about how completely moronic that is. That is moronic. In conclusion, I responded that it was moronic.

From the "You're Trying Too Hard" file: "We weren't allowed to use "dice" in math class. They were to be called "number cubes". Reason? "Dice" promoted gambling." I can't imagine how someone with such shallow thinking skills is actually a math teacher. Call them what you want, they are what they are. What part of that is confusing to that person?!

"At my school, they allowed us to play dodgeball, but instead of calling it dodgeball, we had to call it "happy fun ball". After a year, we weren't allowed to have the word ball in it. We had to refer to it as "happy fun time". This was high school." This makes me want to cry. Oh, wait a minute. There appears to be a slight salty discharge emanating from my tear ducts. I appear to be weeping for humanity. (I'm going to try to resist asking the question of why they were playing dodgeball in high school. It's really hard. That's what she said.)

And finally, mainly because all of this has driven me to drink (not that I was objecting): "My teacher told us not to use the term "white-out" because it could be deemed racist. We were instead told to use the term "correction paste". You have got to be dry shaving me! It's not even spelled the same! Idiocy has seeped over into phonetics?! Is that what you're telling me? Just because something is white doesn't mean that it is racist! There are lots of white things that are not racist!

In conclusion, I'd just like to reiterate that the inmates are running the asylum and we are all scroomed. Thank you and where's my drink?

Sphere: Related Content

What Not To Wear During Summer

As yesterday was the 4th of July (America's Independence Day for those of you not reading this in the states), I had the opportunity to observe many people out in the summer weather. In many cases, I was able to observe just a little bit too much of some folks. That's when it struck me that there are many summer apparel/fashion trends that I simply do not like. And as I always do when writing about clothing (or the lack there of in some cases) I will mention that I, myself, am far from a fashion monger. Fashion mongrel might be more like it on some days. (Although, I've been getting better lately due to my currently being enamored with a certain extremely well-dressed flight attendant.) So, am I one to talk? Absolutely! I mean, even I have my limits. I wouldn't wear any of the stuff I am about to share with you. Ever.

I'm going to start with those damned fly-eye sunglasses that cover up half of your face AND the face of the person that you're standing next to. They're THAT big! Seriously, why do you need sunglasses that big? I'm fine with slightly oversized. I'm talking about the ones that extend down to the corners of your mouth on the bottom and touch your hairline on the top. I told you' they're THAT big! You look like a mutant insect from another planet. What's wrong with a pair of Ray-Bans? Say, aviator style? Maybe in a blue? (Yeah, I bought a pair of those last week and man, are they sweet!)

Guys, if you are wearing shorts, do not wear your work boots. Please. You're not fooling us into thinking that you have some manly job that requires protective footwear, but not protective trousers. If your feet are in danger, so are your legs. And that's my point. If you're wearing shorts, you shouldn't BE wearing work boots. It's not cool and you look like a dork. Actually, any kind of boots with shorts is not a good look. So, put those Uggs back in the closet!

Ladies, knock it off with the fringe. I suppose that a fringe purse (yes, I saw two of those yesterday) would be OK, but the fringe clothing is definitely out. Why do you want to look like you just got into a fight with a bear? Or a homeless person? If you must do the fringe shirt (and I'm begging you not to) please don't do the kind where you attach little beads to the ends of the strands of...strings? Fringe? Shirt? I don't know what those are. And if you don't wear it, then I don't have to figure out what to call it, capeesh?

Back to the guys, if you're going to wear a T-shirt without any sleeves, then you run right on down to your local gay man's workout apparel establishment and pick yourself up a T-shirt that doesn't have any sleeves on purpose. Do NOT rip the sleeves off of it yourself. And while I'm on the subject, please do not also then rip the arm hole all the way down to the bottom so that there is like an inch of fabric holding the thing together. We (the women) are not going to be tricked into thinking that you are the Incredible Hulk who is at the barbeque straight from coming in off of an anger bender. It looks ridiculous. But if any of you out there can tell me why men think that this is a good idea, by all means, please let me know. I'm perplexed by the whole thing.

Ladies, what's with the military apparel? Well, the apparel isn't precisely the problem as much as the pattern. Just because you're on a beach, does that mean you have to look like you're on Omaha Beach? I don't think that it does. No one is expecting you to jump on top of a Howitzer or anything. (Yes, yes, I realize that they might enjoy that. All I'm saying is that it's not expected.) Looking like you just stepped out of Afghanistan isn't appealing to anyone. Even (and especially) the Afghanis. Trust me. Ditch the camo look.

Guys, about your shorts. There are a couple of rules that you're going to need to follow. Rule One: Shorts must be shorts. Shorts going down to just above your ankle or mid-calf aren't shorts. They're just you being sloppy. Same goes for cargo shorts. No one needs that many pockets. If you need that many pockets, you need seriously check yourself and see about getting a purse. And Rule Two: No jean shorts for men. I've just been made aware that another name for jean shorts is jorts or jhorts. Apparently, either one is acceptable. Yet, at the same time, neither term is really acceptable. If you're a dude and you're wearing jean shorts and calling them jhorts, you're probably already out shopping for that purse.

Women, ditch the headbands and ditch the leggings. We're long past the 1980s. You're not Jane Fonda. You likely never were Jane Fonda. (More likely, you don't even know who Jane Fonda is.) Is there some sort of secret desire to broadcast a Cyndi Lauper-like appearance so that everyone will know that girls just wanna have fun? (I'm guessing they probably don't know who Cyndi Lauper is either. While the Jane Fonda ignorance is fine, not knowing about Cyndi Lauper is just sad.)

I find these rules of apparel fairly simple to understand and even easier to follow. Trust me. We'll all be better off this way.

Sphere: Related Content