When I was younger, I was much more giving with information about my life than I am now. If I was in a relationship, not only did everyone know but everyone knew every fight, make up, conversation etc that happened. When I couldn't figure out why no one really liked my boyfriend at the time, my mother wisely told me:
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..
Over the holidays, I was talking with someone whom I trust a great deal about "letting go". You know, it's the time of year that you reflect on what's happened and look forward to what can be and though I wasn't talking about that particular thing with this person, I thought the conversation was timely. We were actually talking about the past and how some people feel that to move on you have to "forget" about what's happened in order to move forward peacefully and with a smile.
White lights or colored lights? Blinking or non-blinking? Bonus points if you show us a photo of the lights you used to decorate for the holidays.
I prefer colored Christmas lights, as I think white lights are boring and kind of pretentious. After all, we see white lamps in different forms of lighting 365 days a year; there's nothing special about them. On the other hand, we only see the strings of colored lights at Christmas time and color is inherently more interesting than the lack of color.
But I prefer non-blinking lights, as the blinky kind are kind of distracting and annoying.
I can't show you a picture, because I don't decorate for Christmas.
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?
Quote of the day:Right is right, even if everyone is against it; and wrong is wrong, even if everyone is for it.
~William Penn
English founder of Pennsylvania, 17th century
We had some fun yesterday...
Merry Christmas!!!!!!!!!
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?
Life has been so busy. And while that's no excuse to be ignoring my blog, it was the one thing that wasn't paying me in some form. So, I let it go. And while I am posting now, I have no idea how often I will be posting... so...
