Yet more rule internalization

I think one of the most classic examples of rule internalization has to be zero-tolerance policies. These awful, awful things are intensely, severely popular in schools across America, and they rarely, if ever, do anything to help anyone. Anywhere. Ever. Take this example from Southwest Middle School in Palm Bay, Florida:

A 14-year-old middle school student was suspended as a result of the Florida school’s strict no-hugging policy.

Nick Martinez said he hugged his best friend, a female student, quickly between classes, according to WKMG-TV, Orlando, and never thought the gesture would result in suspension. The principal at Southwest Middle School in Palm Bay saw the hug and brought the two students to the dean, who issued a one-day in-school suspension.

“Honestly, I didn’t know, because I didn’t think hugging was a bad thing. I didn’t know you could get suspended for it,” Martinez told WKMG-TV. “A lot of friends are hugging. I just happened to be the one caught doing it.”

This is a result of lazy thinking. The board which came up with these policies did so in a way that demonstrates a complete lack of interest in the welfare of the children it is charged with overseeing. If they gave a damn, they would have bothered to spend 15 minutes coming up with a few distinctions. For instance, was Nick Martinez grabbing some ass? No? Oh, well, then, carry on.

Of course, like any non-thinking entity, the board has some ready-to-go excuses:

“We cannot make an opinion or judgment call on whether a hug is appropriate or not. It’s very difficult to police that on campus,” Christine Davis, the public information officer for Brevard County Public Schools, told ABC News.

No, no, no. It isn’t that they cannot make a judgement call. It’s that they are cowards who don’t dare to make judgement calls.

Davis said the school puts policies and procedures in place to help keep the students focused on learning.

Really? So taking two students out of their classes for an entire day is a focus on learning? For a school system unwilling to make simple judgement decisions, they sure are willing to make bold judgement calls of pure shit when it comes to educating children.

Thought of the day

Context matters in language

I know the title to this post is wildly obvious, but for some bizarre reason it bears repeating. People do not seem to understand that the power any given word may have is premised in the context in which it is presented. A white Southerner in 1845 who calls someone a nigger is doing so for some awfully racist reasons. Herman Cain saying “niggerhead” had nothing racist about it (nor would it if a white person dared to say it on TV). The same idea goes for any given word, including “retard”, “faggot”, “wetback”, or even words which are often considered politically correct. For instance, “Jerry Coyne is a Jew” has no bigoted meaning behind it, at least in the majority of contexts in which it may be said. However, “I think the used car salesman really Jewed me on my purchase” is entirely different because it appeals to stereotypes about Jews screwing people over monetarily.

I wish more people could understand this. EDIT: Not that I’m advocating for the use of any of these words. While context does matter, sometimes it is too difficult to divorce a word from its historical context without being very specific.

(And context certainly matters behind this one word.)

Thought of the day

Herman Cain recap: If you are poor, it’s totally your fault. But if you get accused of sexual harassment by three women, it’s Rick Perry’s fault.

Marriage and women changing their last names

Should the day come that I tie the knot, my preference is that my wife takes my last name. It isn’t something for which I would push if she wanted to keep hers, but it is my preference. It would make things clearer in that it would more immediately demonstrate to outsiders that we are married. Of course, that is only a minor benefit, and besides that, I would not change my own last name, so it isn’t like I could not be a hypocrite while demanding she change hers. I imagine most any modern day person would see things much the same way, but apparently 50% of Americans wildly disagree with me:

While no national statistics exist, some recent studies suggest that women keeping their own name is actually becoming less popular. And a recent nationally representative survey found that half of Americans support women being legally required to take their husband’s name upon marriage.

…why?

In $215,000 We Trust

At least that was the measure approved by the House today:

The House passed a resolution reaffirming that the nation’s motto remains “In God We Trust” on a 396-9 vote today…

Although the resolution does not create any binding law, its consideration cost more than $215,000 in Members’ salaries and floor operation costs, and Democrats ridiculed the decision to bring up the measure.

The funniest part about this is that Eric Cantor approved this measure for a vote. I wonder if he realizes that the vast majority of those 396 votes were for the Christian version of God, not his Jewish version.

Homeopathic books

Thought of the day

I don’t see why anyone would want to live in a southern state.