I'm Mad Bro

Ready for another story of something being made of absolutely nothing? And complete with non-existent racial overtones? No? I wasn't either, but I read the article anyway. That's how I learned about a bunch of folks in Painesville, Ohio (and this IS a pain) who are flipping out over a sign that some high schoolers put up that read "U Mad Bro?" You know. Because 'bro' is a racial term. Wait. No, it isn't. What now?

See, there's this Internet meme that has this tormented smiling face looking sideways at you. It usually is captioned with "U Mad Bro?" According to Fox8 in Cleveland, "U Mad Bro?" means "To make a ragin [sic] person rage even more by asking the most ironic question." They said they got that from Urban Dictionary, but I did not find that definition, even though that definition fits. (It's the same as kicking someone when they're down. And I like that definition better because it does not include the term "ragin".) Here's the face. Behold!
How is that racially offensive? Hard to say, but that's probably just because it isn't. See, there was a high school football game between Kirtland and Painesville. Kirtland won and I think it was at Painesville. So after the game, a bunch of students and some parents put up a sign (that was really a tarp with words spray painted on it) that read "YOU MAD BRO?" You know. Because Painesville lost the game on their field. End of story, right? Not so fast.

A one Roderick Coffee, who is the president of the Lake County chapter of the NAACP, decided that this would be a good thing to make a huge stink about. That's why he said, "At the conclusion of the game, some of their students and parents put up a sign that we believe was racial intimidation, ethnic intimidation." OK. Now, let's say that I understand (even though I don't) how he could have thought that. And then let's say that I explain to him that it's not racial. It's not even the slightest bit racial. Then what? Well, then they don't accept that explanation and take it to the local news, of course.


And they must have brought it to the attention of the superintendent for the Painesville school, a one Michael Hanlon, because he said, "I think the reference to 'bro' in the sign definitely has a racial connection to it." OK, you can think that, but I'm telling you, it has ZERO racial connections AT ALL. So why are we still talking about it? I'm guessing that it has something to do with this part of the article: "No doubt, the sign offended people." Crap. This again?!


Look, just because someone is offended, that doesn't mean that they're RIGHT. And there isn't a Constitutional right to not be offended. And truthfully, if you're offended over something as simple as a sign that reads, 'YOU MAD BRO?" then you need to wear a helmet at all times and stay inside as much as possible. But don't you worry. According to the Principal of Kirtland High School, a one Lynn Campbell, "...there will be a thorough investigation." But WHY?!


I'm telling you! There is no NEED for a "thorough investigation". It's NOT racial! What, exactly, will this "investigation" consist of? Getting on the Internet? Let me save you the time. It's NOT racial! Why are people so quick to jump to something being racial? Even something as tested by time as sports teams taunting each other? Do those folks really have so little to do that this is what they've resorted to?

moreless

How Soft-Headed ARE You?

I hate lawsuits. Well, I hate lawsuits where there's basically no merit, but someone is all butthurt over something trivial and decides that they should have a boatload of money as a result of their injured posterior. I hate having to read how some plaintiff was overly wronged by some defendant because I know that they weren't very wronged at all. They certainly weren't wronged to the point where money is going to make things better. But yet they persist.

Take the instance of a one Quera Pruitt. She went to a high school that sanctioned something called Wigger Day. According to the Huffington Post, on this particular day "...students wore clothes and behaved in a manner that "from their perspective, mimicked black culture." See, "Wigger is a pejorative slang term for a white person who emulates the mannerisms, language and fashions associated with African-American culture." Oh. OK. Well, that just doesn't sound like a very good idea at all. But none the less, it occurred. And in 2009, about 60 students dressed for "Wigger Wednesday" in "oversized sports jerseys, low-slung pants, baseball hats cocked to the side and 'doo rags." Ugh.

But see, while I hear about this sort of nonsense and think that it's ridiculous, that's about as far as it goes with me. I'm not black or anything, but I'd like to think that it still wouldn't bother me even if I was. It's just ridiculous is all that it is. But not for Quera Pruitt. Oh, no. She filed a lawsuit seeking $75,000 in "damages". Her claim? That the aforementioned Wigger Day caused her "...severe emotional distress including depression, loss of sleep, stress, crying, humiliation, anxiety, and shame." It also mentioned that Pruitt "...became depressed, quit the cheerleading squad, left student council, skipped her senior prom and even considered dropping out of school." Oh, for cryin' out loud!

A bunch of doofuses (doofii?) with their hats turned sideways and their pants falling off of their collective asses made all of this stuff happen to this chick? Crying? She lost sleep over this crap?! And thought of dropping out of school?! You have got to be dry shavin' me! Quit the cheerleading squad?! Were these crooked hat wearing morons on the cheerleading squad with her?! It wouldn't matter if they were! If this chick can't handle being around doofuses (or doofii) like this in high school, how in the world is she going to make it through the rest of her life. I certainly hope she doesn't have Internet access. Could you imagine what stuff on the Internet would do to her? I think her poor little soft like melted ice-cream head would just implode. Get a grip on yourself, ma'am. Please. For your own sake! Drop the lawsuit and learn how to deal with life! Good Lord, woman.

moreless

No Soup For You!

Over there at Atlantic City High school in (surprise) Atlantic City, it seems that some of the kids during one of the lunch periods decided to engage in a food fight. According to the Press of Atlantic City, it was "...a cell-phone-coordinated food fight that broke out during a recent lunch period." Cell phone coordinated? Interesting. Well, at least they're getting involved within their own community. That's something. But here's the thing: As a result of said food fight "Cafeteria workers offered students only cheese sandwiches Wednesday and Thursday as punishment". OK. That's an interesting way of handling it, but I can see the point. If they're going to be throwing around stuff like mashed potatoes and mixed fruit, that's going to make a mess. It's going to make a bigger mess than throwing around bread and cheese, that's for sure. So what's the problem? Of course. Some parent is having a complete cow over this.

Meet Bridgitte Reid. Her daughter attends said high school and was present during the lunch period during which said food fight broke out. She says, "It’s a prison meal. They can’t do this.” They can't? Why...why not? I think they can.

According to the article, "Reid was so enraged after her daughter explained what she ate Wednesday, she eventually argued directly with school officials, marched into the cafeteria and snatched one of the cheese sandwiches for evidence of the “crime.” I'm sure this woman is just a peach to have as the parent of a student at that school. Just a peach.

Now, look, I can understand being upset at having to suffer through a group punishment when you weren't actually part of what went on. And Ms. Reid is claiming that her daughter was not part of the cell phone organized food fracas. And I get that. But when things like this happen, don't the ones who get punished along with the ones that were responsible get kind of pissed off at the perpetrators? Isn't that supposed to do something right there? Besides, I can imagine that it would be a little difficult trying to ascertain exactly who participated in a food fight and who did not. Then again, they seemed to know that it was organized via cell phone, so they must have a fairly good idea. Regardless, I don't have a problem with this sort of group consequence.

According to the superintendent of the district, a one Frederick Nickles, "“It’s been the policy of the school board for many years that if there is a food-throwing incident, what occurs is we will supply the basic food requirement. It’s been effective over the years.” Again, that seems reasonable. Sure, it sucks that her daughter happened to be in that group, but as Mr. Nickles says, "It’s unfortunate, but we are more concerned about the general population.” Ah, if only other things, such as learning, were treated in such a manner.

But here's the thing I don't get. Why is Ms. Reid so upset that her daughter was fed a cheese sandwich? I could see if her daughter was paying full price for the school lunch (I almost doubled over with laughter as I typed that, as I don't think that anything other than a subsidized lunch in school these days is even an option) and was expecting something with a bit more, say, substance to it and was handed a cheese sandwich. But due to the craptastic reporting of the story, the article does not delve into whether or not Ms. Reid's daughter was paying for her lunch or not.

The article also does not question Ms. Reid as to why her daughter did not simply bring a lunch to school. I understand not wanting to eat whatever it is that they're serving in the cafeteria. (My high school cafeteria had some awesome grub. We were the first high school in the district to get a milkshake machine. It's hard to complain about a school lunch that consists of a huge piece of pizza and a chocolate shake.) But if you're not going to like it, bring something from home! It's not that difficult of a concept to grasp. (And I can bet you that there wouldn't have been any complaining if those plain cheese sandwiches had been grilled.)

But, alas, that thinking was completely lost on Ms. Reid, who asked, "Why should my student be forced to eat this? There’s nothing on this. No mayo, no nothing. It’s disgusting.” Hmm. I'm missing the part in the article where they "forced" your daughter to eat the "disgusting" cheese sandwich. Just because there are no other options to choose from other than nothing does not imply that something is forced upon someone. She doesn't have to eat it. And believe me, not eating one lunch that she does not like is not going to cause any long term health problems, for cryin' out loud. But I'm going to guess from her reaction about her student being "forced" to eat the sandwich that she isn't exactly forking over any cash for her noontime sustenance. Then again, the folks over at WPIX-TV, used the term "forced" in their story and in their headline, once again demonstrating that the media sucks.

People like this amaze me. You know what else amazes me? How Ms. Reid bears a striking resemblance to Urkel.

moreless

It's Not The Dress That's The Problem

This is one of those posts that started out as one thing, but quickly became about something else for me. Let's head on over to Oxford High School in Oxford, Alabama to check in on some hubbub that's been going on. While we're there, let's create a little hubbub of our own, shall we? Because from what I can tell, we're going to have to, as the part of this story that made me yell, "What?!" was just completely brushed over in the article that I read.

The article to which I'm referring comes to us courtesy of AOL News. It is there that we learn the tale of a one Erica DeRamus, whose choice of a prom dress ended up getting her not only kicked out of the prom, but suspended for three days on top of that. Really? Really. Apparently, the school has a dress code "...which stipulates that necklines must not plunge below students' breastbones and skirt hems must not be higher than six inches above the knee." Huh. Wait. What?

See, now I thought that this was going to either be some sort of ambiguous dress code requirement or it was going to be something that would have required kids to dress in a way that made members of the FLDS church seem like bimbos. Neither one of those was the case! Serious, does that really say that "skirt hems must not be higher than six inches above the knee"?? I believe it does! Look at your knee! Look at where six inches above it is! Holy crap! Six inches?! That's short! I don't care who you are, you're getting into dangerous territory with a skirt that's six inches above your knee. I'm not sure if I think that it's a perfectly reasonable (not to mention easily attainable) limit to set or if I think that they might want to consider making it three or four inches instead. Holy crap, six inches. That doesn't leave much to the imagination. God forbid if they bend over in something like that. That would render the imagination completely useless.

That requirement seems a little contradictory or counter-productive to the other requirement that the necklines not plunge below the breastbone. Look, you can do a lot with cleavage. It's very a very versatile anatomical part. As proud as all of you guys are about your penile units, y'all ain't got nothin' on our breasts. They're magical. We can do damn near anything with 'em. (And I realize that guys don't care what it is that we do with them, just as long as they can stare at them or, on a good day, grope them. But that's not my point and you know it.) But even if the lowest part of the neckline was below the breastbone, that doesn't necessarily mean that an undue amount of cleavage is going to be revealed. It's not like the neckline goes straight across or anything.

So, just to recap this part of the story, it's OK in Alabama to have your ass damn near coming out of the back of your dress, but keep your breasts under some sort of burlap sack, would you, please? Now, just to see where Ms. DeRamus went afoul of these guidelines, let's look at the dress in question, shall we? Behold!

Oh, good Lord, what the hell is that?! Wow. It's like Tinkerbell on crack. That is not an attractive dress, miss. I'm sorry, but it's hideous. I realize that you can't ban someone from the prom for poor fashion sense, but that's really bad. And she's a cute girl, too. That dress really doesn't do her justice at all. But judging solely on the screen shots from the video (thanks for the crappy reporting WBRC-TV and not including a head-on full length shot of her wearing the dress in question), I'm not sure where you would begin measuring that thing. It's awfully poofy.

According to the principal, a one Trey Holloday, the students and their parents were notified three times in advance of the prom as to what the dress code standards were. That seems reasonable. He also said that "Of the 352 Oxford High students who attended the prom, officials said 18 violated the dress code." Hmm. Five percent. That seems about right. (After seeing Erica's dress, though, I'd really like to see what other folks who got booted from the prom were wearing! I think that would be highly entertaining, yet probably horrifying at the same time!) All of that being said, her dress, while hideous, didn't seem too out of line. It appears to fit within the 6 inches rule. And the cleavage thing seems within limits as well. But I wasn't there, so it's hard to say. Regardless, I think it's fair to say that the dress clearly could fall within a gray area and she probably should have checked with those who make the decision on these sorts of things beforehand and avoided all of this.

But here's the part that just blew me away. Ready? It doesn't have anything to do with the dress or the prom or the dress code. Of the 18 students, Erica is the only one who was suspended for three days. That's because there was a choice of punishments. Erica's choice was suspension. Do you want to guess what the other punishment was that the other 17 students opted for? You'll never guess, so I'm just going to tell you. The other 17 students opted for paddling. Um, wait. Paddl...what the what?

Correct. Apparently, paddling is a punishment option at schools in Alabama! Are you kidding me?! Since when?! Actually, I suppose that the "when" is easy to answer. It's more the "Why are they still doing this?" question that I'd like to have answered. Even Erica sees the archaic-ness of the practice, explaining her choice by saying, "I'm a little too old to get paddled...This is high school, we're seniors. If we're going to act up, give us another option besides being paddled because this isn't the 1940s. We don't take corporal punishment now." Good. For. Her.

And if you read this article over at AOL News or anywhere else, the whole paddling issue is not even addressed. It's just brushed over like it's perfectly normal (which it is not, by the way). You folks in Alabama really paddle 18-year old seniors (who fit the legal definition of an adult) who act up? Why? What is the rationale behind that? What in the world are you people thinking?!

Of course, now I'm totally curious. What does this paddling entail? How big is the paddle? Are we talking like fly-swatter size? Ping-pong paddle size? Tennis racket size? Oh! Wait! Is it like a spanking machine?? Do they make the wrong-doer crawl through the legs of a line of people and they all swat them on the butt as they make their way through? Or is it some sort of Rube Goldberg contraption that they're strapped to until an egg makes its way down a conveyor belt and lights a match which burns a string that unleashes a paddling device upon the hind quarters of the moral defy-er? That must be it. (I wonder where they keep it. Oh! There must be a dungeon! Schools in Alabama have paddling dungeons! Pass it on.)

And who actually does the paddling? I would quit my job (and seriously reconsider my career choice) if I were told that one of my duties was now going to be to physically beat students. Who is OK with performing that act? What kind of people are they? I guess they're the kind of people who work in schools in Alabama where they still paddle students. Un-freaking-believable. I have suddenly forgotten all about the chick and her prom dress that may or may not have been too short. I am now more concerned by the fact that there are still schools in this country that paddle children as a punishment. And I am consumed by the fact that it is seemingly an accepted practice to many folks. I think I'm going to go and contemplate whether or not the wall around my walled-off compound is high enough. I want those people kept far away from me.

moreless

All Dressed Up And No Prom To Go To

From the files of "What in the world is wrong with you?" and sub-filed under "Are you kidding me?" we go to the Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi. It is there that we learn of a student, a one 18-year-old Constance McMillen, who wanted to go to the prom dressed in a tuxedo and escorting her girlfriend (who also attends the school). Now, granted, a woman wearing a tux isn't exactly typical prom wear for most of the girls, but I can't imagine that it would matter that much to someone. Who cares? At least she'll be wearing pants. (That's more than I can say for some of those at my prom.) And also granted, same sex dates to the prom aren't exactly the most mainstream thing that you're going to see, even in the year 2010. But I don't think that means that people are going to have a huge problem with it.

Turns out I was wrong on all counts. The wearing of the tux? Apparently, a very big deal to the school. The same-sex prom date? Apparently, a very big deal to the school as well. But, fortunately, the school realized that there really wasn't any way that they could ban or bar the student and her girlfriend from attending the prom together and wearing the attire that she desired. Because that would just be silly and cause a huge uproar if they did that. Yeah. That's why they just cancelled the entire prom. Wait. They did what now?

Correct. They cancelled the entire prom. Rather than allow this female student and her female date attend together and rather than allow one of the female students to wear a tux, the school decided that it would be the sensible thing to do to cancel the prom altogether. In a statement released by the boneheaded county board of education, it was explained that "Due to the distractions to the educational process caused by recent events, the Itawamba County School District has decided to not host a prom at Itawamba Agricultural High School this year." Uh-huh.

Well, that's about a lame ass excuse if I've ever heard of one. The statement also said that "The school hoped that private citizens in the community would organize an event to replace the prom." I see. Leave the tux-wearing, teenage lesbian and her date for the community to deal with. OK, then. You know, I'm not thinking that the "educational process" in this school district is doing anybody any justice here. What is wrong with people?

According to those half-assing it over there at CNN (Have you watched CNN lately? You can't disagree with that lead-in if you're being honest.) the ACLU has filed a lawsuit against the school claim that they are "...violating the student's First Amendment right to freedom of expression." While I agree that if they were holding the prom they would be doing that, they're not holding the prom, so they're not doing that. No, instead they're just being incredibly asinine and, unfortunately, you can't sue for stupidity.

Ms. McMillen issued the following statement: "All I wanted was the same chance to enjoy my prom night like any other student. But my school would rather hurt all the students than treat everyone fairly. This isn't just about me and my rights anymore -- now I'm fighting for the right of all the students at my school to have our prom." I just want to point out that this girl never wanted this to turn into a big issue. According to CBS News "McMillen almost didn't return to school Thursday for fear of retribution by her classmates who had just lost their prom because of her. "My daddy told me that I needed to show them that I'm still proud of who I am," McMillen said. "The fact that this will help people later on, that's what's helping me to go on." That's brave. But you know what? I think not only is this going to help people later on, I think it's going to make for one hell of a prom.

Let me tell you something. If you think that word of this ridiculous incident has not spread like wildfire across this country and the Innerwebs, you are wrong. It has. And the majority of comments that I read (which isn't a lot because, let's face, most people who leave comments on blogs which are not this one, are mouth breathers, paste eaters and the like) all seem to have the same sentiment. Who cares? The other prominent reaction that I read is how asinine it was of the school to just cancel the prom. I don't think that it will be the private citizens in the community that are going to take over this prom. I think that it is going to be the prominent gay people in this country who are going to take over this prom.

If this goes the way that I predict it will, this is going to end up like Footloose, only way cooler. I can't imagine Ellen DeGeneres not stepping up and footing the bill for one hell of a prom for those kids from...where was it? BFE? Fulton, Mississippi, close enough. I'm hoping this will be big and I'm hoping that this will turn out positively. I don't see where the lawsuit has merit when there isn't even a prom any more. But I do see where I think we're at point where this is going to turn out OK. At least I hope so. I'd really like to be able to write a post in a couple of months reporting that those guys had one hell of a prom. What I'd like even more than that would be to write that someone from the school actually freaking apologized and said that they were wrong. Hey! I said it's what I'd like. I don't think it's happening. (You know, I went to click on the high school's website so that I could get a copy of their logo, and it appears that the school's website is no longer online at this time. They took the website for the entire school down?! Yeah, they're not apologizing any time soon. There must have been quite the flood of incoming email I'm guessing in order for them to have taken the website down. Amateurs.) But I have the feeling that one hell of a prom will be happening.

moreless

I Don't Know Why He Swallowed The Fly

You know, the most effective way to complete your high school course work and earn decent grades is to a) study, and b) to actually do the course work. Using some sort of entymological ingestion procedure as a way of getting an 'A' on your Algebra II test is probably not a really good way to go about things.

Dateline: El Dorado Hills, California. Sub-dateline: Oak Ridge High School, Algebra II class, test day. From CBS-13 KOVR News, the story plays out as follows. The Algebra II teacher killed a fly in class with his hands and then dared any of his students to eat the dead fly, allegedly enticing them by saying, "If anybody eats this fly then I will give them an A on this test." Go on. Guess what happened next. Guess! You got it. Some paste eater ate it. (Maybe he was branching out.) Now guess what happened after that! Go on. Guess! That's right. No A.

Steven Zeldag is the lad in question and judging from his score on his Algebra II test, he's not just dumb, he's fly-eatin' dumb. The lad scored 9 out of 46. That's just a hair under twenty percent correct. He claims that his teacher said that "...I told you I'd give you an A on your test, so here's your A, but it's not going in the gradebook." "The teacher even wrote, "Here is your A on your test," when he returned the paper to the student." Behold!

The story continues by explaining Steven's revelation, saying that "...he realized what he thought was a deal was really just a joke at his expense." Dun-dun-DUNNNNNNNN!! Ya think? What a moron.

"I didn't think he was joking at all," said the fly eater.

You know, I should probably take that back. The moron part, that is. The kid might really be a good kid. Maybe he's good with his hands. (Well, if he's not, he'd better get good with his hands, because I don't know how well that book learnin' is going to be turning out for him.) But judging from his ability to discern whether or not a teacher is jerking you around by saying "I'll give anyone an A who eats this fly", I don't know that he was ever going to pass that Algebra II test in the first place.

See, he seems to have overlooked a real key piece to this ordeal. Son, your math teacher can't give you a grade that is contingent upon your ingesting any insects. Hell, or mammal for that matter. Insect. Mammal. Egg layer. Unless you are enrolled in a course that specifically requires the ingesting of animals, eating any sort of animal isn't going to help you. If you gobble down a field mouse, you're not going to get an A on your biology exam. If you consume an entire raccoon, it's not going to get you an A on your term paper. That's not the way that it works...at all!

Mind you, this is an algebra class. Algebra consists of solving for the unknown. There are not a lot of unknowns in this story. There's an awful lot of "known"s though. The way that scholastic achievement grades are doled out. The general area of the kid's overall IQ. Things like that. Things like your future if you keep thinking that the eating of a freshly squashed insect is going to propel you to the top of the class. Your future won't be unknown. Your future will be dim. Your future will be counting change out for people. Not that there's anything wrong with that. But when you're a high school student, don't you want something more than that to look forward to? My point.

Those are the knowns. Here are a few of the unknowns:

One: The article said that this fly-for-grades debacle took place last month. What does that mean? Today is the 4th of November, so "last month" could have been just last week, but we don't know that. I have no idea why that wasn't clarified. (I take that back. I have some idea. It's called "The media is crap".)

Two: When the principal was contacted to comment on this story, he said that "...it was the first time he heard about it." OK. Since the principal hadn't heard about it that means that neither the boy, nor the teacher went to him. I'm guessing that, out of the two of them, the only one that I would foresee going to the media with it would be the boy. Now, that makes little to no sense to me because "Stephen said he was afraid to tell his principal because his teacher would punish him." Um, so you go to Channel 13? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Oh, wait. This is the same kid who ate the fly, right? Never mind. It all makes perfect sense.

Three: I don't think the kid is being totally honest about why he didn't study for the test. He made it sound like the deal was made (an A for a fly snack) in advance of the test being given and because he was under his self inflicted delusion that he would be getting an A, he didn't study. I'm thinking it was more like he didn't study and saw the chance to weasel out of possibly (likely) getting a bad grade and when the fly opportunity buzzed in (pun totally intended) and presented itself, he took it. No way he ate the fly a week in advance or something and just didn't bother to study for the test because he had a tummy chock full o'fly. No way. I'm not buyin' it. But from the news report, it's hard to tell. That's right, because the media sucks. How'd you guess?

We're so doomed. Let me just tell you, if I had pulled this stunt in high school, it would not have ended up on the news. If I was dumb enough to eat the fly and expect an A and then I was dumb enough to tell my family about it, I probably would have been slapped upside the head by one or both parents before they laughed me out of the house for being such a moron. Oh, and if I even thought about bringing up the subject of "Hey, so, the local news wants to do a story on me being an idiot and eating a bug", do you know what would have happened then? It would have been loud, I'll tell you that! I'm guessing something to the effect of my needing to think about how important the roof over my head and the food in my stomach and the clothes on my back actually were to me because if they weren't that important, I'd be doing that story on the news and my parents would have stopped providing all of those things to me. No WAY would they let that happen. THEY don't want to be known far and wide as the two people that raised the fly-eating, test-failing dumbass. But now? Sure! Go on the news! Tell everyone how dumb you are. Enjoy! Oh, and when you come around to cut my grass, don't cut it too short, all right? Thanks.

moreless