No, this is NOT a joke:
Long Beach High School has an annual “Superhero Day” for its seniors. According to Newsday, while other students came dressed as Superman and Wonder Woman, three girls–Ashley Imhof, Eliana Levin, and Chelsea Horowitz–came attired as kid’s book superhero Captain Underpants. There was nothing remotely indecent about the ensembles: They were covered head to toe in flesh-colored tights (not see-through), sporting white jockey shorts on the outside. But the head of the school, who will henceforth be referred to as Principal Poopypants, insisted they change because they had “the appearance” of being naked.
What the hëll was he TALKING about? They were wearing capes, so seen from the back, they wouldn’t appear topless. Seen from the front, they would only appear naked if the biology teachers at Long Beach failed to teach the kids that girls have breasts. Nevertheless, the mere suggestion was enough to make Principal Poopypants issue an ultimatum that the clever teens cover up. Having no clothes to change into, the girls had to go home.
The Principal (real name Nicholas Restivo) stated he didn’t know the character, “not that it mattered.” Talk about having your underpants in a bunch. Someone should send Principal Poopypants a collection of the series.
PAD
Here is the photo that was taken by Ðìçk Yarwood for Newsday for the article.
• 
“But Restivo made his decree: There would be no visible underpants in his hallways.”
Doesn’t really help the deabte either way. He said underpants and not underwear. That could be what was on the outside or the inside.
The vid link on the page does hit a few good points though. Amongst other things, it says the principal didn’t act on his own. He contacted his higher ups and they agreed with him.
“This from the guy who started this thread by willing to believe the absolute worst of the principal and the absolute best of the girls and started calling the guy cutesy, clever names to further denigrate the man from the get go.
Glass houses, man.”
More like apples and oranges, man.
I based all my comments on the on-the-record material in the newspaper. Yes, I drew conclusions based upon what was there, plus what I saw in the TV news coverage. Everything I said was anchored in what was on the public record.
That’s a far cry from what I’ve seen here–comments, speculation and condemnation based, not upon what was reported, but individual interpretations and suppositions. Saying, “I think what the principal did was wrong based upon what was reported is one thing.” Saying, “The principal said X but he undoubtedly meant Y” or “When the Principal said he sent them home because they appeared nude, he really was talking about bra outlines” or “The girls contacted the press”…THAT is giving every benefit of the doubt to the principal and none to the students.
PAD
Rich, don’t get me wrong. By every measurement known to, well, me, what the principal did was discipline. I’m still not seeing the connection, though, to whether or not the reporter was there or the parental permission. Either these facts doesn’t have anything to do with discipline.
I wasn’t saying that he should have a “statement”(which I usually read as 99.992 per cent padding anyway. I just think a bit more reasoned response would’ve saved him a lot of headaches. Guarantee he spendsat least the next three years as Principal Poopypants. Off the top of my head, I can come up with a half dozen responses still in line with what he was trying to say but do so more clearly. But then, I specialize in writing dialogue, so maybe I should disqualify myself from writing his speeches.
And in your scenario, with your invasive reporter, I have little doubt that you’d be a bit more eloquent, but I say that based on two things. You’ve expressed yourself clearly in everything I’ve seen, and the kid in question would obviously have done SOMETHING to warrent being held after. Something besides wearing underwear on the outside, I mean. And with your description of reporters(this is the reason I don’t work TV news) some of them out there are serious versions of Stephen Colbert, always asking the leading questions and only reporting that which supports their angle. I could tell you a few stories of this happening with people I know.
Jerry, looking at that article, were you also left wishing the reporter had either A)found out who these higher-ups were, and B) contacted THEM for comment? MAybe THEY could’ve given a clearer reason.
I’m still not seeing the connection, though, to whether or not the reporter was there or the parental permission. Either these facts doesn’t have anything to do with discipline.
I’m not sure where the disconnect is, so I’m going to assume I’m being fuzzy on the explanation somewhere and try again.
The principal was quoted in the story talking about what he did with the girls. Since he would be discussing a disciplinary action, he would be breaking the law if the parents of these minors did not already give permission to discuss it.
I’m not sure on the laws regarding whether the paper could interview the girls without the parents’ permission. That may be entirely legal. And they could certainly call/talk to the principal about, but he could not say a blessed thing without the parents having okayed it.
So maybe there was a reporter there covering the “event” (slow news day, I guess). And maybe he/she heard about three girls sent home, and maybe he caught them on the way out the door and took pictures. If he went back to the school and asked the principal for his comments, the principal would have told him he could not discuss it. The reporter would then have to go to the parents, get (more than like written) permission from them to discuss the story and go back or call the principal.
This means that the students may/may not have called the paper, but they didn’t stand by wringing their hands helplessly as the story went on without their consent. More than likely, therefore, the students and their parents had control over whether this story went through.
And purely conjecture on my part, but I doubt the paper just stumbled upon the story while covering the event. Any reporters who come to our school for human interest stories come in, snap two pictures and get names, and are out of there faster than you can get breakfast at McDonalds. Even if they had heard about the girls in the brief time they were there, they wouldn’t be allowed (in my experience) to wander the halls to find out who they were, nor would the office be allowed to supply them the names legally even if they were so inclined.
By calling out Mulligan’s name, a person can take absolute control of the game quietly, in much the same way Bill obviously did with the world.
Also, if you say my name 3 times in a mirror bad šhìŧ happens.
Rich, your school doesn’t have metal detectors yet? I thought they were pretty much standard issue nowadays, but then, I work in TV, so everyone knows my head is odd.
I donm’t even know how those things could work–the amount of bling on come kids would set off anything. I’m surprised they don’t make the compasses on passing jets spin. we only have 1 sad little detector and we only use it at games. Did I ever tell you about the MORON who tried to bring in a gun-lighter and got all bent out of shape when we told him he could not take his lighter–which looked exactly like a handgun–into a school function.
I’m at a different computer that I hadn’t changed to “Rich Lane” yet, so I just wanted to verify the above *is* from me.
For some reason reading that made me suddenly imagine the voice of Ted Baxter “MEANWHILE, in an abandoned warehouse somewhere in Gotham City, THE AMAZING PNEUMONIA MAN changes back into his SECRET IDENTITY, that of MILD MANNERED RICH LANE.”
PAD–your take on hate crime laws is pretty much spot-on, in my opinion.
Would those cybernetic monkey space-alien assassins be wearing bras or tank tops?
Neither. But diapers, certainly. Because, well, you know. Monkeys.
I have not followed the media involving this story, but it seems to me that most of the questions concerning the veracity of the pictures, the tank top, and the clarity of the principal’s statements came from the discussions here. Did the principal revise his statement, or claim that the girls’ claims concerning their dress are not true? Did the girls’ claim that the photos misrepresent their costume, or that the principal claims something that is not factualy true?
My guess is that, outside of here, this was a pretty much one-day story. At least I hope so. Otherwise by now the principal is seriously condiering moving to Titusville to take advantage of the low low crystal meth prices.
As an aside, want to know who gave me the idea to write a play? You did, Peter, at a comic-book convention in Rochester sometime around ’85 or ’86.
I know this is like asking you to show the picture of you naked on the bear skin rug or, more emabarassingly, ANY of my high school haircuts, but I’d love to read that play. And keep in mind that I am in a good position to read it with the right expectations, that of the the work of a clever 17 year old.
“I think that we will have to agree to disagree re this topic. We obviously hold different opinions regarding headmasters’ roles,m obligations, rights and resposibilities, students and appropriate behaviour. Perhaps this is a cultural difference.”
I don’t dispute the headmaster’s authority, I’m just not sure his decision was right.
I think there is a little bit of a cultural difference. I was in the 9th grade for one year in Ohio back in 1989-90. I was told about two rules concerning dress code: that you are not allowed to wear shorts from a certain date, and that a certain Simpson T-shirt was not allowed. Both rules seemed strange to me, not because people in my high school wore extremely inappropriate clothing but because I didn’t even know if we had a dress code one could brake, nor did I know of any case where dress was an issue. Maybe we (teachers and students) were more easygoing? Maybe we are less litigious? I don’t know.
——————–
“we weren’t there. Principal Restivo was.”
So were the girls. Given no evidence to the contrary, nor any claim by either side of the other lying, I don’t see much use in assuming either side is not saying the truth. If I was actually investigating this case, I would probably talk to both sides and so forth, but this is just interesting as a test case, so I’m going by the available information with as least speculation or bias for or against any side.
—————–
“These girls were sent home to change clothes! I don’t recall them being assigned to some kind of indoctrination camp where they were brainwashed into agreeing never to do anything like that anywhere in the world ever again. And as far as being given a negative mark on their attendance records — *yawn*. They’ll live.”
Which is why I said before that I don’t consider this a case worth fighting for even if the principal was wrong. But it is worth discussing as a test case, of greater issues like censorship and authority, even if in this case I doubt either the creativity of the girls or the authority of the principal was badly harmed.
It seems to me a little unfair to burden the principal with the cultural conflicts of liberal and conservative norms. But it is also unfair to burden the girls with the growing undermining of authority and problems of leadership in 21 century America.
Bill, your high school story is in a way much worse than any censorship story. Indifference is worse than opposition. In any case, had you written a play and encountered censorship you thought was unjust, would you fight against it or give up so as not to undermine authority? I am happy to hear tthat you were couragous enough to fight indifference.
———————
“On second thoughts – they ‘re holding the headmaster up as an object of ridicule, this can reduce his ability to do his job. If these and other students believe the headmaster to be an object of ridicule and fair game, how can he effectively run the school?”
The day headmasters are not an object of ridicule I’ll start worrying.
—————–
There is a little excellent movie called Winslow’s Honor that’s worth watching, that has some very suprficial similarities to this story, but is quite good on its own right.
Boy, you sure can tell it’s an off-year election. Only days away and THIS is what we’re arguing about!
Oh well, nobody got hurt.
And in your scenario, with your invasive reporter, I have little doubt that you’d be a bit more eloquent, but I say that based on two things. You’ve expressed yourself clearly in everything I’ve seen,
Thank you! And I return the compliment.
and the kid in question would obviously have done SOMETHING to warrant being held after.
But you only know (and we must admit that even that is an assumption on your part) that because you now have some basis to make that statement–your past (albeit brief) association with me. We have none of that with the principal, good or ill.
Yes, I am making an assumption when I give the principal the benefit of the doubt, and it is not based on his personality because I don’t know him. I’m basing it on the fact that I have seen innocuous things like allowing eccentric clothing disrupt a classroom. I’ve experienced the disruption to a school that has to spend money and man hours preparing a legal defense against what I would consider baseless charges. And I’ve heard parents that I respect and like make baseless charges against administrators and teachers they never met, but whose abilities, credentials and genuine love for their students I do know to be unquestionable.
Because of all this I do not say this guy was 100% in the right. What I do say that this situation is not cut and dry, and I’m going to continue to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. And to crystalize things further, I will reiterate that coming down on the principal’s side does not mean the girls are evil, manipulative or immature, nor does it mean their parents are glory seekers. Mistakes can be made without anybody involved being a bad person.
You know what would have held me back from posting a single thing in this thread? If PAD at the outset had said “I know this guy Restivo from (bowling, PTA, whatever) and he’s always struck me as a guy with a stick up his ášš. I shall call him Poopypants. PAD’s personal knowledge of the man would trump my impersonal knowledge of the profession. His “character witness” would win out over my “expert witness.” But he’s basing his character assessment on a three hundred word “man bites dog” story and a handful of pictures.
Rich, NOW I understand what you were saying. Sorry, my mind’s a little fuzzy after the last few days. Tonsilectomy/Adenoidectomy plus five year old does not rest permit.
Bill Myers, allow me to second the motion, I want to see it too! (The play, not the picture with the bear skin rug. Or Mulligan’s head shots.)
And, now, on to Mulligan, your mirror thing made me realize that Mulligan backwards is Nagillum. YOU were the bad guy in that second season Next Gen episode, weren’t you! Actually, looking at that, now I REALLY don’t wanna see your head shots. And your lighter story doesn’t surprise me. “Wait, you mean the rules apply to ME, too?” Which, Ironically enough, could sum up this thread.
Rich, NOW I understand what you were saying. Sorry, my mind’s a little fuzzy after the last few days. Tonsilectomy/Adenoidectomy plus five year old does not rest permit.
Bill Myers, allow me to second the motion, I want to see it too! (The play, not the picture with the bear skin rug. Or Mulligan’s head shots.)
And, now, on to Mulligan, your mirror thing made me realize that Mulligan backwards is Nagillum. YOU were the bad guy in that second season Next Gen episode, weren’t you! Actually, looking at that, now I REALLY don’t wanna see your head shots. And your lighter story doesn’t surprise me. “Wait, you mean the rules apply to ME, too?” Which, Ironically enough, could sum up this thread.
Hey, everybody, sorry about the double posts. Contrary to appearances, it’s not just that I like to see myself in print, it’s a sensitive mouse.
I’m have a vision of a rodent crying while reading Shelley now.
PAD,
Not really. I and others waited until I saw the pictures and read the reports. I and others were on the principal’s side over the statement…
“Yes, I know they weren’t naked,” Restivo said. “But the appearance was that they were naked.”
The debate continued. Other things came in to play and were debated as to things that MAY be reasons to back him up even more. Still, a bunch of us spent a whole hëll of a lot of time on the subject of whether or not there was an appearance of nudity, an appearance of being topless and whether that was of merit ot not.
Oh, you say that everything you said was anchored in what was on the public record?
Well, you missed something.
*******************************
Posted by: Peter David at October 26, 2006 12:09 PM
“Probably wouldn’t have been a problem were they actual boys’ tidy whities, but they aren’t.”
Ah, except the principal specifically stated he had no problem with the outer display of underwear. Only the “appearance” of nudity.
PAD
*********************************
wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_299071033.html
“But Restivo made his decree: There would be no visible underpants in his hallways.”
If Autumn’s hollow sighs in the sere wood,
And Winter robing with pure snow and crowns
Of starry ice the gray grass and bare boughs;
If Spring’s voluptuous pantings when she breathes
Her first sweet kisses,–have been dear to me…
Gets poor old Mr. Whiskers every time. Sad to see him weeping into his cheese….
Feeling ok, Sean?
Feeling ok, Sean?
Shhh! He’s consoling his weeping mouse now.
“Tidy whities”, not an expression I’m familiar with. Mind you, I haven’t bought my boys white grundys (undies) since they stopped playing cricket.
Posted by: Micha at October 30, 2006 06:53 PM
In any case, had you written a play and encountered censorship you thought was unjust, would you fight against it or give up so as not to undermine authority?
Actually, Micha, as I said in my prior post, I did indeed encounter censorship when I produced my play. And yeah, I thought it was unjust.
The battles were primarily over “foul” language. I felt that the “foul” language in my play was mild compared with what I heard in the high school hallways every day, and this wasn’t a play for little kids anyway. Others disagreed, including my own mother (she was trying to “protect” me from myself — as I said, still a sore spot).
It was highly unlikely (to say the least!) that I could produce this play outside of the confines of my school. The play was a comedy, so I didn’t want to “gut” it — who wants to see a comedy without actual, y’know, comedy? But I picked my battles carefully. I capitulated on certain things that I thought weren’t central to the story. That made it easier to fight for the things that I thought were important. I won enough of the latter fights that I was satisfied with what I put on the stage.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at October 30, 2006 06:51 PM
I know this is like asking you to show the picture of you naked on the bear skin rug or, more emabarassingly, ANY of my high school haircuts, but I’d love to read that play. And keep in mind that I am in a good position to read it with the right expectations, that of the the work of a clever 17 year old.
Posted by: Sean Scullion at October 30, 2006 07:01 PM
Bill Myers, allow me to second the motion, I want to see it too! (The play, not the picture with the bear skin rug. Or Mulligan’s head shots.)
I dunno. I’ll think about it. You guys know how to contact me.
Megan, the actual phrase is TIGHTY whities, although one would hope they were also tidy. Especially your mother in an accident, but that’s another story. (Ironically enough, after mmy head broke a windshield and I woke up from the coma, when I asked if I had clean ones on, no one but me thought it was funny. Weird.) Anyhoo, it refers to jockey shorts or briefs in general.
And that’s right, Bill. Lord Mulligan and I know where you live.
Well, he does, but it sounds more intimidating if it’s both of us. Or something.
Who, in their right mind buys boys white undies, or white anything (clothing wise) for that matter?
And, thanks to Megan, everyone here now understands why neither my son nor me has any white…anything. Besides, or Night of the Living Irishmen skin is white ENOUGH.
3 years of trying to get grass stains and red leather marks out of cricket whites, and trying to keep school uniform shirts pristine white (especially when one of the boys was majoring in Art), put me off buying white anything. 🙂
Posted by: Peter David at October 28, 2006 10:06 AM
“Furthermore, I’m also not a fan of hate crime laws. I think when you start punishing people for what they’re thinking, you’re on a slippery slope. In this instance the principal took it to a new level: He punished the girls for what OTHER people were thinking.”
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-lidres1026,0,928031.story?coll=ny-longisland-homepage
Newsday
October 25, 2006, 10:09 PM EDT
“”Yes, I know they weren’t naked,” he said. “But the appearance was that they were naked.”
The outfits looked so much like nude skin that they caused a commotion among students, Restivo said. The girls and their parents all said otherwise. “They’re not see-through or anything,” Horowitz said. “All the teachers thought it was cute.”
Restivo said they could have worn gym shorts or called someone to bring clothes to school for them.
“I didn’t know which superhero it was, not that it mattered,” Restivo said. He pointed out that other students wore underwear on the outside, but on top of pants or shorts. That was acceptable.”
So, the principal said that the oufits were causeing a commotion and not that he thought they may because of what others were thinking. The girls said they weren’t. He did what most people in his job do. He tried to remove the source of the disruption and commotion.
Now, maybe the other students’ ACTIONS were based on their thoughts. Tough. You can say that about just about anything if you parce it enough.
So you decide to believe the absolute worst of the principal and the absolute best of the girls and claim that he acted because of what he felt other students may think rather then what he said was the case. You called the man a liar.
Oh, and did the girls contact the press?
Posted by: Peter David at October 30, 2006 04:21 PM
“I find that comment interesting for two reasons. First, you’re 100% willing to believe the absolute best of the principal and the absolute worst of the students, up to and including the assumption that they contacted the news media. How do you know they did? How do you know that any other pupil in the school didn’t do it? Or one of the kids’ parents? How do you know that the school newspaper didn’t tip off Newsday? How do you know that perhaps the reporter was already there covering Superhero day and lucked into more of a story than she was originally expecting?
You don’t.”
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liunde1028,0,3156255.story?track=rss
October 27, 2006, 10:27 PM EDT
“”We didn’t do it for publicity,” Horowitz said of their decision to contact Newsday after they left school on Superhero Day, Wednesday. “We did it to prove a point.”
For Imhof, it was about standing up for what they believed was right.”
PAD “I based all my comments on the on-the-record material in the newspaper.”
Well, then you missed a few just like we missed a few. You still want to base it on just what is there? Fine. His school, they were dressed in a manner to look like topless girls, he contacted his bosses and they backed him, it’s not the end of the world, the girls are playing this to the hilt by calling the local press and, according to the one newsday bit, talking to CNN about coming on their shows and he still made the right call.
I will give more then an inch on this though.
“But Restivo made his decree: There would be no visible underpants in his hallways.”
I keep seeing that or a version of that on lots of news sites but none have actual quotes of him saying that. I’ll file that one as a line that the writer threw in as a cutesy quip that got picked up with her bit or by other news sources that didn’t care enough to check it out.
“”We didn’t do it for publicity,” Horowitz said of their decision to contact Newsday after they left school on Superhero Day, Wednesday. “We did it to prove a point.”
I have to admit I missed that in the article too.
Jerry, is there anywhere where it’s actually documented what he told his bosses? If he did actually tell them they were dressed like topless girls, that’s a lot different from being dressed like Captain Underpants, who, while topless indeed, is not a girl. Really wish the article said just what exactly the point they were trying to prove IS, though. Still, if in fact this IS the case, along with his not knowing or thinking that it mattered, really hurts his position. Although, I really want to see some quotes from some of these “thought it was cute” teachers. Rich, Bill, think that’s likely? (Just being curious, not trying to provoke anything, here. Like I said, I’ve only taught TV to middle-agers and swimming to little kids.)
I missed that in the article, too, but can I use Brian’s tonisl/adenoidectomy as an excuse?
Well, I thought they were cute but I have notoriously poor judgement in such matters. I wanted to name Tim’s baby girl Mothra Lynch for godssakes! Who the hëll would ever take my advice?
10 teachers will probably give you 10 different views on just about anything.
I sincerely doubt you’ll get a transcription about what he asked the dean. More than likely it was a five minute or less conversation because it wasn’t that big a deal until the press got hold of it. He probably documented the fact that he sent them home and for what reason, but like I said earlier, he wouldn’t be allowed to release that without the parents’ permission.
I would also imagine the teachers have been told not to speak to press about it.
I think you’re probably dead on, Rich. “No comment” goes a long way, although not as far as it used to.
And I saw nothing wrong with Mothra Lynch, Bill. Hey, I thought anything but Mob would be a good start.
Sean,
“Jerry, is there anywhere where it’s actually documented what he told his bosses?”
No. Not much chance of finding it either. It’s not like he was calling because of a riot or drugs. I doubt either of them thought to write down what was said just in case people lost their minds over this later on.
“If he did actually tell them they were dressed like topless girls, that’s a lot different from being dressed like Captain Underpants, who, while topless indeed, is not a girl. “
This has been addressed both above and by the principal himself. He didn’t know about the character. He didn’t know who they were dressed up as. Thus, all he saw was three girls dressed up to look like they were topless or, as he put it, “the appearance was that they were naked.”
Not his fault and not theirs. That left him to make a judgement call. He weighed the options, looked at the commotion being made, checked with his bosses and made the call.
“Still, if in fact this IS the case, along with his not knowing or thinking that it mattered, really hurts his position.”
Not really. Take me. I knew of the character. Never saw it but I have had it described to me. I said way up at the top of this thing that I was holding judgement on the matter until I could see some photos. Why? Because it would have made a dif to me if the girls were dressed in baggy or lose outfits vs skin tight tights.
They were in the tights. To me, three girls walking around and dressed in a manner as to look topless would not fly in the school if I were in his place. I wouldn’t care if it was a real character and HE really was topless. These were three high school GIRLS dressed to look that way and walking around in school.
There are lots of options out there for them to dress up as on a superhero day at school. Many of the options could be just as clever as CU. Common sense would have told me to go with one of the others were I in their place.
They lost some points with me on the common sense thing. They also lost points with me when they ran to the press to play poor little picked on, singled out us.
They didn’t use common sense in their costume choice, they were given a fair offer by a school that, judging by other schools i’ve read about in the news and schools I went to, could have jammed them up pretty hard and they acted like twits about it. Should the school ditch the dress up day starting next year, the future students can thank the three of them for creating a stink over an actually very tiny thing that they blew up stupid heights and was basically created by a their small lack of good judgement compounded by their even bigger lack of good judgement after that.
Ðámņ.
That would be “loose outfits” up their. “Lose outfits” would be a whole other thread.
The safety of cops are disproportionately vulnerable to those who reserve for themselves the privilege of committing crime.
The safety of minorities are disproportionately vulnerable to those who reserve for themselves the privilege of indulging in predatorial agendas because of their non-conformity.
The comparison seems plain and straightford.
I believe your rationale for cop-killer laws can be fairly summed as: The safety of cops are disproportionately vulnerable to those who reserve for themselves the privilege of committing crime. The excuse has yet to be made for withholding the same protection where the vulnerability exists elsewhere for the same reason.
Martial training is a form of resocialization. You take an oath. In a sense, the uniform becomes your ethnicity.
Re: clothing crime, bald crime: Only if you see the vulnerablility between them and outsiders of “race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, [and] disability” as flat. It is observably not flat.
10 years ago, Yaphet Kotto was filmed trying to hail a cab in New York. Yaphet was dressed nice. Cab after cab drove past him. Cabs drove past him to pick up other passengers 20 feet away. The cabs were resolved to not take his money. Between Yaphet Kotto and a pre-Star Trek Patrick Stewart competing for a cab, no one is going to bet against the cab stopping in front of Patrick Stewart.
People proven to plot a bank robbery are breaking the law. As Micha pointed out, what a killer was thinking is a factor in prosecuting and sentencing degrees of murder. That can of worms is already open.
Jerry, you’ve indirectly pointed out the problem I have with this. See, when I look at the pictures, I don’t think the outfits are that tight from the waist up. Hey, from the tops of their legs up. I know dancers, I’ve been theater people, so I’ve been around tights enough to make a fair judgement, or at least what I’d call one. To me, the outfits look either fairly padded or at least not skin-tight. But then, to REALLY make a judgement, I’d need to see a picture of the girls in their regular clothes to see whether or not these costumes really WERE too tight, besides all the lighting/composition problems that umpteen people have talked about before. Looking at even the picture at the top of the thread, they look pretty padded, and I don’t think that’s just their bodies because they don’t have chunky faces.
And now, having discussed all this in detail, I have to go wash my brain out with soap. I feel like some kind of wierd voyeur.
Mike, your last two examples, the bank robbers and the killer, are different from the people Peter was talking about. Peter wasn’t talking about people committing or thinking of committing a crime. THAT’s where the difference lies.
“Actually, Micha, as I said in my prior post, I did indeed encounter censorship when I produced my play. And yeah, I thought it was unjust.
The battles were primarily over “foul” language. I felt that the “foul” language in my play was mild compared with what I heard in the high school hallways every day, and this wasn’t a play for little kids anyway. Others disagreed, including my own mother (she was trying to “protect” me from myself — as I said, still a sore spot).
It was highly unlikely (to say the least!) that I could produce this play outside of the confines of my school. The play was a comedy, so I didn’t want to “gut” it — who wants to see a comedy without actual, y’know, comedy? But I picked my battles carefully. I capitulated on certain things that I thought weren’t central to the story. That made it easier to fight for the things that I thought were important. I won enough of the latter fights that I was satisfied with what I put on the stage. “
The point is, you did fight. It seems to me that a play is more worth fighting for than a costume. But I do have a problem with the idea going on this board of the terrible girls who are undermining and threatening the authority of the principal by daring to not only question his decision, but by going to the press.
wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_299071033.html
“But Restivo made his decree: There would be no visible underpants in his hallways.”
Newsday, October 26:
“He (Restivo) pointed out that other students wore underwear on the outside, but on top of pants or shorts. That was acceptable.”
PAD
wcbstv.com/topstories/local_story_299071033.html
“But Restivo made his decree: There would be no visible underpants in his hallways.”
Newsday, October 26:
“He (Restivo) pointed out that other students wore underwear on the outside, but on top of pants or shorts. That was acceptable.”
PAD
Posted by: Rich Lane at October 30, 2006 05:41 PM
Also, (and I am NOT disparaging news reporters as a group here)I have known many instances of reporters taking things out of context and/or simply getting things wrong.
So, when they report things that support your argument, they’re accurately reporting, but when they report things that undermine it, they’re wrong?
Peter said, “once you start punishing people for thoughts,” as if it isn’t done, or doesn’t aggravate an offense. I cited an example of what seems to fit Peter’s objection as a thought crime, and where intent aggravates an offense.
Again, where the same protections already exist, why withhold them because of ethnicity or sexual preference?
PAD,
I think you missed the post where I already said that that wasn’t the best point to use for my side of the debate.
One of my principals put a nice end cap on this for me. He hadn’t heard this story due to the fact he doesn’t putz around on the net like I do. I gave him all the facts as I know them and asked his opinion.
“Did the principal get disciplined?” he asked.
“No,” I said. “In fact he checked with the higher ups first, and they concurred.”
“It’s a non-story then,” he said.
“But he IS being raked over the coals on the web by non-participants,” I added.
“So?” He smiled a tired smile. “He’ll live…just like the girls will. Making unpopular decisions based on what you know is part of the job. It sounds like the web just makes the vocal group larger.”
It just gave me a bit more perspective about the utter inanity of this whole shebang.
Well, Rich, it’s good to see you standing up for your principals.
Sorry. Couldn’t resist.