Saggy pants issue has gone too far
I found it very curious to hear that the Florida Legislature has taken such an interest in the saggy pants of our students. Beyond the simple fact that there are obviously more important things to worry about (for instance, learning), it perplexes me to think that the Legislature believes that its rules are somehow going to magically resolve the issue when the principals could not.
They must believe that students have more respect for the abstract legislative process than the immediate authority at their schools. They might be right, assuming that we're still teaching about civics and government in between lessons on etiquette, grooming, and dress.
The more likely reality is that students feel that their style, an act of personal expression, is under attack from authority. Whether we like the style or not, the way that we're dealing with it makes the students feel even more protective of it. If we really want to discourage students from wearing their pants so low, I would suggest that schools stop pressing the dress code issue in this manner.
In fact, teachers, principals and legislators should start wearing their pants the same way. The style would become uncool so fast that we'd see a rise in reports of whiplash from the speed at which the pants will come up.
Christina Partin, New Port Richey
Uniforms would solve the problem
Why is it that we are so scared of imposing rules on students?
The School Board should just get a dress code together and that is it. Saggy pants and "inappropriate" outfits are no longer allowed. Principal Chris Dunning has a bright green shirt to wear if you violate his rules, great, or maybe just bring back uniforms and have that as what kids must wear.
Parents will say that they do not want to spend money on them! Why not? It saves them from telling their kids "Are you really going to wear this to school?" It will stop any arguments early in the morning and stop teachers from having to police the students and let them concentrate on teaching.
Laurent Vallat, Trinity
Nugent's e-mail on debt misleads
I received last week an e-mail from our rookie U.S. Rep. Richard Nugent, our donation to the increasingly dysfunctional House of Representatives. In the e-mail, he tells me that many of his constituents are concerned that they will not receive their Social Security and other benefits if an increase to the debt ceiling is not passed. So far he's correct.
Then the fun begins! He calls this "a scare tactic, pure and simple." That of course is blatantly untrue. It could very easily come to pass.
And he further states, "Spending on Social Security, Medicare, veterans' benefits and our troops has already been authorized by Congress, and the president has the authority to continue funding these priorities. If he chooses not to, it will be his decision and his alone." Here he is spreading another falsehood, praying that no one will catch on to the fact that everything that is in the budget has already been authorized by Congress!
The indifference of the majority of the American people to this very real crisis is the product of so-called leaders like Mr. Nugent not being open and honest with them. It does make a difference whether or not we raise our debt ceiling. The inability of the federal government to pay what it owes to its seniors and its veterans would be tragic indeed. (I am the recipient of both types of payment.) But that tragedy pales in comparison to what would happen to the economy of the United States if the debt ceiling is not raised. The result would be economic chaos and the relegation of the United States in eyes of the world to a status of just another Bangladesh or Ivory Coast.
We pride ourselves on being the world's only superpower and a shining city on a hill, both statuses that are fast dimming. If Mr. Nugent had had time to prepare for his job rather than having had it bequeathed to him by former Rep. Ginny Brown-Waite, he might have known that. He owes me and the rest of his constituents an apology for his misleading statements, and he should resolve to be open and honest with them instead of consistently spouting the party line no matter how fraught it is with misleading lies and falsehoods.
Terry Ogden, Spring Hill