A young school boy (does it matter where?) was suspended from school by the principal because his “high and tight” haircut was deemed inappropriate.
It seems that this style of haircut is popular among The Emperor’s hired killers and the impressionable youth got such a haircut to honor a close relative enlisted within that group.
Obviously, the mother was upset but not for the reason that you would expect. Instead of claiming her son’s right to self ownership (by the fact that he is human), allowing him whatever method he decides to cut his hair, she distorted the principal’s objection as an insult to the military, simply because such a haircut is popular within those ranks!
"All I really want is for the school and the school district to do a public apology: Not just for my son, but for the fallen war heroes ... and the veterans, and the active military personnel that are in the Army now," Stinnett said. "Considering the military haircut as a distraction is basically saying that our Army is a distraction."
The criticism of the principal’s actions by loyalists is further intensified by the fact that the school is named to exalt a late war criminal.
So somehow, the principal’s objection to such a haircut in his school due to its appearance is distorted as an insult against the military, just because such a style of haircut is popularly associated with some members of that group.
I would ask the mother these questions, using her own method of warped logic:
Pornography is popular in the military. Should the principal allow pornography in his school so as not to insult the military? Should such material be offered in the school library to accompany all the texts that glorify the empire’s wars of conquest?
Prostitution is popular in the military. Should the principal allow students to have hookers for guests for show and tell. Should he sanction prostitutes serving boys in the restrooms during potty breaks?
Rape and sexual harassment is unfortunately popular within the military. Should the principal tolerate such activity in his school? Should he look the other way when witnessing a gang rape rather than risk offending heroic soldier boys?
Such questions, of course, sound ridiculous only because they follow the same illogic suggested by Ms. Stinnett.
So let’s summarize this “idiocy galore” by confused and equally guilty statists:
1) We have a school principal unnaturally concerned with the length and design of a child’s head hair, seeing it as some threat or “distraction” to other children and somehow negatively affecting the success of their education.
2) We have a mother upset, not because this tyrant commands her child what to do with his body, but by taking offense that the principal’s rejection of such a haircut is a slap in the face to military members sporting that same haircut.
3) A community “very proud of the name of our school” see the principal’s action particularly egregious as an attack against the “hero” for whom the school is named.
4) All parties involved in this childish squabbling are completely unaware that the institution and its members they honor to the extreme and irrationally defend, are the greatest threat to their safety and liberty- not the arrangement of hairs on a head and certainly not those who dislike such arrangements.
Statist quarrelling can certainly be perversely entertaining, an example of “Nero fiddling while Rome burns.” Except it can more accurately be described as “clueless slaves quarreling while liberty dies.”
Resistance is Mandatory