Hairy Tater Tot: Texas School Suspends Four-Year-Old Boy For Growing His Hair Long for Cancer Patients

Taylor Pugh, 4, (known as Tater Tot) is a bit too hairy for Floyd Elementary School’s principal. Taylor and his Dad are growing their hair to donate it for wigs for cancer patients. The suburban Dallas school district, however, insists that boys cannot have long hair and it has suspended him from classes since last month.


Remarkably, the school district is sticking to its position. Mesquite Independent School District spokesman Ian Halperin “We expect students … to adhere to the code of conduct.”

The short hair requirement always struck me as a bit sexist since girls are allowed to have longer hair than boys. So long as the hair is clean and not a danger to the child, why should a boy be required to have shorter hair than a girl? Looking at the picture with the article below, Taylor does not even appear to have particularly long hair.

Even if you agree with the requirement, it is bizarre that the school would not want to encourage such a selfless act of charity. One of my nieces at eight was part of this program and I was very proud of her. It is a wonderful message of giving that has now been replaced with a conflicting message of a senseless bureaucracy imposing arbitrary rules on children.

Not only would George Mifflin Dallas (left) not appear able to attend the school under the hair rules, but some other famous individual would find themselves suspended if they showed up for class.

For the full story, click here.

68 thoughts on “Hairy Tater Tot: Texas School Suspends Four-Year-Old Boy For Growing His Hair Long for Cancer Patients”

  1. Elaine:

    That was the same line that Paulson and Bush gave about Main st and Wall st. It is pure horse shit.

    If these clowns (on Wall St.) actually had to compete and there was no philosophy of too big to fail Main St. would be better off.

    The entire economic set-up in our country is to protect the rich and screw everyone else. I don’t want communism or socialism, I want a level playing field. The “elites” seem to think they own the stadium, the referees and the concessions. We can play, but only by their rules. They give us crumbs and we work our asses off. It is very hard for the middle class to get ahead because of the tax structure and limitations on entry into truly profitable investments.

    Another part of the problem is many middle class people are financially illiterate and are not even aware of the investments the rich can take part in. They are prohibited because of minimum investment requirements.

    The republicans screw us and the democrats screw us. This will continue until we say enough, and tell the “elite” to start playing by the rules, i.e. Constitutional law.

  2. I forgot not to include three links in a response. I’ll break my last comment into two parts.

    Here are excerpts from two of Taibbi’s most recent postings at his blog.

    Obamania

    Excerpt:
    I supported Barack Obama. I still do. If I had to vote tomorrow between Obama and Tim Pawlenty, or Sarah Palin, it wouldn’t be a choice that required a whole lot of thought. He’s done some good things. He’s restored some confidence in the United States among foreign leaders. We had something of a revolutionary regime for eight years under George Bush, and Obama has put the United States back into the club of rule-abiding nations, at least to some degree.

    But I’m a little mystified by the letters I’m getting from people who suggest that being a supporter of a politician means that you should “give him a break” on this or that shortcoming, and behave more like a fan than a citizen. The above post by the always-intelligent Glenn Greenwald perfectly describes this mindset — he talks about this bizarre phenomenon of Obama fans threatening to “leave the left” because of criticism of Obama trickling up from those ranks. I was particularly struck by his analysis of the now-infamous video of Sarah Palin book-buyers explaining to a snarky interviewer how they support her despite the fact that they can’t really identify any of her positions.

    http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/12/13/obamania/

    ************

    PhRMA Hack: Campaign Promises Are Just That

    Excerpt:
    As a candidate, Barack Obama endorsed the idea of allowing consumers to import cheaper pharmaceuticals from other industrialized countries. In the Senate he co-sponsored a bill that pushed the idea.

    But now that he’s president and is taking money from the pharmaceutical lobby (PhRMA) to help get his bullshit health care bill passed, his administration is backtracking. His FDA chief Margaret Hamburg is pulling out the old safety canard. The CBO has estimated that a bill sponsored by Byron Dorgan to allow drug re-importation would save the government $19 billion over 10 years, and save consumers $80 billion.

    There’s no legitimate reason to bar re-importation, except one: to preserve a subsidy for the pharmaceutical industry and, by extension, preserve the flow of campaign contributions to the Democratic Party. That is why President Obama is now opposing the sensible measures he endorsed as a candidate. He is pursuing this year’s expedient goal of getting a campaign war chest now that he’s already achieved last year’s expedient goal of getting elected.

    http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/12/15/phrma-hack-campaign-promises-are-just-that/

  3. Byron–

    You might find some interesting reading at Taibbi’s blog.
    http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/

    Here are excerpts from two of his most recent postings:

    Obamania

    Excerpt:
    I supported Barack Obama. I still do. If I had to vote tomorrow between Obama and Tim Pawlenty, or Sarah Palin, it wouldn’t be a choice that required a whole lot of thought. He’s done some good things. He’s restored some confidence in the United States among foreign leaders. We had something of a revolutionary regime for eight years under George Bush, and Obama has put the United States back into the club of rule-abiding nations, at least to some degree.

    But I’m a little mystified by the letters I’m getting from people who suggest that being a supporter of a politician means that you should “give him a break” on this or that shortcoming, and behave more like a fan than a citizen. The above post by the always-intelligent Glenn Greenwald perfectly describes this mindset — he talks about this bizarre phenomenon of Obama fans threatening to “leave the left” because of criticism of Obama trickling up from those ranks. I was particularly struck by his analysis of the now-infamous video of Sarah Palin book-buyers explaining to a snarky interviewer how they support her despite the fact that they can’t really identify any of her positions.

    http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/12/13/obamania/

    ************

    PhRMA Hack: Campaign Promises Are Just That

    Excerpt:
    As a candidate, Barack Obama endorsed the idea of allowing consumers to import cheaper pharmaceuticals from other industrialized countries. In the Senate he co-sponsored a bill that pushed the idea.

    But now that he’s president and is taking money from the pharmaceutical lobby (PhRMA) to help get his bullshit health care bill passed, his administration is backtracking. His FDA chief Margaret Hamburg is pulling out the old safety canard. The CBO has estimated that a bill sponsored by Byron Dorgan to allow drug re-importation would save the government $19 billion over 10 years, and save consumers $80 billion.

    There’s no legitimate reason to bar re-importation, except one: to preserve a subsidy for the pharmaceutical industry and, by extension, preserve the flow of campaign contributions to the Democratic Party. That is why President Obama is now opposing the sensible measures he endorsed as a candidate. He is pursuing this year’s expedient goal of getting a campaign war chest now that he’s already achieved last year’s expedient goal of getting elected.

    http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/12/15/phrma-hack-campaign-promises-are-just-that/

  4. Byron–

    Even though Taibbi and Kuttner may not be on opposites sides politically–neither thinks the bill is a good one. The two men had different opinions about whether or not they think the bill should be passed. I think there is a great range of opinions among liberals, progressives, “blue dog” Democrats regarding the proposed health care bill.

    It appears nearly 100% of the Republicans have been against health care reform from the beginning. They haven’t contributed much to the debate anyway–except to say no to just about everything.

    Taibbi doesn’t pull punches. I read all his books and buy Rolling Stone every time he has an article in it. Taibbi’s most recent RS article was titled Obama’s Big Sellout. Its subheading read: The president has packed his economic team with Wall Street insiders intent on turning the bailout into an all-out giveaway.

    Let me know if you watch the video…or read the entire transcript. I’d be interested in hearing your opinion of their discussion.

  5. If you have a pre-existing condition you would rather have this healthcare bill than none at all.

  6. Elaine:

    “Here to talk about all this are two journalists who don’t pull their punches. Robert Kuttner is an economist who helped create and now co-edits the progressive magazine THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, and the author of the book OBAMA’S CHALLENGE, among others.

    Also with me is Matt Taibbi, who covers politics for ROLLING STONE magazine where he is a contributing editor.”

    This is part of the problem, these 2 men are basically coming from the same philosophical perspective.

    How about 2 diametrically opposed takes on the plan and a real debate not nuances on a theme.

    Lottakatz had a post a month or so ago about the auto workers not being given the right to buy one of the big three auto makers back in 70’s I think. She and I are at opposite ends of the economic spectrum in viewpoints, but we both thought this was a good idea. She thought it was a good idea because the workers would own the means of production, I thought it would be a good idea because the workers would become rich capitalists.

    I am sure there is a similar compromise on health care. But the only way to find it, is to let the public see the pro’s and con’s of each side of the issue. In which case I mean the diametrical opposite.

  7. Lottakatz:

    “Is “liberal republican” code for ‘truncheon swinging thugs’”

    I think it is a good start.

  8. Byron & lottakatz–

    Here’s how Moyers begins the program:

    BILL MOYERS: Welcome to the Journal.

    “Something’s not right here. One year after the great collapse of our financial system, Wall Street is back on top while our politicians dither. As for health care reform, you’re about to be forced to buy insurance from companies whose stock is soaring, and that’s just dandy with the White House.

    “Truth is, our capitol’s being looted, republicans are acting like the town rowdies, the sheriff is firing blanks, and powerful Democrats in Congress are in cahoots with the gang that’s pulling the heist. This is not capitalism at work. It’s capital. Raw money, mounds of it, buying politicians and policy as if they were futures on the hog market.”

  9. Byron, “McCain, Bush and Giuliani are “liberal” republicans. I am not exactly sure what Gingrich is,…”

    Is “liberal republican” code for ‘truncheon swinging thugs’ 🙂

    Byron: “I see nothing wrong with a year or more of good honest debate for a program that is going to bring almost 1/6th of our economy under some sort of government control or oversight.”

    I’m with you on that- I’d rather not have a bill than the one that’s come out of the Senate. Considering the cost to the taxpayer this bill doesn’t do the job well at all. And I’m one of the folks that would volunteer to pay more taxes for a good health care program. I’ve seen this episode of ‘Politics as Usual’ before, during the Clinton administration when single payer was off the table before Hilliary’s health care committee even came to the table to discuss it the first time.
    Only this time the Senate bill is worse with the mandate/fines IMO. It’s a direct, ongoing transfer of wealth to a private industry. That’s unbelievable.

  10. Gyges:

    First of all McCain, Bush and Giuliani are “liberal” republicans. I am not exactly sure what Gingrich is, I used to think he was ok but I think he is more of a pragmatist than anything else.

    Secondly the Patriot Act was a big mistake as it created the Department of Homeland Security, which in my mind is little better than an American Gestapo in waiting. The republicans were stupid to pass that bill. It was another of a long list of disappointments for me.

    I don’t want to get into an argument on the health care bill and when I responded to Tooties post it was more over her calling McCain, Et al “liberal” republicans and his/her take on the Patriot Act.

    As far as the health care bill goes, it appears to me that there has been limited debate and certainly it was not open to the public to be discussed. I know we don’t have a democracy but for shit sake even Athens allowed the people to openly debate something before it was voted on. As far as I can tell there was no real substantial public debate.

    I see nothing wrong with a year or more of good honest debate for a program that is going to bring almost 1/6th of our economy under some sort of government control or oversight. I think the people deserve that much. Maybe it would actually be a benefit, I have my doubts because I haven’t seen a fair, open and honest debate.

  11. Byron,

    “They are leftist republicans in my opinion. Examples of these are Guiliani, Newt, McCain, Bush.”

    Do I need to explain just how inaccurate that is (not the part where it’s his opinion. It is his opinion, his opinion is just flat out wrong)?

    “He was talking about the Patriot Act and how republicans behaved just like democrats are now doing with the health care heist. Republicans rammed the Patriot Act through congress, didn’t give congress enough time to read it, didn’t allow debate either. It was some 300 plus pages.”

    The Health care debate has been going on for several months, bills have been written, rewritten, read, reread, debated, protested, amended, voted on. That sure sounds like not giving “congress enough time to read it” and not allowing debate. Say what you want about the merits of the current health care bills, they have NOT been rushed through Congress to anywhere near the degree of the Patriot Act.

    Those quotes are parts of a good post? Your standard is sometimes a little low when it comes to people who agree with you.

  12. Tootie,

    It’s hard to have a conversation when someone’s answer to “I think you’re wrong about government control over schools is fascism, here’s why…” is “Both parties are bad.”

    I was really hoping for a rebuttal, or at least acknowledgment of what I said.

  13. Tootie:

    good post.

    Actually I think the 2 terms have been confused. I like to think in terms of totalitarians and people who respect liberty and freedom.

  14. Byron an Gyges:

    http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=21599 (Mussolini and similarities with socialism)

    The mutual admiration society: Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=0YzPUy3n1psC&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=mussolini+admire+stalin&source=bl&ots=P9dBZOiNiG&sig=fnASZnuxCz2jKpmJs0TYcxy-nrg&hl=en&ei=IC4uS_muJc6WtgeV_MmDCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBsQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=mussolini%20admire%20stalin&f=false

    page 52

    And under the heading, Moving to another topic – how does socialism fit into the ideology of Italy’s Mussolini? this:

    http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:Xhm0dylQAqMJ:www.pbs.org/heavenonearth/interviews_pipes.html+stalin+admired+mussolini&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    The idea here, whether it is Marxism or fascism, it is state control of businesses seized by government. Like what Obama is doing.

Comments are closed.