I'm pretty sure that dentistry isn't an inherited trait...

Source

Drunk people aren't really known for their sound judgement.  I think we can all agree on that.

God knows, I have no room to judge.  I've done plenty of things I'm not overly proud of when I was "three sheets to the wind", but I think I can pretty safely say I've never done something so stupid as this guy [link] who thought it would be a brilliant idea to pull out some kid's loose tooth.

And not even a kid he knew, just some random child he saw in a park who was worrying the tooth with his tongue!  He just marched over and yanked that tooth out of that kid's head without so much as a by-your-leave.

I know drunk people have poor impulse control, but who on earth even has the impulse to pull out kid's teeth in the first place?  Is he a reincarnated Spanish Inquisition torturer?  A frustrated tooth fairy wannabe?

Although if I had to guess I'd say his blood alcohol level of 0.2% was the deciding factor.

But the best part of this story was his excuse when the cops arrested him.  Apparently he thought that he was perfectly entitled to practice amateur dentistry on non-consenting children because he came from a long line of dentists so he, and I quote, "knew what (he) was doing".  Yep that's right, he decided that just because his father an grandfather were dentists, that entitled him to practice without a license ... in a public park ... on a kid he just picked out randomly.

Oh dude, somehow I don't think the judge is going to buy that old chestnut.

Hipster parenting methods kind of scare me...

Source

Do you guys remember that episode of The Simpsons where, while Marge is away, Homer decides to let Maggie roam free in the backyard and let nature take its course?

Well, it looks like the Hipsters have decided to start doing it too ... in an entirely ironic way, of course [link].

Yep, it's true, there is a whole group of people who are trying a new form of toilet training for their youngsters, which pretty much consists of leaving the little dears diaperless and then rushing around after them, holding their naked butts over bowls whenever their face screws up.

Charming image, isn't it.

The theory seems to be that by using the "elimination communication" method ... yep, it's really called that ... the babies will become potty trained earlier and you save the environment by not using all those disposable diapers.  Well the diaper think is definitely true, although I'd question the early potty training bit.  Are kids only a few months old even able to control it?

I have to admit, I'm not sure how this could actually work for a normal person.  Do you let your baby poop on the footpath if you're taking them for an afternoon walk?  Do you ask to borrow a bowl if you're at another kid's birthday party?  And what about daycare?  Do you tell the carers just to let them go free range in the playground?

To be fair though, it's not like this is just some new fangled concept that they've come up with.  Our ancestors did it for thousands of years before diapers were invented, and there are still cultures in the world today where it's a common child rearing practice ... but any way you slice it you're still encouraging your kids to poop in public.

That can't be good.

A six year old harlot or a victim of PC insanity, you decide...

I've seen a lot of scary things when I've been out shopping ... those mounted fish that sings "Take Me To The River" comes to mind ... but I always get an extra special case of the shivers when I see those god awful clothes they're trying to sell little girls these days.

Seriously, what sort of an eight year old needs a padded bra?  Or a lace teddy?  Or a g-string with "Naughty" on the front?

The sexualisation of kids has definitely gotten worse over the last few years.  Kids are encouraged to want to wear these things that no one would have dreamed of dressing a child in when I was little.  It's really no wonder we're all erring a little on the conservative side when it comes to children's clothing.

But I have to say, I think the school officials who called this six year old girl's parents to complain about her clothing being too "revealing" might have gone a tad overboard.

Apparently the school thought that her Hello Kitty outfit was too revealing, claiming that the length of the shorts were in breach of the school's dress code.  Her parents were, understandable I think, confused.  The girl was wearing leggings underneath them, and had actually worn the same outfit to school before without any complaint.

If their problem was with the length of the shorts, well I can say that I wore them just as short when I was her age, but I would never have said there was anything questionable about the clothes my mother dressed me in.  


Take, for example, this picture of me when I was about five (with my brother).  That skirt is just as short as the little girl's in the article.  Would you consider what I'm wearing to be inappropriate? Is there really that much of a difference between her outfit and mine?

There's a big difference between kids clothes that are short and kids clothes that are inappropriate.  There wasn't anything provocative or sexual about that little girl's outfit.  Nothing that screamed 6 going on 30.

So go take a look for yourselves.  Do you think her outfit is too risque for a six year old?  Do you think the school was overreacting?  Do you think Hello Kitty shorts will soon be joining Big Mouth Billy Bass as an inappropriate and tasteless thing to display in public?

But most importantly ... didn't I look awesome in that little blue dress?  Damn, I was a cute kid!