Don't Get Your Rocks Off on Company Time

Richmond Times Dispatch columnist Ray McAllister has done his due diligence on confronting porn and the city.

In Richmond, Virginia, city officials determined that over a two month period of time, 191 city employees visited a pornographic website (hereafter referred to as "Goodies") at least 10 times. Some had visited over 50 times. Two employees, who have since been fired, had seen Goodies over 12,000 times.

The big question: who is it that determined what was appropriate workplace Goodies action and what is not? If you visit ten sites, we frown upon you, but carry on. Fifty sites: you have a problem, but we are not here to judge. Ten thousand+ sites: nice severance package to go home and look at even more porn.

The next big question: where can I fill out an application and when do the benefits kick in?

At work, I feel dirty and shamed whenever I try to visit a site during downtime that "The Company" finds inappropriate. Things like Consumerist, TV Squad, and even my own blog is deemed inappropriate for work-use and I am subsequently greeted by a nice reminder: ACCESS DENIED. I can't even imagine what it would be like to work in a place with unfettered internet access. I would imagine it would be awkward to have your sixty-ish year-old boss come up and find you viewing Goodies. This would be eclipsed in awkwardness by him saying, "Hey, that's a good one."

People, inappropriate internet access at work is never a good thing. It siphons your productivity (like you care), makes other people work harder (who haven't figured out about free porn access at work), and your customers or clients ultimately bear the consequence (as they don't have free porn access for themselves). Control yourself and curb that brunette-babes-with-big-hands-among-really-big-other-things addiction until you get home.

On the other hand, maybe it would be best for more public employees to have access to the full-fledged wonders of the internet, including porn. It may make those people at the DMV less cranky.

Don't Entrust Your Kids' Sexual Health to Bureaucrats

Kids grow up so fast these days. I remember when I was a wee one, terrorizing the hallowed halls of my middle school, days were consumed with how to sell more Blow-Pops and Airheads for buying movies, avoiding those freakish 7th-graders who were about five and a half feet tall towering over us dwarfins and then didn't grow for the rest of there lives, and skimming through books and magazines at 11 o'clock for a book report the following day. Now, I guess middle schoolers have to worry about "family planning."

The New York Times reports a school in Portland, Maine has approved to start offering a variety of wellness services such as physicals and immunizations ... oh, and dispensing birth control. The proposal was approved by 10 of the 12 member school board and was backed by the Portland Division of Public Health.

I suppose if one had to choose, it would be better for a 13-year-old to engage in safer intimate activity to prevent "fluid-sharing" and procreation than a less safe interaction. Of course, wouldn't it be better if barely teenagers were actually being directed in positive activities like their studies, after-school activities, or recreational drug use?

The school principal, Mike McCarthy, said about 5 of the school’s 500 students had identified themselves as being sexually active.

The argument for this is not to encourage sexual activity but to ensure those who are active are doing so safely. By this reasoning, we should expect to see in Portland the distribution of clean needles for heroin because it is safer?

Regardless, all this hubbub is being caused by 25 kids, probably living on the wrong side of the tracks (if such a place exists in Maine) who need nothing more than a stable and influential guiding figure in their life. Perhaps with all his free time Michael Vick could lend a hand to Big Brother, Big Sister.

Don't Fire the Buttprint Man

Who knew painting with body parts could be so controversial?

Stephen Murmer was a well-respected art teacher at Monacan High School in Chesterfield, Virginia up until late 2006. At that time, a video showing Murmer, posing under the alias Stan Murmur, surfaced online demonstrating his unique style of artistic expression: butt-painting.

As Murmer's activities would have (and eventually did) come under fire by parents, school officials, papal figures, and political officials, Murmer wore a mask during the demonstration video to conceal his identity. All of Murmer's butt-art was created on his own time and he took steps to ensure his students did not uncover it.

When students at Murmer's school stumbled upon the online exhibition, it quickly spread around the student body. School officials called upon Murmer and suspended him, claiming the video clamor was creating a disruption. A month later Murmer was fired.

The ACLU of Virginia filed suit in Richmond on Thursday against the Chesterfield County school board. The suit alleges the firing of former high school teacher Stephen Murmer in January was a violation of Murmer's First Amendment rights.

While it is easy to see the school board's position that a person in such a position of respect and authority should not be engaging in this type of behavior, Murmer did nothing wrong within the confines of the school nor did his students have any direct exposure to his art. Had he posted "Tulip Butts" in his classroom, that may be pushing it. Ultimately, would this case have been different had Murmer been using strictly arms, elbows, or armpits? I don't there would be this much uproar if that was the case.

The probable upside to this for Murmer is increased recognition for his work and techniques. And, for only $4,800 you can own "Poppies," a piece of history featuring the posterior DNA of a famous painter.

One thing is for sure: he could have picked a better pseudonym differing more than one letter from his real name.