Puh-leeze!

Craig Ferguson (The Late Show, on CBS) has called the History Channel "The Hitler Channel: All Hitler, All the Time." That, I like. It's funny. But then, so is most of Craig's stuff. Nevertheless, it is not in the strictest sense true. For example, the History Channel frequently airs various programs explaining and extolling the virtues of the so-called "Bible Codes."

I don't pretend to understand the details, but these "Bible Codes" have to do with groups of connected words found hidden within discrete biblical passages when one uses a computer search engine and considers letters a set distance apart. (The searcher sets the distance in each instance; the only rule is that once the distance is set, it cannot be changed within the confines of that search.)

Proponents of these "Bible Codes" say that they are so complicated and detailed that they cannot be accidental, that the hand of God is obviously at work, and that no other literary work can duplicate or even come close to producing similar results. I know of at least one group of scientists who disproved this last point using Moby Dick, but there are substantial other reasons to doubt the presence of the hand of God in these "Bible Codes."

For one thing, just because we can look at clouds or stars and see pictures, patterns, or constellations, does NOT mean that those things are there. They came from our own individual creativity/imaginations.

For another, I cite the magician Penn Gillette, who said (regarding Nostradamus, but the point is just as well taken in reference to the "Bible Codes") that if these things were really there, we should be able to use them to predict, and thus forestall, impending disasters. But if we can see the events only after their occurrence, we again are imposing our vision on something that may or may not--but most probably does not--predict anything.

Hindsight is, after all, 20-20.

So why is it that the History Channel can go from running the occasional informative, smart, and insightful program to running this crap over and over and over? Doesn't anyone there exercise any editorial discretion?

* * * * * * * * * *

I do not frequently find myself in disagreement with Rainbow Rowell, but her column in today's Omaha World-Herald disappointed me. The students at Bellevue East (my alma mater when it was just plain Bellevue, by the way) staged a protest when the faculty and staff started strict enforcement of the school's dress code, and last Friday sent home everyone wearing ripped jeans.

The poor babies! About 200 of them staged a protest on Monday. While I do agree with Rainbow that their organizational skills are impressive, I find I have absolutely NO sympathy for the students and their alleged plight.

I guess I am turning into an old geezer or an old coot, but I remember when the Bellevue Public Schools dress code would not let females wear pants--even in freezing cold weather, girls were not allowed to wear pants while walking to school, even if they changed into proper dresses once at school.

In the ensuing decades, the dress codes have gone from being overly strict to being utterly non-enforced. Now, the pendulum is swinging back to center, and the students of 2006 are paying the price.

Even Rainbow had to concede that jeans so ripped that one's "unmentionables" were visible should not be allowed. I hope that she'd further stop to think that there's no easy way to draw up a dress code that would allow for SOME but not all ripped jeans . . . and so the smart and simple thing to do is to ban ripped jeans, period.

OK. I know the ripped jeans of the "Oughts" are the long hair of the Sixties. Still, long hair could be kept neat and clean, which by definition is impossible to do with ripped jeans (clean, maybe . . . neat? No). I also know that kids want to bug their elders, that they need to bug their elders, and that every generation finds its own "badge of honor" with which to do so.

Doesn't mean I have to like it. I think ripped jeans show an incredible lack of respect for not only the school and one's fellows, but mostly for one's own self. I am appalled that these kids' parents are supporting them and casting aspersions on the school.

On the other hand, I have always said that the Baby Boomers did a generally horrid job raising their children . . . mostly because we wanted to be their friends, not their parents (which doesn't work), and now our children's children are even worse off than we made our kids.

I thus am now officially a coot. Does this mean I have to relocate to Possum Lodge?

(In any case, I still don't see what's wrong with wanting to present oneself with a little dignity, class, and good taste. In that respect, at least, as compared to the students of 2006, who want to be different just like everyone else, I am still an iconoclast. Thank goodness!)