Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Iranian Government Issues Style Guide For Men's Hair

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the shia-shave dept.

Government 10

In an attempt to save its citizens from the dangers of an evil western haircuts, the Iranian Government has issued a list of acceptable male hairstyles. Ponytails, mullets, and large spikes are forbidden but looking like Elvis or Simon Cowell is ok. A neatly trimmed goatee and "modest" quantities of hair gel also made the non-evil list. From the article: "'The proposed styles are inspired by Iranians' complexion, culture and religion, and Islamic law,' said Jaleh Khodayar, who is in charge of a Modesty and Veil Festival later this month at which the guide will be promoted."

cancel ×


Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Be Careful Pots (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32826460)

before you call the kettle black, the US is about to get a Supreme Court Justice who doesn't have a problem with laws that tell people what to eat, under the "Commerce Clause" of the US Constitution (meant to prevent trade wars among States).

Re:Be Careful Pots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32829050)

I don't understand what this means. More information?

Re:Be Careful Pots (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32831732)

here's the video [] .

Re:Be Careful Pots (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32830492)

You think that will make a difference to a Supreme Court that has already decided that the Commerce Clause allows the Feds to regulate what plants you grow in your own home for your own use, on the premise that you just might sell them to somebody in another state? (Gonzales v. Raich) [] State's Rights have already been completely nullified by the current court.

Re:Be Careful Pots (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32830718)

Well, it's also a Court that hasn't granted certiorari on personal-right aspects of 2nd Amendment cases since 1930.

There's some small hope, which is what Coburn was on about. It would be interesting to see Thomas join with the left wing on the court on an illegal plants case.

Re:Be Careful Pots (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32831000)

What's interesting is that the Republicans that want to argue that the National Health Care plan is unconstitutional will also implicitly be arguing that Gonzalez v. Raich was incorrect -- despite the fact that it was strongly argued for by the last Republican administration. (In my opinion, based on results, G. W. was NOT a good Republican!)

Re:Be Careful Pots (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32832006)

In my opinion, based on results, G. W. was NOT a good Republican!

When you're down to 4 out of 435 that can be called 'good', I think the label has lost any virtuous value.

Re:Be Careful Pots (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32832338)

Which 4 are good? The point was, Republicans have traditionally stood for fiscal responsibility, free trade, personal responsibility, and government non-intrusion into personal lives. The Bush Jr. administration oversaw unprecedented deficit spending and intrusions into personal liberties, admittedly as a a knee-jerk reaction to horrendous act. But "Conservatism" means maintaining the status quo, not going into fits of over-reaction. It was that "tax and spend liberal" Bill Clinton that balanced the budget, got half the welfare recipients off the welfare roles, and greatly advanced free trade, making him a much better "Republican" than Bush! The only useful purpose the Republicans currently serve (other than to serve as a bad example) is to remind us that deficit spending cannot continue unabated indefinitely. Although I believe deficit spending to build infrastructure is appropriate in times of recession, we do need to carefully consider each no expenditure. The flip side is that during economic boom times the government should not attempt to compete with the private sector in attracting workers and instead should put money into a rainy day fund to be used to pay for the pump priming during the next recession.

Re:Be Careful Pots (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#32833388)

admittedly as a a knee-jerk reaction to horrendous act.

The USA PATRIOT act is nearly 400 pages of detailed legislation dealing with operational intricacies of many branches and departments of government. It was introduced just 3 weeks after the attacks.

While I have no doubt it took some staff time to bundle the bill, large portions were ready to go before 9/11. Never let a crisis go to waste...

A few weeks ago I noticed two news stories on the same day, I forget the exact topics, but the Democrats and Republicans were each battling for legislation in opposition to their brand image. But that's been the strategy for the past 90 years or so, so it's not surprising, just cute to see it so on display.

Yet another area Iran is ahead of us! (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 4 years ago | (#32827976)

They've actually made "looking like a douche" illegal! Now, before you argue that you have a constitutional right to look like a douche, let me remind you that your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, and if people scream "My God, My eyes!" when they see you, chances are you are infringing on THEIR right to not see mullets while walking down the street!
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?