Some rules and laws make sense, others don’t.

New York City public pools opened this weekend. I saw the list of rules for swimmers on Copilot Search. Most are standard such as No hats in the water; No sneakers; No urinating or defecating; Bathing suits only; No glass bottles, to name a few.

One stood out: “Plain white T-shirt allowed over bathing suit; no other colored shirts.” It seemed so arbitrary yet it’s there for a few reasons.

The rule has been around since about 2008, according to Copilot Search. It was “first introduced as an anti‑gang measure after a shooting at Highbridge Pool in Harlem in 1989 that killed a 13‑year‑old girl. The idea was to make it harder for gang members to identify each other in the pool area. Over time, it has also been cited as a way to help lifeguards spot swimmers more easily, since white reflects sunlight better than darker colors.”

I’d never have guessed this!

Here’s another curiosity–a law–that is counterintuitive to me.

Why are we kicking out of our country 330,000 Haitians and Syrians who have worked here legally for 10 years or more? Last week the Supreme Court ruled it was legal –but is it smart? The ruling opens the door to kick out 1.3 million others from all nationalities as well as for rescinding the citizenship of naturalized citizens.

Apart from the mean-spiritedness and cruelty of such initiatives and how it shows our word is worthless, is there a plan to replace these workers with others or is this yet another shortsighted move that adds to the growing pile that might be filed under DUH–the Iran war; the reflecting pool to name two? Who will do the work they do from health and elder care and farm work to meat packing?

What rules or laws surprise you in a positive or negative way?

   

I went to a private school that didn’t offer some of the New York State tests most others took which was good as I was the worst test-taker.

I was intrigued by the written 4-hour philosophy exam I read about in The New York Times that all French 17–18-year-old high school seniors take with the exception of those in vocational programs.

A philosophy exam?! Reporter Catherine Porter in “What Does It All Mean? Once a Year, French Students Try to Explain,” had a good time describing the program. “The students, who have spent all year taking a required course in philosophy, have to answer one of two questions, or dissect a philosophical tract. This year, the tract came from Friedrich Nietzsche’s 1878 book, ‘Human, All Too Human.’”

The questions: “Can one be happy when others are not?” or “Do we have control of our words?”

Porter wrote: “The exam is such an important part of French education that local news outlets commit live blogs to it, beside their rolling updates on the wars in Iran and Ukraine, and invite philosophers to discuss their own responses to the questions on the radio and television and in newspapers.”

The exam, Édouard Geffray said, “actually says that we are a country in which we have chosen to put the examination of opposing views and debate at the heart of education.” He is France’s education minister.

Philosopher Frédéric Worms is one of many radio program hosts who cover the subject. He heads the École Normale Supérieure.

Porter reported “Work is one of 17 interwoven concepts that are the pillars of the course’s curriculum. Others include freedom, justice, truth, language and happiness. Teachers can design their courses as they see fit, dipping into a huge list of philosophers along the way.” In the article she described a two-hour class she attended.

“The philosophy course is widely considered the most difficult of a student’s final year. The average grade in 2025 was 10.8 out of 20, 2.3 points below the general grade point average.”

The education minister’s press secretary said his grade was an 8. Security outside his office said she was a policewoman because she failed the exam. Taxi drivers share their grades with Worms if he tells them what he does for a living.

Can you see something like this in American high schools? Would you be able to answer any of the questions? Is this an appropriate focus for kids in the days of galloping tech?

   

I was part of a PR team entertaining a client’s advisors as they gathered from around the country for a yearly meeting in New York. A Broadway show was on the schedule. It was “Sunday in the Park with George.”

The client was an alcoholic, and he had indulged at the dinner before the musical. He yelled out disparaging remarks constantly during the first act, upsetting the audience members around him and embarrassing us. When he exclaimed, at the intermission, that he was leaving as the show was so terrible, he did so to applause. We dropped the advisory board idea the next year.

I had a friend who scheduled business meetings before lunch because during afternoon meetings, the department boss would sleep after daily alcohol-fueled lunches.

Have you noticed the frozen expression of dismay on Marco Rubio’s face when he stands behind the president at the mic? Is the secretary of state reacting to the words he hears or thinking of the work on his plate?

Did you tolerate a difficult, unfiltered boss or client?

   

A 20-year-old reader shared a tip argument she had with her dinner companion with Philip Galanes for his New York Times Social Q’s column. The fellow left a 10 percent tip at a full-service table which she thought was too little. She said her friend “laughed off my nosiness about his tip.”

I admit to discomfort when people I split a restaurant meal with short-change waitstaff. I previously mentioned a friend of my mother who would invite us to dinner and leave such a measly tip that one of us would think up some excuse—”I think I left my glove on the table,” or “I would like to drop in to the WC before we leave”—return to the table and add a few dollars.

These days portable credit card readers that waiters bring to the table help as if you are splitting the bill, you don’t know the size of the tip a friend or relative leaves.

What did Galanes suggest to his reader? “I agree with the spirit of your complaint: Most servers depend on tips, and the customary range is between 15 and, more often, 20 percent. The problem here is that you have no right to enforce this norm. If you think your friends might benefit from gentle reminders, speak up. Otherwise, it’s none of your business.”

Do you care if your dinner companion gives a terrible tip? If you know about it, do you add to the tip you leave to make up the difference? Would you say anything about it to your friend?

   

Bill Bradley, Princeton grad, Rhodes Scholar—he earned a master’s degree at Oxford University in politics, philosophy and economics–is a former professional basketball player, U.S. Senator, and presidential candidate. He played for the Knicks for 10 years.

Brian Lehrer interviewed him on WNYC the morning after game 3 when the Knicks lost to the Spurs. In addition to basketball, they spoke about a range of things. A takeaway for me was his reminiscing about a stop at a coffee shop when he was running for Senate, driving to events from city to city. The cashier, recognizing him, told him the coffee was free. He thanked, said he couldn’t accept it and left a dollar. [This must have been around 1978.]

That’s how it should be and the way I have always conducted business. But Bradley and I are old fogies and old school. Gifts of airplanes, insider trading, one hand washes the other, the “what do I get out of it” approach is the way to succeed in politics and business today.

Do you think it will ever go back to the Bradley way or was old school ethics never a winning approach, so no?