The Shallow End

I've decided that the most useless colloquial phrase in the English language is, "Rules are rules."

Seriously? It might be the most futile and ridiculous statement ever concocted. What does it mean? What does it really mean?

If someone is questioning the consensus at hand--questioning the rule--then why would anyone retort back with, "Rules are rules"? How is that in any way an explanation? If you're asking for the reasoning behind such an imperative, then wouldn't you think that the real inquiry at hand is why is this a rule in the first place?

If I wanted the Wheaties Box clarification, which is exactly what this pointless expression is, then I would've settled for taking the statement at full value. For those of you who aren't familiar with the Wheaties Box verification that I am referring to--it's the idea of a picture within a picture within a picture--neverending Wheaties--an infinite number of the same photo with no justification for such imagery. Michael Jordan was once holding the same box of Wheaties he was photographed on. A picture in a picture if you will--and so on and so forth.

But I don't want Wheaties--and I don't want you to respond to my reservation about the statement with such blind arrogance. It literally is a verbal optical illusion--and there is nothing enlightening about that.

Perhaps the more important question is why do authority figures use the "rules are rules" phrasing with such frequency and without accompanying forethought. It's all so appalling--and indicative of contemporary indolence.

I guess this explains why archaeology is such a specialized concentration. Apparently, if the majority of us were doing the digging, we might never have found the dissenters chiming in with, "Rules were made to be broken."

And that would be such a shame, wouldn't it?