This isn’t madness. It’s fucking ridiculous.
“McDonald’s is the stranger in the playground handing out candy to children,” Stephen Gardner, litigation director for the advocacy group said in a statement. “McDonald’s use of toys undercuts parental authority and exploits young children’s developmental immaturity.”
The group is the Center for Science in the Public Interest.
It undercuts parental authority?
If McDonald’s handing out toys undercuts a parent’s authority, then that parent has no authority (or backbone) to begin with. If you want to help your child develop in a mature manner, learn how to say “No” when Junior whines for a Happy Meal.
Good fucking grief.
I can’t believe shit like this is happening. These people are off their fucking rockers. I’m not saying McDonald’s is some bastion of healthy living (and frankly I think their food is rather bland), but this Stephen Gardner is way out there.
It’s never our fault and always someone else’s, especially if they’re a big corporation;we can’t and won’t take responsibility for ourselves or our children; self-control doesn’t exist.
The pussification of America continues.
So a 7th grade girl does the right thing: she says no to drugs.
The girl did not bring the prescription drug to her Jeffersonville, IN school, nor did she take it, but she admits that she touched it and in Greater Clark County Schools that is drug possession.
“She was talking to another girl and me about [these pills she had] and she put one in my hand and I was like, ‘I don’t want this,’ so I put it back in the bag and I went to gym class,” said Rachael.
But just saying no didn’t end the trouble for Rachael. During the next period, an assistant principal came and took Rachael out of class. It turned out the girl who originally had the pills and a few other students got caught. That’s when the assistant principal gave Rachael a decision.
“We’re suspending you for five days because it was in your hand,” said Rachael.
You’ve got to be kidding me. She touched it. She didn’t ask to touch it. The other girl put the pill in her hand, she said “no” and put the pill back. Good for Rachael!
And for that, she get suspended.
So, exactly what message are these school officials trying to send?
According to Greater Clark County Schools district policy, even a touch equals drug possession and a one week suspension.
“The fact of the matter is, there were drugs on school campus and it was handled, so there was a violation of our policy,” said Martin Bell, COO of Greater Clark County Schools.
Ah. The message is we’re a bunch of unthinking drones and will hide behind “policy”. No one of course takes responsibility for making this policy, and no one stands up against poor policies. Furthermore, no one has the ability to apply a little “critical thinking” (I thought they still taught that in public government schools, I could be wrong) and realize this is poor policy and poorer enforcement of the policy? Wither education. Wither respect for and trust in (by children) adults, administrators, policy makers.
District officials say if they’re not strict about drug policies no one will take them seriously.
Yeah, and if you act like a bunch of unthinking jackasses, no one will take you seriously either.
The article says it best, so I’ll just leave it at that.
We’re not, we’re not trying to push financial reform because we begrudge success that’s fairly earned. I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money. But, you know, part of the American way is, you know, you can just keep on making it if you’re providing a good product or providing good service. We don’t want people to stop, ah, fulfilling the core responsibilities of the financial system to help grow our economy.
Compare that to his remarks as prepared for delivery:
Now, we’re not doing this to punish these firms or begrudge success that’s fairly earned. We don’t want to stop them from fulfilling their responsibility to help grow our economy.
He should have stuck with the TelePrompter. The President doesn’t get to decide when people have “made enough money.” In fact, as the radio host notes, that’s a statist point of view. Furthermore, the responsibility of an entrepreneur isn’t to “grow our economy,” core or otherwise. It’s to grow his own economy. In a properly regulated capitalist system, the natural tension of self-interests create economic growth through innovation and efficient use of capital and resources.
Put simply, a free people work for themselves, not for the government. Barack Obama seems to have a problem understanding that.
That’s not what’s bass-ackwards.
The Sprint employees were fired for having done so. Why? Policy, of course.
Last week Sprint HQ started asking questions, and shortly thereafter terminated their employment, citing a policy that “employees shouldn’t confront thieves” and classifying their actions as employee misconduct.
Utter bullshit. They do the right thing and this is the thanks they get?
Meet America’s tiniest terrorist: 6-year-old Allison Mosher, who’s landed on the nation’s No Fly List alongside mad bombers and other villainous thugs in a mind-boggling snafu that could scuttle her family’s Grand Canyon vacation, her outraged dad says.
We’re assured the list is accurate. So I guess little Allison must have seriously threatened someone that took her pillow at naptime or brought her white milk instead of chocolate when it was time for snacks. I guess Al Qaeda is infiltrating our playgrounds, making swing-sets the next big target.
But the list must be accurate. The TSA told us so:
Ann Davis, a TSA spokeswoman, said that because there are no children on the No Fly List…
No children on the No Fly List, like 6-year-old child Allison Mosher, who is on the No Fly List.
Yes yes. We have nothing to worry about. This is all for our safety.
Ronald Reagan said it best:
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.
Everything is bass-ackwards in the UK these days, but this report gives a glimmer of hope.
Builder David Fullard, 46, leapt into action as the brute and a pal forced their way into his home and threatened to rape his girlfriend and kill his sons.
He grabbed the antique sword and sliced off the left lug of the yob – named Michael SEVERS.
Prosecutors said Mr Fullard went too far for self-defence and charged him with unlawful wounding. He faced up to EIGHT YEARS in jail.
A jury took less than 50 minutes to acquit him at Hull Crown Court.
I’m glad to hear he was acquited, but he never should have been charged in the first place. Went too far? That implies there’s a proper amount, so pray tell what is that proper amount for when someone breaks into your home, threatens to rape your girlfriend and kill your children (and torch your house)? Yeah I’d say you’re justified in fearing for the lives of yourself and your loved ones, and would have every reason, authority, and duty to fight back. That the yob only lost his ear means he got off easy.
In fact, he did get off easy:
Yesterday the two jobless thugs got six-month suspended sentences and 100 hours of community service after admitting affray.
So that glimmer of hope fades… a man who defends his loved ones could have faced 8 years in jail, whereas the attacker gets a six-month suspended sentence and 100 hours of community service. WTF?
See? Reasonable restrictions on Sudafed sales. It’s for the children. Sure seems to be putting a halt to all that meth production, and making a lot of legislators feed good about themselves…. at least until they catch a cold themselves, I guess.
So a 4-year-old — yes, 1… 2… 3… 4 years old — cannot attend classes because his hair is too long.
[Mesquite, Texas ISD officials] say the dress code prepares students for a business-orientated society where appropriate dress is critical.
Yet again we see how far out of touch school officials are with the rest of the world. Back in the 1950′s I’m sure “long hair” like this kid has probably could be held against you. Today? Pffft. I’ve had long hair for about 20 years and it hasn’t caused me any professional problems. I also don’t need to wear a suit and tie every day.
But the bigger question?
What sort of reasoning is that? This kid is 4-years-old. Four! What the hell are you doing preparing him for the business world? It wasn’t too long ago he learned to use the toilet on his own. His biggest concerns in life are getting another graham cracker, if today he’ll get to finger paint, and when is nap time. Good grief. Let the kid be a kid. About the only lesson for the real-(grown-up)-world you’re giving this kid right now is a healthy demonstration of how some adults can be douchebags.
But hey… yet another example of our failed public government school system.
Continuing this morning’s theme of “Asinine in England”, apparently now there’s a proposal for homeschooling parents to have to undergo a criminal background check in order for the government to deem them fit and qualified to teach their children.
So you don’t need a background check to send your children to government school, but if you want to teach them then you do. Of course we can enter into the slippery slope here because if you’re unfit to teach your children, wouldn’t you be unfit to be a parent? How soon until your children would be taken away from you (given how the UK governments behave these days)? Who deems what a fit or unfit parent is? Why just stop at a parent that wishes to teach, how about any and every parent because if you’re not fit to be with the child during the day, why should you be fit to be with them during the nights and weekends?
As well, one side-effect would be killing off homeschooling, which is well-likely a hidden goal. Lord knows we can’t have free-thinkers in our midst, nor encourage thought other than government-sponsored. Too dangerous for a well-controlled society.
This is government gone amuck. This is intrusion. This is daft.