HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Junior high teacher tells...

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:45 AM

Junior high teacher tells kid to remove Marines t-shirt or get suspended (has guns on it)

The latest bit of anti-gun hysteria erupted in a school setting on Monday when an eighth-grade teacher threatened a 14-year-old boy with suspension if he did not remove his t-shirt supporting the United States Marines.

The incident occurred in a reading class at Genoa-Kingston Middle School in a small town in northeast Illinois. The teacher, Karen Deverell, believed the interlocking rifles emblazoned across Michael McIntyre’s shirt violated the school’s dress code, reports Fox News.

McIntyre’s father, Daniel McIntyre, said Deverell made him turn the shirt inside out for the rest of the day. He also noted that the boy had worn the shirt to school on many previous occasions without threats of suspension.

“My son is very proud of the Marines, and, in fact, of all the services,” the elder McIntyre told Fox News. “So he wears it with pride. There are two rifles crossed underneath the word ‘Marines’ on the shirt, but to me that should be overlooked. It’s more about the Marines instead of the rifles.”

http://news.yahoo.com/junior-high-teacher-tells-kid-remove-marines-t-123355966.html

Yes folks, even pictures of guns scare some people....solution? Wear your own shirt with a gun.

194 replies, 19313 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 194 replies Author Time Post
Reply Junior high teacher tells kid to remove Marines t-shirt or get suspended (has guns on it) (Original post)
The Straight Story Feb 2013 OP
NightWatcher Feb 2013 #1
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #12
Orrex Feb 2013 #22
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #26
Orrex Feb 2013 #47
snooper2 Feb 2013 #105
Orrex Feb 2013 #110
brentspeak Feb 2013 #75
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #76
brentspeak Feb 2013 #78
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #80
brentspeak Feb 2013 #81
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #85
brentspeak Feb 2013 #117
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #120
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #19
Trajan Feb 2013 #34
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #42
Trajan Feb 2013 #54
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #61
xmas74 Mar 2013 #180
HERVEPA Feb 2013 #2
tridim Feb 2013 #11
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #15
devilgrrl Feb 2013 #94
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #95
Robb Feb 2013 #3
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #5
Robb Feb 2013 #7
IdaBriggs Feb 2013 #25
Robb Feb 2013 #59
IdaBriggs Feb 2013 #83
madinmaryland Mar 2013 #193
Purveyor Mar 2013 #151
alp227 Mar 2013 #175
Enrique Feb 2013 #97
Lizzie Poppet Feb 2013 #113
The Straight Story Mar 2013 #143
Robb Mar 2013 #147
The Straight Story Mar 2013 #178
The Straight Story Mar 2013 #146
alp227 Mar 2013 #174
The Straight Story Mar 2013 #177
99Forever Feb 2013 #4
The Straight Story Feb 2013 #6
99Forever Feb 2013 #8
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #28
99Forever Feb 2013 #31
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #33
99Forever Feb 2013 #37
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #56
99Forever Feb 2013 #58
hughee99 Feb 2013 #30
Bake Feb 2013 #69
Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #9
HERVEPA Feb 2013 #63
Macoy51 Feb 2013 #67
Jeff In Milwaukee Feb 2013 #71
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #79
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #77
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #128
pintobean Mar 2013 #139
Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2013 #140
pintobean Mar 2013 #141
Jeff In Milwaukee Mar 2013 #148
TXDem1975 Mar 2013 #182
HappyMe Feb 2013 #10
randome Feb 2013 #13
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #17
randome Feb 2013 #21
hughee99 Feb 2013 #35
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #38
hughee99 Feb 2013 #50
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #52
hughee99 Feb 2013 #55
spin Feb 2013 #93
Pararescue Feb 2013 #101
spin Feb 2013 #114
Pararescue Feb 2013 #116
Tierra_y_Libertad Feb 2013 #82
alp227 Mar 2013 #173
sadbear Feb 2013 #14
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #20
deutsey Feb 2013 #16
Victor_c3 Feb 2013 #64
deutsey Feb 2013 #111
Capt. Obvious Feb 2013 #18
Demo_Chris Feb 2013 #23
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #24
Nine Feb 2013 #27
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #32
Nine Feb 2013 #43
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #51
Nine Feb 2013 #68
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #73
Bake Feb 2013 #70
TXDem1975 Mar 2013 #181
Capt. Obvious Feb 2013 #40
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #46
Capt. Obvious Feb 2013 #49
bowens43 Feb 2013 #29
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #39
sadbear Feb 2013 #84
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #86
sadbear Feb 2013 #87
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #89
sadbear Feb 2013 #90
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #91
sadbear Feb 2013 #92
TXDem1975 Mar 2013 #183
sadbear Mar 2013 #194
Taverner Feb 2013 #36
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #41
Taverner Feb 2013 #44
Nine Feb 2013 #45
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #53
Nine Feb 2013 #57
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #65
Nine Feb 2013 #74
Walk away Feb 2013 #48
Bake Feb 2013 #72
SoCalDem Feb 2013 #60
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #66
madmom Feb 2013 #62
Whats_that Feb 2013 #96
madmom Feb 2013 #102
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #108
madmom Feb 2013 #112
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #115
rdharma Feb 2013 #88
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #99
Enrique Feb 2013 #98
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #103
sadbear Feb 2013 #106
Nine Mar 2013 #135
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #136
Nine Mar 2013 #137
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #163
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #160
slackmaster Feb 2013 #100
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #104
rdharma Feb 2013 #107
proud2BlibKansan Feb 2013 #109
X_Digger Feb 2013 #119
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #122
X_Digger Feb 2013 #131
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #132
X_Digger Feb 2013 #133
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #134
proud2BlibKansan Feb 2013 #124
X_Digger Feb 2013 #130
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #121
proud2BlibKansan Feb 2013 #125
ProgressiveProfessor Feb 2013 #129
Peter cotton Feb 2013 #118
Iggo Feb 2013 #123
elleng Feb 2013 #126
MotherPetrie Feb 2013 #127
LWolf Mar 2013 #138
Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2013 #142
99Forever Mar 2013 #145
Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2013 #149
99Forever Mar 2013 #150
Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2013 #153
99Forever Mar 2013 #156
Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2013 #170
onenote Mar 2013 #154
99Forever Mar 2013 #157
onenote Mar 2013 #158
99Forever Mar 2013 #159
onenote Mar 2013 #165
99Forever Mar 2013 #166
onenote Mar 2013 #168
99Forever Mar 2013 #169
onenote Mar 2013 #171
99Forever Mar 2013 #172
ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #176
99Forever Mar 2013 #179
ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #184
99Forever Mar 2013 #185
ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #186
99Forever Mar 2013 #187
ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #188
99Forever Mar 2013 #189
ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #190
99Forever Mar 2013 #191
ZombieHorde Mar 2013 #192
redgreenandblue Mar 2013 #144
onenote Mar 2013 #155
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #161
Hoyt Mar 2013 #152
ProgressiveProfessor Mar 2013 #162
ileus Mar 2013 #164
spanone Mar 2013 #167

Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:47 AM

1. Fox News trying to make fans of gun control look stupid?

Did they cover how many shootings were yesterday in an attempt to make a pro gun control argument?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:12 AM

12. Its not hard to do

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:46 AM

22. Almost as easy as making gun advocates look stupid.

Last edited Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:17 PM - Edit history (1)

But not quite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:52 AM

26. The freaks on both ends make for easy news fillers

Most people who complain about gun nuts have never really been around gun nuts. They scare me at times.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #26)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:14 PM

47. Yeah, but when gun control freaks go on a rampage...

Last edited Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:17 PM - Edit history (1)

they don't typically wind up gun-controlling a dozen people to death.


Having dealt with both, I'd much rather deal with a gun control advocate than a gun advocate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Orrex (Reply #22)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:58 PM

105. I thought it was offensive to call someone "nuts" or "crazy", some hypocrisy here?

You wouldn't do that to a person with a mental illness would you?

Or are you just taking the stigma associated with people who are mentally handicapped and projecting it on your "enemies"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #105)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:16 PM

110. Ahh! Shame on me!

That was a gross error on my part.


Edited.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #12)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:01 PM

75. These are the words of "ProgressiveProfessor" on 12/14/2012:

On the subject of Newtown mass shooter, Adam Lanza, who massacred an entire first grade class of children, their teachers, and his own mother:



ProgressiveProfessor (21,001 posts)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=1986388

"That is not clear at this point...that the son (Adam Lanza, the killer) was deranged."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #75)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:10 PM

76. Indeed that was the case...the media was in the midst of a meltdown and we did not have a clue

about what had really happened. The facts of the hour kept changing. I finished that post with:

At this point it seems to me to be more productive to mourn the victims while the facts emerge and not knee jerk blame the apparent first victim.

Somehow, given what we knew at the time, it still seems a good call.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #76)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:21 PM

78. Ah, yes, it was certainly a "good call" for you to claim

it "premature" for people to note that the killer of an entire classroom of children was deranged.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #78)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:30 PM

80. Indeed it was. There is enough discrimination against the mentally ill in the county

that waiting until facts came out was reasonable. We are still waiting for some of those details.

Since the media was clearly just making shit up. Suggesting we mourn the innocent dead while the details became clear was a reasonable approach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #80)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:48 PM

81. That's right: He might have done it to get rich

We should consider the alternative possibilities...



There is enough discrimination against the mentally ill in the county.


I am as certain that Fairfield County, CT does not discriminate against the mentally ill as I am that your concern for the public image of mentally ill persons is as genuine as a Wells Fargo robo-signed mortgage document.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #81)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:02 PM

85. Or have been under the influence, or...

The shooting was over, he was dead. Why do you feel so strongly that it was a bad thing to focus on the innocent until the truth came out?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #85)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:03 PM

117. I have a theory that you might be employed by a gun control organization

Somebody posting pro-gun propaganda on DU, but doing so in the most transparently ludicrous way possible, so as to actually discredit, not strengthen, the gun-nut point of view.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to brentspeak (Reply #117)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 07:53 PM

120. There is a group for conspiracies theories...

this is not one of them

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NightWatcher (Reply #1)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:40 AM

19. No need to TRY, this person managed just fine on their own

 

How many of those you mention were gunned down with a shirt?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #19)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:00 PM

34. by the same line of argument

The Nazi Swastika should be allowed ...

How many were slaughtered by Nazi Swastikas?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #34)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:10 PM

42. I suggest you delete that...

 

I suggest you delete that before some hot house orchid sprints off to Meta to throw a hissy fit. Equating the US Marines with (you can fill in the rest) is a BAD thing to suggest.

Moving along:

It might be reasonable for a school to ban images of firearms. I haven't seen any studies to suggest that this is anything other than feel-good nonsense, but it's their school. In America, however, certain things ALWAYS get a pass, and our military is one of those things.

I don't really care about the gun control issue, but stories like this one make the pro-gun control people look silly. The problem is not the reporting, the problem is that it happened. If you want to win a debate using reason, it is best to reject the unreasonable extreme from your ranks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #42)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:26 PM

54. like I really give a rat's ass

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Trajan (Reply #54)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:31 PM

61. I was just being nice. n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Demo_Chris (Reply #42)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 09:25 AM

180. When I was in middle school

25 years or so ago we had a long list of t shirts we couldn't wear.

No concert shirts
No Guns and Roses shirts
No Spuds MacKenzie
No tobacco
No alcohol
No shirts that pertained or alluded to nudity or sexual acts
No obscene language
No shirts showing or advertising any kind of weaponry-this included hunting shirts

Military shirts were fine, as long as they were plain and showed no pictures. (Example: many of us had "ARMY" shirts. They were an olive color and had the simple Army block lettering in white. Anything other than that usually started arguments in my small town about which branch was the best and who was enlisting in which branch someday.)

Schools have always banned items of clothing for what are sometimes reasons unknown. People seemed to have forgotten how common that was just a few years ago. Schools ban at their discretion, sometimes for obvious reasons, sometimes over old incidents, sometimes over anecdotal accounts. Don't like it-fight it at a school board meeting or find another school.

(For the record-the reasoning in my school as to why weapons of any sort couldn't appear on a shirt was because it would disrupt a class. All it took was for one boy to make a comment and then they were all making comments.These are boys between the ages of 10-14. You can guess what kind of comments were made. I was in seventh grade when the ban over the hunting shirts went into effect due to disturbing comments made by a few of the boys.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:48 AM

2. Tough nuggies. Guns on a shirt in school don't belong.

Kudos to the teacher. Religion, Marines, whatever deserve no special protections or exemptions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:02 AM

11. And who is making Marine shirts with guns on them?

China?

I wonder if the US Military knows about this?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #2)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:19 AM

15. Some people are such delicate flowers

When my late wife was teaching, one of the newer teachers expressed a concern at the staff meeting about the number of students wearing pro military clothing. He seemed blithely unaware that many of the school's student were from military families. At the next staff meeting, my wife wore a red sweatshirt with the classic anchor, globe, and eagle of the USMC and several other teachers did the same thing. He then told some people he was being harassed. He did not last long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #15)


Response to devilgrrl (Reply #94)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:46 PM

95. I wasn't part of it...

My late wife was, but it was not coordinated action.

Post Gulf War it was quite common to see military shirts just about everywhere around there.

I was surprised that the teacher was unaware that many of the students came from military families. According to what I heard later he came to the conclusion that teaching was not for him and moved on. That is not unusual in the least these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:49 AM

3. Wow, a Fox News story catapulted by the Daily Caller.

Scraping the bottom of the old guns-are-teh-awesome barrel this morning, are we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:53 AM

5. Love how people don't comment on stories but sources

I guess you agree with the school then.

I didn't use those, I used yahoo - and other places are reporting it as well (try a place called Google, click on news, type in school name - takes about same amount of time it did you to make a non-reply).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #5)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:55 AM

7. OK. It's also an idiotic story, and makes you look stupid for posting it.

Your choice of source just amplifies things. Click on your link and you get this:



...So I don't know why you're denying where it's coming from.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #7)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:50 AM

25. Please edit the personal insult before someone hits alert.

Thank you in advance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #25)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:29 PM

59. Posting links to Fox News and the Daily Caller *doesn't* make people look stupid?

What nonsense. A personal attack from me is unmistakable. I would call the OP a clown, or a buffoon, or perhaps an unthinking NRA shill.

But in this case, SS just looks stupid for linking to Tucker Carlson's rag, at least to everyone but the gun-cuddling set, who will go anywhere and post anything in their last-gasp attempts to remain relevant.

If noting that gets a post hidden, then so be it. I have nothing more to add to this nonsense, so being shut out from posting in this thread is of no consequence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #59)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:58 PM

83. The link was to a Yahoo story. Straight Story is *NOT* stupid.

Your points on where the Yahoo link go are probably valid, but there is no reason to call someone stupid (and bragging about your skill in being *really* insulting -- eep).

Look, all I am asking is find a better way to make your point, please? You are an excellent writer, and I *know* you can do it.

Please?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to IdaBriggs (Reply #25)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:48 PM

193. I would definitely vote as a Juror to "Leave it" if someone alerted on his post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #5)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 12:01 PM

151. Ha! You ever visit the I/P dungeon? I'd guess 50% of the comments are related to sources.

I just ignore them and make sure I peruse those sources more frequently for other good topics for 'discussion'.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #5)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 01:24 AM

175. Have no fear, alp227 the source hunter is here!

I posted a more neutral local newspaper story from the DeKalb Daily Chronicle at replies 173 and 174.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:51 PM

97. then re-catapulted by Yahoo

now re-catapulted by DU. Because RW propaganda needs all the help it can get!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #3)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:27 PM

113. "poisoning the well"

The general stupidity of the source doesn't automatically transfer to any particular, specific story they run. Nor does it alter the fuckwittery displayed by these school officials...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 10:12 AM

143. Well, just for you

I will add a disclaimer to all future posts:


Please note: This story probably appears on web sites other than DU and may actually appear on some websites that are right wing oriented. If you notice that news posted is on other websites please treat this news as false and alert on this post (and call me stupid, since that will help as well) so it will be hidden asap. I don't want to look stupid because a story I posted from a news org shows up on other news org sites (and unlike some I don't have time to read through all of the rw places I don't visit to find out if they do).

There, that should help you avoid seeing any stories you don't want, commenting on them, or actually addressing the issues presented in news stories when those stories show up places you check out and don't like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #143)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 10:31 AM

147. You truly must think DUers are idiots.

You pretend that a story written for the Daily Caller, by the Daily Caller's education editor, and distributed by Yahoo with a big fucking "FROM THE DAILY CALLER - CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM THE DAILY CALLER" banner on it, is something that can be characterized as "appears on web sites other than DU."

Your posting history suggests you've been in the bag for the NRA for some time. This thread makes it clear your willingness to promote their agenda transcends the usual simple parroting and has launched into the realm of propagandist.

No, you don't look stupid at all.

Tell us, where did you happen to stumble across this story? No wait, let me guess: you were thumbing through the Utne Reader at a Fellowship of Reconciliation meeting, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #147)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 02:54 AM

178. Umm, more like reddit most likely

You seem awful upset that people don't agree with you 100% on guns, which is why instead of discussing this story and various points you just call people stupid and accuse them of being in the bag for the NRA.

Get back to me when you become able to discuss the topic at hand and not sit around calling people names as your argument.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #3)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 10:19 AM

146. As a matter of fact....

Toby Keith’s Longtime Bassist Chuck Goff Killed
http://tasteofcountry.com/toby-keith-bassist-chuck-goff-dead/

I was going to post that story but...damn...fox news has it and so do other rw sites, therefore it would be a waste of time to post it since people would just rush off to see if that was the case and come back here and complain about the sources and not comment in any intelligent way about it (not to mention it must not be true now)

Please, if you have time, give us all a list of places that we have to check first to see if something is not stupid to post so we make sure not to upset you. Don't want you to waste your time or anything. I did not see Toby Keith on daily caller BUT I did see his name there so I think they like him.

It will take me some time, maybe 5-10 min per story I read, but I will be sure not to do something stupid and post news other places have. Thanks for the tip, I feel smarter already!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #3)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 01:20 AM

174. OK then here's a story about this incident from the local paper:

Marine T-shirt causes controversy at Genoa-Kingston Middle School (DeKalb Daily Chronicle)

BTW this school is located about 50 miles west of Chicago and 20 east of Rockford.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alp227 (Reply #174)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 02:51 AM

177. but, but...fox news and other places had it to, so it can't be real and us talk about it

I think a few du'ers should write your local paper and call them stupid, might make them feel all better about it (and they can ignore the story that way and not comment on it)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:53 AM

4. Is there some part of...

... Zero Tolerance, you and the dickheads over Fox Snooze don't comprehend?

Delicate Flowers must not be too bright.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:53 AM

6. Delicate is being scared of pictures (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Reply #6)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:56 AM

8. Nope.

Delicate is being outraged because people too damn stupid to follow clearly stated policies end up reaping the results they EARNED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:56 AM

28. The Superintendent backed the student, not the delicate flower

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #28)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:58 AM

31. So what?

Am I supposed to be impressed?

Gun worship is a mental illness.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #31)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:59 AM

33. It means the teacher was wrong

Have to wonder what action will be taken

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #33)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:04 PM

37. Nope...

... it means the superintendent should be replaced.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #37)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:26 PM

56. The one who set the policy gets to make that call

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #56)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:29 PM

58. The one that made the call needs to be fired...

.. and replaced with someone that has a spine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #8)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:58 AM

30. Exactly, if only the teacher was smart enough to follow clearly stated policy

she wouldn't be reaping the results she EARNED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #4)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:48 PM

69. So you are in favor of school Zero Tolerance policies?

They're designed for administrators who don't have actual brains and need black-and-white policies to tell them what to do. They result in kindergartners getting suspended for shooting bubble guns.

I'd rather be a delicate flower than a fool.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:01 AM

9. This appears to be the act of an over-zealous (or over-cautious) teacher

Joe Burgess is the Dekalb County Supertintendent of Schools.

“Very simply, it’s not a violation,” Burgess told the Daily Chronicle. “It’s a very common symbol for the U.S. Marines. Had we had an opportunity to discuss it, we could have straightened out the situation.”


On a somewhat related note, when my son was in 7th Grade, he used this picture as a humorous illustration in a PowerPoint presentation he was doing for his class.



He had to go talk to the school guidance counselor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #9)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:34 PM

63. Picture is disgusting. I'm hoping the talk with the guidance counselor helped.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #63)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:46 PM

67. I agree

 

I agree, very disgusting, you ALWAYS close the ammo tray lid before firing, that squirrel is just asking for a mis-feed. And not to be too critical, the mount really needs to be move back from the edge of the rock. I hope the guidance counselor was able to pass on a few pointers.


Macoy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Macoy51 (Reply #67)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:54 PM

71. If you'd every met the guidance counselor, you'd be howling with laughter...

Perhaps some warm cookies served on a doily.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #71)


Response to Macoy51 (Reply #67)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:19 PM

77. Not to mention the lack of eye protection

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HERVEPA (Reply #63)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:08 PM

128. I saw your flameout in Meta over this, did you alert as well?

Be nice if you said what was so disgusting about it in your opinion

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1240231247

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #9)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:36 AM

139. OMG

That may be "humorous" to you and you and your son, but I have a large oak tree in my yard. I sure as shit don't want armed squirrels taking over my property.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #139)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:39 AM

140. Ping my ass with a bb-gun, will you? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #140)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:52 AM

141. I had to give my bb gun to a nephew

when a neighbor, who raises expensive racing pigeons, moved in. I didn't want to make any costly mistakes. That leaves me completely unarmed and defenseless to a squirrel attack.

I don't believe rodents have second amendment rights. Has the SC ruled on this yet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pintobean (Reply #141)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:06 AM

148. I'm sure the NRA will be in their corner (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jeff In Milwaukee (Reply #9)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 11:47 AM

182. Ridicule effort to detect reason for concern?

Adam Lanza's parents probably assumed their son wouldn't do anything like what he ended up doing. If only someone had detected his problems before he blasted up to 11 holes in 20 tiny bodies. Maybe his mother wouldn't have provided him with easy access to the AR15 and ammo. Too late for 20 tiny kids, but maybe we can learn something from the Lanza errors and save some young lives in the future. And stop demonizing teachers who attempt to nurture a safe and appropriate classroom atmosphere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:01 AM

10. I bought my sons a bunch of

plain tshirts. They had a bunch with 70s album covers, skate boarding, snow boards, a couple from the Navy... I got tired of trying to figure out what would piss off whom.

If the kid had worn it there before, why is it suddenly a problem? The first time he wore it, something should have been said.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:14 AM

13. "It’s more about the Marines instead of the rifles."

Then why are the guns so prominent? Why not a t-shirt without guns? I don't see this as a big deal. Wear a t-shirt that doesn't include implications of violence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:26 AM

17. What about the Marines is "non violent"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #17)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:45 AM

21. I know. They dress it up in high-sounding 'security' and 'educational' functions.

But their main purpose, like all the armed forces, is to use weapons.

Do any of the armed forces spend much time doing anything else other than using or preparing to use weaponry? Maybe someone can enlighten me.

I know sometimes humanitarian emergencies are called for but how often are they deployed for that purpose?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:03 PM

35. I'd guess unless your military job is in communications, transportation, medicine, logistics,

equipment repair, or general administration, you probably spend most of your time preparing to use weaponry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #35)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:05 PM

38. Every Marine, regardless of specialty, is first and foremost a rifleman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #38)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:17 PM

50. Yes, and yet depending on their job, they can spend a vast majority of their time

doing other things. My father has a nice rifle sharpshooter badge but spent most of his time at 29 Palms fixing communications equipment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hughee99 (Reply #50)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:22 PM

52. Or airplane mech, or tanker.

However being a rifleman is a core value to the USMC. Army not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #52)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:26 PM

55. I agree. The point I was responding to was what they spend a majority

of their time doing, though. While they are required to be ready, able and prepared for battle, this is not the day-to-day job of many people especially when they're not in a combat zone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #21)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:34 PM

93. I spent a tour of duty in the Air Force during the Vietnam Era ...

My first year involved basic training and an education in electronic. I then became an electronics instructor for a year. When the demand for electronic technicians dropped I was sent to Massachusetts to work on radio communications gear aboard radar picket aircraft that flew over the Atlantic Ocean. These aircraft were unarmed.

I fired an M16 assault rifle in basic training and once a year qualified on the range with an M1 carbine.

I repaired and tuned a lot of radios including some from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution.

My bother in law was a helicopter crew chief. After a tour of duty in Vietnam he returned stateside and his helicopter was sent to Mississippi to help in the recovery from Hurricane Camile.

The guy who rented an apartment below mine on Cape Cod was a bosun's mate on a cutter and spent much of his time rescuing people in trouble on the ocean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #93)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:54 PM

101. Greetings fellow AF vet.

 

Last edited Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:34 PM - Edit history (1)



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Pararescue (Reply #101)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:32 PM

114. Thanks. ...

I enjoyed my time in the Air Force and often wish that I would have reenlisted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spin (Reply #114)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:44 PM

116. Career AF here

 

retired as a Chief Master Sgt. (E-9).
Never regretted my decision to make it a career.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #13)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:56 PM

82. We all know that marines carry guns only as a fashion statement.

That's why I lugged one around for 4 years...just to look cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #13)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 01:17 AM

173. Exactly. Do a google search for US Marines T shirt,

the top 5 or so results do not have guns however i found one with a skull and two crossed guns. interestingly the yahoo/daily caller story doesn't have photo of the shirt but a local news source does:

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:18 AM

14. My daughter has a hoodie she can no longer wear to school.

It's of her favorite band My Chemical Romance.

I didn't even notice that it had guns on it. (All I saw was an intricate design. Silly me.) But sure enough, a teacher finally noticed it after about a month of my daughter wearing it everyday. She was told to remove it and never wear it at school again.

We knew the rules and didn't have a problem with them. It just sucks because that hoodie wasn't cheap.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #14)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:43 AM

20. That's a pretty design!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:23 AM

16. Here's a photo of the shirt



It's being posted on mostly rightwing sites (at least that's what I found doing a quick Google search).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to deutsey (Reply #16)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:35 PM

64. Its a more modern version of the cross-rifle insignia sported by US Army Infantry

I was an Infantryman in the Army for 5.5 years. War sucks and I don't support or believe in violence, but I sport my Infantry cross rifles on my lab coat at work. My military service and the war is a huge part of my identity that I can't and never will move beyond. I wear and display some of those symbols more out of a desire to connect with others who have experienced what I have than anything else. I don't know if that makes any sense...


So what does my post have to do with anything that you wrote or the OP? I don't know. I'm just kind off in a ranty sort of mood right now. I personally wouldn't wear that shirt, but if it had a picture of a Combat Infantryman's Badge (pictured below) on it, I'd be all over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Victor_c3 (Reply #64)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:17 PM

111. Well, it seems to me that you earned that badge

so you should wear it with pride.

The kid's shirt is more an example of, I don't know, wannabe machismoism or something like that.

My son is 12 and wants to go into the Marines...he wears almost everywhere he goes a hoodie with "MARINES" and its logo on it. I respect that much more than I do the shirt pictured above.

Having said that, though, based on school policy it seems to me like the teacher overreacted. However, because everyone is so overwhelmed by gun violence, I guess I can also see why she'd be sensitive to the image and would interpret it as promoting violent behavior.

Interesting times... :-|

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:30 AM

18. Suspension is too lenient

They should expel the kid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:47 AM

23. Only after they Taze him

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #18)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:47 AM

24. Looks like the administration backed down and backed the kid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:54 AM

27. They didn't back down. It was never a violation to begin with. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #27)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:58 AM

32. Indeed, the teacher was wrong in their threat of suspension.

Have to wonder what action will be taken

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #32)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:10 PM

43. What action do you think should be taken?

The teacher was interpreting the dress code as best he could. The student was asked to turn his shirt inside out. If the boy was threatened with suspension, it's probably because he was refusing to comply with the teacher's request. All the parents had to do was bring this up to the school and they would have been told the shirt was ok. Instead they decided to run to the media with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #43)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:21 PM

51. Counsel the teacher and keep an eye out for retaliation

There is no requirement to stay within the school chain, never has been. Here is an unrelated case of why going outside can be a better approach: http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/02/27/california-high-school-principal-orders-student-to-delete-video-of-teacher-stealing/

All public employees should conduct themselves with a view to what is called the Washington Post test (what if this was featured on the front page of the Washington Post). I always tried to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #51)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:46 PM

68. Wow. You want to send a teacher to counseling for asking a kid to turn his shirt inside out?

Who's going to pay for this counseling?

Look, schools have three choices when it comes to dress codes. 1. They can have no dress code, which means allowing gang symbols, hate speech and symbols, sexually explicit imagery, and anything else you can imagine. 2. They can hire a team of lawyers to come up with the most comprehensive dress code ever seen to cover every possibility you could ever think of. Or 3, they can make reasonable, minimal guidelines and hope that common sense and communication between teachers, students, and parents will make up the difference. Guns are weapons, and weapons are, by definition, violent. I don't think the teacher's judgement in this case was so far out of line. The school administration did not agree with the teacher, but that doesn't mean the teacher was "wrong" in the way you mean it. To me it's like a lower court ruling being overturned by a higher court. I think a teacher having an erroneous interpretation of a dress code is far less egregious than parents failing the basic step of going to the school administration with their concern. This did not have to be a big deal. The parents made it into one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #68)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:58 PM

73. I said counsel...which means you sit down with the employee and discuss what happened

and how it should be handled in the future. Pretty safe bet that has already happened in this case. I did not call for outside counseling.

Do not forget that there were better ways to handle it on the teacher's side. They were not done. That is the seminal cause of this event. This was a classic Washington Post test fail.

When a lower court is reversed by a high court, it indeed means they were wrong. Same thing here. However, there are degrees of wrongfulness. I am not suggesting that the teacher to be fired etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #43)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:51 PM

70. And why shouldn't they run to the media with it?

The teacher threatened the kid with SUSPENSION.

Screw the teacher.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #70)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 11:28 AM

181. You have one side of the story

How do you know that the teacher threatened suspension? What if you're wrong, and the kid or his father misrepresented what actually happened, looking for 15 minutes of fame, or an outlet for their own hate? Have you never heard of a kid who embellished a story about what really happened at school? Or a parent (who happens to be the head of a local Tea Party group) using his kid to further his own agenda, at the expense of teacher who was just trying to do her job, but now is the "target" of threats all over the Internet?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #24)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:09 PM

40. That's too bad

We need to nip this in the bud before they grow up into dangerous gun nuts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Capt. Obvious (Reply #40)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:13 PM

46. Careful or there will be a counter reaction by the students and maybe the staff

When my late wife was teaching, one of the new teachers at the school expressed a concern at the staff meeting about the number of students wearing pro military clothing. He seemed blithely unaware that many of the school's student were from military families. At the next staff meeting, my wife wore a red sweatshirt with the classic anchor, globe, and eagle of the USMC and several other teachers did similar things. He then whined he was being harassed. He did not last long.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #46)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:17 PM

49. Did you copy and paste that?

You left out the delicate flowers part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:57 AM

29. Good. We ne to do all we can to counteract the pro gun/ pro military mindset n this country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bowens43 (Reply #29)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:07 PM

39. The teacher was wrong according to Superintendent of Schools

Have to wonder what actions will be taken

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #39)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:00 PM

84. Yeah, you really can't count on administration to stand behind the teachers.

Especially when a parent complains or even *gasp* threatens to sue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #84)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:09 PM

86. Perhaps the teacher was wrong or took the wrong approach to it.

Perhaps the teacher should have called the parents, pointed out that it was a technical violation of the dress code, and that as a teacher they did not want to see the child get in trouble. It takes it from the intimidation approach that was used to a counseling approach focused on the best interests of the student. It also means there is nothing there for the media to sensationalize

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #86)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:13 PM

87. Or perhaps this student simply ignored previous warnings.

"McIntyre’s father, Daniel McIntyre, said Deverell made him turn the shirt inside out for the rest of the day. He also noted that the boy had worn the shirt to school on many previous occasions without threats of suspension."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #87)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:15 PM

89. I take that to mean that this was the first time any of the staff did anything about it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #89)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:17 PM

90. Or the first time they stopped warning him.

Who knows? Fox news tends not to publish things that go against the talking point they're pushing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #90)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:19 PM

91. There is some ambiguity there

However, the Superintendent came down on the side of the student. Pretty well settles things

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #91)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:21 PM

92. Yup.

But that's not surprising at all. Like I said, administrators run from any hint of controversy or lawsuit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sadbear (Reply #84)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 12:12 PM

183. Espcially when the teacher becomes the target...

Can you imagine what this overblown controversy has done to the teacher involved? I read that the school had to call the police to the school because of all the threats posted online and to her email. A gentle soul just trying to do her job, and not able to tell the other side of the story, receiving threats of bodily harm from followers of the Tea Party father. This is a terrible thing to have happen to a teacher, most of whom are very gentle souls and love their students regardless of what a student or his parent do to cause great distress for the teacher. The kind of attacks she's the victim of could be life and career changing for her. And who knows, if the kid is lying or the father taking this to such a ridiculous level, may result in a kid learning a lesson that won't be productive for him or for society. That father would have done his son a favor by teaching him that it's no big deal, and just bought him a t-shirt with the REAL Marine insignia, one without two M16's plastered on the front. Now the kid knows how to get his father's backing. And he has learned to make the school look like the enemy. I can't imagine the Marine Corps endorsing this campaign against a teacher.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TXDem1975 (Reply #183)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 06:19 PM

194. Welcome to DU!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:04 PM

36. Happened at my wife's school

 

Right now, every single educator is on pins and needles

Don't test them right now, is my advice

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Taverner (Reply #36)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:10 PM

41. Isn't that what kids do? Dealing with it is a big part of what teachers do

This shirt was not so egregious that a significant authority figure should have threatened the child as they did. It should have been a quiet discussion with the parents. Bad judgement on the teacher's part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #41)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:12 PM

44. I'm not arguing that it isn't an overreaction...

 

But right now the thought is its better to overreact than underreact...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #41)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:13 PM

45. Bad judgement for asking a student to turn his shirt inside out?

You really would have preferred that the parents be called into school to discuss this? The parents had the option to initiate a quiet discussion with the school and instead they couldn't wait to run to the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #45)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:25 PM

53. A phone call would have sufficed

The teacher failed the Washington post test. Oh well, they will have to live with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #53)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:28 PM

57. Are you sure they didn't just fail the Fox News test? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #57)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:36 PM

65. The Washington Post test is actually media independent and this is now on multiple media sources

It is "What if this action/event/email etc appears on the front page of the Washington Post". Its mostly a Washington DC Fed thing, but the concept applies more broadly. Its a clue as to how all public employees should act. This teacher did not do well in that regards.

This is now on multiple media sources, Google is your friend.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #65)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 01:01 PM

74. I know what you meant.

I never said that this was only on Fox News. What I meant was that I don't see this as an action the teacher in this case needs to be ashamed of. This is a nothing story. A teacher asked a kid to turn his shirt inside out. Fox News and their ilk used this nothing story to feed an agenda. People shouldn't do things they would be afraid of becoming public, but when sensational journalism can turn anything into fodder, that's almost impossible to prevent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:14 PM

48. Poor kid...he can't find a Marines tee shirt without death sticks on it.

I hear conservatives have low IQs but here's proof!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Walk away (Reply #48)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:55 PM

72. I'm not a rah-rah semper fi kind of guy

But I'm glad the Marines are skilled with their "death sticks."

They're the freakin' MILITARY. The tip of the spear, so to speak. That's what they do. What they're trained to do. It's a shame that our civilization (and I use the word loosely) needs trained killers, but it does. I'm glad we have them.

Death sticks, indeed.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:30 PM

60. Most schools these days forbid "logo" shirts of ANY kind..

The gun on the shirt may have been a part pf it, but the fact that it was a Marines shirt would have been enough to make them remove it at many schools.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SoCalDem (Reply #60)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:43 PM

66. Not from what I have seen

It often varies from school to school and was originally started as anti-gang IIRC. Some require no words. Some even limit colors. Certain images are also expressly banned (Confederate...) Very localized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 12:32 PM

62. If any other shirt that

had guns on it were not allowed, why should this one be? Simply because it had the word "marine" on it? Double standard much?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madmom (Reply #62)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:50 PM

96. It was allowed...

 

The teacher implemented policy incorrectly out of fear.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whats_that (Reply #96)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:56 PM

102. So if another kid came in with the exact same shirt but without

the word "marine" on it, would it be allowed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madmom (Reply #102)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:11 PM

108. It appears that the rules do not specifically mention guns

Per another poster in this thread, the rules are: “Student dress (including accessories) may not advertise, promote, or picture alcoholic beverages, illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, violent behavior, or other inappropriate images.”

Based on the shirt picture I saw here, I would not consider promoting violent behavior, but I can see how some would feel differently. It had apparently been worn before without incident.

This was gray, the Superintendent sided with the student.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #108)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:24 PM

112. I have no problem with the shirt, but I want to know if it was

allowed because it was all about the Marines. If there were another shirt with guns and just as innocuous, would it be allowed?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to madmom (Reply #112)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:34 PM

115. The policy is vague and that is probably intentional

If the school had a rifle team and had team shirts, it would be good for me. If it was a Black Ops t-shirt, not so much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:14 PM

88. FAUX "News" phony outrage

 

Errrrr merrr Gerrrrrd!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rdharma (Reply #88)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:52 PM

99. Its on more places that Faux

Its a typical media filler for a slow day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:52 PM

98. my kid had to turn his shirt inside out

alert the media!!!!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Enrique (Reply #98)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:57 PM

103. My kid was threatened with suspension and it wasn't even a rule violation

would be more accurate. Clearly there were better ways on all sides that this could have been handled, but the teacher started the ball rolling on this one. However it is clearly a filler on a slow day.

A more scary education story is here: http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/02/27/california-high-school-principal-orders-student-to-delete-video-of-teacher-stealing/
I'll handle it, now delete the evidence...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #103)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:02 PM

106. Yeah, seems they left this one open to wide interpretation.

"According to Fox News, the school district’s clothing policy doesn’t appear to address guns on shirts that show support for the United States military with any specificity. The closest rule that applies reads: “Student dress (including accessories) may not advertise, promote, or picture alcoholic beverages, illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, violent behavior, or other inappropriate images.”"

Violent behavior?

If it were me, yeah, I'd say the shirt promoted violent behavior. (And if it doesn't, then what the hell does?)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #103)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 12:18 AM

135. Look, you can't have it both ways.

You yourself have said on this thread that the dress code is vague, ambiguous (probably by design), and a gray area. And yet you want to blame the teacher involved for having a different interpretation of what constitutes violent imagery than the superintendent. You want the teacher to be called into the principal's office and "counseled." You want the school to keep its eye on the teacher to make sure he doesn't try to retaliate. You say the teacher "failed the Washington Post test" as though he brought shame upon himself. All this for asking a kid to turn his shirt inside out during a busy school day. You say, oh the media is running with this because it's a slow news day - as though you yourself aren't making hay about this and using it to promote your own agenda.

And I highly doubt the teacher started off threatening suspension. More likely the kid was mouthing off and being insubordinate (something he should learn not to be if he's so enamored of the military) and the teacher had to resort to an ultimatum. Students are supposed to obey their teachers in school. There may be exceptional scenarios where disobedience is warranted but I don't think this was one of them.

This has nothing to do with anti-gun hysteria, anti-military sentiment, zero tolerance policies in schools, teacher abuses of students, freedom of expression through attire, or any other agenda people are trying to push. This was one teacher at one school in the entire nation making a reasonable judgement call during a busy school day. And since you like to use the phrase "delicate flowers" to describe people you disagree with, I would argue that the delicate flowers in this case were the ones who ran to the media to bawl about having to turn a shirt inside out without even trying to discuss it with anyone at the school.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #135)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 01:09 AM

136. Take a look from a different perspective

You yourself have said on this thread that the dress code is vague, ambiguous (probably by design), and a gray area. And yet you want to blame the teacher involved for having a different interpretation of what constitutes violent imagery than the superintendent.
The teacher took an unnecessarily aggressive steps when they were better ones available.

You want the teacher to be called into the principal's office and "counseled."
You and I both know that has already happened. Hopefully he had the good sense to admit his mistakes

You want the school to keep its eye on the teacher to make sure he doesn't try to retaliate.
Having seen that happen to my own kids, I think it needs to be watched for, to what level depends on the teacher.

You say the teacher "failed the Washington Post test" as though he brought shame upon himself.
He failed the WP test by his own actions. You are bringing in concept of shame. I could see that he is at least embarrassed by it.

All this for asking a kid to turn his shirt inside out during a busy school day.
He made a bad call, reasons unknown. While there is not a lot of data, it seems reasonable that the teacher had actually seen that child in that same shirt previously and did nothing.

You say, oh the media is running with this because it's a slow news day - as though you yourself aren't making hay about this and using it to promote your own agenda.
My take is that the teacher made a mistake and things grew from there. Its a teachable moment for both sides. What is my agenda beyond that?

And I highly doubt the teacher started off threatening suspension. More likely the kid was mouthing off and being insubordinate (something he should learn not to be if he's so enamored of the military) and the teacher had to resort to an ultimatum.
Presumptively he was protesting that he had worn that shirt before without issues. That is not mouthing off nor insubordination. Ultimatums are about the poorest way to control and manage people of any age. Had that not been issued, this never would have bubbled up. Note that the military does not want automatons. They need and expect their people to think. We should want the same from our children.

Students are supposed to obey their teachers in school. There may be exceptional scenarios where disobedience is warranted but I don't think this was one of them.
IIRC the child did. He then took it to his parents who took it from there, which is also the correct course of action.

This has nothing to do with anti-gun hysteria, anti-military sentiment, zero tolerance policies in schools, teacher abuses of students, freedom of expression through attire, or any other agenda people are trying to push. This was one teacher at one school in the entire nation making a reasonable judgement call during a busy school day.
The judgement call and methods were clearly questionable.

And since you like to use the phrase "delicate flowers" to describe people you disagree with, I would argue that the delicate flowers in this case were the ones who ran to the media to bawl about having to turn a shirt inside out without even trying to discuss it with anyone at the school.
The delicate flowers is a slur used against those who support gun rights based on a Tom Tomorrow cartoon. Some of us turn it around when appropriate. I assume you are unaware of that. Considering some of the other posters in this thread, it was a fair use.

Again you come back to keeping it within the building. It is not a requirement nor a reasonable expectation at this point, Teachers and administrators know this and they need to act accordingly. The unrelated case I cited is a clear example of why.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #136)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:44 AM

137. Asking a kid to turn a t-shirt inside out is an "unnecessarily aggressive" step?

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I guess we'll also have to disagree about the need for discipline in schools or in the military. When my son's teacher asks him to do something, I expect him to do it. I expect this of all students except in the most extreme cases, like a teacher demanding sexual favors or a teacher instructing a student to hurt someone else. I never said the military wanted automatons, but don't tell me they don't expect soldiers to follow orders except, as I said, in rare cases. When a student defies a teacher or a soldier defies a superior, of course I expect them to receive warnings about the disciplinary consequences of their actions. Even toddlers get warned about time-outs. You think protesting an order while failing to comply is not insubordination? That's exactly what insubordination is.

I don't understand your fixation on the fact that the teacher threatened suspension if the kid refused to comply. Every command or order inherently contains the threat of discipline if you fail to comply. That's what an order is. Otherwise it's just a request. You seem to be arguing that it was not so bad for the teacher to ask the kid to turn the shirt inside out, but it was just dreadful and "unnecessarily aggressive" that he insisted on it, even threatening disciplinary action if the kid continued to refuse. By that logic when a student protests an order, teachers are supposed to just say, well ok, and walk away.

And we'll have to agree to disagree on the reasonableness of going to the media with this complaint without talking to a single adult at the school - not the teacher, not the principal, not the superintendent, not even someone on the board of education. I call that a jerk move by people with an agenda. You seem to think all those people couldn't be trusted to handle the situation without retaliating against the kid or staging a massive coverup and that there would be no way to possibly protect against such an occurrence. I find that ridiculous and paranoid.

You say you have no agenda. I believe otherwise. I think the pro-gun forces were hoping this would be a great example of "anti-gun hysteria" and the superintendent took the wind out of their sails by saying the shirt was fine and the parents would have known that if they had bothered to ask. So now the story is changing to... uh, well, maybe the dress code needs to be designed so that it can't be reasonably interpreted in more than one way. And maybe this school isn't anti-gun, but the teacher certainly is!!

It's all so ridiculous.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nine (Reply #137)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 02:43 PM

163. You are still thinking in binary terms

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
No surprise there

I guess we'll also have to disagree about the need for discipline in schools or in the military.
Actually we are disagreeing about leadership techniques.

When my son's teacher asks him to do something, I expect him to do it. I expect this of all students except in the most extreme cases, like a teacher demanding sexual favors or a teacher instructing a student to hurt someone else. I never said the military wanted automatons, but don't tell me they don't expect soldiers to follow orders except, as I said, in rare cases. When a student defies a teacher or a soldier defies a superior, of course I expect them to receive warnings about the disciplinary consequences of their actions. Even toddlers get warned about time-outs. You think protesting an order while failing to comply is not insubordination? That's exactly what insubordination is.
That depends heavily on context, circumstances, intent, and style. Sometimes the right thing to do is to hear the protest out, other times you acknowledge it and agree to discuss it later. Dictatorial behavior is rarely if ever appropriate and in the long term it is a recipe for failure in teaching and the military. IME, high schools at times seem more interested having automatons than the military. I say that as someone who served in the Army and taught at the high school and university level.

I don't understand your fixation on the fact that the teacher threatened suspension if the kid refused to comply. Every command or order inherently contains the threat of discipline if you fail to comply. That's what an order is. Otherwise it's just a request. You seem to be arguing that it was not so bad for the teacher to ask the kid to turn the shirt inside out, but it was just dreadful and "unnecessarily aggressive" that he insisted on it, even threatening disciplinary action if the kid continued to refuse. By that logic when a student protests an order, teachers are supposed to just say, well ok, and walk away.

No, it was poor technique and poor leadership. That in the end resulted in something trivial hitting national media. No matter what other bad actors there were, it all started due to bad judgement by the teacher.

And we'll have to agree to disagree on the reasonableness of going to the media with this complaint without talking to a single adult at the school - not the teacher, not the principal, not the superintendent, not even someone on the board of education. I call that a jerk move by people with an agenda.
I did not say it was a reasonable behavior, I said it was reasonable to expect it to happen and it happens more and more frequently. I discuss why further on

You seem to think all those people couldn't be trusted to handle the situation without retaliating against the kid or staging a massive coverup and that there would be no way to possibly protect against such an occurrence. I find that ridiculous and paranoid.
Some can, some cannot. I saw some bad acts by teachers and staff, including vengeance, when we returned to the US so our daughters could finish up in US schools. Very few to be sure, but it did happen and there would have been no consequences had the parents not pushed the issue. Watching out for it is reasonable after something gets splashed in the national media, denying it happens is not. I provided just such an example from PINAC (http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/2013/02/27/california-high-school-principal-orders-student-to-delete-video-of-teacher-stealing/) (I’ll take care of it, now destroy the evidence). Be glad to discuss our experiences in the Calvert Country school system if you like.

You say you have no agenda. I believe otherwise. I think the pro-gun forces were hoping this would be a great example of "anti-gun hysteria" and the superintendent took the wind out of their sails by saying the shirt was fine and the parents would have known that if they had bothered to ask. So now the story is changing to... uh, well, maybe the dress code needs to be designed so that it can't be reasonably interpreted in more than one way. And maybe this school isn't anti-gun, but the teacher certainly is!!
Some of the usual suspects here have tried to make it a gun incident. It clearly is not and pointing that out to them has caused some distraction on this thread. I am not watching what is being said elsewhere.

You are also incorrect about the agenda being about guns. The core issue is anti public school/ anti public school teacher/anti-union sentiment that is running rife through this country. Teachers know all about it too. Taverner in another post in this thread (http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2440601) made an observation “Right now, every single educator is on pins and needles…Don't test them right now, is my advice”. Taverner is a good poster but he got the polarity reversed this time. Teachers are under a microscope. Any actions that can get questioned will in the least convenient manner and forum, AKA the Washington Post test. That is the real world of education today, and it goes on at the university level as well. It’s like gravity, it sucks, but we have to deal with it. This teacher chose poorly. Hopefully he has learned from it and this goes away.

It's all so ridiculous.

I tend to agree with you there. As elleng posted in this thread, (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022440171#post126)
"GREAT way to throw away a teaching moment...Hate to say this, but some teachers don't use their heads OR their discretion." It think that sums it up well.

There was an unnecessary confrontation of some sort. A teacher who chose poorly started it and parents that took it to the media rather than keeping it in the building fanned the flames. Bad choices all round and in the end it just fuels the anti public school/ anti public school teacher/anti-union sentiment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #136)


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:52 PM

100. If everyone wore shirts with pictures of guns on them, nobody would be scared of shirts

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #100)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 02:58 PM

104. LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:07 PM

107. If everyone watched FAUX, everyone would be scared .....of EVERYTHING!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 03:11 PM

109. It's against state law where I teach to wear clothing with guns

or drugs, alcohol or drug paraphernalia.

The state legislature passed this legislation. Can't blame teachers or school districts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #109)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:55 PM

119. Have that law handy? I'd expect such a law to be struck down pretty damned fast on 1st am grounds.nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #119)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:53 PM

122. I assume he means students at school where the BOR is strongly curtailed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #122)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:30 PM

131. Right, but that's a wholly different thing than 'against state law'..

If it is Kansas, I could kind of understand the boneheadedness of such a law (from KS leg), but I'd like to see it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #131)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:48 PM

132. He cleared up his context in a reply to me.

He is a solid poster and not given to hyperbole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #132)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:53 PM

133. I must be missing it, then. *shrug*

If we're talking about administrative codes, school codes, etc, and the court's refusal to overturn such, that's a ballpark away from a state legislature making it illegal to wear a certain t-shirt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to X_Digger (Reply #119)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 09:24 PM

124. The Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging school dress code in 2010.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2010/0111/Supreme-Court-refuses-challenge-to-school-dress-code

Schools have been given the right to restrict clothing that disrupts the learning environment. There are several court rulings.

http://education.findlaw.com/student-rights/school-dress-codes.html

http://www.splc.org/wordpress/?p=2713

Courts have also upheld a school's right to restrict what students wear to school.

http://www.ehow.com/info_7895468_court-cases-involving-school-uniforms.html

http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20070306/news_1m6tshirt.html

Under the Tinker test, schools may prohibit certain items of clothing if it can be shown that wearing them is disruptive to the school environment or creates discipline problems. Recently, certain colors, gang insignias, some sports logos, or displays of profanity on clothes have been banned. Generally, if a school′s dress code promotes discipline or good health, it will survive a legal challenge. - See more at: http://askthejudge.wpengine.com/do-school-dress-codes-violate-students-first-amendment-right/#sthash.G7NNQw78.dpuf

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #124)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 11:29 PM

130. Right, but you piqued my interest with 'against state law'..

I'd be interested in seeing the state law mentioned.

Thanks!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #109)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 08:51 PM

121. You mean by students?

Otherwise there would be a whole bunch of people in jail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProgressiveProfessor (Reply #121)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 09:30 PM

125. Adults who are employees would be covered under the district dress code.

Ours is pretty general but a shirt with an image of a gun would most likely be considered disruptive and that would violate our dress code for employees.

An adult who is not an employee could wear whatever they wanted. But I'm reminded of a family I encountered at our district office back at the beginning of the year. A man, a woman and two small children. They were asking about kindergarten enrollment. The man was wearing a shirt that said 'WHAT THE FUCK R U LOOKING AT?'. While that was certainly legal, it didn't prevent me from wondering just how stupid you have to be to wear that shirt when you go to enroll a kid in kindergarten.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to proud2BlibKansan (Reply #125)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 10:19 PM

129. Students are under similar strictures?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 04:05 PM

118. Zero-tolerance stupidity in action!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 09:13 PM

123. Zero Tolerance is for stupid people and cowards.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 09:35 PM

126. GREAT way to throw away a teaching moment.

Hate to say this, but some teachers don't use their heads OR their discretion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Thu Feb 28, 2013, 09:58 PM

127. Good for the teacher.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 09:16 AM

138. That's a pretty common dress code.

"“Student dress (including accessories) may not advertise, promote, or picture alcoholic beverages, illegal drugs, drug paraphernalia, violent behavior, or other inappropriate images.”

The problem is that "inappropriate images" is vague, and leaves it up to staff members to determine what is "inappropriate" on the spot. McIntyre is right about that. I'm sure that there would be disagreement on the part of any group of adults over whether or not various specific images might be inappropriate.

The article doesn't say whether or not the teacher asked the student to change his shirt, was refused, and then threatened the suspension, or whether the teacher simply walked up to the student and said, "remove the shirt or be suspended" without any prior discussion, which is highly unlikely.

The "send students to the principal for a 2nd opinion and final determination" is standard procedure in most schools. The catch-22 is whether or not this particular school is one in which teachers are pressured NOT to send students to the office to resolve issues, but to handle it themselves. This is also quite common.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 10:01 AM

142. Lego guns scare some people too

I get why some people are jittery after experiences like Columbine and Newtown but people need to get a little perspective. Pictures of guns are not going to kill people, lego guns are not going to kill people, imitating guns using your hands is not going to kill anybody, and elementary school-age children playing cops and robbers during recess is not going to hurt anybody nor does it mean that any of them are likely to show up toting guns and shooting up the school the next day. I can kind of understand worrying about toy guns as some of them are so realistic that they might be mistaken for real guns but none of the other stuff should be viewed as threatening much less be cause for suspensions or other disciplinary actions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #142)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 10:15 AM

145. And...

... explicit pictures of people having sex aren't going to get anyone pregnant or spread STDs either. So, by your reasoning sexually pornographic depictions on clothes being worn at public schools should be just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #145)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:35 AM

149. If this is a dress code issue, that's one thing

(and I'm fairly certain pornographic t-shirts wouldn't be allowed in any school under any circumstances either). However, if we're talking about somebody freaking out specifically about his shirt just because it has guns on it, that's a different issue. I was just making comments on what I see as a certain hysteria that has developed in some of our schools around the country, particularly since Columbine. There have been plenty of examples over the years where schools are handling their legitimate concerns about school violence/safety by adopting some crazy policies and overreacting to certain situations and IMHO harming children as a result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #149)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:40 AM

150. No sir.

It is not "a different issue." It is precisely the same issue. Glorifying guns, gun culture, militarism, and the violence they are responsible for, is merely a form of pornography you prefer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #150)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 12:27 PM

153. Whoa

I wasn't commenting on the substance of the t-shirt, just suggesting that the teacher is perhaps overreacting to it. I'm not even into guns myself. But I don't think that I'd threaten to suspend somebody over somebody wearing a t-shirt I didn't agree with/approve of though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Proud Liberal Dem (Reply #153)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 01:47 PM

156. So you wouldn't suspend..

... a student over wearing a t-shirt with a graphic image of genitals on it? I understand the desire to sidestep this very appropriate analogy because it makes some folks uncomfortable, however, it actually goes straight to the heart of the issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #156)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 08:03 PM

170. I'm not sidestepping anything

Most people (I think) would agree that there are some huge differences between pictures of guns on a t-shirt vs. graphic sexual images. I would expect fewer knee-jerk reactions (in most cases) to a t-shirt with pictures of guns than I would to a shirt with graphic images. I would imagine that most school dress codes would probably not allow students to wear either types of shirts but what are we really talking about here? I think that perhaps we are talking past each other. My overall point was teachers and school staff overreacting to tragedies at Columbine, Newtown, etc. and taking it out on students whom aren't doing anything other than expressing themselves through their clothes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #150)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 01:40 PM

154. Call it what you want, but its a form of speech that has greater protection than sexually explicit

speech. You may not agree, but at this moment in time, you don't have the law on your side.

There undoubtedly are shirts that depict firearms (even if they refer to the military) in ways that are sufficiently violent or aggressive as to justifiy a school telling a student to change clothes. But a ban on any shirt depicting a firearm regardless of context? Such a ban would almost certainly fail if it gets to the SCOTUS.

Here are three shirts. A school could probably say no to the first. It almost certainly could not say no to the second. And the third? Probably can't ban that one. That one, by the way, is the shirt in question in the instance described in the OP.








Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #154)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 01:52 PM

157. And at a point in time ...

... slave owners "rights" were "protected by law."

Shit changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #157)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 01:54 PM

158. Do you think a court would uphold a ban on a t-shirt with this picture?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #158)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 02:06 PM

159. Doesn't matter what "I" think.

I didn't "think" a court would ever give corporations the rights granted to people or pretend the money and speech are the same thing. Now it's "the protected law."

Guess you support that too, eh?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #159)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 03:58 PM

165. If you didn't think a court would ever give corporations constitutional rights

you were unaware of the fact that that the NAACP was protected from being sued for organizing a boycott, that the NY Times was protected against being prevented from publishing the Pentagon Papers, that Hustler Magazine was protected against a suit for infliction of emotional harm by Jerry Falwell, etc. etc. etc. The Supreme Court first recognized that an "artificial" corporate entity could have rights under the constitution as far back as tthe early 1800s when Justice John Marshall recognized that the constitutional "contract" clause applied not merely to contracts between natural persons, but also contracts to which a corporation was a party.


And in response to your snark, no, I don't support, in the context of poltiical spending, the CU holding that there is no distinction between the regulation that can be applied to a corporation and the level of regulation that can be applied to individuals. The law has long drawn distinctions between types of speech and types of speakers. CU was wrong in that it failed to acknowledge that there substantial governmental interests for drawing the distinction that was drawn in the legislation that was at issue in that case. However, I do support the NY Times, DU, MoveOn, the NAACP, the Democratic National Committee, and other "corporate" entities having first amendment rights. Apparently you don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #165)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 04:04 PM

166. Way to completely miss the point.

A long winded nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #166)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 05:29 PM

168. Okay, then please clear up the issue: do you think corporations should have first amendment rights

Its a yes or no question. Answering yes doesn't mean you think that they should automatically have identical first amendment and other constitutional rights as individuals but that you do agree that the constitution applies to corporations.

A no answer means you don't think that corporations should have any constitutional rights.

Also, do you think that the expenditure of money in the form of advertising or in support of a publisher of speech should be protected under the First Amendment. A no answer means that the government could ban individuals from making contributions to DU or DU from accepting contributions. A yes answer doesn't mean that the government can't put some limits on expenditures by individuals, but that those limitations have to serve a substantial governmental interest.

It could be that we actually are in agreement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #168)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 06:33 PM

169. Completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread.

Furthermore, lame black and white answer only questions are nothing more than bait used by dishonest people to trap others into lame word games. I ain't playing. Take it over to Freeperville, it's more their style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #169)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:06 PM

171. I'm not the one that brought up CU

and attempted to make it relevant to this discussion.

But I can understand why, having demonstrated your lack of understanding of the case after raising it, why you wouldn't want to discuss it.

And since it apparently is now okay to suggest that DUers take their posts to Freeperville, I suggest you follow your own advice since accusing posters of dishonesty and avoiding having a discussion is more their style.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #171)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 11:29 PM

172. It was an example, smart guy.

But you being so very fucking brilliant and me being so very fucking stupid, I guess that never dawned on you. Welcome to gone. Forever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #145)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 02:01 AM

176. Minors are not generally legally allowed to own sexually explicit materials in the US.

I believe you have to be 18+ to buy sexually explicit material.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #176)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 09:08 AM

179. I think I'll pass on...

... the question begging, but thanks for playing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #179)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 02:20 PM

184. That is probably wise in many cases, but that is not what I am doing.

I'm stating a simple fact: children cannot have sexually explicit material. They can have pictures of guns, unless the picture also has sexually explicit material.

Therefore, the comparison of children having pictures of guns in school and children having sexually explicit materials in school is off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #184)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 02:57 PM

185. It is question begging.

Nothing more, nothing less, and completely irrelevant to the point I made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #185)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 04:46 PM

186. Will you please teach me why it is question begging? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #186)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 04:54 PM

187. Google is your friend. Use it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #187)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:07 PM

188. I did look it up again when you first made the claim,

which led me to believe your interpretation of the fallacy is incorrect.

Begging the Question is a fallacy in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true. This sort of "reasoning" typically has the following form.

1.Premises in which the truth of the conclusion is claimed or the truth of the conclusion is assumed (either directly or indirectly).
2.Claim C (the conclusion) is true.

This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because simply assuming that the conclusion is true (directly or indirectly) in the premises does not constitute evidence for that conclusion. Obviously, simply assuming a claim is true does not serve as evidence for that claim. This is especially clear in particularly blatant cases: "X is true. The evidence for this claim is that X is true."

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Examples of Begging the Question

1.Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

2."If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."

3."The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."

4.Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."


http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html

My claim was/is: Minors are not legally allowed to buy sexually explicit materials. Minors are allowed to buy images of guns. Therefore, the comparison of sexually explicit materials to images of guns is a poor comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #188)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:14 PM

189. If you choose not to get it...

... exactly what am I supposed to do or say about it? It's like trying to have a rational conversation with a Teabagger. I'm not here to educate the purposely ignorant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #189)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:20 PM

190. I think you are unable to back up your claims, so you use insults instead.

If you were truly trying to have a rational conversation, you would back up your claims and avoid insults.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ZombieHorde (Reply #190)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:31 PM

191. I didn't make...

... any fucking "claims."

Try your lame bait on someone else, I'm done with you. Goodbye. Have a nice life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 99Forever (Reply #191)

Sat Mar 2, 2013, 05:40 PM

192. Here is your claim:

explicit pictures of people having sex aren't going to get anyone pregnant or spread STDs either. So, by your reasoning sexually pornographic depictions on clothes being worn at public schools should be just fine.


That is obviously a claim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 10:13 AM

144. Either guns on shirts are allowed or they are not.

There shouldn't be a "if it is military then it is ok" clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #144)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 01:45 PM

155. actually, it exactly the opposite

Not all depictions of guns can be viewed as so disruptive to the school environment as to justify a ban. In constitutional parlance, such a ban would be overinclusive.

On the other hand, a ban that exempted any shirt that depicted guns so long as it referenced the military would fail on constitutional grounds as well.

It depends on the total context. In another post, I attached pictures of three shirts that depict guns and reference the military. I can't imagine a ban that applied to the first one being upheld. The second one almost certainly could be banned whether it referenced the military or not. The third one, which is the shirt in this case, falls in between the two but I believe that if a case based on that shirt being banned ever made it to the Supreme Court, the school's effort to ban it would fail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redgreenandblue (Reply #144)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 02:34 PM

161. The dress code never addressed guns explicitly

It was gray at best. Child had previously worn the shirt without issue.

A teacher made a bad call. Parents took it out of the building and to the media directly (tacky at best). It ends up getting splashed on national media. Lots of teachable moments on all sides.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 12:03 PM

152. Might have been handled better. But truth is we don't need to be promoting guns in schools.


You'd think kid's parents might have been a little more sensitive to the situation. But then, maybe parents are gun cultists and think that crap is cool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #152)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 02:37 PM

162. I see it more as an anti-public school/anti-public school teacher/anti-teacher union thing

That it was a Marine t-shirt was secondary. It could have been unicorns and my pretty ponies. As others have pointed out, the teacher made a questionable decision and the parents took it straight to the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Straight Story (Original post)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 02:52 PM

164. pictures of guns kill people...

Makes as much sense as saying guns kill people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ileus (Reply #164)

Fri Mar 1, 2013, 04:04 PM

167. guns kill people. look in your news.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread