I still can't believe they had to make a law for this.

Prager used to talk about this. He and the missus tried to raise one of tbe boys with no toy guns or violent playtime. .. Didn't matter. The kid formed an imaginary gun out of bread..Bang bang.

But what if they are drawing the pastry in self-defence?

I also cannot believe that they felt a LAW was necassary to protect kids from being kids.
But, given that there isn't much common sense in those actually running the schools, and the zero tolerance policies that run amock, I'm glad there is.

In seriousness, the effect of such policies is to undermine 2nd Amendment rights by stigmatizing them.

It's not hard to connect dots between laws like this, and intentions like this:
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2012/03/18/holder-in-1995-we-must-brainwash-people-against-guns/

"What we need to do is change the way in which people think about guns, especially young people, and make it something that’s not cool, that it’s not acceptable, it’s not hip to carry a gun anymore, in the way in which we changed our attitudes about cigarettes. ... We need to ... really brainwash people into thinking about guns in a vastly different way" - Eric Holder

Kids who grow up in these schools will be just that - thoroughly brainwashed, unable to do anything but mindlessly bleat "guns are bad". Then they'll become lawmakers and voters.

You cannot send in sunscreen just about anywhere without a medication form. I think it's because it's considered an OTC health item (in which case, we can blame lawyers and legislators).

HOWEVER, I have yet to find a school that doesn't just LOVE hand sanitizer. There have been reports of children getting sick from licking it (high alcohol content) at younger ages (KG). It is also severely drying and you cannot "opt out" of it for your child. So, it's all basically nonsense. If it makes their lives easier, it's okay even if dangerous. If it doesn't, well, too bad.

Note that kids are more likely to react (rash, painfully dry skin) to hand sanitizer than to a sunscreen sent in from home.

Like others have been saying above, it is a wonder that an actual law was needed to stop the zero-tolerance silliness.

But what I really wonder about is how we got to this point in the first place. How did we get to the point where a boy would be suspended for a Pop Tart, rather than being told "don't do that?" The zero-tolerance rules didn't spring up overnight, and people obviously thought they were a good idea, at least in some form.

I also cannot believe that they felt a LAW was necassary to protect kids idiotic school administrators.

FIFY. You're welcome. They should, in fact, pass a student's Bill of Rights.

I will mangle a quote attributed to George Washington:

Government schools are not reason; are not eloquence; they are force. They are a dangerous nanny and a feared master sergeant.

"Ladies and gentlemen of the class of '97: Wear sunscreen."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-schmich-sunscreen-column,0,5909206,full.column

==============================

Which is more likely, the kid gets sick from ingesting sunscreen or the kid gets a sunburn from playing outside unprotected?

I guess if you've canceled recess and don't let the kids outside, they're gonna eat the sunscreen out of sheer boredom.

==============================

But what if they are drawing the pastry in self-defence? ~ Posted by: Lobster at June 27, 2014 5:09 AM

Now I have a vision of two little kids facing off in the lunch room brandishing Pop Tarts. Blackberry Bart vs. the Blueberry Swirl Kid.

There will always be those who push the boundaries of their authority to enforce their neurotic failings. In a sane world, such people would never have the power to be anything but an annoyance. The fact that a law like this is necessary says something about the nature of modern American culture.

Old RPM Daddy,

We got here with nationalized schools.

At one time school teachers and administrators came from their community. The represented those values, so if their community felt this was ok it was and no one complained.

But now the schools are largely nationalized. And the people at the top all graduated from Harvard. So you get Massachusetts extreme liberalism pushed out to every school in the US.

Why would a school principal think a ten year old kid might be stupid enough to drink sunscreen? Because she's almost that stupid as an adult.

Education majors (teacher trainees) average the third lowest SAT scores of any major (among people who get into college, which is no longer much of a distinction, and the third lowest GRE scores of those who graduate and think they might get an advanced degree. Education administration majors are one of the two groups even lower than teachers.

The other major that scores even lower than teachers is social work. So maybe reporting that idiot principal for child endangerment isn't such a good idea!

"So you get Massachusetts extreme liberalism pushed out to every school in the US."

Especially in Kansas and Oklahoma, which are now bastions of anti-Christian left-wing thought...

"So you get Massachusetts extreme liberalism pushed out to every school in the US."

Especially in Kansas and Oklahoma, which are now bastions of anti-Christian left-wing thought...

Posted by: Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at June 28, 2014 10:52 AM

Two words... Kathleen Sebelius.

"Two words... Kathleen Sebelius."

Those certainly are two words and one person.

Where are all the others? There must be thousands infiltrating the state, county, and city schools.

Thousands!

"Two words... Kathleen Sebelius."

I must admit I'm not familiar with her work for the department of education. Heath and human resources sure, governor of Kansas a bit, but education no.

Or was this about Hillary Clinton?