Re: IP: School bans `no rules' T-shirt

[lcs Mixmaster Remailer <mix@anon.lcs.mit.edu>]

This is more evidence of government trying to indoctrinate children. We
have the Pledge of Sheepegience, students encouraged to pressure anyone
who doesn't conform, school uniforms, clear backpacks, metal detectors,
kids being expelled for having asprin, and now students being "free" to
wear anything with a message, so long as it's a government-approved
message. 

On Sat, 19 Sep 1998, Vladimir Z. Nuri wrote:

> From: believer@telepath.com
> Subject: IP: School bans `no rules' T-shirt
> Date: Thu, 17 Sep 1998 09:25:30 -0500
> To: believer@telepath.com
> 
> Source:  St. Paul, Minnesota Pioneer Planet News
> http://www.pioneerplanet.com/news/wis_docs/010832.htm
> 
> Published: Thursday, September 17, 1998 
> 
> School bans `no rules' T-shirt
> 
> ASSOCIATED PRESS 
> 
>  WAUKESHA, WIS.
> 
> A fifth grader was ordered to turn his T-shirt inside-out because it
> carried the message ``No Rules,'' which the principal said promoted
> disruptive behavior.

What difference does it make? Schools aren't teaching kids to read anyway.
Obviously, they're still learning.

I suggest that we ban all literacy right now! It allows people to read
disruptive texts! Fahrenheit 451 forever! Ra ra ra!

> But the youth's mother said Saratoga Elementary School principal Dale
> Heinen overstepped his bounds and that there was no harm in wearing such
> shirts, which depict cartoon characters and carry the slogan, ``Outta my
> way. No Rules.''

One would think that the fact that it's being worn by a fifth grader, and
that it has cartoon characters on it would tend to make it more of a joke
than anything else.

> 
> Heinen made Cody Wilhelm wear the shirt inside-out so no one could read its
> message.

I guess that the kids of today aren't smart enough to read backwards
either.

> 
> ``School guidelines talk about things that are disruptive and can lead to
> disruption,'' Heinen said. ``If they are portraying that in what they wear
> . . . we don't want kids reflecting that attitude or promoting that type of
> attitude.''

Yes. You only want them to promote attitudes which cover the government
seal of approval.

> Mary Wilhelm said her son's T-shirt was not disruptive and that parents
> should have the right to dress their children with any clothes they want to
> as long as they do not promote sex, drugs, alcohol, tobacco or illegal
> activities. 

Oh, I get it. "Freedom for me, but not for thee." She's basically bitching
because she wasn't given the decision about what rights to abridge.

The funny thing about these people hating sex is that they do it, and if
people don't do it the species dies. The downright sad thing about the
"illegal activities" comment is that just about everything is illegal now,
but she's too stupid to realize it. 

> She said her son went to school last year wearing one of the ``No Rules''
> T-shirts and also wore a T-shirt depicting ``Joe Camel,'' a cartoon
> character formerly used to promote Camel cigarettes. School officials did
> not object, she said.

Wait! I thought Mary Wilhelm said that "parents should have the right to
dress their children with any clothes they want to as long as they do not
promote sex, drugs, alcohol, TOBACCO..."

> ``He should have never worn that Joe Camel shirt, I agree, but that dealt
> with smoking,'' Wilhelm said.

As opposed to "illegal activities." Well, at least as the school claims.

> ``This is different. I don't want to have the principal tell me what I can
> and can't do with my kid.''

But you want to be able to tell everybody else what they can and can't do
with their's.

People like this disgust me. That includes the principal and the mother.