Slashdot Mirror


School Bans 'Tag'

GillBates0 writes "CNN is carrying a story about a school in Boston which has have banned kids from playing tag, touch football and any other unsupervised chase game during recess for fear they'll get hurt and hold the school liable. According to the article, some elementary schools in other states have similarly banned "unsupervised contact sports". A parent was quoted as saying that her son feels safer now and that she'd witnessed enough 'near collisions.'" See, it's not just dangerous virtual games that are harmful to children!

1,000 comments

  1. Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I've always said that we should just chain them up in a basement until they're 18. Avoids most of the hassles associated with kids.

    1. Re:Simple Child Care by buswolley · · Score: 1

      I prefer the "1 meter balloon buffer" method.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    2. Re:Simple Child Care by gr8whitesavage · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or perhaps maybe we could lock them in some pink goo, wire them together and collect energy from them. We could keep these "children" entertained in a virtual world where computer programs will teach them everything.

    3. Re:Simple Child Care by wootest · · Score: 4, Funny

      And if they take the red pill?

    4. Re:Simple Child Care by sinistre · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And then we send them off to war.

    5. Re:Simple Child Care by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 4, Funny

      And if they take the red pill?

      How do you think we get goth kids?

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    6. Re:Simple Child Care by wootest · · Score: 1

      So *that's* where those coats come from.

    7. Re:Simple Child Care by buswolley · · Score: 1

      yeah thank God they don't play tag over there!

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    8. Re:Simple Child Care by ZoFreX · · Score: 3, Funny

      I believe Wolfgang Priklopil was the pioneer of that tecnique... never has a man been so misunderstood... ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/5280472.st m if you don't know what I'm on about)

    9. Re:Simple Child Care by CODiNE · · Score: 1

      dad iis thaa yooo? me cold wan food :wq

      --
      Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
    10. Re:Simple Child Care by diersing · · Score: 5, Funny

      My patent is pending on a giant padded hamster ball, if your balloon buffer comes to market I plan to sue you.

    11. Re:Simple Child Care by gid · · Score: 1

      They do, it's just with bullets instead of your hand.

    12. Re:Simple Child Care by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 5, Funny

      It amazes me that this would come from the USA. I mean, the 50 year olds act like teenagers, and they expect the children to act like adults?

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    13. Re:Simple Child Care by bladesjester · · Score: 1

      So you're saying that goth kids are the only ones with a real sense of reality? :P

      --
      Everything I need to know I learned by killing smart people and eating their brains.
    14. Re:Simple Child Care by lisaparratt · · Score: 4, Funny

      Be fair - the average goth is more likely to take both pills, and ask you if you can get them some speed.

    15. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
    16. Re:Simple Child Care by static0verdrive · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah really. "Land of the Free" my ass. The kids aren't allowed to play tag?! TAG!!?

      --
      ========
      77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
    17. Re:Simple Child Care by johneee · · Score: 1

      Lazarus Long's idea was similar to yours but had a certain amount of elegance that yours misses. He said you should put them in a barrel until they're 18, feeding them through the bung hole. When they reach the age of 18, you make a sober and considered decision on whether to let them out or drive in the bung.

      (You do know who Lazarus Long is, right? If not, hand in your geek card on your way out the door)

      On a more reasonable tack, this problem isn't associated with kids, or even the school administrators. It's a problem with the courts and parents. The administrators' decision in this case seems to be a reasonable response to the environment they're working in (which is broken, but they still have to respond to it)

      --
      - ------- There are ten kinds of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who... Huh?
    18. Re:Simple Child Care by harrypelles · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've always said that we should just chain them up in a basement until they're 18. Avoids most of the hassles associated with kids.

      ...Except maybe let them out to cut the grass or wash the car once in a while.

    19. Re:Simple Child Care by AngryUndead · · Score: 1

      So its just a bad hack then?

    20. Re:Simple Child Care by Gulthek · · Score: 0, Troll

      Heinlein's Lazarus Long "stories" are hardly requisite geek material. LL was an insufferably annoying character.

      Now, if you don't recognize the phrase, "Shines the name, shines the name of Rodger Young." then you have a geek cred problem.

    21. Re:Simple Child Care by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And after they're eighteen, they can pass through the body scanners, look into retinal pattern id readers, submit to body cavity searches, submit to endless background checks, drug checks, be pushed into first amendment zones, get checked on secret "terrorist" watch lists, have their email and IM's read, have their mail opened, packages scanned, DNA data catalogued, car monitored by GPS tracking devices, their phones tracked every second of their lives and by extention their own movements monitored until they die.

      Sweet freedom! And that's just the people who haven't done everything. Get convicted of something and you are a prisoner for the rest of your life, if not in bricks then in opportunities.

      And WHAT ARE THE ODDS of a terrorist attack hitting anyone? What are the odds of being killed by your car? Why aren't cars illegal, then? Why aren't there driver terror lists? Alchohol watch lists? Oh, why go on.

      We've given up what it means to be free because we're terrorized cowards incapable of rational risk analysis. No sense of human rights, no idea of history not promulated by Fox News or equivalent.

      So, what's a kid gonna look forward to after they release him from the school prison but the bigger prison that we all are sharing (unless we're rich -- whole different world for them, always).

    22. Re:Simple Child Care by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      I've always said that we should just chain them up in a basement until they're 18.
      I've just made an appointment to have both my children encased in lucite. That way, I can put them on the mantel and admire how perfect they are each time I see them.
      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    23. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I must be very fortunate to have survived the hundreds of games of tag I played as a kid.

      These parents would be totally horrified to know I even played contact ice hockey!! Oh the horror!!

    24. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not the expense. Vat-grown adult clones is the way to go.

    25. Re:Simple Child Care by Bohemoth2 · · Score: 1

      These parents are retards plan and simple. this is getting rediculous

    26. Re:Simple Child Care by rkcallaghan · · Score: 1
      Catbeller wrote:
      And after they're eighteen, they can pass through the body scanners, look into retinal pattern id readers, submit to body cavity searches, submit to endless background checks, drug checks, be pushed into first amendment zones, get checked on secret "terrorist" watch lists, have their email and IM's read, have their mail opened, packages scanned, DNA data catalogued, car monitored by GPS tracking devices, their phones tracked every second of their lives and by extention their own movements monitored until they die.
      Never have I seen it summed up so well. I wish that could fit in to a sig, maybe as a dictionary style entry for the word "Freedom". Amen, friend. I'll see you at Miniluv.

      ~Rebecca
    27. Re:Simple Child Care by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I know people who used to play tag, or war, or whatever with pellet guns. One guy got hit in the eye. Kids are really stupid.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    28. Re:Simple Child Care by IcyNeko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thank you, sissy parents of America, for creating the next generation of wussy kids and further enhancing the downfall of human society.

    29. Re:Simple Child Care by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      I guess I lose cred. What's that from?

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    30. Re:Simple Child Care by Sylver+Dragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Hey, tag is a dangerous game. Just think, CHILDREN ARE TOUCHING EACH OTHER!!11ONE1one1! The next thing you know they will be screwing each other like rabbits in the playgrounds!
      Ok, kidding aside, I actually did manage to end up with stitches in my eyebrow from a game of tag when I was young. I went for one of those high speed turns where you grab a pole and whip around, and another pole ran right out in front of me. The last thing I recall was seeing the school upside down, sometime after that I woke up on a couch in the office. I ended up with several stitches in my left eyebrow. (Is it just me or does the needle they use to do that look awfully similar to a fishhook?)
      So, would I stop kids from playing tag because they might hurt themselves? HELL NO. It's a ton of fun, it gets kids out and running. Which, when you consider all of the health risks of kids being obese, I'll take the trade off of one or two of them getting knocked cold now and again. Also, any parent who sues over this sort of thing should be taken out and shot. Kids are going to run around and play, they are going to fall and get cuts, bruises, they will require stitches and they will break the occasional bone. This is why you have health insurance, to keep those occurances from breaking the bank. Use it as a teaching opportunity to explain why you need to be careful and GET OVER IT!

      --
      Necessity is the mother of invention.
      Laziness is the father.
    31. Re:Simple Child Care by chad.koehler · · Score: 1

      Lucite, not carbonite?

    32. Re:Simple Child Care by Asztal_ · · Score: 4, Interesting
    33. Re:Simple Child Care by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Ok, kidding aside, I actually did manage to end up with stitches in my eyebrow from a game of tag when I was young."

      Stiches, scraped knees and broken limbs are part of being a kid. You learned from your stitches. It took me more stitches - but i eventually learned.

      We shouldn't take the learning experiences away from kids.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    34. Re:Simple Child Care by demonbug · · Score: 1

      IIRC, the Roger Young is the ship in Heinlein's Starship Troopers that the main characters end up on.

      Yup, I was right.

    35. Re:Simple Child Care by Jonny_eh · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Don't forget that when children get hurt, they often recover much quicker and more fully than an adult would with a similar injury. Evolution has created children to be more 'durable' than adults, for whatever reason. Kids need to get hurt and do stupid things, it teaches them what NOT to do in the future. When I was 8 I tried doing something stupid on the monkey bars, got hurt, recovered, never tried it again.

    36. Re:Simple Child Care by Arathon · · Score: 1

      Dang, I thought that's what we were already doing. World of WarCraft doesn't extract energy?!

    37. Re:Simple Child Care by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      Your giant padded hamster ball is useless without my patented vocal muffler and harness system which you will be forced to license from me!

      Muhahahah!

    38. Re:Simple Child Care by lastchance_000 · · Score: 1

      Starship Troopers.

      The book, not the movie. Definitely not the movie.

    39. Re:Simple Child Care by Cr33pybusguy · · Score: 1

      Thats why we used/use eye googgles. Only now we call it paintball.

      --
      Hee Hee The drinking bird does all the work!
    40. Re:Simple Child Care by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 1

      Robert A. Heinlein. He wrote many stories and many books. Most of which have a recurring character who lives to be several thousand years old, know as "Lazarus Long" born Woodrow Wilson Smith, aka 'Dr. Hubert' aka many other aliases. The most famous of his books including L.L. were "Time Enough for Love", "The Cat who Walks through Walls" and "To Sail Beyond the Sunset", in addition to many short stories. Pick up "The Past Through Tomorrow" or "The Green hills of Earth" - they are collections of his short stories. That will get you started.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    41. Re:Simple Child Care by MrNougat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      How are our kids going to be prepared to be soldiers as adults if we're preventing them from attacking one another during play? They'll grow up to be French or something.

      --
      Web 2.0 == Giant Blogspam Circle Jerk
    42. Re:Simple Child Care by icedcool · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I hear that. If I have kids, I'm gonna make sure there tough as nails. "Whats that? You dont like green beans? Well I guess you dont want dinner tonight. Oh you want them now? Timmy wanted them.... there gone now." They'll never complain about anything. Ever.

      --
      Most people aren't thought about after they're gone. "I wonder where Rob got the plutonium" is better than most get.
    43. Re:Simple Child Care by Sqwubbsy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah really. "Land of the Free" my ass. The kids aren't allowed to play tag?! TAG!!?

      This IS Massachusetts we're talking about - the nanny state of all nanny states.
      Their Senators are named Kennedy and Kerry.
      'Nuff said.

    44. Re:Simple Child Care by object88 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ok, kidding aside, I actually did manage to end up with stitches in my eyebrow from a game of tag when I was young.

      And now, if you're lucky, you've got a cool scar across your eyebrow, which says your dangerous, and might help you get laid some day. Think of the adults-to-be! Encourage kids to play tag, injure themselves, and maybe they, too, will get lucky down the road.

      Sadly, my dropped-bench-on-my-toenail-injury doesn't work. Good thing I'm married!

    45. Re:Simple Child Care by Pharmboy · · Score: 4, Funny

      I've always said that we should just chain them up in a basement until they're 18.

      It puts the lotion on the skin, else it gets the hose again?

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    46. Re:Simple Child Care by Palshife · · Score: 4, Funny

      My kids will play a variant of paintball without the gun but keeping the goggles. I'll call it goggles...game...thing. Whatever. It's safer.

      --
      Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
    47. Re:Simple Child Care by Cr33pybusguy · · Score: 1

      Lucite is better. With carbonite some moron with a lightsaber will come by and de-frost them. Then what do you do? Hopefully you can re-capture the rug rats again, otherwise there goes the galactic empire you created.

      --
      Hee Hee The drinking bird does all the work!
    48. Re:Simple Child Care by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Ok, kidding aside, I actually did manage to end up with stitches in my eyebrow from a game of tag when I was young

      I got stitches in my head once when I was hit in the head by our screen door. (In retrospect, that might explain a lot...) I vote we should ban doors.

      (Not directed at you because you're not in favor of this nonsense.)

    49. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I blame the TAG body spray commercials. All those women trying to tackle some poor guy, that's just asking for trouble. I hope none of those guys get hurt.

    50. Re:Simple Child Care by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      You gotta love the movie Starship Troopers! It's like Star Trek meets Beverly Hills 90210. It is so bad, it's good. Definitely worthwhile with the correct amount of THC. Same catagory as L. Ron Hubbard's fiasco with John Travolta, Battlefield Earth.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    51. Re:Simple Child Care by rickwood · · Score: 1

      That gets a Right On!

    52. Re:Simple Child Care by etrimby · · Score: 1

      Almost, but not quite, the perfect post(you misspelled promulgated).

    53. Re:Simple Child Care by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      They're probably so retarded they can't even spell "plain" and "ridiculous"!

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    54. Re:Simple Child Care by derEikopf · · Score: 1

      While I sympathize with you, it is also important to consider that terrorist attacks may be counterbalanced by their much higher potential for mass casualties (e.g. nukes, chemical weapons, etc.). Dying from a car wreck may be more likely, but dying in a WMD terrorist attack is potentially much more severe (perhaps hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions, of casualties).

    55. Re:Simple Child Care by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

      Tell me about it. When I was 5 or 6 I was riding on the back of my dads dirtbike with him, and (having drug stuff in my bicycle spokes to make noises) I decided to try and graze the moving tire spokes with my shoe to make a noise. Long story short, that hurt. A LOT. I'm guessing it was just a very quick twist as my foot didn't detach (didn't even break a bone), but I remember hollering in agony afterwards, thinking "I'll never do that again.".

      There's also an area in the woods behind my parents' house that had a few broken mason jars back there. I cut my foot open on that glass 2 or 3 times when I was really young. Now when hunting 20 years later and wearing shoes and everything, I still will without thinking walk around that area (though the glass is long gone). Kids remember what hurts, and tend to not repeat it.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    56. Re:Simple Child Care by AngryNick · · Score: 1

      Please add the "red" state of Virginia to your list of sissy states. My daughter's school outlawed tag last year. They've also banned snowball fights.

    57. Re:Simple Child Care by geobeck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Thank you, sissy parents of America...

      To amend your statement: Thank you, opportunistic lawyers, wussy judges, and uninformed juries of America for creating a sue-me state that makes a simple game of tag a serious legal liability.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    58. Re:Simple Child Care by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 2, Funny
      And then we send them off to war.

      We send them to play Tag over there, so we don't have to play it here?

      (seriously though, your post: +5 OUCH)

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    59. Re:Simple Child Care by teh_chrizzle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why aren't cars illegal, then? Why aren't there driver terror lists? Alchohol watch lists?

      dude, booze and cars are great sources of tax revenue. if you could get terra-ists to pay enough in taxes and have their own lobby on capitol hill, boards of education would teach kids how to make bombs in shop class.

      --
      sarcasm:
      -noun
      1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
    60. Re:Simple Child Care by 955301 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What are you on? This said Boston, not America. Please go through your own country's (If it's not the US and your not just a self-deprecating troll) municipal laws and be sure they *ALL* make sense before referring to an entire population of people as one big lump of stupidity.

      But there's no way I would treat my kid with kid gloves.

      --
      You are checking your backups, aren't you?
    61. Re:Simple Child Care by dan828 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You guys have nothing on California. A local school here has a "peaceful playground," which doesn't allow competitive playing or running of any sort.

    62. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit. A Congressman posts on /. ?

    63. Re:Simple Child Care by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 1
      Get convicted of something and you are a prisoner for the rest of your life, if not in bricks then in opportunities.

      Who says you need a conviction? The holidaymakers at Club Guantanamo never did. Hell, even an arrest record, or attending a protest, or a bad credit rating and your opportunities are shot to shit.

      Simple solution: emigrate. Speaking as a foreigner, if you are genuinely smart enough to see what you have posted, I would be happy to have you in my country.
    64. Re:Simple Child Care by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Hrm, somebody's got to work McDonalds. I just hope there are enough competent people around to work for me once I get to the point that, um, people are working for me.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    65. Re:Simple Child Care by cayenne8 · · Score: 1, Insightful
      "To amend your statement: Thank you, opportunistic lawyers, wussy judges, and uninformed juries of America for creating a sue-me state that makes a simple game of tag a serious legal liability."

      Thank you...I was thinking along those line just the other day, when it dawned on me, that I'd not see a freaking diving board in a private or public swimming pool since I was.....lets see....about 16???

      Geez...With freaked out paranoid parents, and the lawyers, I feel sorry for the kids of today who can't seem to do much of anything we did that was fun...and amazingly enough, survived!!

      People wonder why the kids of today are fat, lazy and only want to sit inside and play video games. Well, its because no one lets them do fun outdoor things like we used to.

      I do feel sorry for them today...sigh.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    66. Re:Simple Child Care by jjrockman · · Score: 1

      Wait until you've actually had kids and then say that...

      --
      Quit jabbering on the phone while driving. You are not that important.
    67. Re:Simple Child Care by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Hmm, can you sue schools for overprotection? ;-)

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    68. Re:Simple Child Care by mirio · · Score: 1

      Here, here. Very well said indeed.

    69. Re:Simple Child Care by tbone1 · · Score: 1
      Thank you, sissy parents of America, for creating the next generation of wussy kids and further enhancing the downfall of human society.

      Yeah, no kidding. My dad taught me hunting, gun safety, how to fix and ride a go-cart, football, basketball, ... Today he would be denounced.

      --

      The Independent: Reverend Spooner Arrested in Friar Tuck Incident - ISIHAC, Historical Headlines
    70. Re:Simple Child Care by Cutting_Crew · · Score: 1

      no way dude, i have a patent on Thinking. since you both thought of the muffler and he thought of the hamster wheel it looks like i both pwn you so pay up or get sued.

    71. Re:Simple Child Care by rainman_bc · · Score: 1

      I feel sorry for the kids of today who can't seem to do much of anything we did that was fun..

      Except sit in front of the TV getting fatter playing video games. After all, if our kid is in front of the TV, we know they are at least safe. Why put them at risk by having them *gasp* go outside???

      **Queue childhood obecity storey next.

      Personally, if my daughter's school banned friggin' tag, I'd pull her ass out of that school so damned fast. That's the only statement I can make ultimately. I do not the way you are trying to wussify my kid and I'll take my kid to another school that isn't going to wussify her.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    72. Re:Simple Child Care by minion · · Score: 2, Funny

      Be fair - the average goth is more likely to take both pills, and ask you if you can get them some speed.
       
      At least they'd choose... An emo kid would just cry in a corner faced with a decision like that... (or a decision as to what condiment they want on their veggie burger)

      --

      -- If we don't stand up for our rights, now, there will be no right to stand up for them later.
    73. Re:Simple Child Care by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Kids not running? WTF? How they hell are they supposed to burn off energy and get exercise? Maybe Kalifornia needs to be sued for inhibiting the healthy development of children. If only they had some kind of health advocate in a position of power there...

      FWIW, my daughter (6 years old) usually has a visit a week to the school nurse. When she hits the play ground, she doesn't hold anything back. Personally, I think it's a good thing that she's learning to take lumps and keep going (bleeding still requires a Barbie band-aid, though). What doesn't kill you usually makes for a good beer drinking story later.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    74. Re:Simple Child Care by qor72 · · Score: 1

      Ok, kidding aside, I actually did manage to end up with stitches in my eyebrow from a game of tag when I was young.

      And oddly enough you lived, your parents didn't sue the school, and you got up and were likely playing within a few days at most.

      Why do we want to take the opportunity of teaching our kids how to get back up after you fall away from them?

      And it wouldn't surprise me if the school, after the fallout from this, requires parents to sign a disclaimer before the kids are allowed out on the blacktop. *sigh*

    75. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That sounds awesome. I wish I had a chilled-as-fuck place in my school. I'd be smoking greenery there 24/7. No pesky kids running around destroying my hypnotic groove.

    76. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dang, I thought that's what we were already doing. World of WarCraft doesn't extract energy?!

      It must; it's always yelling about needing more energy while my rogue is fighting.

    77. Re:Simple Child Care by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      why stop there?! my planned community development company, Habitrail for Humanity, is going to take it to the next level

    78. Re:Simple Child Care by pizpot · · Score: 1

      Why not just pass a law that parents can't use the public legal system to sue public schools?

    79. Re:Simple Child Care by mightybaldking · · Score: 1

      No, Ice Hockey is American and European. Hockey is Canadian.

    80. Re:Simple Child Care by Pollardito · · Score: 1

      those kids are never going to be prepared for a ninja attack! we're raising an entire generation that is ripe pickings for shadowy assassins rappelling from above

    81. Re:Simple Child Care by fifedrum · · Score: 3, Interesting

      new york state parks with pools have diving boards. use 'em all the time. Many private campgrounds I visit also have them. most schools have them, around here at least. the only place I see diving restricted is where the water is shallow, i.e. 4' pool.

      If you want a "man's hobby" for your childen, get into historical reenacting. They can learn to shoot a gun, dress in military uniforms, pretend to kill people, cook food over an open fire, and camp under the stars all in the same day. If you join something like a competitive target shooters club, they can fire live rounds at targets too. In fact, there are clubs that fire live artillery rounds. That's a real man's hobby. Forget bowling.

      aside from that, my son came home with a paper card game from 1st grade the other day. It was basically "war" just with number cards no face cards, so they could recognize 0 through 10 dots in different configurations on a page, and learn to quickly tell the difference between the numbers. Anyway, he proceeds to divide up the cards equally, 2 number 10s for you, 2 for me, 2 number 9s for you, 2 for me etc. I immediately got angry and lept to the conclusion that the directions make the game attempt to be "fair" rather than "random" as you would expect, and that it was more soft-peddling the games to our kids, and started to blame the teacher... then I read the directions. The directions were war, shuffle the deck, hand out cards randomly etc. Infact he was stacking the deck so he would win, there were actually 5 of each card. He was keeping the extras to ensure victory.

      I wasn't sure if I should be proud he had figured out how to stack the deck, or be mad he cheated, thankful our local school district hadn't softened to the point of game-neutrality or what to think. So I thought them all at the same time, and proceeded to kick his ass in cards after shuffling. Only, as any good random card game like war is, he won the 2nd game without difficulty.

      Then we went downstairs and played missle command, to teach him that life isn't like random car games, you win a few you lose a few, in fact, you win win until your cities go up in smoke.

    82. Re:Simple Child Care by clayanderson · · Score: 5, Informative

      So let's do what we do best: /. 'em.

      Write to the principal who implemented this rule: gheppe@attleboroschools.com

      And to her boss, the superintendent: pdurkin@attleboroschools.com

      And to anyone else you can find on this page: http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/home.asp?mode=so&ot=5 &o=68&so=70-6

    83. Re:Simple Child Care by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      Look at the mortality tables. You are least likely to die when you are 10 years old. Big enough to be able to fight off (or have already fought off) childhood illnesses, yet small enough not to be hurt as much in falls and collisions.

    84. Re:Simple Child Care by huge+colin · · Score: 0
      Why aren't there driver terror lists?
      Where have you been? They're called "lists of people whose licenses have been suspended". That's what happens if you drive drunk, etc.
    85. Re:Simple Child Care by geobeck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Except sit in front of the TV getting fatter playing video games.

      Not for long. You just know someone is going to sue the major video game companies for childhood obesity, and some wussy judge is going to allow the suit to proceed... and, of course, some uninformed jury is going to award millions to the plaintiff, who was only a victim of his own inability to get his ass off the couch once in a while.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    86. Re:Simple Child Care by borg007 · · Score: 1

      Where a dying American soldier from Boston sighs, "but there wasn't suppose to be any contact. Yet, he shot me. Mommy, why?! I did everything I was told to do." Elsewhere a foreign remarks, "Wow! You were right. They walk right up to you. This conflict shouldn't last too long."

    87. Re:Simple Child Care by rhatcher · · Score: 1
      My father broke his arm playing tag with myself and my three siblings -- skidded around a curve and landed badly. Not at school, but also not an impossible thing to happen. Sheesh, accidents happen but is it really realistic to ban all activities that might result in an injury?

      Those needles for stiches might look like scary fishhooks, but they don't necessarily use them on eyebrows anymore. Six years ago, my then 3 year-old son was "spinning" in his pre-school ... right into a bookcase. Split open his eyebrow. When I picked him up to take him to the doctor I had visions of just that scenario: a big fishhook needle near his eye. Luckily they now, ah, superglue the kids back together. Which is good because he really didn't want anything to do with prodding/poking by a doctor and it took 3 nurses and myself to hold him down while the doctor glued him. I can't imagine how we would have accomplished it if it had to be real stitches.

    88. Re:Simple Child Care by Excen · · Score: 1

      A local school here has a "peaceful playground," which doesn't allow competitive playing or running of any sort.
       
      And they wonder why the kids in California are lazy, self-centered and generally stupid. Mark me flamebait, but have you ever watched Laguna Beach?

      --
      "No beer until you finish your tequila!" -Leela's Dad
    89. Re:Simple Child Care by slack-fu · · Score: 1

      Pain is temporary, glory is forever...chicks dig scars.

    90. Re:Simple Child Care by boristdog · · Score: 1

      So, what's a kid gonna look forward to after they release him from the school prison but the bigger prison that we all are sharing (unless we're rich -- whole different world for them, always).


      So, like a stupid stunt on the monkey bars teaches kids to not do stupid things on the monkey bars, now we're teaching them that they'd better become rich if they want to escape this horrid future?

      That's the lesson I learned. I'm going to be rich.

    91. Re:Simple Child Care by SoulRider · · Score: 1

      Mark Twain had a good system of child care, "Put them in a barrel and feed them through the hole, when they turn 18 cork up the hole." :)

    92. Re:Simple Child Care by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      > I'd not see a freaking diving board in a private or public
      > swimming pool since I was.....lets see....about 16???

      Speaking for myself, it's the simple horizontal bar that I miss.
      I do not think I have seen one in the States except on the
      Santa Monica beaches. I used to love monkeying around one...

      Yes, people can get hurt, but it's like brain cells and alcohol.
      It's the weak ones that die :-)

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    93. Re:Simple Child Care by pilgrim23 · · Score: 1

      but if we chain up the parents, who watchs the kids? THINK OF THE CHILDERN!

      --
      - Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
    94. Re:Simple Child Care by Oronar · · Score: 2
      My middle school had rules against us running. They were generally ignored and the only consequence was getting yelled at, but the rules were in place.

      Heck, even during field day(day we spend outside in a make-shift carnival) whatever the major game was, they let everyone win. It was really annoying.
      "You're all winners!"

      --
      1 4/\/\ 1337
    95. Re:Simple Child Care by rhatcher · · Score: 1
      Please do ... mark the parent as flamebait or possibly simply a troll. I haven't a clue what "Laguna Beach" is -- presumably a TV show since you claim to watch it. But to generalize that all (or even most of ) the kids in a very large state are pejorativeA, pejorativeB and pejorativeC based on ... what, a TV show. Well, that's just stupid in itself.

      Google yields: http://www.tv.com/laguna-beach/show/29836/summary. html

      It's one of the wealthiest, most beautiful beachside communities in the world and MTV has unlimited access to the tight-knit power clique of eight rich, beautiful teenagers that live there.
      Yup, that's fer sure a representative sample of the kids in all of California. Gawd.
    96. Re:Simple Child Care by Deagol · · Score: 2, Interesting
      So, would I stop kids from playing tag because they might hurt themselves? HELL NO. It's a ton of fun, it gets kids out and running. Which, when you consider all of the health risks of kids being obese, I'll take the trade off of one or two of them getting knocked cold now and again. Also, any parent who sues over this sort of thing should be taken out and shot. Kids are going to run around and play, they are going to fall and get cuts, bruises, they will require stitches and they will break the occasional bone. This is why you have health insurance, to keep those occurances from breaking the bank. Use it as a teaching opportunity to explain why you need to be careful and GET OVER IT!

      Just to add some prospective (and play devil's advocate), try this on for size: Most children are required to attend school. That includes those too poor to afford the one-off medical expense or insurance. What happens when one of those kids winds up in a freak collision with a pole or another kid? The parents are pretty much screwed.

      Now my family has chosen a lifestyle of voluntary simplicty. I work (from home) enough to pay the bills, put food on the table, and a little extra for misc expenses. We don't have insurance for ourselves or our two kids. While it's not really necessary for us to take advantage of, the kids receive free lunches (to put the financials into perspective). Near the start of school this year, we got this private insurance thingy just for while the kids are in school. It read (paraphrased): "Your school does not cover medical expenses for incidents on school grounds, so for $72/year, you can insure for yadda-yadda-yadda...".

      I declined. Not that I couldn't afford it, but out of principle. I said, "Fuck that! They make school compulsory, so they will cover any any injuries as a result of them being there." I don't loose any sleep over it -- kids are tough and all but the most sever injuries would result in a confrontation with the school district over whether they should cover the expenses. If it's a result of my kids being stupid, then I'll suck it up. But if it's from some *other* kid being dumb, or negligence on the school's part (ice on the sidewalk, wet floor, class-time activities like P.E.),then I'll pursue it.

      Sure, shit happens. Kids will be kids, and my own offspring (8 and 11) do dumb-assed things like all kids. However, the fact is that some kids are real monsters (I'm sure we've all seen a peer of our kids and thought, "Someone needs to put that little shit over their knee and teach them some manners!"), and being artifically exposed to an unnaturally high concentration of kids will statistically result in more injuries. Given that, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect the schools to cover medical expenses from such injuries.

      So, in the context of my post, I can see why a school my make the fiscal decision to ban rough forms of play. Hell, it may even be the result of a pain-in-the-ass liability insurance policy the school uses. I still think it's stupid, though. Shit happens, and misc medical expenses should just be in the school district's budget. The relatively high availability of insurance is the reason such stupid-simple medical cost so damned much, as it artificially raises what the consumers can bear, but that's best left for another rant.

    97. Re:Simple Child Care by Tuidjy · · Score: 1

      I'd go for the middle ground on this one:

      If you have not read the Lazarus Long stories, but know who he is, because you like much of Heinlein's and have madea conscious decision avoid some of his late works, you' still qualify as a geek.

      Of course, I would hardly advance a definition which would disqualify me. I dislike most of Lazarus Long's books.

      On the other hand, lately I have been rereading early Heinlein kiddy stuff (Farmer in the Sky, Spaceman Jones) and am surprised how much I enjoy them. I grew up in a communist country, and read Heinlein books that would have never gotten translated. I have to admit that I thought of him as the ultimate American, and I believed that the US was a land where libertarians were in the majority. Boy, was going to college in Boston a shock.

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    98. Re:Simple Child Care by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      who was only a victim of his own inability to get his ass off the couch once in a while.

      He tried, but the school board banned getting off the couch out of fear that he would fall down, get injured, and sue the school.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    99. Re:Simple Child Care by light_rock · · Score: 1

      Time to move to Iran

    100. Re:Simple Child Care by soft_guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not just pass a law that parents can't use the public legal system to sue public schools?

      That's a great idea. The local schools here are run by absolute crooks and your proposed idea would allow them to hire child molesters too.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    101. Re:Simple Child Care by Guuge · · Score: 1

      Okay, I don't get it. I'm pretty sure you're trying to bash liberals, or maybe intellectuals in general. But what do the names "Kennedy" and "Kerry" have to do with tag? Am I looking too hard for something clever here?

    102. Re:Simple Child Care by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that movie made me never want to see a movie again.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    103. Re:Simple Child Care by c_forq · · Score: 1

      I always thought ice hockey was European, it is hockey in my area of America but then again I'm from Michigan and were about as Canadian as you get in America (for example we have at least 3 hockey teams playing in the Ontario Hockey League, and the CBC is in the standard cable lineup).

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
    104. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the movie did have more boobies than the book, so that's a small bonus point...

    105. Re:Simple Child Care by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      My parents did, needless to say, I'm not a picky eater and have a willingness to try new foods.

      Hell, when I was younger all I wanted was the sugar and fat, vegatables, ick! Had it not been for the fact they pretty much forced me to to eat balanced meals and running around and playing tag, I'd be another obese American.

    106. Re:Simple Child Care by saider · · Score: 1

      I have kids and I would be on the phone immediately if they did something like this. My kids do the following "death activities"...

      gymnastics
      baseball
      tree climbing
      swimming
      tag
      "buttball" (dodgeball derivative)

      Yes they get hurt and bruised up. No big deal. They also learned what can cause injury and they have adapted to avoid it or deal with it. My kids can now fall off their bikes and brush themselves off. Even with a painful scrape, they know to come to me, tell what happened and take care of the problem. But they do not come crying and babbling incoherently to me.

      As far as the feeding goes, if my kids do not eat what is on their plate at dinner time, they go to bed hungry. The kids do not get a special meal prepared just for them because they don't like what the rest of the family is eating. I learned how to eat food that didn't nessecarily like, and so can they. They can also learn to think about the consequences of their decisions. Sometimes they eat because they do not want to be hungry. Other times, they deal with the hunger. Either way, they learn a lesson.

      Too much coddling going on.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    107. Re:Simple Child Care by smaddox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I am pretty sure child molesting is not a civil offence... i.e. you will go to jail for it - not be sued for it.

    108. Re:Simple Child Care by egommer · · Score: 1

      "Eating western culture from the inside out since 1848".

      Thank you, for your support!

      from Karl Marx and the National Lawyers Guild

      --
      Two Towers-Two Worlds.One seeks triumphs and freedom for man.The other deems man unworthy and wrecks them.
    109. Re:Simple Child Care by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Thank *YOU*, bullies of America, for pretending it's the lawyers' fault for taking away your excuses to kick the tar out of other kids in so-called "tag", "dodgeball", and "touch football" that too often led to serious fights because they were considered "safe" and no one could be bothered to supervise them.

      The problem isn't the games. It's the failure, or refusal, to supervise and keep the games within the most basic rules. I've supervised touch football, and played it, and learned harsh lessons when I was a kid about how bullies would twist it into a chance to take out their aggression on other kids, without repercussion. My players played clean or sat out the game: one dirty player's parents even tried to get me suspended for interfering in their drive for him to win, but I'd already gotten the head coach to notice the problem and he backed me up at the meeting.

      We didn't win championships, but what we won we won fair and square.

    110. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're an idiot if you think "Laguna Beach" is even a semi-accurate depiction of what life in Laguna Beach is really like, much less California in general. Trust me, I'm a native to the area.

      What sucks is, people around the world watch shows like that, say "hey I want to live like that!", and then move there and make the show become a reality. If you've watched this area grow for decades as I have, you'd see how the stereotypes in those shows are slowly becoming more and more true, and the people exhibiting them aren't the natives; they're the transplants who move here and then act like what they saw in TV/movies.

    111. Re:Simple Child Care by Hawkxor · · Score: 0

      i have a patent on patents.

    112. Re:Simple Child Care by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

      War is a pretty retarded card game. You could play yourself as easily as you could play the other person. You don't actually make any decisions.

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    113. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What happens when one of those kids winds up in a freak collision with a pole or another kid? The parents are pretty much screwed.

      Huh? You mean that in America, when a kid gets hurt the parents have to pay for treatment? Bizarre. I cannot imagine what it must be like to live in a country where emergency medical care is not free. A country where poor parents can't afford to have their kids taken care of is hardly a shining light for the nations.

      In fact, it strikes me as simply barbaric to basically say to a child, "sorry, I can't treat your injuries because your parents don't have enough money". How can doctors, who have sworn oaths to help the sick and wounded, live with themselves after turning injured children away?

      (Don't give me that "other countries pay for it through taxes" bullshit, either. The proportion of my taxes that goes towards funding national healthcare is far, far smaller than the amount I'd have to pay to get comparable cover from a private health insurance scheme.)

    114. Re:Simple Child Care by Haeleth · · Score: 1

      Dang, I thought that's what we were already doing. World of WarCraft doesn't extract energy?!

      It seems they forgot to plug the level treadmill in.

    115. Re:Simple Child Care by DancesWithBlowTorch · · Score: 1

      Thank you very much for this post. Good to hear not everyone at the other side of the pond has lost their mind. Would you do me a favor and vote in the mid-terms? Bring your friends.

    116. Re:Simple Child Care by Jeian · · Score: 1

      +5 Insightful? Wow, I should try throwing unrelated hyperbole into my posts more often.

    117. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have him, I certainly am annoyed be people who are constantly seeing boogey men behind every corner.

    118. Re:Simple Child Care by jazman_777 · · Score: 1
      Other playground equipment gone the way of the dodo: big slides, big swings, merry-go-rounds (aka vomit machines), teeter-totters.


      Sorry folks, we'll have to wait for the Boomers to die off before things can start to return to normalcy.

      --
      Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
    119. Re:Simple Child Care by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      Problem is not everybody can be rich. Just like everybody can't be tall, theres always going to be a short group.

      Wanting to be rich at all costs is where we get spammers and CEO's diving out of failed companies with there golden parachutes. I'll stay poor and content that I am not an asshat.

    120. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember when my school decided to put an end to snowball fights. We had a winter when daily temperatures around noon were in the negatives (Fahrenheit). Snowballs started turning into iceballs between leaving kids hands and hitting other kids faces. Even then, it took a concussion, bloody noses weren't enough trouble.

      Hell, it took at least six years for them to replace the wooden playground equipment. Not because of splinters, either. Because some kid went into anaphylactic shock after being stung by one of the yellow jackets that lived in the hives in the wood. It was just easier to replace the equipment than to make sure the bees were all killed.

      Now, one school has turned into a breeding ground for pansies. I like it. The parents who want their kids to be pansies will send their kids there, and humans naturally select against fat pansies when it comes time to reproduce. The parents who care about their kids in the long term will send them elsewhere, where they will learn to deal with the small things. Again, Darwin saves the day.

      For my part, I've made a concession to safety in the use of goggles during Airsoft and Paintball fights being mandatory.

    121. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      "In fact, it strikes me as simply barbaric to basically say to a child, "sorry, I can't treat your injuries because your parents don't have enough money". How can doctors, who have sworn oaths to help the sick and wounded, live with themselves after turning injured children away?"

      In fact, doctors in emergency rooms cannot do this. They are legally required to treat.

      It is relatively fiscally-responsible parents
      who are worried about being unable to pay the bills that they feel
      they owe that forgo emergency treatment. Those
      who ignore their debts simply go to the emergency room and never pay.

      In the USA, it is not a matter of not being able to get care in emergency. It is a
      matter of being unable to get care without having to either pay, go bankrupt, or
      deal with collection agencies.

    122. Re:Simple Child Care by Taevin · · Score: 1
      US Code requires that doctors provide sufficient treatment to stabilize patients in medical emergencies.

      US Code Title 42, Chapter 7, 1395dd (emphasis added):
      (h) No delay in examination or treatment A participating hospital may not delay provision of an appropriate medical screening examination required under subsection (a) of this section or further medical examination and treatment required under subsection (b) of this section in order to inquire about the individual's method of payment or insurance status.
    123. Re:Simple Child Care by vidnet · · Score: 1

      Most children are required to attend school. That includes those too poor to afford the one-off medical expense or insurance.

      So school be voluntary, so those with parents too poor to afford the possible injuries could keep their kids out?

    124. Re:Simple Child Care by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      if the guy teaching is not named Skryabin then kids should know a few things about cocktails

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    125. Re:Simple Child Care by Leebert · · Score: 1
      In fact, it strikes me as simply barbaric to basically say to a child, "sorry, I can't treat your injuries because your parents don't have enough money". How can doctors, who have sworn oaths to help the sick and wounded, live with themselves after turning injured children away?


      They don't. Hospitals write off a significant chunk of their patient bills. So much so that's it is quite often abused by the more deadbeat types in society.
    126. Re:Simple Child Care by Grax · · Score: 1

      Make sure you get rid of cars too. I've driven past fatal collisions on the way to work. Our kids shouldn't have to be in that kind of danger. They should stay home where it is safe.

    127. Re:Simple Child Care by Mr.+Shotgun · · Score: 1
      So, what's a kid gonna look forward to after they release him from the school prison but the bigger prison that we all are sharing?

      Death.
      --
      Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
    128. Re:Simple Child Care by mooncaine · · Score: 1

      The "Baby Boomers" ran around demanding, crying, & throwing tantrums, until they got their way. Now that they are parents, they are still selfish -- it's still about what they want, not what their kids want. They turned into the monsters they used to accuse their parents of being, and they still outnumber their opposition, so they throw tantrums and get their way even now.

      I'm being a bit hyperbolic here, but that's meant to provoke discussion.

      I'm still p___d off about the fact that public swimming pools across America took away the diving boards. I didn't even like to dive off them, myself, but it's disgusting to see how often we here in the US try to protect us from ourselves by using, basically, tantrums: change the playground rules or I'll take my kid out of your school, for example.

      When I had a chance to see a bit of other countries, I realized how many safety railings and silly rules we have over here. Who honestly needs to be told that one can be hurt if one gets too close to the edge of a cliff and falls off? More to the point: is it really necessary to put a 12-foot chain link fence there, and force us to stand 5 feet away from the edge, just because *someone* might be stupid enough to fall off?

      Yes, it's sad when a child is hurt riding his bike [I almost got killed myself, as a kid, riding mine], but I think it's gone too far to enforce helmet laws for kids on bikes. You must be allowed to hurt yourself if we expect you to learn that your actions have consequences. US parents today, I suggest, are being selfish by not letting their kids take such risks. They don't want to be blamed by their kids, the way they themselves blamed their own parents for so many things.

      That's my take at the moment. What do you think about it?

    129. Re:Simple Child Care by static0verdrive · · Score: 1

      Please leave politics out of this. This has nothing to do with right/left, red/blue, evil/good, etc. As an outside observer, I can honestly and easily say republicans messed up your country most, and your reputation with all other coutries just as much, so don't be so quick to blame your least-favorite of the lying political parties. This has to do with whatever the hell has been crawling up most of the baby-boomers' asses (red or blue) over the past few years...

      --
      ========
      77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
    130. Re:Simple Child Care by Deagol · · Score: 1

      No, the right thing to do would be to own up to the consequences of compulsory education and pay for medical expenses incurred as result of that requirement. I qualify for a per-mile stipend to drive my kids to/from school, as there is no bus service to our house. Rightly so, the school system offsets the financial burden (the gas costs are roughly $1US round-trip, twice a day -- about $40/month) of transporting the kids to school. I don't know how common that is (we live in a very rural part of Utah), but reduced/free lunch programs have been a corner stone of every school system I've been a part of (as a student and as a parent of one), and I've lived all over the US. Same principle.

    131. Re:Simple Child Care by Creepy · · Score: 1

      Where I'm from (Minnesota) if you say Hockey, you mean Hockey on ice, though it's perfectly fine to call it Ice Hockey if you want. The modifier appeared to distinguish it from Floor Hockey and Roller Hockey, both of which I played without helmets or pads as a kid, leading to lots of scrapes and bruises. I also played hockey with pads - mainly as a goalie since it was easier to avert exercise induced asthma that way, and got tons of bruises that way, too.

      I don't think the schools should be sued, tho - sue bastards like my 8th grade gym teacher, a guy that graded on performance only - completely unfair to moderate-persistent asthmatics like myself. On the last lap around the track in my fall gym class I told him I didn't think I would make it because my asthma had gotten so bad and he basically said he had no problem with failing me, so being the bull-headed kid I was, I kept running. I woke up in an ambulance getting oxygen (I think they gave me an adrenaline shot, too, but I don't remember). Thankfully I was good at most other gym sorts of things, but that class was the only 'B' I got in Jr High - all because of that race.

    132. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a stupid game. What's fun about putting on goggles doing nothing?

    133. Re:Simple Child Care by iMySti · · Score: 1

      Don't fret, I full intend to beat my spawn.

    134. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, by the "whateverdeity you swear by (or don't), I don't think that I understood the situation of the health care in the US before this.
      Are you really telling to me that if you get a small cut which needs to be stiched you need to have an health insurance or pay in cash if you are above the accepted income to get it fixed?

    135. Re:Simple Child Care by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      we'll have to wait for the Boomers to die off before things can start to return to normalcy.

      We could accelerate the process by killing all the lawyers.

    136. Re:Simple Child Care by Damvan · · Score: 1

      "The "Baby Boomers" ran around demanding, crying, & throwing tantrums, until they got their way. Now that they are parents, they are still selfish -- it's still about what they want, not what their kids want. They turned into the monsters they used to accuse their parents of being, and they still outnumber their opposition, so they throw tantrums and get their way even now."

      I agree wholeheartedly. I think a significant number of problems in American society today is a direct result of the Baby Boomers. The same people who spent the sixties protesting against the Establishment are now the Establishment and created one worse than the one they protested against.

    137. Re:Simple Child Care by Damvan · · Score: 1

      We used to do this all the time as kids. Put on your heavy winter coat, a football helmet, and head out into the orange groves and play war with BB guns.

    138. Re:Simple Child Care by lt.com.riker · · Score: 1

      >>If I have kids, I'm gonna make sure there tough as nails <<

      And then your neighbors will report you to Social Services for child abuse and they will come and take your kids away.

      This crazy society we live in drives me insane. I work in a high school now and I always feel like if I talk to or even look at the students in the wrong way then I will get sued and thrown in jail. I seriously have never been so afraid of my environment before.

      At least I'm getting good at avoiding contact with kids and getting my work done before and after the school day starts.

    139. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then keep them home and home-school them. You'll save all that money and if they get hurt at school (home) you can sue yourself for not providing a safe environment.

    140. Re:Simple Child Care by syousef · · Score: 1

      ...and then blame them and their parents for being fat and lazy. You forgot to blame them for something. Very very important to (mis)allocate the blame.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    141. Re:Simple Child Care by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....Personally, if my daughter's school banned friggin' tag, I'd pull her ass out of that school so damned fast......

      A better thing to do is to march into school WITH her and supervise a game of tag with all the other kids. Then if the principal or some other do-gooder from the school tried to stop you or tell you to leave, ignore them until they called the cops. Then there would be a court case and lots of publicity against them and their stupid rules. It would surely make the school officials look dumb in the eyes of the entire community.

      --
      All theory is gray
    142. Re:Simple Child Care by Synn · · Score: 1

      Just to add some prospective (and play devil's advocate), try this on for size: Most children are required to attend school.

      First off, you can home school. So your kid isn't required to be at a public school. Second, you can write to the school excusing your child from recess if you're really worried about them getting hurt from playing outside.

    143. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In my opinion you are a bad parent. Why? You aren't accounting for anything bad that might happen to you or your children.

      Guess what? Your child may do something that isn't allowed in school (such as running in the halls) and may not be covered by the school. So now you have a child that gets medical treatment and then you get a huge bill that you have to pay, or they will start taking things away from you. You say you'll "suck it up"? OK, how about a compound fracture that means traction for 4 weeks? (Happened to a friend of mine in 7th grade.) Can you cover those medical bills? Since you are are eligible for a free lunch at school, I doubt it.

      Of course, it isn't like anything can happen to you or your wife. Maybe you won't ever get sick and need treatment but not get it. Of course, if you do need treatment, they will take your stuff away from you again. Insurance isn't a luxury item - it is a neccesity. OK, you don't think that way. Fine. In fact, we will drop this whole issue.

      I just want my tax dollars back for you taking MY money to pay for your kids to eat. You want a lifestyle of voluntary simplicty? Then you can pay for it yourself. Not wanting to work more/do something that pays more so you can cover all of your bills yourself just makes you a professional welfare recipient. Maybe you don't take the full funding that welfare would give - you just take a little bit and justify it by wanting your lifestyle. That doesn't change the fact you are taking something for nothing. Enjoy your computer while I, and other taxpayers, pay for your kids to eat.

      Oh, I changed my mind about the insurance. I also say "screw you" since you assume that since your children "have" to be at school, the school should "have" to pay for any medical expenses. Know what? They don't have to be there. You can home school them. Oh, but why do that when you can take a free service? Or maybe you don't have the time. I guess you would also lose your free lunch for your kids.

      So, I think you should examine your lifestyle and consider what it is costing other people. Don't get up on your soapbox about what the school should do for medical expenses when you are already getting free stuff from the school and taxpayers. You are a financial drain on society. You may not like it, but it is a fact. You rely on others in the community to pay for the school itself. You rely on others to pay their taxes so your children get free lunch. You expect free medical care from the school because you don't want to pay for insurance on principle. Yet you can use your computer to post on slashdot. Interesting. Must be a nice reality you live in. Too bad everyone can't be there because there would be no one left to pay for it.

    144. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Things have changed - for the worse. I remember being able to go to my pediatrician (and get in) to get stiches when I was a kid. Nowadays - if you could even get in to see your family doctor (mine's hopeless for a same-day appointment if you call after 9:00 AM or so) - it would probably run about $110 or so (based on what my doc usually lists on the insurance claim), payment due at time of service.

      If you go to an emergency room (the more likely scenario) you're looking at upwards of $200, payment due when they bill you. If you can't afford to pay the bill when it comes due, be prepared to be hounded by collection agencies and have your credit ruined. In American society, ruined credit pretty much means that you have to pay much higher premiums for car insurance, cannot get a mortgage for a house or any other loan, and cannot even rent an apartment in "decent" communities.

      I remember reading that a large percentage of bankruptcies in the USA are due to medical expenses - and now, thanks to the wonderful bankruptcy reforms, those are not very easy to seek.

      Even with insurance, your co-pays and deductibles and service limits are enough to put you in the poorhouse if you have a bigger medical issue.

      So yeah, welcome to the USA - one medical emergency away from homelessness.

    145. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whats the point in playing a game if every one wins?

    146. Re:Simple Child Care by cloricus · · Score: 1

      And that is a failure of the parents to give up controll of their children to the school while they are on school grounds. I had the whole living hell primary school and high school deal as a result of bullies and I watched time and time again (when I was old enough to understand the politics) as teachers struggled to deal with the situation as their hands were so firmly tied. Every arguement I see comes back to the parents, and that goes further onto the social climate, which stops at the vocal population of which the clear majority is parents - thus I think it is where the buck should stop.

      --
      I ate your fish.
    147. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Odds?

      Nowadays, if you're an American citizen, I'd say it's comparatively quite high. If you're a westerner, it's slightly (but not much) above zero. Otherwise, it's nil.

    148. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except tag isn't a rough form of play. The point of the game is to AVOID physical contact.

    149. Re:Simple Child Care by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 0
      To amend your statement: Thank you, opportunistic lawyers, wussy judges, and uninformed juries of America for creating a sue-me state that makes a simple game of tag a serious legal liability.
      Whoops, you got some words outta order there. Here, let me help you.

      To amend your statement: Thank you, opportunistic lawyers, wussy judges, and uninformed juries of America for creating a sue-me state that makes a simple legal liability into a serious game of tag.
      Hey, it almost made sense.
      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    150. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      which side? Americans might be only a few steps behind the British in giving up liberties. All they need to do is call them Red Light Cameras and no one minds at all.

    151. Re:Simple Child Care by AnyoneEB · · Score: 1

      That's why every new Nintendo game (not sure exactly when it started) has a safety warning screen that you have to press a button to get through every time you start the game. (It used to be that the warning was just in small print in the manual.) Who knows what effect that actually has legally, though.

      --
      Centralization breaks the internet.
    152. Re:Simple Child Care by madajb · · Score: 1

      "Now my family has chosen a lifestyle of voluntary simplicty. I work (from home) enough to pay the bills, put food on the table, and a little extra for misc expenses. We don't have insurance for ourselves or our two kids. While it's not really necessary for us to take advantage of, the kids receive free lunches (to put the financials into perspective). Near the start of school this year, we got this private insurance thingy just for while the kids are in school. It read (paraphrased): "Your school does not cover medical expenses for incidents on school grounds, so for $72/year, you can insure for yadda-yadda-yadda...".

      I declined. Not that I couldn't afford it, but out of principle. I said, "Fuck that! They make school compulsory, so they will cover any any injuries as a result of them being there."

      So, basically, you're a leech.
      Well, speaking as one of "them"(you know, the taxpayers funding the free lunches and the increased insurance premiums for your kids) do me a favor and homeschool them.
      That way, at least the money I pay in taxes can go towards someone who needs it, not another wanna-be hippie who thinks he's sticking it to "the man".

    153. Re:Simple Child Care by nhavar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well the government is just being efficient by cutting out the middle man. I mean why would any kid need to learn all of those life lessons if the government can just tell them the right thing to do from the start. Don't play tag you'll get hurt. Don't do drugs you'll feed the terrorists. Don't play video games you'll kill someone. It's all very simple. If we have a rule for everything then you don't need choices.

      --
      "Do not be swept up in the momentum of mediocrity." - anon
    154. Re:Simple Child Care by foolAloof · · Score: 1

      simply offer them two blue pills. they don't have much choice now, do they?

    155. Re:Simple Child Care by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 1

      Fuck, if (when he's old enough to go to school) my son does not come home with at least one serious contact injury PER YEAR I'm going to be worried he's not growing up properly.

    156. Re:Simple Child Care by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      "So school be voluntary, so those with parents too poor to afford the possible injuries could keep their kids out?"

      Yeah, but whatever you do don't implement universal health cover since that would mean joining the communists. /sarcasm

      Practically ALL developed countries provide some sort of universal health cover paid for by taxation, if you are injured you can get yourself fixed up in a clean modern hostpital with competent doctors and nurses, the bill is settled by the government regardless of your financial position. Sure the US has some (but not all) of the best hospitals on the planet, but how many citizens can afford to use them and what about the hospitals that are not so good?

      Health outcomes and the overall cost of medical treatment to society are both vastly superior in a country with universal cover as opposed to the no cover, no doctor countries. The costs of all that private profit is still distributed throughout the community via insane insurance premiums, bankrupt sick people and mind numbingly stupid "insurance requirements" such as the one described in TFA.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    157. Re:Simple Child Care by Deagol · · Score: 1
      Touched a nerve, did I?

      The last 10 years of my life have been spent seeing my paychecks gouged for pork and other useless crap on all levels of government. I finally had enough and decided to take back what's mine. Hey, if *you* want to make the lifestyle changes of going ftom $60k/yr to around $20k/yr like I have, I say more power to you. Go for it. The world would be a better place if all families could actually *enjoy* their lives together because both parents are home full-time and they're not stressed about the next paycheck.

      My family and I can live without most expenses of the typical American and afford to work half-time and live technically near the poverty level *without* enjoying the benefits of that level of income (free lunches, earned income tax credit, etc.). I *chose* to take advantage of these things to say "fuck you" to the system of taxation that screws everyone. Sure, if everyone did what I do, the country would be in a world of fiscal hurt until we figured out a better system than the bloated, corrupt one we currently employ. The more people who opt out of the system, the more pressure is on those who remain in the system. That's a *good* thing becasue eventually, people just *might* figure out that a free life is more important than shiny things and collectively buck the system.

      There's no law that says I have to work to the fullest of my income potential, dude.

      Insurance? Why the fuck should I pay for it when The Man takes so much of my paycheck (past and present)? If there are medical hardships, there's state aid and there's bankruptcy. Insurance is a political boogeyman ("Think of teh children!") If my granparents could get compound fractures w/o going bankrupt, the fact that you cannot today means something's seriously fucked with the system now.

      Go ahead and consider me a leech -- I'm a bitter, disenfranchised leech. If I can legally work the system after years of doing my part and seeing it all pissed away on bloated government, I will. I got sick of this game, and I checked out. I encourage you to do the same -- it's liberating. I'm not free-loading white trash who cranks out kids, doesn't work because they're ignorant and lazy, and makes new car payments with the welfare check. I live within my means quite easily, while technically qualifying for loads of government help. I take advantage of some to make a point. The only reason I'm not getting welfare and/or food stamps is because I don't want some state caseworker looking up my ass and through my bank statements every month -- plus I hate paperwork. I file taxes anywhay, so I may as well get the earned income child credit. My kids are already in school, so I may as well get the free lunches.

      I can't call what I do civil disobedience, because it's all legal and there's no risk to me. But it is a way to thumb my nose at a government (and an apathetic population) that needs to change before things will improve for everyone.

      This year is the first in the past 4 that our kids weren't homeschooled. We may well pull them out come winter break, as the school system is as bad as I remember it to be.

      You want to stop paying for *my* kids to eat free? Bring your income down to a near poverty level and you'll not only pay no taxes, you'll actually get free money! How cool is that? Trust me, you won't die. It's pretty damned liberating living on the fringe of impoverished class. As Janis Joplin once sang, "Freedom is just another word for 'nothing left to lose'." Oh, how true that is! Give up your shiny things and be free. :)

      Doing your part within the system just doesn't work. Voting doesn't work. Those who govern us only care that they can tax us as much as they can and that we piss away the rest on shiny things. If you discard the consumer/capitalist way of thinking (and no, I don't mean adopt Communism -- simply provide for your own necessities and happiness will soon follow), then the system has no sway over you.

      As a wise machine in a movie once said: "The only way to win is not to play."

    158. Re:Simple Child Care by Fordiman · · Score: 1

      Well, I've read "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", "Time Enough for Love", "Stranger in a Strange Land", "The Cat Who Walks Through Walls", "The Number of the Beast", ... Uh, the one where the old dude's brain gets transplanted into his young secretary's body... "The Rolling Stones" and a couple of others whose titles don't spring to mind.

      So, I know who Lazarus Long is. To be honest, I didn't even know "Starship Troopers" was a Heinlein book, and not just a bad movie. Which is why I didn't get the "Roger Young" reference.

      But thanks for the additional titles. I'll be looking for 'em. I need a break from my Niven kick anyways.

      --
      110100 1101000 1101000 1100110 0 1101111 1101000 1100011 1
    159. Re:Simple Child Care by Brandybuck · · Score: 1

      We've given up what it means to be free because we're terrorized cowards incapable of rational risk analysis. No sense of human rights, no idea of history not promulated by Fox News or equivalent.

      Fox News conservatives don't ban traditional childhood games, "think of the children!" liberals do. Tag wasn't banned in red state Houston, but in a playground in blue state Boston. While conservative and liberal parents can both be idiots with regards to risk analysis, it tends to be the liberal parents who actively lobby for policies based on their faulty risk analysis.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    160. Re:Simple Child Care by Mister+Impressive · · Score: 1

      The goggles! They do nothing!

      --
      Let the commencement BEGINULATE!
    161. Re:Simple Child Care by Compaq_Hater · · Score: 1

      Nah, it is just like Demolition Man.

      "Yea mini tunes !, now for the most requested song of the day Armor Hotdogs !"

      Only Without all the stars in it.

      CH

    162. Re:Simple Child Care by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      I am pretty sure child molesting is not a civil offence... i.e. you will go to jail for it - not be sued for it.
      I think it must be both civil and criminal, didn't Michael Jackson have to pay out a lot of money in damages even though he wasn't convicted of a crime?
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    163. Re:Simple Child Care by otter42 · · Score: 1

      I had mod-points, but this was already at 5, so I think I'll just chime in instead. This is a GREAT idea. No need to write a long rant, or call them stupid, or anything other than call their attention to the fact that they are in the international public eye. I just sent the following email:

      ===================
      I'm certain that you will receive much more eloquent and thought out
      responses, so I will keep this short. Your policy is insane. Not in
      the sense of "raving mad", but in the French sense, of "not healthy".
      Come to Europe and spend some time here looking at playgrounds.
      Playgrounds where kids can hurt themselves and even die. And yet
      don't.

      People, and especially children, are hardy and resilient beings.
      Falling down and getting hurt is part of life-- it teaches getting up
      again. If you insulate children from "failure" on every level, how do
      you expect them to understand the value of success?
      ===================

      P.S. European playgrounds are SOOOOOOOOOOOO much cooler than anything I had in America growing up. Here in Luxembourg they've got these cool things that go round and round when you run on them (like merry-go-rounds on crack), >10m slides, pirate ships, functioning archimedes pumps, the works.

      --
      www.eissq.com/BandP.html Ball and Plate System. Amuse your friends. Crush your enemies.
    164. Re:Simple Child Care by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Starship Troopers. The book, not the movie. Definitely not the movie.
      Well, I thought the movie was fucking hilarious, but obviously it pissed off a lot of Americans.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    165. Re:Simple Child Care by Selivanow · · Score: 1

      I for one do think that it is unreasonable for the school to pay for such injuries. Not that i think you should ban "contact" games, that is just nuts. Please tell me, why should a thrid party entity pay for another person's stupid mistake? If someone injurs you at your local grocery store, you don't expect the store to pay up (unless it was an employee). You go after the person who injured you. It should be the same at the schools. One can not expect the school staff/administration to watch every child ever second of the day. It is just not possible. Make the parents of the bullies pay up for the injuries that their children cause. You always have the option to go to your local police department and press charges (not that it should always be needed, but there is always 1 or 2 children who just don't learn).

      Just remember, making the school pay for someone else's action only does one thing: Cost everyone more money later in higher taxes.

      --
      -- ...trying to make digital files uncopyable is like trying to make water not wet. -Bruce Schneier
    166. Re:Simple Child Care by Reservoir+Penguin · · Score: 1

      At least in Russia civil and criminal justice system protect different rights, so you can sue in both. They also have diffrent standards of what it means to prove ones guilt.(i'm not sute there is even such thing as guilt in civil law)

      --
      US-UK-Israel: The real Axis of Evil
    167. Re:Simple Child Care by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      There's a word to describe this guy: "parasite".

    168. Re:Simple Child Care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not free-loading white trash who cranks out kids, doesn't work because they're ignorant and lazy, and makes new car payments with the welfare check.

      Actually, I consider you a free-loader. You don't "crank out kids", but you already have them. You don't work more, not becauese you are ignorant and lazy but because you are intelligent, liberated and don't agree with how your taxes get spent. Great distinction. I'm not working not because I'm lazy but because I'm sick of "the man".

      Insurance? Why the fuck should I pay for it when The Man takes so much of my paycheck (past and present)? If there are medical hardships, there's state aid and there's bankruptcy. Insurance is a political boogeyman ("Think of teh children!") If my granparents could get compound fractures w/o going bankrupt, the fact that you cannot today means something's seriously fucked with the system now.

      Um... Maybe it's because that there are people who rely on state aid and bankruptcy to handle their medical bills. Is the system fucked up? Yes. However, a huge problem is that hospitals can't depend on getting paid for their services. If you knew there was a 50% chance that your customer wouldn't pay, you would have to double your prices to account for it. Throw in the cost of malpractice insurance and that's why it's so expensive. Declaring bankruptcy doesn't fix the problem, it just makes it someone else's problem.

      I live within my means quite easily, while technically qualifying for loads of government help.

      No, you don't. I don't think "living within my means" means what you think it does. Living within your means YOU foot the bill for things. You send your kids to school, but don't pay for it (in taxes). Yes, society has decided that everyone should pay for this important learning, but don't pretend it is magically "free". If your kids are getting free food because you don't make enough money, fine. Society has also agreed that this is a good thing. However, don't pretend that you are "living within your means". By your definition, a person in prison is living within their means, even though they don't make any money. A person in a retirement home that has no money is living within their means. They are not living within their means. They are living on tax dollars.

      The only reason I'm not getting welfare and/or food stamps is because I don't want some state caseworker looking up my ass and through my bank statements every month -- plus I hate paperwork.

      OK, so you don't take more "free" stuff because you can't be bothered? I consider that pathetic. Also, don't claim you aren't lazy. As in "...doesn't work because they're ignorant and lazy". Really, what values are you teaching your children? It's OK to take stuff for free if you don't want to pay taxes. It's OK to not do things because it is a hassle. It's OK to hate what's going on around you and not try to fix things.

      Sorry, I go back to my original post. I think you are a bad parent. You want simplicity and the ability to only work 20 hours a week so you take other people's money to do it. You know, if you and everyone else tried to get off of government programs, then maybe taxes would go down. I don't care if you want to live a simple life, I don't care if you want to raise your kids any way you want. I object that you do it with my tax dollars, while complaining about how the government is spending money.

    169. Re:Simple Child Care by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Hiring a child molester is not a crime. However, if the school board were super irresponsible so as to hire one, I might want to sue them for neglegence.

      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    170. Re:Simple Child Care by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 1

      "Uh, the one where the old dude's brain gets transplanted into his young secretary's body... "

      "I will Fear no Evil" ;)

      Also get 'Sixth Column' if you can find it. You'll like 'To Sail beyond the Sunset'. It's kind of a wrap-up of all his other books, including the Fantasy one I can't remember the name of.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    171. Re:Simple Child Care by $imo · · Score: 1

      I think that b(f)laming school staff for implementing this rule is stupid. Its the legal system and lawyers who are responsible for the _need_ of ridiculous rule like this. I have heard about so many stupid lawsuits that it is easy to understand schools position. Maybe they should have legally binding contract for students who want to 'tag' to not sue school in case of injury.

      Hell, even that would make money for some lawyer though. In fact, probably we all should donate everything we own straight to lawyers union or something. Just to save time.

    172. Re:Simple Child Care by CoderJoe · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you get CBC in your cable lineup in your area of Michigan, but we don't over here on the western side of the lower penninsula. Which part of Michigan are you in? I somehow think your phone number is in the 906 area code...

    173. Re:Simple Child Care by c_forq · · Score: 1

      I've lived in Mount Pleasant, Isabella County (about the middle of Michigan) and it was in the Charter Cable Expanded Basic lineup. Now I live in East Lansing and have the CBC on the Comcast Expanded Basic lineup.

      --
      Computers allow humans to make mistakes at the fastest speeds known, with the possible exception of tequila and handguns
  2. WTF? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do these people seriously expect stopping kids touching each other is going to stop them getting hurt?

    Kids are very simple life forms, they don't have a firm grasp of logic and hence do stupid things which get them hurt. This is a basic fact of life and if you repress it you make adults who do the same because they never learnt any better.

    How the hell can any school know so little about children but have them for so long..

    --
    I like muppets.
    1. Re:WTF? by pete6677 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These kids will turn into very fragile adults.

    2. Re:WTF? by kfg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do these people seriously expect stopping kids touching each other is going to stop them getting hurt?

      Do they still get transported to school in motor vehicles?

      Kids are very simple life forms, they don't have a firm grasp of logic and hence do stupid things which get them hurt.

      In other words, they take after their parents.

    3. Re:WTF? by rbf2000 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You can tell a kid not to touch a hot stove as much as you'd like, but they're not going to actually learn it themselves until they touch the hot stove and burn themselves. It's going to be painful, but it's a message they are going to remember.

      If a child goes through life placidly believing what their parents tell them, as good as the advice may be, that child is going to grow up to be a worker bee, not challenging authority, just following orders. Kids need to learn to push boundaries, that is the only way they are going to get ahead.

    4. Re:WTF? by waif69 · · Score: 2

      If kids don't fall and get hurt, scraped up, bumped or bruised then they won't know what to do or how to deal with it as an adult. Damn liberal commies!

    5. Re:WTF? by rwven · · Score: 4, Insightful

      All this is going to do is leave the kids with more energy after recess which in turn makes them more disruptive. Their discipline problems will probably increase...

    6. Re:WTF? by buswolley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Getting hurt is a valuable experience to children. While I do not support a quota system be enforced, I do believe that if a child is never allowed to discover the pain associated with life, to be over-protected ninnies, then how can we trust them to make hard decisions in the future? Kids need to play. They need to skin their knees, break their finger, because it tells them in a strong way that actions have consequences.

      --

      A Good Troll is better than a Bad Human.

    7. Re:WTF? by rabbitfood · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How the hell can any school know so little about children but have them for so long..

      It's much the same in the UK, and I'll bet there's the dank and clammy hand of the insurance industry behind this. To be fair, schools are probably wistfully nostalgic of the days when they could spend money on books and stuff, rather than having to shell out for lawyers every time some chancer with a bruised kid hires a shyster. This sort of initiative is probabably a desperate attempt to reclaim those halcyon days, regardless of how ridiculous it looks. They'll lose, naturally, but democracy seems to involve letting insurance companies dictate the rules of acceptable behaviour. In theory, this should be left to legislators, but they've got less money and don't seem able to hire the talent.

    8. Re:WTF? by olego · · Score: 1

      That, unfortunately, is the design of the current education system. Notice that you're already not allowed to talk back to your teachers (often) until you're in college. This is just one more step towards some abstract crazy ideal.

    9. Re:WTF? by WatchTheTramCarPleas · · Score: 3, Interesting

      My high-school's superintendent was a "Doctor of Child Psychology" yet his decisions never actually reflected an understanding of a child/adolescent's mind. I can recall several times where he has lied about the motives of a move in school policy to the student body, thinking we weren't smart enough to see through it. These kids will be able to see though this school's stupidity; if not now then very soon. I always find it funny when the same people who praise a classes brains go and do something assuming the ignorance and inability to think of that same class. This kind of thing also is adding to our declining education in America. More and more students are treated as cattle sent to pasture between different fields (classrooms). The students can no longer feel any ownership to the school as there once was and if you can't feel connected to the school you really aren't going to care if your assistant principal wags his finger at you.

    10. Re:WTF? by Woldry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ... and so will the Ritalin prescriptions.

      --
      How can a post be modded "overrated" or "underrated" when it hasn't been rated yet?
    11. Re:WTF? by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      I learned to not touch hot stoves without ever touching one. I don't think stoves are childrens first exposure to extreme heat. Now maybe Hot Cocoa or something would demonstrate it in a slightly safer manner.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    12. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Playing tag does not result in children getting hurt, at least not the game of tag I remember playing. By today's standards my parents should be in prison for such egregious acts as allowing their children to play and explore when there was potential to get hurt at every turn. Geez, get a life!

    13. Re:WTF? by Ucklak · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      It's the goddamn liberals.

      They want things fair and tag isn't fair because someone has to be `it`.
      Competition is bad as someone has to lose and nobody likes losers. Being a loser will hurt one's self esteem. School is supposed to provide a positive environment to build self esteem.
      For the record they'll say it's for insurance reasons if the kid gets hurt. BS.

      They also got rid of dodge ball for being a `violent` sport and aren't allowed to pick sides for basketball as it may hurt some children's self esteem.

      These games are not only fun but also build character that they will need later in life.
      Life is full of adventure and failure is part of the game. It's up to the individual to use their own character to pick themselves up, dust off, and go back at it.

      If you're going to be a weenie kid because that's what the public education system has put forth and wear a man purse to your first day of work in a cube farm, you're gonna be laughed at. No better place to get laughed at than the elementary school ground to build that tough hide you're gonna need.
      And if you cry because your boss didn't pick you for a project, you deserve to be ho-slapped for being a wuss. You can blame it on your school since they didn't allow basketball teams to pick players and `Athletic Scott` didn't pick you at all. After all, it's never your fault.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    14. Re:WTF? by zomper514 · · Score: 0

      How much can you know about yourself, you've never been in a fight? - Tyler Durden

    15. Re:WTF? by lymond01 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Newsflash: The schools aren't worried about the kids. Teachers have been around long enough to know that kids bounce when they fall and heal quickly if they get hurt. Schools are afraid of the parents and the great American lawsuit.

    16. Re:WTF? by Dragon+of+the+Pants · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I agree. Kids are supposed to bang their knees, scrape their elbows, along countless other very minor injuries. All this is doing is setting them up for a life where the smallest pain is going to bring tears, even as an adult.

    17. Re:WTF? by shdowhawk · · Score: 1

      I can tell you know, i support this. My child running without a helmet or pads on? I think not! I don't want my children hurt. The fact that they have to go to a building where i'm not alowed to stare at them... where they use things like "papers" and "pencils" that others might poke them with (my child would never accidently harm himself of course)... This unnerves me. I don't want writting utensils like that, or papers either because that increases chances that a terrorist might kill my child with. In fact, i don't even let them use the computer because it might be harmful to their eyes. ... Is it wrong that i keep my child in a room with no windows, blend all his food into a paste or soup, and only feed him when a professional doctor is around??

    18. Re:WTF? by hcob$ · · Score: 1

      This is a clear example of people living in fear of lawsuits that award rediculus amounts of money to people who act stupidly on someone's property. I'm not saying all personal injury suits are fallacious, I'm just sayting that people are afraid of being bankrupted because someone (they have no control over) does something stupid.

      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    19. Re:WTF? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They'll lose, naturally, but democracy seems to involve letting insurance companies dictate the rules of acceptable behaviour.

      Naw, naw, democracy is where you let politicians pandering for votes in the run up to an election dictate the rules of acceptable behavior.

      Capitalism is where insurance companies get to dictate what you do. I know that capitalistic and democratic ideas are strongly tied together in the West, but anyone who follows capitalism and allows insurance companies to dictate terms will experience the same thing even if they aren't a democracy.

      Of course, being both a democracy and capitalist economy, we get the joy of having both pandering politicians and insurance companies telling us what to do. Though I'll admit that at least the politicians have some connection to the desires of the electorate, no matter how skewed.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    20. Re:WTF? by hcob$ · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If kids don't fall and get hurt, scraped up, bumped or bruised then they won't know what to do or how to deal with it as an adult. Damn liberal commies!
      Minus the last sentance, this is actually a very wise statement. Children need to be protected from death and serious injury. They don't need to be protected from filing a lawsuit against someone who is watching them because the child falls down.

      I have a hypothesis that much of the adrenialine-junkie, self destrcutive behaviour that has become a staple of American life is due in large part to overprotection of our children.
      --
      Cliff Claven
      K.E.G. Party Chairman
      Founding Leader of: Koncerned for Egalitarin Governance
    21. Re:WTF? by nine-times · · Score: 1
      Kids are very simple life forms, they don't have a firm grasp of logic and hence do stupid things which get them hurt. This is a basic fact of life and if you repress it you make adults who do the same because they never learnt any better.

      I think this is the serious issue here. What parents can sometimes fail to grasp is that getting injured can be instructive. As a kid, you learn what your limits are, you learn what pain is, and you learn how to deal with it.

      Now, of course I'm not suggesting that anyone goes around beating children, but I do pity children whose parents are concerned with "near collisions". Really? "Near collisions"? Like two kids *almost* bumped into each other, which *almost* might have given one of them a small bruise or something?

      If you get to be a grown man and have never taken a punch, never gotten a bloody nose, and never scraped your knee, then I don't trust you.

    22. Re:WTF? by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "Kids are very simple life forms, they don't have a firm grasp of logic and hence do stupid things which get them hurt. "
      You and most everyone else just don't get it.
      Getting a boo boo isn't a stupid thing or even a bad thing!

      Hell cuts, scrapes, bumps, and bruises are all a good thing. They are a natural part of being alive.
      Learning to deal with a little pain may some day keep them alive as an adult.
      At this right one of these kids is going to going to shock and die from a simple trip.

      This has got to be the least healthful thing I have heard in a very long time.
      Just give them McDonald's french fries at every lunch and mandatory crestor while your at it.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    23. Re:WTF? by JabberWokky · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I was at a steam powered festival this past weekend (Rough and Tumble near Lancaster, PA). There was a father or grandfather walking through with his children or grandchildren looking at all the neat steam powered devices. We were in a barn full of smaller engines, all whirring and puffing steam. Steam equipment generally needs to be oiled continually so there were gravity fed glass vials of oil all over the machine -- one of which was leaking slightly. The kid put out a finger to touch the trail of oil leaking down the side of the machine, and the adult said "You don't want to touch that, but if you feel you have to, go ahead and do it". The child paused and tapped the oil... and the very hot metal behind it. Minor burn and a major lesson.

      Tiny lessons like this throughout childhood is what makes for responsible adults with common sense. Good to see that the schools have officially stated that they have no plans to teach responsibility, common sense, social skills or empathy, all lessions learned on the playground.

      --
      Evan

      --
      "$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
    24. Re:WTF? by lisaparratt · · Score: 1

      Because nothing calms people down like a hit of speed...

    25. Re:WTF? by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1
      It's the goddamn liberals.

      Lets see now, what are your odds of winning a lawsuit if your don't hire a lawyer?

      Pretty low

      Most lawyers are conservative.

      So its the conservatives we really have to blame.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    26. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Kids are very simple life forms, they don't have a firm grasp of logic and hence do stupid things which get them hurt. This is a basic fact of life and if you repress it you make adults who do the same because they never learnt any better.


      Exhibit A: Jackass
      Exhibit B: COPS
      Exhibit C: America's Most Wanted
    27. Re:WTF? by stunt_penguin · · Score: 1

      One of the games we used to play at school when we were 12 or 13 involved running from wall to wall along the space between two sets of mobile clasrooms (about a 40 yard by 10 yard space); one person would be designated 'it' and have to try and stop at least one other person from getting to the other wall each time a run was made, which basically meant tackling them and bringing them to the ground, or at least pushing and trapping them against the side walls- it usually meant some kind of head-on rugby tackle, and this was tarmac'd (asphalted) ground.

      As more and more people were designated 'it', it meant at the end, one or two people were rushing headlong into 10 or 12 people trying to tackle them. Super happy fun time :D

      No-one was ever really injured, no blood was ever drawn, and it was one of the best damned games we ever devised.

      I think these parents and lawyers would have a fit if they saw that being played.

      --
      When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
    28. Re:WTF? by macdaddy357 · · Score: 1

      They have banned physical activity that can get kids hurt. Some schools have even abolished recess entirely. At the same time, they have pop and snack machines. As a result, the kids are obese and lazy. There are even children with adult onset diabetes. Brilliant! How are kids supposed to learn a damn thing when the schools are run by idiots?

      --
      How ya like dat?
    29. Re:WTF? by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If a child goes through life placidly believing what their parents tell them, as good as the advice may be, that child is going to grow up to be a worker bee, not challenging authority, just following orders.

      Near as I can tell, this is a design goal of the current school system. See: Dickens.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    30. Re:WTF? by Bibz · · Score: 0
      Do these people seriously expect stopping kids touching each other is going to stop them getting hurt?
      Instead of touching each other for the game, they'll just throw rocks at each other.
      --
      I didn't found something funny to put here.
    31. Re:WTF? by Alchemar · · Score: 1

      How are they going to be productive worker bees if they don't have a grasp on the basic concept of phone tag?

    32. Re:WTF? by nephillim · · Score: 0
      Kids are very simple life forms, they don't have a firm grasp of logic and hence do stupid things which get them hurt.


      ... I think my wife says the same thing about men in groups!
    33. Re:WTF? by EatHam · · Score: 1
      Do they still get transported to school in motor vehicles?

      Yes, with rock-hard vinyl seats, a metal interior, and no seatbelts, driven by an $8/hr drug addict who, for the cost of a cup of coffee, will rocket the bus over the bumpiest part of the railroad tracks.
    34. Re:WTF? by SueAnnSueAnn · · Score: 0


      More New World Order Stuff.
      If your Kid acts up in class because He / She is board they make you drug them.
      It's not the kid's fault if the teacher was some doper out of the 60's and can't connect two thoughts in an interesting manner.

      Now they ban simple contact sports during recess.

      Next, they will be complaining about how fat kids have become.
      Thank God For Alex Jones waking people up and the 2 dozen or so that came before him.
      www.infowars.com

      Welcome to the Brave New World.

      Sue

    35. Re:WTF? by phagstrom · · Score: 1

      Very much so (both parent and grandparent). I cannot believe this is actually for real. Are we sure it isn't an out of season AFJ?

      Besides it being totally stupid, how is such a rule enforced?

      "Are you playing tag?"
      "No sir, just running in the same direction"
      "Alright then, but if you play tag, there'll be hell to pay"

    36. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong. In the US lawyers are overwhelmingly liberals.

    37. Re:WTF? by Glacial+Wanderer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think this will also increase the likelihood of these kids becoming very fat adults.

      A large portion of the physically fit people I know are physically fit because we like playing/competing in sports. I wonder how many of these kids who might otherwise get interested in a physical activity will shy away from them because their school tells them they are too dangerous? I wonder how many of these kids "saved from the dangers of physical activity" will end up dying from a heart attack? If there can be lawsuits against McDonalds for making kids fat, I think there can be lawsuits against a school for making kids fat. Maybe if there are enough of these lawsuits then kids will be able to have fun again.

    38. Re:WTF? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Do these people seriously expect stopping kids touching each other is going to stop them getting hurt?

      Yes, they do. From TFS:

      A parent was quoted as saying that her son feels safer now and that she'd witnessed enough "near collisions"."

      Near collisions? So, your kid almost ran into someone and got a bonk on the head, and you're sighing in relief now that this terrifying hypothetical reality will not come to pass?

      And her son feels safer? Um, okay, if he didn't feel safe playing tag then he could just not play. I was picked on as much as anybody at school, but nobody ever forced me to play tag against my will. Sure you'll be called a wimp for not wanting to play and possibly get a boo-boo, because you would be a wimp. If this was really such a problem for the kid, is he really going to be safe just because they can't play tag (but can instead do any number of things that would have been officially against the rules before anyway). I doubt it. This sounds to me like the mother projecting her own feelings of safety onto the child. The child probably is going to miss being able to run around the playground. Though more scary is the thought that the kid really does feel safe now, that mom has convinced him that a rule against tag is all it takes for him to never be harmed.

      Sad. I can tell right now that when I have kids I'm going to be a huge pain in the school board's ass, which probably will make me the same in their eyes as the jackholes who force them to come up with such regulations in the first place. No, wait, lesser, because I won't be suing them.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    39. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is the inevitable result of big government, and if you ask me, an objective as well. The bigger the government (in terms of both revenue and power over the people), the less personal responsibility, and as a result, the more business for the power elite.

      Given the choice between (1) individuals solving problems on their own, bypassing the enormous, costly apparatus of the state, and (2) individuals running to government at the first hint of a problem -- which benefits the power elite more? (As if that question needs to be asked!) The truth is that personal responsibility and power don't mix. Imagine if everyone lived by the principle of personal responsibility, asking nothing of government except to simply enforce the principle of voluntary association -- what's in that for government?

      There's a reason why every year there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before. There's a reson why the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. If the objective wasn't to make fragile, tattle-tale zombies out of unique, thinking individuals, then they sure had me fooled.

    40. Re:WTF? by WillyPete · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course you're correct, but that not what this is about. The root problem is the adults, and the reflex to ligitigation that has swamped the U.S. legal system. If courts stopped handing over millions of school (tax) dollars to parents of every kid with a bee sting, they wouldn't have to cover their hindquarters this way.

      Yet here we are, the intelligentsia of the present, blaming the school for something it shouldn't have to worry about in the first place.

      The best solution I can imagine would be a "loser pays" system, whether only those truly liable would be punished through the legal process. At present, both sides are financially penalized, and a wealthy litigant (or one with political support) can run a public school into the ground. In these circumstances, the school is perfectly understandable in it's efforts to prevent behavior that creates complaints and lawsuits.

      --
      Shaw's Principle: Build a system even a fool could use, and only a fool would want to use it.
    41. Re:WTF? by Irish_Samurai · · Score: 1

      I got around this by telling my kids they could talk back, but they would pay the costs of their actions. If a legitimate argument or opinion was being oppressed, or they were being manhandled by someone abusing their authority - I would go into the school and raise holy hell.

      Now, if they were just being a wise-ass for no reason with expectations that I would bail them out, the punishemnt they would receive from the school would not only be supported by me, but I would add my own layer of punishment specially tailored to their personal dislikes.

    42. Re:WTF? by quibbs0 · · Score: 1

      we don't need nooo, education...

    43. Re:WTF? by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 0

      I'd totally forgotten about that - it's called British Bulldogs. It's like rugby without any rules. Or a ball.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    44. Re:WTF? by stevew · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Most lawyers are conservative? See ACLU for direct proof to the contrary.

      --
      Have you compiled your kernel today??
    45. Re:WTF? by Firehed · · Score: 1

      Does this mean that the next generation of pants won't be allowed to have zippers? We certainly don't want our kids learning that lesson firsthand. Obviously zippers support terrorism if learning lessons firsthand leads you to grow up to be something other than a sheep.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    46. Re:WTF? by dr_dank · · Score: 0, Troll

      Getting hurt is a valuable experience to children.

      I couldn't agree more.

      Steps into PSA mode

      Hello, this is Slashdot's dr_dank. Take an active interest in the future of our nation and beat the shit out of a child today!

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    47. Re:WTF? by Spacehog320 · · Score: 0

      At my highschool they baned Dodgeball for fear that someone would get railed in the head and knock something loose. yet it was perfectly ok to play floor hockey with contact..

    48. Re:WTF? by steveo777 · · Score: 4, Informative
      Are you referring to Hard Times? Dickens was a magnificent author, and was horrified that the government was allowing the schools to take away the ability of a student to make an error. Stuff like the article is what he was writing about. Let kids be kids. Just make sure they know there are consequences to be paid if they intentionally do something that they shouldn't. None of this, "Timmy, if you don't stop pulling your sister's hair I'll count to three and give you a time out." shit.. If the kid knows what he/she is doing is wrong, then he/she can be punished.


          By and far Dickens is my favorite author.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    49. Re:WTF? by AngryUndead · · Score: 1

      I'm sure that they'll have to come up with some sort of code for "tag".

      "Bag you're ib!"

      They'll never crack that code.

    50. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      The future of slashdot is now assured.

    51. Re:WTF? by prelelat · · Score: 1

      RELEASE FORMS, I think this is a good place to put in a release form. Tell them, if you want to be allowed outside at recess your parents have to sign this form, other wise your stuck inside scubbing the floor.

      I know that a release form could probably be overturned but there needs to be something, I think 90% of all parents would rather their child outside having fun doing what they want(with in reason) instead of outside walking around in circles saying pass me ball, pass you ball. On that note is duck duck goose considered a contact sport? What constitutes a contact sport? Patycake, are they kids not to have any physical contact from their peers? Whos to say were someone would draw the line on such a broad rule? Banning certain games like red rover(running at the other kid could cause problems) might make sense(I don't think so) but where is the line drawn when you bad all physical sporting.

    52. Re:WTF? by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
      All this is going to do is leave the kids with more energy after recess which in turn makes them more disruptive. Their discipline problems will probably increase...

      That's ok, just give 'em a case of Coke and a copy of Bully, it'll work itself out.

      --
      If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
    53. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please revise your beliefs to include government as the savior for any uncomfortable experience of life. We are, after all, the ones who can properly punish the homeowner who allows you to slip on his wet sidewalk, so you don't have to admit you weren't paying attention; we are the ones who can issue citations to the neighbor playing his stereo too loud, so you don't have to get off your couch and talk to him yourself; we are the ones who can force your kids to wear bicycle helmets, so you don't have to explain the importance of safety to your own kids; we are the ones who can serve a cease and desist to the guy working for profit (gasp) out of his garage next door.

      Don't try to be a hero and take responsibility for yourself; call us and we'll take care of it the right way.

      Signed,
      The Power Elite

    54. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm originally from Hong Kong and arrived in Australia when i was around 10 years old. The kids played rugby at school, and I thought we were just meant to crash into the other kids. I didn't know how to make a safe tackle, so I charged full speed into the other kid. It hurt both of us pretty bad.. luckily kids are lightweight and indestructible.

    55. Re:WTF? by Yaotzin · · Score: 1

      To be fair, elite football (as in soccer) players sometimes suffer from heart attacks too.

      --
      Error: No error occurred
    56. Re:WTF? by twofidyKidd · · Score: 1

      Solution: Parental / School agreements

      Include: clauses that say when a child is injured due to some activity followed in the course of a child just being a child, then the parents cannot hold the school responsible, i.e. TAG, SOCCER, TETHERBALL, ETC., ETC. Additionally address the issues related to self-expression (dress-code) and other such things that have been getting school administrations in trouble in the past; i.e. if we suspend your kid for breaking the dress-code, be prepared to have a conference over it. If you call your lawyer first, we reserve the right to counter-sue your ass for breaking this agreement.

      This is a terrible development; kids can't be kids anymore because adults (their parents) are litigious, opportunistic assholes trying to score a buck, and schools shouldn't have to fight fire with fire by being equally litigious. When's it all going to stop? I don't necessarily think that parents should have to go so far as to sign an agreement with the school, but at the same time, why shouldn't they? They must for just about everything else (phone service, car rentals, etc.) The idea that they are protecting the children is bullcrap. They are definitely out to protect themselves, with little regard for the real developmental well-being of the children they have a responsibility for educating. No wonder I know so many people who are home-schooling their kids. Ugh...home schooling...another sometimes ugly issue (social development, responsibility to others, etc, etc.)

      --


      Hades, PoD: Official Advocate
    57. Re:WTF? by homer_s · · Score: 1

      Capitalism is where insurance companies get to dictate what you do.

      In a capitalist economy, the insurance companies cannot 'dictate' what you should do if you do not enter into a VOLUNTARY contract with them asking for their services.
      The reason insurance companies get to dictate to you (in most western countries) is because of mandatory insurance and regulation of the insurance industry.
      I cannot find a health insurance plan that I want because most insurance companies are required by the state to carry coverage for things that I do not want. I chose not to have health insurance - until of course the govt mandates that everyone buy insurance.

    58. Re:WTF? by leonardluen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i bet this kid does feels safer now...when all the other kids, who no longer have an avenue to outlet their energy by playing tag, beat this kid to a pulp because he got them all banned from playing tag.

    59. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lucky. In my area the schools prefer to hire sex offenders.

    60. Re:WTF? by SirLanse · · Score: 1

      They will turn into very FAT adults.

    61. Re:WTF? by Randall311 · · Score: 1

      Why can't they make the parents sign waivers if they are that scared of the lawsuits? Oh you don't want to sign the waiver? Then little Johnny can't play tag with the other kids. He has to sit there and not do a damn thing during recess because he might get hurt and you (his parents) might sue us. This is nonsense.

    62. Re:WTF? by brarrr · · Score: 1

      I agree... and add the following

      Alternatively, if the kid goes though life believing what his parents tell him... at some point he's going to find something that they lied about or otherwise misrepresented. Then he'll find another, and another. Cynicism will set in... and then the challenging of authority that results will not be based on any logical premise, but on a reckless abandonment of all the things that the kid once thought to be true.

      You've got t break some fucking eggs to make an omelet. Let the kids get hurt, that's the point of evolution making kids' bones soft - they're less likely to break in most situations than someone who is 20 years older. I, for example, respect electricity and guns having shocked myself and shot someone else - likely far greater than someone who has not experienced the same.

      --
      to email me: take my /. handle and append .net preceded by charter.
    63. Re:WTF? by lymond01 · · Score: 1

      Completely agree. As long as the school attempts to keep the grounds safe from hazards (broken jungle gyms, overly muddy play areas to prevent twisted ankles, etc) that should be as good as it gets. As a kid on the playground I've been knocked unconscious in a pig pile, landed flat on my back from 5 feet in the air, been pile-driven and suplexed, played kill-the-guy with the football, caught baseballs with my face, been jumped on (accidentally) from 5 feet above me by some kid on the jungle gym....

      I was a kid. We do things like that. Sure we get banged up, maybe broken. But we're kids. They don't generally let us do it as adults unless we're REALLY good at it.

    64. Re:WTF? by glsunder · · Score: 1

      So what do you tell kids who get punished when challenging what a teacher says? How about when their science teacher at a public school tells that that the bible has the _true_ answers? School is not anything like it was when I was there, and to be honest, I don't think it's a surprise that this great swing towards the conservative coincides with a major drop in school performance.

    65. Re:WTF? by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

      I don't necessarily think that parents should have to go so far as to sign an agreement with the school, but at the same time, why shouldn't they?

      Why not? Every single private school in America will make you sign a contract. Public schools should be doubly diligent, because its taxpayer money at stake.

    66. Re:WTF? by RexRhino · · Score: 1

      People wouldn't need the insurance companies, if it wasn't for the lawsuits. If schools didn't have insurance, and had to pay out $1,000,000 from their budget every time a child skinned their knee, the schools would still implement these insane restrictions on students (probably even more so, as the results of a lawsuit would be even more catastrophic for the school).

      Blaming the insurance companies is a way to take blame from legislaters who created the type of liability laws which are the real problem, and instead try to blame it on "evil capitalists". Sorry, the demands that insurance companies make are reasonable when they are faced with a rabid and non-sensical judiciary, and legislators who most likely began their careers as ambulance chasing trial lawyers.

    67. Re:WTF? by NewKimAll · · Score: 1

      Really? A school bus that rockets over the railroad tracks? Last I knew, all school busses are supposed to stop at any railroad crossing. Unless your school bus had retro rockets on it or the driver was breaking the law, this would never happen.

    68. Re:WTF? by glsunder · · Score: 1

      How much of this is over reacting to an imagined threat though? How many schools are actually sued over stuff like this? How may were quickly dismissed? People often react to things that aren't much more than urban legends.

      BTW, I wouldn't count cases that were over 10 years old or cases where the school deserved to be sued.

    69. Re:WTF? by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

      It's Adderall now, Ritalin with less side effects. It's a life saver for me. However, using it to stop children from being themselves is a pathetic use of any medication.

      All that being said, I remember "soccer" when I was a kid on the playground. 40 kids beating the shit out of each other for the ball (it always took 2 minutes to go from soccer to rugby... lol) I don't think we ever kept score.

      I wonder if they play Dodgeball or smear the queer (lol so politically correct now a days :P)

    70. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not about keeping the kids from touching each other or getting hurt, this is about protecting the school from the parents. The school knows plenty about the kids, and plenty about the American "It's not my (or my kid's) fault" mentality.

    71. Re:WTF? by Buzz_Litebeer · · Score: 1

      The problem with loser pay systems that DO exist is that people with a lot of money just throw tons of that money at lawyers, while the plaintiff (a person usually with less money) cant even approach the kind of monetary output.

      What then happens is that lots of things that SHOULD be litigated cant be, because no one will take a chance at owing millions of dollars on the chance that they lose.

      It just solidifies the power of those WITH money over the power of those without. In the end litigation like this, even though some of it is frivolous, does increase overall safety, even if you and I grew up as children and realize just how little impact it practically has (IE no one died that i know of to school yard injury, or lost an eye while growing up, and broken bones are mendable).

      It keeps those with money and resources on their toes, they cover their butts harder and do make things safer because of it, all because they got hit with millions in punitive damages at some point.

      Remember, many multi million dollar litigations dont come from the fact that the litigant asked for so much, its because the jury was tasked on finding some form of punishment for the actions which lead to the damage caused.

      --
      If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
    72. Re:WTF? by joss · · Score: 1

      We played that game too and it was amazing fun.

      > No-one was ever really injured

      Er, that wasnt our experience, people got fucked up all the time
      at my school, but it was worth it.

      --
      http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    73. Re:WTF? by Cadallin · · Score: 1

      No, they're not, but if you think kids go fucking nuts at college now, wait till these kids get unleashed into that kind of freedom!

    74. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ...we are the ones who can serve a cease and desist to the guy working for profit (gasp) out of his garage next door.

      While I agree with the rest of your comment, I'm not sure what the issue is with enforcing zoning laws. Commerical activity generates noise and traffic that lowers property values and prevents people from fully enjoying their own property.

      For example, a few years ago a new neighbor moved in next door to my parents. My parents have lived in their home for over 20 years now, and this new person moved in after the previous neighbor passed away. Shortly after moving in, he opened a taxidermy business out his garage. Shortly after opening, people would start coming to the neighbor's house starting around 4:00am and continuing until late in the day. Their trucks would backfire and their discussions would often be loud and unruly. This prevented my parents from getting a full night's sleep, as well as reducing their property value through both the general fact that a business was operating next door, as well as the specific fact that it was a taxidermy business.

      After some time, my parents finally managed to convince the village government to shut down the illegimate business. He moved out of town, setting his business up in the countryside where it bothered no one.

    75. Re:WTF? by Aladrin · · Score: 1

      I'm way over my weight limit now, but I wasn't as a kid. I'm sure part of this was the mandatory exercise in school. (Part of it was my parents controlling what I ate.)

      They used to MAKE us play these 'dangerous' sports and keep us away from the truly dangerous ones, like 'burnball'. (This is a wonderful game where you throw a rubber ball against a wall... and if for some reason you miss, you have to run and touch the wall while someone retrieves it and tries to hit you with it, with the obvious painful results.) Despite the risk of breaking my head open in baseball, breaking a leg or rib in football, and just general pain in most sports, I still played burnball, against the school rules.

      I've never broken a bone in my life.

      In fact, the only broken bones were either in high school (football with other schools, the idiot who body-slammed his friend into concrete) and away from the school.

      There is definitely such a thing as 'over protective'.

      But then, I can't really blame them. If you get sued because 'Johnny' gets hurt, it's time to lock down and make sure you can't get sued like that again. Hopefully, that will send the right signal to the rest of the school and they'll tar and feather the idiots and run them out of town. I find it unlikely, though. More likely she'll be suing again in 5 years because they made her child fat. If they try to prevent that, they'll sue because they don't have 'good tasting food' or some nonsense.

      No, it's like negotiating with terrorists... Nobody wins.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
    76. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn Right.

    77. Re:WTF? by Knuckles · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is the inevitable result of big government

      If you actually correlate government size/responsibilities with overprotection of kids, I think you will come to very different conclusions. (Hint: this stuff happens in the US and never in Europe)

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    78. Re:WTF? by 3TimeLoser · · Score: 1

      You must not have seen the zipper accident scene in "Something about Mary". Nobody should have to go through that.

    79. Re:WTF? by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      And by the soccer qualifier in your statement, are you saying that American Football (NFL style) players are immune from heart attacks? Becuase that would be a very silly thing to say.

    80. Re:WTF? by operagost · · Score: 1
      How about when their science teacher at a public school tells that that the bible has the _true_ answers?
      Thanks for your concern, Rosie, but this is not exactly the greatest threat facing school children today.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    81. Re:WTF? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think it's a good argument that sports are a good way to encourage lifelong physical fitness. At some point in life you will need to start getting daily excersize on your own even when you're not able to compete or can't get a team together. That's usually where most people, myself included, start to have problems. If it's just you, and the team isn't depending on you...it's easy to slip. Independence has long been missing from education, but I think it's the source of at least two problem articles on /. now.

      Anyhow not being allowed to run in recess is not new. In NYC public schools (at least the ones I went to) we were not allowed to run. Of course we did it, but it usually ended in the teacher chasing you down and making you sit in a corner for a few minutes to "settle down". It wasn't until junior high or high school when there was organized PE that we got any real excersize (still no football or tag). Those programs were good, they taught exersizes that we could/should do on our own to maintain our bodies. That's what is truly needed.

      The point of the article isn't lost on me...lawsuits for "kids being kids" are ridiculous. I just don't think this is a compelling counter-argument.

    82. Re:WTF? by JoeStreet · · Score: 1

      I think this will also increase the likelihood of these kids becoming very fat adults.

      Not to worry. I'm sure they will ban the cafeteria and eating next. A quick search of the CDC's web site reveals this gem about children dying from choking. Since I couldn't find any references to children dying from tag, I have to assume eating is more dangerous than tag and, therefore, is in imminent danger of being banned as well.

    83. Re:WTF? by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      For the most part, as a child, I disliked sports (and still do), but during some of the "free days" in gym class, I'd resort to Calvin Ball. If a ping-pong table was set-up in the gymnasium, I'd grab a tennis racket and a squash ball, and try to find a classmate that was crazy enough to play against me. I guess it's the rules, and the whole preoccupation with winning that turns me off of sports; so in games like that, I prefered just having fun whacking the ball around. I got the excersise that many people state that sports supply in gym/reccess, and I learned how to "compete" through other methods (academic, for example).

      Ten years after school, I'm still thin (I have a soft belly, sure, but it only hangs over my belt if I'm sitting in a certain way) and though not "buff", my limbs are nicely toned. Metabolism, perhaps, but then I also walk everywhere I go (one mile away from work, and all the stores are about as far with a mall about three miles away -all "walking distance" for me). As an adult, I don't play sports -even Calvin Ball- mainly due to a lack of time and opponents. *shrugs*

      (Back on topic...)
      In my opinion, if schools are going to face lawsuits like this, taxes will rise. If taxes are going to rise, then do so beforehand in order to hire a few extra teachers to add extra supervision during gym/reccess so kids can still run around with someone standing close by saying "Billy, look out for that tree," or on the jungle-gym: "Suzy, whatch out for that first step...it's a doozy."

    84. Re:WTF? by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      There's a reason why every year there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before. There's a reson why the US government of today dwarfs the US government of only 50, let alone 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people.
      And the main reason is... a larger population. Seriously, the reason things are going in the direction that they are is that we have so many more citizens all of the time. It was a lot easier for the people to police themselves when you knew who your neighbors were and when it was odd to have a car driving up the road at this time of night.

      Unfortunately, the people who bitch the most about the loss of personal freedoms, personal space, and the availability of natural resources (like, enough bushes for everyone to drive over without trashing the country), are the same folks that want to develop the hell out of everything and have 5 kids.

      That's not the real problem, though -- the real problem is how to have a stable economy that isn't based on population growth. We'll have to figure that out eventually, and the sooner the better IMO (as a person who values personal responsibility, independence, plenty of room to roam, and a fair share of our natural environment to use as I please). Any economists out there? It seems like this would be the major focus of modern economics, but I never seem to hear anything about it. What are the best ideas as of right now?

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    85. Re:WTF? by andphi · · Score: 1

      Quoth: Kids need to learn to push boundaries . . .

      I disagree on this specific point. They don't need to -learn- to push boundaries. They do that innately. If you have any doubts, watch a two-year old. Older children may be more subtle about it, but they still do it, and likely in an inappropriate fashion. Perhaps that's one of the hallmarks of the progression from infancy to adulthood: pushing all available envelopes (as in infant or toddler) and gradually learning which boundaries to push, when to push them, and with how much force (as an child->adolescent->adult).

      If they are not pushing parents or teachers (though it's very likely that they will), then they will push each other or themselves. Watch kids on a swing-set sometime. Eventually, they will start competing with themselves or each other to see who can swing the highest or jump the farthest from the moving swing. It may not be anti-authoritarian boundary-pushing, but it is boundary-pushing. It may not be safe, but neither is base-jumping or driving a car.

    86. Re:WTF? by surprise_audit · · Score: 1

      Sooooo, this is all a conspiracy by big Pharmaceutical companies to sell more drugs??

    87. Re:WTF? by Shotgun · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You have never spoken truer words.

      I can still remember it. I must have been 6 or so at the time. I wanted to see if a burner on the stove was hot. Have no idea why, but I wanted to know. So I laid my hand on it. It was hot. I have been much more circumspect ever since.

      So I get old and have my own son. We move into a house with a wood burning, fireplace insert type stove. BIG chunk of very hot steel sitting at one side of the room. I still remember the pain from that hot stove, and I could imagine Robert falling and landing with his face against the fireplace insert (that's what clumsy kids do). I heated up the fireplace, held my sons hand within mine and held it close to the hot steel. Only after I felt some pain did I let him go, and my hand was closer than his. Then we got to have a good talk about how "near the fireplace" was not where we should play.

      He had to feel the pain in order to learn, but not as bad as I felt it. Bumps, scrapes, bruises, etc. are a necessary part of learning about the world around us. Games like tag let us learn without causing permanent damage. Unfortunately, kids from this school will get to learn the implications of E=mc^2 only after getting a driver's liscense.

      --
      Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
      Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
    88. Re:WTF? by daft_one · · Score: 1

      Actually, pretty sure he specified soccer as it involves a lot of cardio work (running around kicking the ball), as opposed to American football with its larger focus on weight-room fitness. But what do I know.

    89. Re:WTF? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      No one is "immune from heart attacks". Marathon runners collapse all the time. But the survival rate of a physically fit person is much more rosy than that of an inactive person. But this is all a matter of statistics, plenty of inactive people never die from heart attacks.

      American Football is most popular in the midwest and south, where people eat a lot of fatty foods. Also the BMI of a Linebacker labels him as morbidly obese. (which probably shows the uselessness of BMI)

      I'm not sure if exercise can protect health, despite a bad diet.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    90. Re:WTF? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      So what do you tell kids who get punished when challenging what a teacher says? How about when their science teacher at a public school tells that that the bible has the _true_ answers?

      Forget that, what do you tell kids who get punished when challenging their teacher's statements that a km is greater than a mile?

      The letter is suspicious, and it's not clear that it should be taken at face value, but...

    91. Re:WTF? by Gigaflynn · · Score: 1

      why are they making such a fuss? the 3 year olds are too stupid to know what the word "sue" means anytways. unless it means the paranoid middle class parents.

      --
      "Neo, follow the white rabbit"
      "Can i eat the white rabbit?"
      "No, there is no spoon to eat it with"
    92. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes me so sad that we live in a world where this is Insightful, not Funny.

    93. Re:WTF? by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      When professional athlethes die from heart attacks, the cause is usually either some sort of heart defect or using drugs. The fact that aerobic exercise and a healthy diet won't prevent these deaths doesn't mean that people should bother to try to eliminate the much more common forms of heart disease that they will prevent.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    94. Re:WTF? by lightning_queen · · Score: 1

      Fear the paddle!!

    95. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US government is the most powerful, most expensive government that has ever existed in the history of organized coercion, dwarfing any one single european government. But I wasn't comparing the US government to a european government anyway -- I was comparing the US government of today to the US government of say, 100 years ago. Back then, if you threatened to sue your neighbor for slipping on his wet driveway, you'd be laughed right out of town. There's a reason for that: the US government of today dwarfs the US government of 100 years ago, both in revenue and power over the people. The people of the US today are that much more trained to trust government and run to government at the first hint of a problem.

      I believe the correlation stands: the more laws (i.e. the bigger the government), the less personal responsibility, and vice versa. Sure, there are variations in the way governments wield their power, and also in each individual person who is subject to government, but the general concept is just -- how can I put this -- common sense. The bigger the government, the more people will be indoctrined to run to government at the first hint of a problem -- especially the ones who grew up knowing nothing else -- rather than take responsibility for themselves.

      Incidentally, how do you figure that this never happens in Europe? You certainly must be omitting the UK, which in some ways is ahead of the US in its march towards totalitarianism (ubiquitous monitoring of peaceful citizens, near-prohibition on self-defense).

    96. Re:WTF? by Tack · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Children need to be protected from death and serious injury. They don't need to be protected from filing a lawsuit against someone who is watching them because the child falls down.
      This isn't about protecting the children. It's the schools covering their own asses from lawsuit-happy soccer moms who who are looking to blame someone when their child falls off the teeter-totter. This ban on tag is retarded, but not nearly as retarded as some of the moronic lawsuits I've seen not just filed, but won. I am sympathetic with the schools here.
    97. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chuck Yeager thinks you are a moron.

    98. Re:WTF? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Most lawyers are conservative? See ACLU for direct proof to the contrary.

      Because most lawyers are part of the ACLU, which arguibly isn't even liberal?

    99. Re:WTF? by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Hello, this is Slashdot's dr_dank. Take an active interest in the future of our nation and beat the shit out of a child today! - it's funny. Just don't mistake this for insightful, because in this case there is no action immediately associated with 'beat the shit out of a child today!' reaction, thus beating someone up without any cause will not provide them with an action->reaction logical connect, however it will teach them that sometimes bad things happen for no apparent reason.

    100. Re:WTF? by mdielmann · · Score: 1

      ...that child is going to grow up to be a worker bee, not challenging authority, just following orders...

      Are you sure that isn't the goal of most schools, and most adults, wrt children?

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    101. Re:WTF? by LouisZepher · · Score: 1

      "...I do pity children whose parents are concerned with "near collisions"...."

      If I were a parent, I'd be more concerned with the "near misses". *Crash/cry/wails* "Oh look, they nearly missed..."

    102. Re:WTF? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1
      My teachers did this to us in the mid-80s (grade-school for me) or so when one kid got hurt while playing tag. We had no 'playground' per se, only an open *paved* yard with some dirt. Tag was one of the few games we could actually play.

      Did anybody sue? No. Did parents raise a fuss? Not that I know of. The reason for the ban? Lazy teachers plain and simple. They didn't like having to make sure that kids were playing friendly-like, and decided that nobody playing was easier to police.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    103. Re:WTF? by geoffspear · · Score: 1

      Are you suggesting that 2-year-olds don't display learned behavior? Can you explain the mechanism by which 2-year-olds adopted from non-English-speaking nations and raised from infancy in America have the innate ability to begin speaking English without learning?

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    104. Re:WTF? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      My teachers did this to us (for a few months or so) when I was in grade school (1980s). It was as stupid then as it is today. It basically turned into a 'no running' rule AFAIK. I blame it on the lazy teachers who were abusing power. I don't think anybody actually complained about their child being hurt.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    105. Re:WTF? by spun · · Score: 1

      The ACLU is a conservative organization. It seeks to protect and uphold the constitution like a conservative rather than change things like a liberal. Try learning the actual meanings of political buzzwords, and maybe educating yourself about which organizations uphold what ideals. You may be surprised that the world isn't as conveniently black and white as you'd like it to be.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    106. Re:WTF? by Fezmid · · Score: 1

      > How the hell can any school know so little
      > about children but have them for so long..

      The school's aren't trying to do what's right, they're trying to avoid potential litigation. Sad :(

    107. Re:WTF? by coors · · Score: 1

      Let's look at what is getting kids killed, and focus our efforts there....I can't remember the last time I heard of a kid getting killed because they fell down on the playground, but I can tell you that I'm sick of hearing about kids coming into schools with guns, and shooting the place up. I think our focus might be misdirected.

    108. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, my 17-month-old son and I are sitting in the mexican place last night and the plate of enchiladas comes out. And it is HOT. The boy immediately reaches for it. I have three options and about a half-second to decide: (1) grab his hand and tell him "no -- hot", (2) move the plate out of his reach, burning my hand and spilling my beer in the process, or (3) do nothing. Since he's not talking yet, choosing (1) would only lead to several minutes of repeating (1) in response to repeated attempts from him.

      I picked (3) and said "hot". He grabbed the plate, yanked his hand back, looked at me reproachfully. I gave him some rice and cheese quesadilla and all was well. He didn't go for the plate again for a good 15 minutes.

      I'm sure it hurt some, but I needed something safer than a stove-burner to teach him what "hot" meant.

    109. Re:WTF? by BobearQSI · · Score: 1

      I remember when I was in grade school back in the mid-80's, a form of tag that we played was banned because it was dangerous (even though we played on a grass field). We would play it EVERY recess, until one day the playground supervisor told us that the school said we couldn't play anymore. The next recess, we'd start playing again, but would be quickly stopped. After a day or 2, we would start playing again. We would play for a couple weeks, and then be told we couldn't play anymore. Then wait a day or two, and we'd play for another couple weeks. How do the schools plan on enforcing this? For us determined youngsters, we would play and continue to play unless we were made to stop every single time, even though we were told, 'you can never play this again, so don't.'

    110. Re:WTF? by climbing · · Score: 1

      Sweet. While playing touch american football in 6th grade - which inevitably becomes tackle at some point - I broke an ankle. I can grumble with pride now, "When I was a kid going to school meant you might get hurt, but we liked it taht way, damn it!"

      Er, um, of course, people didn't unload automatic weapons in my school, so I guess kids today will have that to brag about.

      I think they'd be better off slide tackling each other though.

    111. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And the main reason is... a larger population.

      Perhaps I wasn't clear. I'm saying that the percentage of revenue taken in by government per individual has increased (and along with it, the level of power over each individual). That's got nothing to do with population; in fact, population is completely irrelevant to the issue.

      Let's do a little math. Say a government rules 100 people and takes 10% of each individual's yearly earnings (*). Some time goes by and the population doubles to 200 people. In order to continue providing the same "service", government will need:

      (A) 10% of each individual's yearly earnings

      (B) 20% of each individual's yearly earnings

      If you guessed B, then you should apply for a job in congress: you'd be a great asset to them. (If you really DID guess B, then I'd sure like to hear how you'd evaluate the issue when the population increases to 1000 people!)

      (*) There is no government so small today, of course! Try to imagine you were living in the US when Jefferson was president.

    112. Re:WTF? by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I know a kid in grade 7 who got stabbed in the eye with a compass. The kind you use to draw circles, not the kind you use to tell which way is north. Anyway, it was due to him and another kid messing around. Nobody had the thought that kids shouldn't be allowed to have compasses, and nobody sued the school. The kid was lucky that he didn't lose his vision.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    113. Re:WTF? by e2d2 · · Score: 1

      Then we'll sue them for not making them run!

    114. Re:WTF? by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1


      I must say that I'm glad that I'm not a youth football coach in the Boston area. I've been coaching the "B" (developing squad) teams for two years now and I've often wondered about some of the kids I have on my team and what they do for physical activity prior to signing up for football. I think a few of them must self impose restriction on "physical" games like tag. I can't imagine what the athletes would look like if they didn't do some basic games like tag. Kids are into so many activities (many are not sports related) it seems that they often don't get to play much with the neighborhood kids. When they do, they have to compete with video games, the various card battle games, etc.... The school yard is an environment where the kids can develop physically and mentally and the Boston schools apparently are trying to eliminate at least the physical side of it.

      One must really consider the impact of changing a natural behavior adjustment such as those exhibited by tag. I wonder if any studies have been done to see if an isolated group of children would naturally start playing a game of tag or if the game is simply learned from older children. It almost seems like a survival skill (although not as "necessary" in modern society) that Boston schools are trying to ban.

    115. Re:WTF? by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 1

      While I half agree with what your saying I think "it's hot don't touch" could of been learnt better in less dangerous ways.

      Again with an adult you have to decide how hot is too hot :)

      --
      I like muppets.
    116. Re:WTF? by PCM2 · · Score: 1
      How much of this is over reacting to an imagined threat though? How many schools are actually sued over stuff like this?

      I don't know. I definitely think there's a societal trend at work here, though.

      When I was three, my parents put me into preschool. While there, during playtime, I sustained a disfiguring facial injury. There was lots of blood. Luckily, my father was a doctor, knew the chief of plastic surgery at the local children's hospital, and asked him to work on me personally. Fourteen stitches later, I had a wound that would virtually disappear over the course of time. And guess what? Nobody got sued. There was no lawsuit.

      OK, so happy outcome. But now imagine you're the parent. Would you not be able to sue over something like that? Could you just sit back and go, "Well, kids will be kids"? I'm not sure I could ... and I've had all sorts of injuries that must have terrified my parents. Injury to the eye, broken bones, massive bruises ... but nobody ever got sued. Can you really sit there and tell me that you wouldn't try to sue, though, if your child was in the same situation today?

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    117. Re:WTF? by andphi · · Score: 1

      I didn't mean to suggest that children (or two-year olds, specifically) don't display learned behaviors. Obviously, they do. They learn all the time. I said boundary pushing is an innate behavior (or characteristic, depending on one's point of view) and therefore does not need to be learnt. If anything, it needs to be partially un-learnt during maturation toward adulthood.

    118. Re:WTF? by livewire98801 · · Score: 1

      If I had a mod point left for this discussion, I would totally dig you out of your -1 hole.

      Think about this a minute. Without learning the rules of survival in a quasi-controlled environment like a playground, they are either going to learn it outside where they get left to bleed alone, or they won't learn it at all. That means they become bullies or the abused for the rest of their lives. The bullies become politicians or prisoners, depending on their choices later, and the abused become the sheep and the whiners that want the next handout.

      The problem is, noone will ever know. By the time this cycle fulfills itself, noone will be around to point out what they did wrong. Then it's REALLY 1984 meets Mad Max. . . try wrapping your head around THAT one for a while.

      I guess it wouldn't be so bad that we're getting soft as a nation, if the rest of the world was joining us in it. The truth is, there are lots of other people out there that would like us to be soft enough to leave them alone so they can get away with things. If the US and the UK let this kind of crap go on, then the next two generations will be the Dark Ages all over again, but this time with BioChem and ThermoNuclear weapons. Pretty, huh?

      --
      "He may be mad, but there's method in his madness. [...] It's what drives men mad, being methodical." G.K.Chesterton
    119. Re:WTF? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Eh, even without government mandates, the insurance companies are in a position to dictate whatever terms they please. "Volunteering" to not have insurance is like volunteering to go out of business, unless your company has billions of dollars, or you establish shell corporations for the purpose of screwing people over and getting away with it.

      required by the state to carry coverage for things that I do not want.

      What state is this, and what exactly are they mandating that you don't want?

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    120. Re:WTF? by g2devi · · Score: 1

      Worse than that. The US already has an alarmingly high incident of childhood obesity.

      Playing tag and other active games is a good way to get children to exercise. especially in this age of "why should I bother doing the hard work of tag/soccer/tennis/football/... when my Nintendo has tag/soccer/tennis/football/... installed on it"? Besides that, it's one of the few things that are fun for children that is actually good for them.

      Sure you'd get hurt playing these "risky" games, but if you don't exercise, you'll more more liable to injury from nonrisky games (i.e. you don't learn to fall properly or recover your balance) and more likely to get heart issues or diabetes in later life.

    121. Re:WTF? by WillyPete · · Score: 1
      The problem with loser pay systems that DO exist is that people with a lot of money just throw tons of that money at lawyers, while the plaintiff (a person usually with less money) cant even approach the kind of monetary output.

      This is true in both systems. The difference is that in the "loser pays" arrangement, you actually have to go to trial to determine the outcome, and assign the punishment, rather than settling before trial, or trying to preempt litigation speculatively. I view this as an improvement, because I believe that in the large majority of trials, justice is served.

      What then happens is that lots of things that SHOULD be litigated cant be, because no one will take a chance at owing millions of dollars on the chance that they lose.

      I prefer this over settling lawsuits with no merit without trial.

      It keeps those with money and resources on their toes, they cover their butts harder and do make things safer because of it, all because they got hit with millions in punitive damages at some point.

      By this you mean the schools? I can't agree that draining schools to make them careful is a good thing. Those are OUR resources being drained.

      Remember, many multi million dollar litigations dont come from the fact that the litigant asked for so much, its because the jury was tasked on finding some form of punishment for the actions which lead to the damage caused.

      This is only true for those that go to trial. The vast majority to not. They are settled, often on the basis of who has the greatest resources, rather than based on the letter of the law.

      --
      Shaw's Principle: Build a system even a fool could use, and only a fool would want to use it.
    122. Re:WTF? by Reapy · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more.

      This type of behavior already exists in alchoholics. Most alchoholics still deal with their problems the same way they did right when they started drinking. It can be sad to see a 60 year old man deal with their emotional problems like an 18 year old, very sad indeed.

      But at the same time, I can argue that not many of us learned some sort of special values through tag. The only thing I learned how to do was tag people back as soon as they tagged me because I couldnt run. I don't think that is much of a life lesson. Kids will probably learn all about competing with one another and injuring themselves when they join a sports team or get online gaming (RSI! :) )

      Reapy

    123. Re:WTF? by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      In addition, the buses are capped at 45 miles per hour.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    124. Re:WTF? by Tesla+Tank · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry to nitpick, but I believe you meant E=(1/2)(mv^2).

    125. Re:WTF? by Guuge · · Score: 1
      Given the choice between (1) individuals solving problems on their own, bypassing the enormous, costly apparatus of the state, and (2) individuals running to government at the first hint of a problem -- which benefits the power elite more?

      There's a wrinkle in that logic. The ultimate hallmark of big government is a big military to exert the government's power. Clearly, a sniveling incompetent does not make a good soldier. So a giant government would be better served by fostering some combination of bloodlust and blind loyalty among its citizens.

    126. Re:WTF? by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      None of this, "Timmy, if you don't stop pulling your sister's hair I'll count to three and give you a time out." shit.. If the kid knows what he/she is doing is wrong, then he/she can be punished.

      Unfortunately, it turns out that punishment is not a particular effective way to get children to stop doing "wrong" things. All it really does is teach them to avoid getting caught; they don't learn that the action itself is wrong, only that they'll get punished if they get caught. There's a fair body of research on this; a good introduction is the book "Unconditional Parenting" by Alfie Kohn.

      In your example, the issue is that if Timmy knows what he's doing is considered wrong, then you're not going to get him to stop doing it by punishing him. You'll only get him to do it when he's fairly certain he won't get caught, and he'll lie about it, and learn to lie convincingly enough that he'll be able to get away with it. You need to find out WHY he does it even though he knows he'll get punished for it, and help him work out the underlying issues.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    127. Re:WTF? by homer_s · · Score: 1

      "Volunteering" to not have insurance is like volunteering to go out of business,

      If you need their services that bad, you should pay what the insurance companies are asking for. If I'm hungry and there is only one restaurant available, I have only two choices - pay the asking price or go hungry. Many people on this website ask for the third option - steal from the restaurant using the government.

      From some website:

      As of December 2005, forty-six states have some type of laws requiring health insurance coverage to include treatment for diabetes. Most states require coverage of both direct treatment and the costs of diabetes treatment equipment and supplies often used by the patient at home. The states not included are Alabama, Idaho, North Dakota and Ohio.

      This is just one example. The price of a simple policy for a 27 yr old healthy person like me is way too high because of stuff like this - shouldn't I be the one deciding what I want,what I need and what I can afford under my present circumstance?

    128. Re:WTF? by |/|/||| · · Score: 1
      You were clear, perhaps I wasn't. What I'm saying is the reason that the percentage (per individual) goes up, is because the population goes up. Population is not irrelevant, it is absolutely central to the problem.

      Let me give an example. With a population of 100,000 people, you don't need sewage systems, and you don't need any laws governing sewer systems. You don't need laws about septic tanks. Everybody can just dig a hole in their backyard and (as long as it's not too close to the well) Bob's your uncle. With 300 million Americans, that just doesn't work anymore. Even if you assume privately owned sewer systems (now that not everyone even has a back yard) and waste management facilities, we have to have laws about what you can do with your tons of raw sewage, and we have to be able to enforce those laws. So, the population went up, and now there is an extra expense per person that didn't exist before.

      I could list a *lot* more examples just like that one, and then you can also consider the way human behavior changes in large groups as opposed to small communities. Individuals are far more anonymous in large groups, which causes a couple of extra expenditures: 1. It's easier to commit crimes, and harder to get caught 2. It's easier to slip between the cracks, become homeless, develop addictions, and otherwise become a burden to society.

      Anyway, that's just all about the economic costs of a large population - what I really care about are the costs to my freedom. You can't have 300 million people and not have laws about when you can burn yard waste. You can't have 300 million people and not have security measures at airports. You can't have 300 million people and not have laws about how much firewood you can cut on government land. You can't have 300 million people and not have limits on how many fish you can catch. What kind of restrictions will we need with 600 million citizens (or more!)? Do you think we could support a population of that size without further restricting individual rights? Maybe, but I don't see it happening.

      --
      [javac] 100 errors
    129. Re:WTF? by TychoCelchuuu · · Score: 1

      I didn't touch a damn thing, and I'm no worker bee. You can teach someone to think for themselves, and at the same time tell them what they ought to do and what they ought not to do. Whether they listen or not is entirely up to what kind of person they are, but just because a little kid listens to their parents and doesn't touch the hot stove doesn't mean they'll always listen to authority, for ever and ever. That only happens if, in addition to telling the kid not to touch the hot stove, you don't tell them why. You don't let them question you or anyone else.

      --
      Against stupidity the Gods themselves contend in vain.
    130. Re:WTF? by robyannetta · · Score: 1
      Kids are supposed to bang their knees, scrape their elbows, along countless other very minor injuries.

      I think we now know the secret identity of George Carlin on Slashdot. Mod message to +5 Common Sense

      --
      - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
    131. Re:WTF? by Senzei · · Score: 2, Interesting
      While I half agree with what your saying I think "it's hot don't touch" could of been learnt better in less dangerous ways.
      Actually, I think that was the perfect way to teach it. Just letting the kid touch it with no warning gives them the opportunity to do it without caution. Telling them not to do it just spikes curiosity. Telling them they don't want to, but do it anyways if you want, ensures that they (probably) do it but are at least cautious. Same lesson, less pain. They even learn that adults at least occassionally know what the hell they are talking about.
      --
      Slashdot: Where anecdotes and generalizations can be freely substituted for facts, logic, or intelligence
    132. Re:WTF? by steveo777 · · Score: 1
      I directly disagree with your whole comment. Funny the 'new-age' take on unconditional love that book uses. Also funny that the more new age people think, the more things tend to get out of control. Unconditional love involves punishment. But the punishment should fit the crime. I haven't read the book, just the summary on the page and from how you describe it, it sounds like the most morbid piece of literature I've heard mentioned.

      I also disagree with your sig from personal experience. But it gives me a great deal of insight into your method of thinking. I have studied the Bible extensively. I'll make you a deal. Though I have no children, I'll read you're book if yout read this one.

      --
      This sig isn't original enough, it's time to come up with something witty...
    133. Re:WTF? by Knuckles · · Score: 1

      Ok, I misunderstood your argument at least partly I think. Still, based on my intuition I don't believe there is a correlation. Of course intuition is a bad guide in this, but I'd need more data to be convinced. Of course, correlation is not causation anyway.

      Incidentally, how do you figure that this never happens in Europe? You certainly must be omitting the UK, which in some ways is ahead of the US in its march towards totalitarianism (ubiquitous monitoring of peaceful citizens, near-prohibition on self-defense).

      I was talking about stupid school policies and general overprotection of kids, since I think that was what the whole thing was about. If this happens in the UK while the UK at the same time becomes more like the US, I would think this is a strong argument that there are other forces at work than the size of government.

      --
      "When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
    134. Re:WTF? by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

      FYI, American football has both cardio AND strength training. Wide receivers (for example) would be pretty useless if they didn't have the stamina to run (sprint) at top speed time and time again. Bottom line is that both types of "football" players are going to be in very good physical shape with the exception of perhaps some of the linebackers... Tedy Bruschi (a linebacker) is an example of a top-notch, NFL player in EXCELLENT physical shape who had a stroke due to a hole in his heart.

    135. Re:WTF? by Stauf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Rocket cars. He meant his kids would have rocket cars.

    136. Re:WTF? by planetmn · · Score: 1

      Did anybody sue? No. Did parents raise a fuss? Not that I know of. The reason for the ban? Lazy teachers plain and simple. They didn't like having to make sure that kids were playing friendly-like, and decided that nobody playing was easier to police.

      Except that teachers like recess. Why, you ask? Because it lets kids release that energy that naturally builds up inside of them. Believe me, no teacher would do away with recess because they are "lazy."

      -dave

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
    137. Re:WTF? by planetmn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As I've been told, waivers, permissions slips, etc. are worth about as much as the paper they are written on, maybe not even that much. Basically, if a parent wants to sue, they're going to sue, and they will claim that they weren't adequately informed of the dangers, didn't have legal counsel, etc.

      There's a lot of blaming the schools in this discussion, but the real problem is with society. We allowed it to get this bad.

      -dave

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
    138. Re:WTF? by Guuge · · Score: 1

      "New age" doesn't mean what you think it means. The wikipedia article is a fine place to begin.

    139. Re:WTF? by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      Cant seem to find it on Google now, but there was a study done not too long ago that shows that negative stimuli are remembered far powerfully then positive experiences by the mind. As the pain went up, the brain used more resources to remember it. Pain rewrites the brain.

      Just think of it in terms of survival, whats more important to know, that teddy bears are soft or that knives are sharp? That kisses are nice or that fire will burn your ass?

      The if the positive fades quickly we'll want to do it more often, the negative stays so we don't.

    140. Re:WTF? by dbIII · · Score: 1
      These kids will turn into very fragile adults.

      Or they could get quite nasty. Robert Louis Stevenson had a sheltered childhood and thought he had become absolutely evil after consuming alcohol. He wrote "Dr Jekyl and Mr Hyde" based on this theme.

    141. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Welcome to the Brave New World.

      Sue

      Thank you, I will.
    142. Re:WTF? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      Oh, they didn't do away with recess. They just made it miserable for us all. Even convicts have a basketball court. We had nothing.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    143. Re:WTF? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      In a capitalist economy, the insurance companies cannot 'dictate' what you should do if you do not enter into a VOLUNTARY contract with them asking for their services.

      In your response to the other reply to this post, you indicate that you understand situations of a semi-consensual relationship, e.g. a hungry person looking for food isn't forced to buy from the only restaurant in town, but otherwise he starves, so in reality he is forced. Then don't go putting VOLUNTARY in caps like just because you aren't forced at gunpoint to have insurance that they don't get to dictate terms. The fact is that if you want insurance, they can dictate pretty much whatever they want in the insurance contract (a fundamental aspect of capitalism is a legally enforceable contract), and that many times you need insurance as a practical necessity almost as assuredly as you need food.

      There are many industries in which insurance is not mandatory by law, but rather mandatory by practical necessity, and the behavior of people in these industries is dictated by the insurance companies. This is capitalism, love it or leave it. But implying that this can only occur in the presence of government regulation is the typical naive Libertarian argument against government that ignores any power relationship other than government-citizen. Not that you are one, I'm just saying I've heard the argument before and it still isn't true.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    144. Re:WTF? by k12linux · · Score: 1

      Maybe I wasn't paying enough attention when I was 8 coming up to an intersection on my bike. Add improperly trimmed bushes blocking view of the road from the stopsign. Then add a 17 year old girl speeding (55 in a 25) and you can probably guess what happened. It fscked me up and good. It took somewhere around 6 months to get out of the cast and another 3-4 to be able to ditch crutches and run again. If I had it to do over again I would, of course, avoid that little incident. I'll tell you one thing though I am extremely alert to threats in my daily life since then. I'm not talking about the kind of "I don't want to go out the door it's dangerous out there" kind of alert. The "that nail sticking straight up out of a board as paper-keeper could be bad news if I trip on that box on the floor" kind of alert. Is realizing that bad shit really can happen to you one of the major transitions into adulthood? Anyhow bumps, bruises, cuts and scrapes are part of life. It's the stuff that is going to cost a child their life or long-term loss of use of body parts that we should worry about.

    145. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Thanks for your concern, Rosie, but this is not exactly the greatest threat facing school children today.

      Especially with sexual-predators like you roaming around lol

    146. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here is a copy of the email I sent to the school involved:

      My name is Steven Santos, I am the Director of Simply Circus, a company based in Newton that specializes in teaching circus arts to kids and adults.

      This nation faces an epidemic of obese kids, and on an everyday basis I see fear of liability being one of the biggest contributing factors. When we were kids, any place that had an open space was a place kids could play freely - Schools churches, parking lots, any open space was a place to play, and most of that play was unsupervised. Today we have kids being told that they can't play active games because someone might get hurt. While its true that someone might get hurt while playing such a game, the likelihood of serious injury while playing tag is so small that I could not even find statistics on it. To put this in perspective, looking through my own schools records, we do not find a single case of injury resulting from a game of tag, or for that matter, any other chase game (and we use them a lot). I would love to know about how many of your students have actually suffered a serious injury resulting from tag in the last 5 years?

      The less physical activities kids do, the less they can do. When you take away games like tag, and other such chase games, you effectively take away most of the running kids do. The less they run, the less they want to run, the less physically active they are, the less physically active they want to be. When we go into a typical elementary or even middle school classroom today, its not abnormal to find that less than a quarter of the kids can do a basic summersault - heck, if one out of 20 students can do one, we figure we are ahead of the game. Very few kids today can do a cartwheel, walkover or other acrobatic skills. The list goes on and on, but I am sure you get the point.

      That most difficult aspect of removing physical activity from education (even just small parts of it) is that you also loose the associated brain development, and the chance to connect that development to various academic skills. We know that juggling literally makes the part of your brain associated with science and mathematics grow (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?n ewsid=5615). From our experience with our students, we know that learning balance skills correlates to improved reading and comprehension skills. We know that learning acrobatic skills and especially partner acrobatics correlates to improvements in social skills and problem solving skills. We know that when we go directly from teaching physical circus skills to teaching academic skills, you see solid gains in student performance.

      I would strongly encourage you to take another look at your schools policies on this matter, and even offer my services to help you find a better way of dealing with the issues you face in this area.

      The following photos are all from a 1st-5th grade group:
      (six photos were included showing kids doing various circus arts, including human pyrimids, wire walking, stilt walking, Roman Ladders and rolling globe)

      p.s. before you ask, in 5 years, we have worked with over 2,000 kids and have had a grand total of 3 injuries, all minor.

      Steven Santos
      Director, Simply Circus, Inc.
      Email: Steven@SimplyCircus.com
        Mail: PO BOX 620753
                    Newton, MA 02462
      Phone: 781-799-4938
        eFax: 309-214-0899
          Web: www.SimplyCircus.com

    147. Re:WTF? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If a child goes through life placidly believing what their parents tell them, as good as the advice may be, that child is going to grow up to be a worker bee, not challenging authority, just following orders.

      Which is EXACTLY what the rich assholes who really run America want! Timid worker bees who won't question the authority of their managers, bosses, priests, police, and the government. We shouldn't let them have what they want... they don't deserve it and we all deserve better! We deserve to have a middle class again in this country. We deserve to have our freedoms upheld and not be opressed by a government that spies on us with illegal warrentless wiretaps. But we will NOT have this if we let our children grow up to be spineless wussies! Each generation needs to FIGHT to keep improving our country and uphold our freedoms!

      Kids need to learn to push boundaries, that is the only way they are going to get ahead.

      Right on! We need to encourage this trait in our children if we want our country to remain a great place to live, and if we want to stay competitive with the rest of the world!

    148. Re:WTF? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      You're probably right about all the effects, but those don't matter. What matters is that the injuries (even though they are few) result in the schools being sued for millions of dollars. So they have to stop any behavior that can result in injuries, even if it means terrible long-term effects.

      This is what we as a society have decided, and now we have to live with the consequences.

    149. Re:WTF? by homer_s · · Score: 1

      But implying that this can only occur in the presence of government regulation is the typical naive Libertarian argument against government that ignores any power relationship other than government-citizen.
      You are attacking a straw man here. Let me explain:
      The argument of the Libertarians is not that this can occur only in the face of govt regulation. The Libertarians do not say "if the govt disappeared, there will be no more situations where we will be at the mercy (so to speak) of others".

      Rather, the argument is, "if the govt disappears tomorrow, we will not be FORCED into these situations. We may still find ourselves in such positions, but it will only be due to our choice or misfortune."
      a hungry person looking for food isn't forced to buy from the only restaurant in town, but otherwise he starves, so in reality he is forced.
      He is forced only because of his actions that led him to this situation. So he has to agree to whatever price the restaurant wants.
      Contrast this with the situation where the govt forces you into situations like this (by holding a gun to your head).

      Then don't go putting VOLUNTARY in caps like just because you aren't forced at gunpoint to have insurance that they don't get to dictate terms.
      If nobody is holding a gun to your head, then whatever actions you take are VOLUNTARY.
      In your own example (There are many industries in which insurance is not mandatory by law, but rather mandatory by practical necessity), it is still VOLUNTARY - you can choose to leave the industry and do some other work.
      The terms the insurance company (or any other producer) sets are for their work; their labor. They can ask for whatever they want. You should have the choice to take it or leave it.

      Not that you are one.
      No - a Libertarian argues that his position is correct because soceity would be better off by adopting his methods. I've always argued that a man's right to his labor is an inherant right - regardless of what effect that might have on soceity.

      I'm just saying I've heard the argument before and it still isn't true.
      I've heard the argument several times before and it is true.

    150. Re:WTF? by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      New age? What the hell are you talking about? This has nothing to do with "new age" philosophy. They're not remotely related.

      But the punishment should fit the crime.
      You've got a mindset problem. They're children, not criminals. Of course, I'm sure you've got a bunch of research studies ready at hand that support your beliefs. Right?

      I haven't read the book, just the summary on the page
      Well then I'm sure your opinions on the book you haven't read and have only just heard of are quite well-informed.

      I also disagree with your sig from personal experience.
      You know of a faster way to become an atheist? Do tell.

      Though I have no children
      I do. I don't encourage you to do so.

      I'll read you're book if yout read this one
      Ha! In point of fact, I have tried to read that book. I couldn't make it more than five pages before I gave up in disgust. I literally lost count of the logical fallacies and instances of wishful thinking.

      "Unconditional Parenting," by contrast, is nicely footnoted with references to hundreds of scientific studies that support the author's hypotheses.
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    151. Re:WTF? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      As of December 2005, forty-six states have some type of laws requiring health insurance coverage to include treatment for diabetes. Most states require coverage of both direct treatment and the costs of diabetes treatment equipment and supplies often used by the patient at home. The states not included are Alabama, Idaho, North Dakota and Ohio.

      Funny, you don't seem to understand what the point of insurance is. If you could buy a policy without diabetes coverage, you'd still be paying the same amount because as a 27 yr old healthy person, you aren't paying for your own medical costs, you're paying for everyone else's.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    152. Re:WTF? by Builder · · Score: 1

      I certainly wasn't overly protected as a child... Hell, my dad was the guy reff'ing the games where I got scraped up a lot of the time, but I still went on to become an adrenaline junkie.

    153. Re:WTF? by homer_s · · Score: 1

      If you could buy a policy without diabetes coverage, you'd still be paying the same amount ....
      So in your world all insurance policies, regardless of the coverage they offer, cost the same? So the cost of a policy with just dental would cost the same as the cost of a policy that covers dental, vision, etc?
      The price of insurance is set by the insurer based on the risks he sees - if his max payout is $10,000,000, he is going to charge me much more than what he would charge me for a $100 coverage.

      Funny, you don't seem to understand what the point of insurance is

      Yeah. *I* don't

    154. Re:WTF? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      The price of insurance is set by the insurer based on the risks he sees

      Theres two ways of attacking your stance:
      First, based on the fact that you don't want diabetes coverage, you seem to believe your risk of developing diabetes is near zero. Why should the insurance company judge and price your risk any differently? If the risk of having to pay out to you is near zero, then the cost of covering you against that risk is near zero, and therefore any discount you would receive for not being covered against that risk would be near zero.

      Second, my original statement remains, and holds true even for vision and dental plans. You are not the only risk the insurance company sees. Say the insurance company sells 100 health plans and one dental plan, if the one dental plan customer ends up costing the insurance company more than they pay, that money is coming out of the health plan pool, and will eventually cause higher prices for everyone, bringing me back to the diabetic plan vs. the non-diabetic plan. There is a cap on how much more the insurance company can charge for diabetic coverage, if being diabetic costs the average person $50 a month, then after $49.99 everyone would drop their diabetic coverage and just pay out of pocket for the insulin, meaning that the insurance company would have to recoup the difference between their charges and the cost of treatment from the policies of healthy people like you.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    155. Re:WTF? by Some_Llama · · Score: 1

      "Yes, with rock-hard vinyl seats, a metal interior, and no seatbelts, driven by an $8/hr drug addict who, for the cost of a cup of coffee, will rocket the bus over the bumpiest part of the railroad tracks."

      Well at least you aren't bitter about your childhood.

    156. Re:WTF? by homer_s · · Score: 1

      Why should the insurance company judge and price your risk any differently?

      Uh.. because they would like to offer different products and get more customers? If the insurance company decides that it is too cumbersome to create several different products, then that is their business choice which they are free to make. At present however, they do not have that choice.

      If the risk of having to pay out to you is near zero, then the cost of covering you against that risk is near zero, and therefore any discount you would receive for not being covered against that risk would be near zero.

      *I* think the risk is zero. The only way the insurance company will be convinced that their risk is zero is if they remove it from my coverage. Which they are not allowed to do at the moment. So, they charge me for the risk that I might get diabetes even though I think it is zero. It is like forcing me to buy an umbrella on a sunny day.

      Say the insurance company sells 100 health plans and one dental plan, if the one dental plan customer ends up costing the insurance company more than they pay, that money is coming out of the health plan pool,

      Or they charge more for dental plans while keeping the premium the same for the health plans. And if that company chooses not to do that and increase premiums for everyone, then I will take my business to some other company that keeps its cost low by carefully choosing who and what they cover. The market will provide the lowest price for the product I want.

      Here are premiums from the blue cross site :

      1. Insurance with maternity coverage for a 30 yr old female - $235

      2. without maternity coverage - $82

      Replace maternity with diabetes and you will see the point I'm trying to make.

    157. Re:WTF? by dlanod · · Score: 1

      Yeah, a real punishment. "Timmy, if you don't stop pulling your sister's hair I'll count to three and make you read Dickens." Works on my kids.

    158. Re:WTF? by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1


      Rather, the argument is, "if the govt disappears tomorrow, we will not be FORCED into these situations. We may still find ourselves in such positions, but it will only be due to our choice or misfortune."

      You could just as easily argue that it is your choice to live in a state/country that has whatever laws you don't like -- or your misfortune to be born there. Practically, this is nonsense for many people who can't afford to leave. If in Libertarian-land, it is your choice or misfortune to live in a residential neighborhood separated from the commercial district (where you work) by a single road, the owner of that road can stipulate whatever he wants, and you are forced to comply (or hike through the wilderness to get to work, although then you'd be tresspassing on others' land).

      He is forced only because of his actions that led him to this situation. So he has to agree to whatever price the restaurant wants.
      Contrast this with the situation where the govt forces you into situations like this (by holding a gun to your head).


      This is really the main problem with Libertarian thinking: That because the government is the sole authorized user of force today, then if the government were gone, there would be no force. Let me make this clear: there will always be a gun held to your head. Even in the ideal hypothetical Libertarian utopia, there has to be somebody with guns in order to enforce contracts. Somebody will be holding the gun. Others will try to manipulate the gun-holder into assisting them in their agenda. This is what happens today (this is how insurance becomes mandatory), and it is what would happen if the government "went away".

      The problem is that in Libertarian-land, the only possible source for the holder of guns is private enterprise, who would be beholden only to those who pay them, i.e. other corporations, and not at all to any of the citizens at whom the gun is pointed. Now there is at least a tenuous relationship between the government and the people subject to it, though it is corrupted greatly by money. Without the democratically elected government, then there would nothing but money dictating what the "authorized users of force" do to you. I fail to see how this is an improvement in any way.

      Extreme libertarianism (i.e. the "get rid of the government entirely" kind) is anarcho-capitalism. Anarchy transforms into despotism as soon as the ones with power and wealth realize that there is nothing stopping them from aquiring more power and wealth, because the only police and army are the ones they hire. The only defense against the creation of a de-facto government that is most definitely not the choice of the people is to create a government that is.

      List whatever faults with our government you want and I'll probably agree, but it's better than the government that would arise out of anarcho-capitalism, because it would posess every bad feature of our government without any of the safeguards that exist today.

      In your own example (There are many industries in which insurance is not mandatory by law, but rather mandatory by practical necessity), it is still VOLUNTARY - you can choose to leave the industry and do some other work.

      And for industries for which insurance is mandatory by law, you are still allowed to leave the industry and do some other work. Why is that not VOLUNTARY? You have the same choice -- stay and buy insurance, or change industries entirely.

      If you define VOLUNTARY as meaning "it is possible to make a different choice even if the consequences are heinous" then basically everything is voluntary. You can leave the country if you don't like the laws. You can change industries if you don't like the insurance options. You can just starve if you're hungry. You can just plain break the law. Practically, real choices are limited, and these options are unrealistic.

      I've heard the argument several times before and it is true.

      It will be true when Anarchy becomes a viable form of government. Which is to say, never for any population larger than a hunter-gatherer band.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    159. Re:WTF? by homer_s · · Score: 1

      You could just as easily argue that it is your choice to live in a state/country that has whatever laws you don't like -- or your misfortune to be born there.
      If I fall and break my leg, that is misfortune. If my neighbors break my leg, that is not misfortune. You are saying 'it is your misfortune that you were in my house when they broke in.'
      If in Libertarian-land, it is your choice or misfortune to live in a residential neighborhood separated from the commercial district (where you work) by a single road, the owner of that road can stipulate whatever he wants, and you are forced to comply (or hike through the wilderness to get to work, although then you'd be tresspassing on others' land).
      Yes, he can charge me whatever he wants. The owner of the road is holding a gun to my head because of my choices - I bought the land and I made a bad choice that places me in this position of being at the road owner's mercy. It was my bad choice to buy a land that did not come with access rights (or maybe a contract that fixes the price for the road access).
      But in this world, he cannot prevent me from taking an alternate road (if there is one) or force me to take his road (if I just choose to stay home). But that is exactly what happens now - the govt. says, you have to take his road; if you do not have to take the road, you still have to pay for it.

      I think this is the difference between how you see things and how I see them. You are saying (and correct me if I'm wrong):
      It does not matter how you get to a situation where you are at someone else's mercy - they are all the same.
      I'm saying:
      It matters how you got to that situation - if someone (say, the govt or a private overlord's army) forces you, that is unacceptable. If you got to that situation through your own choices (e.g., the hungry guy and the restaurant, the road owner ,etc), then that is your fault.

      In a libertarian world, the only way someone will be able to dictate terms to me is if I want that someone's labor (or property). In the current scenario, I could be a subsistence farmer needing nothing else outside my land, but I'd still be forced to pay for things I do not need.
      Now, let us look at your solution to the scenario above - do you propose that the govt take over the guy's road because you need it? If your answer is yes, then can I take your car? You see, I have to travel a long way to go to work and the only way I can do that is using a car. But you refuse to give yours to me. Since that places me at your mercy, the govt should take over your car and give it to those who need it.

      Extreme libertarianism (i.e. the "get rid of the government entirely" kind) is anarcho-capitalism. Anarchy transforms into despotism as soon as the ones with power and wealth realize that there is nothing stopping them from aquiring more power and wealth, because the only police and army are the ones they hire. The only defense against the creation of a de-facto government that is most definitely not the choice of the people is to create a government that is.

      Who/What prevents the people from creating a govt that protects them from the despot? What prevents them from forseeing such a scenario and creating a huge army and police?
      But that is what we're doing now you say? What I object is the fact that those people are forcing me to join their govt that protects them from the despot. Soon, they will stipulate when I can go out and what I can do (to protect me from the despot). I do not forsee any such scenario - why should I pay to create the army and police? Why should I give up my rights? Or maybe I want to be killed by the despot. If you believe that such a despot will rise and attack you, should give up your rights and pay to create the army. You should not force others to believe what you believe.

      It will be true when Anarchy becomes a viable form of government. Which is to say, never for any population larger tha

  3. It would be funny. by UseTheSource · · Score: 1

    If it wasn't so sad... :\

    --
    "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
    "We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
  4. The never ending march ... by SengirV · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... of the pussification of America.

    --

    Prof. Farnsworth - "Oh a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-My-Own-Grandpa!"

    1. Re:The never ending march ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      That does it, I'm moving to some macho country like Australia. Or France.

    2. Re:The never ending march ... by urbanriot · · Score: 1

      Nevermind "pussification", if it wasn't for tag and other simple ruled "chase" games that existed when I was a child, I would a) never have had anywhere near as much exercise and b) found other more dubious activities to keep me preoccupied and entertained.

    3. Re:The never ending march ... by UbuntuDupe · · Score: 1

      Yep. Does anyone think about how many things we use today would be banned if subjected to today's standards, and are only still in use because they got "grandfathered in"?

      Cheese? No, it's old milk. Gross.
      Bleu cheese? Double no.
      Cars [in private use]? No, too unsafe.
      Mayonaise? No, raw egg.
      Sushi? Not a chance.
      Asbestos? AHA! Gotcha!
      Guns? No, too unsafe.
      Most French dishes? No, violates [Standard X].
      Woodburning in your fireplace? No, that seriously pollutes the air, but hey -- it's so romantic.

    4. Re:The never ending march ... by etd · · Score: 1

      it's a global trend I'm afraid:

      Schools ban conkers (BBC / Dec 2000)

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1060708.stm

    5. Re:The never ending march ... by jo42 · · Score: 1

      Over the last 20+ years America is becoming a nation of limp wristed, mamby pamby PC pussies afraid of their own shadows.

    6. Re:The never ending march ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, No, No, France is an example of what happens when you ban tag!!!

    7. Re:The never ending march ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aha! It's all part of the Canadian plot to come down there and take you over with touch football (CFL rules, of course).

      Soon you will have fruity coloured animal-money, frosty winters, several States with "distinct society" legislation and terrible, terrible "original" television programming.

      MUAH HA HA HA HA!!!

      Your streets will run red with Government issued Canadian Flags.

    8. Re:The never ending march ... by xtracto · · Score: 1

      I have always laughed at that aspect of Americans. Back were I am from, society just let their kids be. It is the problem of overusing legislation. Everyone is affraid of being sued by everyone else.

      In Mexico, if you pour your coffee and you burn your crotch it is your freaking fault for being so stupid, if similarly if you dont take care and slip in a stair because it is wet then you deserve it if you were not paying attention.

      If your kid fights against another kid and gets a puprle face from all the punches, good for him, he will either learn to defend or learn not to fuck with others.

      I lost half of a thumb when I was a kid in one of those exercise bycicles. I was too stupid to know that I should not put my fingers in the chain to stop the darn thing. So what, lesson learned I am surely am careful with what I do.

      --
      Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
    9. Re:The never ending march ... by P3NIS_CLEAVER · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think this has a direct 'colombine effect'. Kids that are uncomfortable when they are near or in physical contact other children are IMHO more likely to lash out in extreme ways, such as with weapons. Boys especially need to let off this type of steam.... the more 'alone' we become the more trapped we are in our minds.

      --
      Please sign petition to restore sanity to our banking system!!!

      http://financialpetition.org/
    10. Re:The never ending march ... by LehiNephi · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe you mean a Nation of Wimps. Definitely a good read.

      --
      Help find a cure for cancer. Join the [H]orde
    11. Re:The never ending march ... by orangeyoda · · Score: 1

      Ah but we have Dodge ball still..

    12. Re:The never ending march ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not trying to start a flamewar by bringing this up, but it was Bin Laden who called the United States a "Paper Tiger". Many at the time jumped at the remark and had the typical "we'll show you", but I thought to myself how in many respects that's right. We don't have the will to fight for much of anything anymore. We don't really believe anything is WORTH fighting for. Each PC decision like this just erodes the rugged American "do or die" additued that made this nation great.

    13. Re:The never ending march ... by Khomar · · Score: 2, Insightful
      A parent was quoted as saying that her son feels safer now and that she'd witnessed enough "near collisions".(emphasis added)

      A couple points here: First, I am so tired of hearing parents saying what their children feel. Does her son really feel safer, or does he just say he does because it makes mom happy?

      Also, note that the concern comes from the mother. Now I will probably be labelled sexist here, but this just brings up the differences between the sexes (yes, to all of you college professors and students lost in the realm of theory and academia, there is a difference between men and women). Women are inherently protective because security is very important to them. It is called nuturing. It gives them the incredible gift of motherhood which helps children feel safe and protected. Men, on the other hand, tend to be harder and push their children. They are the ones who encourage their sons to make a solid tackle next time instead of just a glancing blow. They are also the ones that encourage their children to take chances. For men, it is all about status and fulfillment. The fact is that both the mother and father are necessary to the proper upbringing of children. All children need to feel safe, but they also need to learn that taking risks is okay. They need both in order to grow up to be well-adjusted adults.

      Unfortunately, over the past thirty or forty years, our society has demeaned fathers and promoted mothers. Fathers are portrayed in the media as stupid, aloof, or cruel. Men are looked down upon for being who they are as our whole society loses the ability to take chances. Women, in trying to make men into images of themselves, are now finding that they can no longer find "real men". I wonder why. This instance is a case in point. Notice that it is the mother who is concerned about the issue. It is the mother who has pushed this agenda until the school backed down. The father has been rendered powerless -- or has allowed himself to become powerless.

      Two things need to happen here if things are to turn around. First, men need to involve themselves in their children's lives. Their role is just as important as the mother's in raising children. Teach your sons to be men, and teach your daughters what kind of men that she be attracted to. Second, women need to allow men to take the role they were meant to play as a true partner in the relationship. No more cheap potshots at men, and no demeaning them infront of their children. Couples need to come together and support each other, and we as a society need to recognize the differences and strengths of both mothers and fathers and support them.

      --

      I believe in de-evolution. God made the world perfect, man fell, and its been going downhill ever since!

    14. Re:The never ending march ... by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 1

      And if public libraries had just been invented yesterday, the publishing companies would be filing the lawsuits as we speak.

    15. Re:The never ending march ... by Slovenian6474 · · Score: 1

      "Another Willett parent, Celeste D'Elia, said her son feels safer because of the rule. "I've witnessed enough near collisions," she said."

      WTF!? You've seen NEAR collisions!? Is your kid hurt? Did he have to go to the hospital for these near collisions? I mean i can see if these kids are consistently being pummeled by playing tag. But, tag, scraped knees, and the occasional bump on the head is part of being a kid. I'm sorry, but Celeste, if your kid HONESTLY feels safer because he is not allowed to play tag...you kid has much more problems than tag. I mean, can't young Mr. D'Elia just....um....choose not to play tag? Or are these tag-playing kids bulldozing into him every other day? Hell put a F***ing helmet on this kid! I'm sure he'll feel safer then too.

      I hate parents like these. Instead of letting them learn their lesson, they ban them from the kitchen so they don't get burned by the pot on the stove. From personal observations, overprotective parents generally have the worst behaving kids.

      end rant

    16. Re:The never ending march ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In Mexico, if you pour your coffee and you burn your crotch it is your freaking fault for being so stupi

      Hey dumbshit, stop bringing up the McD's coffee thing like it was her fault.

      They had been sued before over injuries caused by overheating their coffee. The lady who was burned by their BOILING coffee (hint, hotter than you or any reasonable restaurant makes it) initially just wanted the medical bills paid for the SKIN GRAFTS she needed. McDonalds chose to smear her as a gold digging opportunist. The jury found a pattern of wanton disregard for safety on McD's part and punished them, which was further reduced on appeal anyway.

      There are lots of frivolous lawsuits out there. This wasn't one of them.

      And you're really one to talk about justice in Mexico. I'll take something inbetween your corrupt banana republic and our plutocracy any day.

    17. Re:The never ending march ... by tekkguy · · Score: 1

      Ah, but dodgeball is generally a 'supervised' activity ... or at least it was where I went to school.

      --
      I want a 120 character signature! Please can I have a 120 character signature? I really really want one! 120 characters!
    18. Re:The never ending march ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And yet we're forced to build this fence.....

    19. Re:The never ending march ... by jag7720 · · Score: 1

      Holy Crap Batman... there are people aout there that have common sense.

      I totally agree with everything you said and my wife and I follow this path. We have 5 kids and I could not imagine stopping them from playing tag or anything like it.

      This whole thing is brought on by the effeminization of men.

      It is a fact of life that you will get hurt if you don't know what your are doing and you don't think about the consequences of your actions.

      I can't tell you how many times I fell and ripped open my skin. I did it in the front yard and I did it miles from home... each time I learned that I need to be more carfull in my actions and THINK about what I am doing. I think I turned out ok.

      As someone said to me "You learn by making mistakes, and I have learned a lot"

    20. Re:The never ending march ... by Gordo_1 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fathers are portrayed in the media as stupid, aloof, or cruel.

      You must've been watching Fox's Sunday night line-up again.

      Funny? Oh definitely, but did you ever stop to think about what message these programs send about fathers in general? It practically goes without notice in our culture that mothers are are portrayed as the only legitimate stabilizing force while fathers and their "caveman impulses" are to be ridiculed. Think about that next time you watch the "Four fathers of comedy" or whatever they call it.

    21. Re:The never ending march ... by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 1

      Right on.

      My 3-year old was in nasty mood few days ago, tripped and whacked his head into the frame of our truck as he was whining and stomping around. Sliced his forehead open. You know head-wounds, they look scary bleeding all over the place, but usually not serious. He went to the ER and got 4 stitches.

      That did more to teach him to stop running around blindly and being careless than 2 years of saying "watch where you're going". It was really was inevitable the way he was acting.

      It also had a good effect on our 4-year old, who just about in tears just watching him. After all, in his mind, all that blood probably looks like his baby brother was about to die. He needed some reassurance that everything was fine.

      There are many parents, male and female, who get really upset when their kids barely get a scratch. I see them all the time at the preschool. Those kids are going to be nutcases when they grow up.

      I said to my wife: "well, he's broken in now!" She laughed.

      --
      I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
    22. Re:The never ending march ... by foqn1bo · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone who is most likely out of the loop in academia, you appear to be mischaracterizing contemporary theories of gender. There is a popular meme that conflates equality with identity, which is blatantly false. What gender theorists and "college professors" have been saying for a long time now is that sex (male and female) is not the same as gender (man and woman), and that gender traits in our culture are often socially constructed. I agree that men are often portrayed as imbiciles in recent media, but it's nothing compared to the way women have been treated on film and on television, and there is no feminist conspiracy to undermine the viability of "male" parenting. The reason why women dominate elementary school education is because primary teaching is a historically denigrated position that was seen as "feminine", and therefore left to women. If you want a man to take a stronger role in parenting, teach him to embrace nurture along with assertiveness, instead of perpetuating the cultural myth of manliness and then having him wonder why his behavior is deemed unacceptable in a society where women have equal rights. Mothers have always been "overbearing". This story has everything to do with flaws in our legal system and bureaucratic shortcuts to conscientious supervision in our sorry excuse for an education institution, nothing to do with the suppression of masculine values.

    23. Re:The never ending march ... by NetCharge · · Score: 1

      Well, it used to be like that in this country too, but somtime between when I was a kid (the 60's and 70's) and the time I became a parent (this year), all the rules changed. What was normal then is now criminal, and what's normal now would have been certifiably insane then. My wife is six years younger than I am, and when we talk about our childhoods, it's like we're from different planets. I wish I had a dollar for every time my dad said "Well, I bet you don't do that again." Then again, by the time I was 18, I'd had more than 100 stitches and three broken bones, so, aside from the fact that none of my injuries were received in the same way, one might question whether or not I actually learned any lessons.

    24. Re:The never ending march ... by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

      True story to support your point ... My 16 year old son dislocated his shoulder riding a skate board at school (which he mother didn't allow him to do.) His mother was at work (she is a nurse) so I met him in the urgent care room. What a pussy, couldn't take shots to dull the pain, was fearful of the IV, and was almost in a panic. His first time in the hospital in his life.

      I playfully teased him about it, joking him he needs to 'grow up and act like a man'. Not in a cruel way (although his mother would disagree), but making jokes about it in such a manner that he knew I was disappointed in how he acted. This was in balance to the support I gave him at the hospital to help him get through it and making sure he knew what was going on. In other words, dear ole dad will help you out when you do stupid things, but there is a price to pay.

      One year later, he splits his shin open riding a skateboard so bad you could see the underlying tissue. I carried him into urgent care and we watched as the doctor injected him with anesthetic, cleaned the wound, and sewed him up. No whining, no bawling, no problem. I told him what a change I saw in him and that he handled it very well.

      His dad, on the other hand, needed to use the bathroom. Seems the sight of the doctor sewing up a shin was a little more than dad could take :-)

      The point?? Yes ... kids get hurt, sometimes badly. When parents are there to help them through it and to encourage them, they grow up to be adults that can deal with such things. If a child never gets hurt, they probably won't be able to deal with it.

      --
      I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    25. Re:The never ending march ... by danpsmith · · Score: 1
      Couples need to come together and support each other, and we as a society need to recognize the differences and strengths of both mothers and fathers and support them.

      Then you end it all with a real manly statement...not. How about ending it this way instead of being PC. Men: regrow your balls and tell that bitch to bring you a sandwich once in a while. It's no coincedence that modern "seduction theory" stems mainly around the idea of reclaiming your manhood. They don't teach you that it's okay to be a man anymore, they teach you that it's terrible thing to be.

      --
      Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
    26. Re:The never ending march ... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Except it was her fault.

      Coffee to go? Yes, the coffee SHOULD be served hotter than is safe to drink, so by the time you get a chance to drink it it won't be tepid.

      Now McDonalds serves lukewarm coffee. What a triumph of consumer safety.

    27. Re:The never ending march ... by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately the government in general seems to only want to support the parents who overreact and coddle their children... Not to mention I've watch people become grand parents and then decide their children can't raise their own kids because they let their kids get hurt... Which is so Ironic when I know perfectly well those same grand parents had no problems lettign their kids get hurt (or hurting them themselves in a couple cases).

      1 set of grand parents I know went so far as to sue for custody of their grandchild because the mother of said child let him play in the front yard unsuperzised at six years old. Said grand parents used to let their own youngest son do whatever for the most part and when he did things wrong beat him... He turned out pretty screwed up which explains why he couldn't manage to stay with the woman he got pregnant with hsi own child. But now the grand parents are 'saints' who can do no wrong and want to take a child away from a mother who cares and loves her son... The funny thing is the government has repeatedly suggested that the grandparents are potentialy a better pair to raise the grandchild because the woman is a single mother working to make it on her own, rahter than two retirees...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    28. Re:The never ending march ... by crucini · · Score: 1

      If you spill coffee on yourself, it's your fault. Americans in 1890 would have laughed at the idea of suing the restaurant. Shit happens. If the coffee didn't come from a mega-corporation, you know there wouldn't be any lawsuit. And calling people names is not very persuasive.

  5. Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would think the number of teachers in the U.S. molesting school children would be a bigger priority than protecting them from a game of tag.

    1. Re:Hmm. by hazem · · Score: 5, Funny

      Don't worry... we have a congressional page program for any kid that wants to be molested.

    2. Re:Hmm. by diodeus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, now they can just sit around, fatten up and have heart attacks instead.

    3. Re:Hmm. by Carnage+Pants · · Score: 1

      It makes sense though. Touch football is scary. But a broken nose or a broken arm after a girl gets nailed and hits the concrete is okay because there's an adult there to supervise. Right?

    4. Re:Hmm. by N3WBI3 · · Score: 1

      Yea its been a viable program starting in 1973 started by Gerry Studds

      --
    5. Re:Hmm. by SnarfQuest · · Score: 2, Funny

      Sorry, but Clinton left.

      All an intern can get nowadays is e-mail discussions of being molested.

      --
      Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
    6. Re:Hmm. by dbIII · · Score: 1
      All an intern can get nowadays is e-mail discussions of being molested.

      Wait until after the election - I'm sure a lot of imformation is being held back so that it won't influence the vote. Let the IM meaning "insert meat" jokes begin.

    7. Re:Hmm. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haven't watched the news in a few months, have you?

    8. Re:Hmm. by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      But at least under Clinton, the intern (usually a girl) only has to be worried about being molested by someone of the opposite sex. With the Republicans in office, it's the boys who have to be worried about being molested by older men!

  6. This isn't really new by jbrader · · Score: 4, Funny

    When I was in elemetary schoo in the late 80's they wouldn't let us play touch footbal at recess. But then during P.E. they would make us play dodgeball.

    --
    You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    1. Re:This isn't really new by MrHanky · · Score: 1

      We played touch rugby in a P.E. class once, and I've still got the marks to prove it. I didn't sue the school because I slipped on the gravel, though. Then again, I don't live in the lawsuit-happy USA.

      Come to think of it, isn't GTA a tag simulation of sorts? I usually shout "TAG! You're it!" whenever I ram into the side of a police car. (Actually I don't, but I could if I would.)

    2. Re:This isn't really new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember being restricted to one-hand touch football, because two-hand touches could get more forcefull. But the balls we used in dodgeball weren't that hard and didn't hurt. I don't remember anyone getting hurt playing dodgeball, or tag for that matter. (I did manage to break a girl's glasses, but that's all) My playground injuries involved the jungle gym and the swings. Even with the protective tanbark and later rubber padding, I don't think those could have been avoided.

    3. Re:This isn't really new by jbrader · · Score: 1

      Yeah I knew a kid that got his nose broken playing dodgeball. So I guess getting wounded at school is OK so long as you're being poroperly supervised while it goes on.

      --
      You are so boring that when I see you my feet go to sleep.
    4. Re:This isn't really new by SQLGuru · · Score: 1

      The only broken bone I've had to date (I'd knock on wood, but that's probably disallowed, too) stemmed from a SUPERVISED game of TOUCH football in school. All of my unsupervised games were pretty much break-free (including tackle football). Oh, and that's American football, not Soccer.

      Layne

    5. Re:This isn't really new by calumniate · · Score: 1

      We played contact football all the time no gear no nothing. We were small enough that the hits weren't really all that bad. We all turned out ok. One guy broke his leg trying to follow my zig-zag motions but there was no contact on the play. The teachers only 'thought' about not letting us play. lol

    6. Re:This isn't really new by Alioth · · Score: 1

      American football can hardly be called football - the ball is hardly ever in contact with the foot. Football (soccer) on the other hand is all about foot contact with the ball. American Football should really be called American Rugby, since that's the game it really resembles and probably is derived from.

    7. Re:This isn't really new by lisaparratt · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh, and that's American football, not Soccer.

      So Rugby for pussies, then? ;)

    8. Re:This isn't really new by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1
      isn't GTA a tag simulation of sorts?


      The original project proposal actually was for a game called "TAG" but on the way up the corporate food chain, a little typo was introduced.
      --
      Free as in mason.
    9. Re:This isn't really new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was in college in the 80s they raised the drinking age on us, so we all stopped drinking.

    10. Re:This isn't really new by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

      I broke my arm playing supervised, school-sponsored dodgeball in the 7th grade. Just a simple accident - it happens. Hurt like a bitch, and I spent some time with my arm in a cast, but still preferable to not being able to play simple games.

      Ironically, the best physical conditioning I ever got in school was from unsanctioned chicken fighting - and I never got so much as a scratch from that.

    11. Re:This isn't really new by vondo · · Score: 1

      The only thing they stopped us from playing (early 80's) was "chicken." One person would sit on another person's shoulders. Your opposing team would do the same. Then, crash together and try to throw the other person on top to the ground (grass). I think there were some minor bruises and twisted wrists from the few days we were allowed to do this.

    12. Re:This isn't really new by WilliamSChips · · Score: 0, Troll

      Only if by "for pussies" you mean "not hitting so softly that you don't even need pads".

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    13. Re:This isn't really new by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      The only thing they stopped us from playing (early 80's) was "chicken." One person would sit on another person's shoulders. Your opposing team would do the same. Then, crash together and try to throw the other person on top to the ground (grass)
      When I was young, the game "chicken" involved standing on a railway line and jumping aside from the oncoming train at the latest possible moment. If you were really hard, you did it with your back to the train.
      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  7. This is just taking things too far by stevey · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yes some children are going to play games and get injured, but this is insane.

    I chipped two of my front teeth when I fell over in school aged 11, but my parents would have been laughed at had they decided to sue the school.

    I'm sure there are probably (too many) rules about schools nowadays relating to who is in charge, or responsible for the pupils, etc. But at the end of the day accidents happen when you're a child.

    Its about time people stopped talking to lawyers at the drop of a hat. Sadly it seems that even the UK is going in that direction.

    1. Re:This is just taking things too far by drspliff · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When I was in primary school (say about the age of 8 or 9) somebody tried practicing a flying ninja judo super kick on me (yeah man), so I went flying backwards and nearly cracked my skull on a box behind me.

      So.. standing there, crying, blood spurting out of my head... and only like a month before the school had enforced a policy that none of the teachers could apply bandages or provide medical aid unless they'd gone through the right training course (which only one or two had done) and can't phone an ambulance without the parents permission.

      At the time all the parents thought it was absolutely stupid.. sure kids get hurt, scape knees, fall over & bash teeth... but the people who are _legally_ supposed to be supervising us weren't allowed to do anything.

      In the end I had to go and sit down in the staff room with a towel wrapped around my head so I didn't drip everwhere until my dad could get away from work, it took about 30 minutes... then another 30 minutes waiting in triage to be seen.

      It's bullshit, and it's only getting worse... I fear within 5 years the UK will have schools doing similar things, which is just degredating society.

      Had it been more serious I could've ended up with brain damage because of these stupid policies.

      My two cents...

    2. Re:This is just taking things too far by stevey · · Score: 1

      Yeah to be honest I can recall similar incidents, where people got injured and then the staff "weren't allowed" to give them painkillers due to strange rules.

      For most of the minor scrapes we had a couple of teachers with first aid training, and for the bigger injuries I can recall people being ferried to the casualty department of the local hospital - or in one case an ambulance being called for.

    3. Re:This is just taking things too far by Nimey · · Score: 1

      See one of the earlier comments. It's all about avoiding lawsuits because a well-meaning school nurse might give a kid the wrong meds; OTOH, I've heard via Usenet (yeah, that's unimpeachable testimony) of a guy who had his arm broken by an idiot teacher who shouldn't have been trying to fix whateveritwas anyway.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    4. Re:This is just taking things too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a policy at the Elementary School that my brother attended that prohibited chapstick without a prescription from the doctor.

    5. Re:This is just taking things too far by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 1

      can't phone an ambulance without the parents permission

      That is mind-blowing. What if you had had a seizure or an embolism, or some other time-critical, life-threatening event, and your parents couldn't be reached in the 5 minutes before you died right there in the school yard?

      I'd be interested to hear what school district has such a reckless policy, so I can make good and sure my children and the children of my family and friends never go there.

      --
      Stasis is death. Embrace change.
    6. Re:This is just taking things too far by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree. The 'solution' as listed here may produce FEWER lawsuits, but the lawsuits that it could potentially produce would cost the school significantly more money than any of the other suits would. A child suffers permanent brain damage because the school was unable to administer care? Any lawyer would have a hey day with that one.

    7. Re:This is just taking things too far by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      It doesn't necessarily take a stupid policy. I had to sit through a whole afternoon of primary school with a broken arm simply because my teacher wouldn't believe me.

    8. Re:This is just taking things too far by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Strangely (or not so strangely) this is becoming more and more common, with teachers deciding that children are faking injuries to avoid class... Which does in fact happen (happened when I was a kid), but the lack of desire to learn is apparently so ingrained now that faking injuries has become a defacto way of avoiding classes...

      I think encouraging kids to learn so they don't want to fake injuries would go a long way to curing this issue...

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
  8. Free country, my ass! by bwalling · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We call this a free country, but lawsuits have scared everyone into ridiculous rules and restrictions. We shouldn't be allowed to talk about freedom when we are imprisoning ourselves even in the areas the government isn't. I'm tired of all the reasonable things I'm not allowed to do because some organization's insurance company doesn't like or some fool sued someone. Maybe I just didn't notice this stuff when I was younger, but it seems ridiculous anymore.

    1. Re:Free country, my ass! by innes · · Score: 1

      This is the main problem really, people are shit scared of being sued by someone who screwed up themselves, with the culture we have now everyone has to find someone else to blame for when they screw things up and if they can get a bit of cash with it so much the better. Schools and businesses are to scared of losing fortunes if someone gets hurt that they just ban everything and freedom disappears

    2. Re:Free country, my ass! by frdmfghtr · · Score: 1
      I'm tired of all the reasonable things I'm not allowed to do because some organization's insurance company doesn't like or some fool sued someone.


      Hear hear! You are 100% correct; some people are so scared of lawsuits that they stop themselves from enjoying life.

      I recently suggested that my astronomy club hold a public viewing even on some club-owned property. It would have been a great place; several large telescopes would get some much-needed use, there are facilities in case of inclement weather, restrooms, and it would been a great way to show the public what astronomy really is about and promote the club and its facilities.

      IMMEDIATELY the idea was shot down by the observatory director, because the club's insurance company wouldn't provide liability coverage to non-members. A great idea, once again, has been destroyed by fear of liability.

      Tag--a great game, it gets kids active, destroyed by fear of liability.

      I guess the US society has devolved into a "cover your ass" society.
      --
      Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
    3. Re:Free country, my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a solution...

      1 - violently kill all lawyers and everyone ever went to law school. Heads on pikes kind of killing, throw all politicians in there too just for good measure.
      2 - burn every single state and federal building. Every law on the books needs to go if it can not be fully understood by someone with a 3rd grade education or is more than 15 lines of typed text. that rules out everything so burn it all.
      3 - ....After that I dont care, I'll bask in the glow of the burning buildings enjoying looking at the heads of all the dead legal people that got us in this mess to begin with.

      but it is true, lawyers and politicians are 100% to blame for the mess that is our current legal system. Hell even the constitution is screwed up.. Everyone thinks that the second admendment is about guns... no it was about "BEAR ARMS". having bear arms on the walls was fashonable at the time.

      anyways, get on with the killing and burning will ya!

    4. Re:Free country, my ass! by nkv · · Score: 1

      I'm in India but have quite a few friends working in the US and they tell me about how the system forces them to do lots of stuff that they don't really want to just to live. eg. Medical service where I'm from are quite cheap. If a casual labourer needs to get a tooth operation, he might have to borrow a little from a friend but he can get it done. He doesn't have to have a complex medical coverage policy. If I wanted a credit card here, I don't have to prove my credit history (for which I need to take loans which I don't need etc.). I just apply and get one. Life's a lot more simpler here. The government has it's problems but it's a lot more easier to just live here than it is in the US (or so I think from my limited experience).

      Weird country...

    5. Re:Free country, my ass! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We call this a free country

      There's a reason for that. If a ruler fails to constantly remind his subjects that they are free, what happens?

      They might just start to doubt it.

    6. Re:Free country, my ass! by JSPA · · Score: 1

      No one part of the society can fix this. However if government, school officials and lawyers work together, perhaps we can see some progression.

      Kid's discipline is the responsibility of the parents. It's one story if the school directed the kids to play contact sports but in the recess time, school should not be liable.

    7. Re:Free country, my ass! by EvanED · · Score: 1

      but it is true, lawyers and politicians are 100% to blame for the mess that is our current legal system.

      Yeah, damn them for creating greedy bastards.

  9. What else is there? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't every game played by small children a contact sport?
    Kids these days need stop being little brats. My kids play football, and occasionally come home with a suspicious bruise or two. But I don't ask questions, and in the end it's all ok.

    1. Re:What else is there? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      and if you're lucky, somes games played when you're a young adult are a contact sport :)

  10. Whats next? by xaviel · · Score: 1

    Whats next, banning soccer because you can get hit in the face with the ball?

  11. Why by kafkar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's a sad day when children can't play tag. What are these kids going to be like if they grow up without ever playing contact sports. Scraping their knees or getting bruises are good ways for children to learn about the world they live in, and the consequences of their actions. It would be interesting to see how they enforce this, considering they are banning 'unsupervised' contact sports. If they are unsupervised, how are they going to stop it?

    1. Re:Why by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      Indeed... life is harsh. Look at nature. I'm sure there are no lawyer ants for the few that get trampled upon by their fellow ants trying to get that bread crumb. ("My antenna was crushed by Bob. I'll sue that ant, and the queen too..")

      There is a big difference between a intentionally dangerious game (ie: dodge the bullet. You only get it once) and Tag (or other "unsupervised games"). Let the children be children.. let them skin their knees, hurt their fingers, etc... The bloody parents got here (and in large numbers I might add) going through all of that.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
  12. Plan stupid by radu.stanca · · Score: 1

    `nuff said.

  13. right... by sxpert · · Score: 0, Troll

    it's parental stupidity that is...
    man, those dumbasses in the US will never cease to amaze me :D

    1. Re:right... by Conspiracy_Of_Doves · · Score: 1

      They never cease to amaze me and I live in the US.

    2. Re:right... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Give us a week, we'll do it again!

      It's our primary export. Course, no one's buying so we've got this huge trade gap...

  14. Oh gods.... by Kenja · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I was going to write up a witty retort to all of this, but I think its far simpler just to call these people fucking idiots and get back to work.

    --

    "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    1. Re:Oh gods.... by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I was going to write up a witty retort to all of this, but I think its far simpler just to call these people fucking idiots and get back to work.

      I hope you aren't calling the school officials idiots. It's the parents and lawyers. The school is just giving up in an impossible situation, and innoculating against a vector for an injury lawsuit. There's nothing else you can do in a culture run by and for lawyers.

      Here in California we have clear cut cases of lawyers abusing the law and making millions from nusiance lawsuits, and everyone knows about it, but it's going to take an armed insurrection to put a stop to it because the Trail Lawyers pay off the politicians to kill any mitigating legislation.

    2. Re:Oh gods.... by Kenja · · Score: 1

      True enough, I recall one case where a parent sued the school because his larva didn't win MVP on the school sports team. Makes one wish there was a written test to be a parrent, rather then just the physical one.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  15. Pathetic by Foofoobar · · Score: 1

    There is a reason their bones are still comprised of a large amount of cartilege at their young age; nature knows they're uncoordinated and clumsy. What kind of overprotective, fearful nation are we becoming? Are we going to force our children to start wearing those padded suits they use to train attack dogs soon? Mother of the nation, you are going to strangle your children with those apron strings!

    --
    This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
    1. Re:Pathetic by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      They're malleable, they bounce...

    2. Re:Pathetic by PeteDotNu · · Score: 1

      I've always thought it was cruel, the way they make those dogs wear those suits.

      --
      My other processor is big-endian.
    3. Re:Pathetic by Foofoobar · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Yeah, I mean if Armani is good enough for me then it's good enough for my dog.

      --
      This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
  16. Attleboro, MA <> Boston, MA by el_gordo101 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Attleboro, MA is not in Boston as the posting states, it is a small city south of Boston.

    --
    TODO: Insert witty sig
  17. contact sports by iambarry · · Score: 1

    Since when is tag a "contact sport" like football?

    Why not ban recess altogether?

    I know this is only one wacky school district, but do they have no common sense at all?

    1. Re:contact sports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where have you been? Schools around the country _are_ banning recess.

      The quote below, by a Slashdotter several months ago, was posted in the context of a game censorship law but it makes just as much sense here:

      "Think about how great it must feel if you are a sick and evil minded child psychologist, living with the haunting fear that somewhere, somehow, some child might be having fun, to crush an entire emerging industry. They are just trying to recapture their glory days of being able to destroy a popular, vibrant subculture with a word. Their patron saint, Dr. Frederick Wertham, smiles up at them from Hell every time they manage to get one of these pieces of legislation passed."

  18. We'd reach new heights of absurdity... by ScentCone · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... but we can't, because that would involve taking the stairs, and someone might get hurt.

    --
    Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    1. Re:We'd reach new heights of absurdity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, and heights are dangerous. What if somebody falls?

    2. Re:We'd reach new heights of absurdity... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      That's not true. It's perfectly allowed to take the stairs. Here's some equipment you'll need, though.

    3. Re:We'd reach new heights of absurdity... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... no worries, we can reach these new heights of absurdity: here in the US, we take the elevator.

      Think of the obese!

  19. No. Fucking. Way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please tell me this is an elaborate troll. PLEASE.

  20. This is bad. by PresidentEnder · · Score: 1
    This is a sad thing, indeed. Sad because people would hold the school responsible and legally liable, sad because kids are being told that they can't be kids, sad because removing an athletic and only kind of competitive game takes away the ability to tire them out, avoid hurt feelings, and give the teachers a break.

    I still have a scar on my cheek from a collision in a game of tag in second grade. It builds character, seriously.

    --
    I used to carry a bottle of whiskey for snake bite. And two snakes. -Nefarious Wheel
    1. Re:This is bad. by spindley · · Score: 1

      I agree. Kids need to be kids by running around outside, breaking bones, and eating bugs and such. It builds up their immunity. Is it any wonder more and more kids are becoming diabetic?

  21. School's and liability by the+Gray+Mouser · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Wouldn't it be nice if someday schools were held liable for kids that couldn't read or do basic math?

    Instead they're spending their time worrying about tag, metal jungle gyms, or any perceived threats or sexual harassment between students.

  22. This is soo sad, its not even funny.. by Sassinak · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, it is funny.. *checking my calender to see if its april 1st*

    Come on, the classic game of tag has been played in various forms, seemingly, for ever. With few to almost none getting hurt. My goodness, we are are rasing a bunch of whiny little snots who can't even take a little bruse. What, I wonder will they do, be when they grow up. (best friends with lawyers or a lawyer themselves I suspect, where NOTHING is ever their fault).

    Sheez.. stuff like this gets me sick.

    --
    God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    1. Re:This is soo sad, its not even funny.. by wizkid · · Score: 1

      Yea, this is sad alright. It's a sad reflection on our legal system and our moral values. With the stupid frivolous lawsuits, and the people who open them to get a quick buck ruining the system, you can expect to see more stuff like this happen.

      (sarcastic_Mode) The only real solution - Hang all the lawyers, corral up all the people filing all the frivolous and hurd them off a big cliff, and watch anarchy take over the world!
      (/sarcastic_Mode)

      --
      I take no responsibility for what I say. Even though I'm never wrong :)
    2. Re:This is soo sad, its not even funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should sue...

    3. Re:This is soo sad, its not even funny.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sheez.. stuff like this gets me sick.

      Sue Slashdot !

    4. Re:This is soo sad, its not even funny.. by dargaud · · Score: 1
      we are are rasing a bunch of whiny little snots who can't even take a little bruse
      Well, Tag is a voluntary game, so no problem with the kids wanting to get involved, but when I was a kid the only sport at recess and in gym class was also the national sport: soccer. Being the class geek I hated, HATED, being bullied by my own team because I didn't pass them the ball fast enough in the rare few instances I had it. It disgusted me of sport for 10 years until I learnt that there are other sports which are not quite so stupid and I'm actually quiet good at them, thank you. To this day I'm convinced that playing with a ball is only worthy of a dog and all ball players are absolute morons.
      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    5. Re:This is soo sad, its not even funny.. by BobStikigreen · · Score: 1

      IIRC a form of tag is played by every mammal, from dogs to dolphins.

    6. Re:This is soo sad, its not even funny.. by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      Most cultures have some form of this game... As someone who has studied Japanese culture (in particular) I could show you some very ancient variants of tag from their that would be recognizable to anyone today (figuring they could understand the Japanese phrases used to donate 'It' in a game of tag).

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    7. Re:This is soo sad, its not even funny.. by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      Speaking as someone that had sports pushed on them growing up, I can agree with your sentiment. But my concern is that this, like so many of these "think of the children" really has no limit. If we ban one game, what is to stop banning other things. (ironic when you consider that in the same breath, everyone is worried about their children not getting sufficent exercise.

      We are already on a slippery slope from a societal stance that encourages children to take no responsibility for their actions. This only increases that notion when a school decides that its better to ban something before getting sued, rather than letting them be children.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
    8. Re:This is soo sad, its not even funny.. by Sassinak · · Score: 1

      I know some of the japanese variants you are speaking of... (and quite a few in China and Taiwan as well).

      It is one of the older games in world (not the oldest, but considering that it requires nothing more than 2 or more people, its easy to understand why) and has change very little in its basics.

      --
      God made the Idiot for practice, and then He made the School Board -- Mark Twain Look for http://Thebar.steelbeachca
  23. Conspiracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its all a conspiracy to make us even more fat, lazy, and docile I tell you!

  24. Newsflash, schools ban recess! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In breaking news school ban recess all together on the basis of a student might trip/fall/slide/twist/skid/interact/run/walk/crawl /breathe fresh air/get exercise/physically exert themselves/get tired, and hold the school liable. Next week we will look into the gym class epidemic, yes that is right folks, they are actually trying to make our children non-obese, those horrible people.

  25. Did you ever play "Suicide" in the school yard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We use to play a game in elementary school that was called Suicide. You would throw a tennis ball against a wall. If someone caught it on the fly, you had to run to the wall and tag the wall and says "SUICIDE" before the person who caught the ball could hit you with the ball. If you tried to catch the ball, and dropped it, you had to run to the wall and tag it and say suicide before someone else got the ball and beaned you with it. There were other rules where if you called suicide 3 times, you had to assume the possition (hands against the wall, ass out) and every person got to bean you with the tennis ball. It was a lot of fun.

    1. Re:Did you ever play "Suicide" in the school yard? by courtarro · · Score: 1

      No, we played the other kind of "suicide", but I wasn't very good at it, and they eventually banned it before I could win. Now I have to live with myself.

    2. Re:Did you ever play "Suicide" in the school yard? by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      We called it wall ball. We played it with a large (size of a baseball) rubber ball, and some of us took the initiative to be men and go back to the wall, tuck our junk between our legs, and cover our face. I started it mainly due to getting a near concussion from being hit in the base of the skull one day. Ah the number of times the teachers would take the ball from us, leave thinking we were done, and we'd just bring out another one. We went through 15 balls in one week once.

    3. Re:Did you ever play "Suicide" in the school yard? by brunascle · · Score: 1

      i was thinking the same thing, but i couldnt remember the name. it's a form of wall-ball with a bit more of an... incentive

    4. Re:Did you ever play "Suicide" in the school yard? by emurphy42 · · Score: 1

      We just called it "wall ball", and played it in high school (because we didn't feel like playing basketball). I don't think catching the ball before it hit the wall ever occurred to us, but we did realize that we could walk real close to the wall, throw the ball, and hope the wild rebound would hit someone (likely forcing them to run). We ended up adding a rule that you had to throw the ball from the same place you caught it, but you could still stand real close to the wall and try to catch a rebound from there.

      Getting back to the original topic, the school could cover its ass in a non-retarded fashion simply by making the parents sign a "we are not liable for that stuff" waiver (or "our liability is limited to $1" which was used by one of my old online hangouts), with a box for "check here if you want us to keep your kid out of that stuff".

    5. Re:Did you ever play "Suicide" in the school yard? by steve's+nose+is+blee · · Score: 1

      We called it "Butts Up" and played with racquetballs. Good times

    6. Re:Did you ever play "Suicide" in the school yard? by eln · · Score: 1

      We called it wall ball too, but it was played with a raquetball. Also, you didn't get to run to the wall, tag it, and run back before getting hit. You had to run to the wall and let them throw the ball at you. You could try to dodge, but it wasn't likely to work.

      Also, every day at lunch in middle school, we usually had at least 50 kids playing the game at once, usually with multiple balls. It could get pretty violent.

    7. Re:Did you ever play "Suicide" in the school yard? by Hubbell · · Score: 1

      Aye, we usually used a racquetball, forgot what that little ball of death was called!

  26. While we're at it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not ban walking? I mean, these kids could walk into walls, or worse, traffic! Lets forbid them from moving at all!

    Seriously, we're living in an age of disinfectants and sanatizers. How are kids supposed to develope an immune system if they are never exposed to any germs? How are they supposed to learn to pick themselves up after they fall if you forbid them from running? The US has become a nation of over protective mothers! Let the kids live, otherwise what's the point?

  27. Jesus Allah and Muhammed by Hubbell · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What is this country coming to? Being a kid is ABOUT getting hurt. I can't even count all the times I fell off my bike during games as a kid where we'd just ride around the neighborhood trying to knock/ram each other off our bikes. Or the times I've fallen out of a tree flat on my back unable to get up for 5-10minutes cause the wind was knocked out of me. Kids are SUPPOSED to get hurt, and to either learn from their mistakes or just go right back at it cause it's fun and they learned that the consequences do not outweigh the gain, which is fun and a good time.

  28. Not the sport, the spray by courtarro · · Score: 5, Funny

    They're talking about the spray. Haven't you seen the commericals? The guy practically gets pummeled by women. It's really dangerous and I hope they put a stop to it. Think of the single adults!

    1. Re:Not the sport, the spray by gEvil+(beta) · · Score: 2, Funny

      Think of the single adults!

      Oh, I will. I'll also include some of the married ones, too...

      --
      This guy's the limit!
    2. Re:Not the sport, the spray by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Banning the spray would be less obsurd.

    3. Re:Not the sport, the spray by Arathon · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I thought when I saw the headline. I was wondering what their reasoning would be. Then I saw the story, which just goes to show that truth is stranger than......imagination.

    4. Re:Not the sport, the spray by punkr0x · · Score: 1

      Yeah, that's what I thought too. Unfortunately, that actually would have made slightly more sense than what it was really about...

    5. Re:Not the sport, the spray by EvanED · · Score: 1

      "The difference between fiction and reality? Fiction has to make sense."
      - Tom Clancy

    6. Re:Not the sport, the spray by WCLPeter · · Score: 1
      The guy practically gets pummeled by women. It's really dangerous and I hope they put a stop to it.


      As do I.

      He looks like such a nice young man with a bright future ahead of him. I would hate to see him cut down in his prime, destined for a life of misery brought on by a disabling injury from excessive on the job pummeling. To ensure his continued good health and lack of injury I humbly agree to sign a waiver of liability and offer my services as his personal stunt double.

      It's the least I can do as a concerned citizen.
  29. Good thing, if you ask me. by Artie_Effim · · Score: 0

    That body spray looks very dangerous, if you've seen a tee-vee ad for it, you know what I mean.

  30. Pst by Headcase88 · · Score: 1

    Quiet, you're ruining the hyperbole!

    --
    "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
  31. misdirection by to_kallon · · Score: 1

    CNN is carrying a story about a school in Boston which has have banned kids from playing tag, touch football and any other unsupervised chase game during recess for fear they'll get hurt and hold the school liable.

    i cannot help but think that it should be the parents holding them liable that the school should fear. maybe it's my failing memory, but i can't seem to recall thinking frequently at the age of 10, "i could take someone wholly unresponsible for this to court and make truckloads of money!"

    --


    The only way to get rid of a temptation is to yield to it.
    -Oscar Wilde
    1. Re:misdirection by cowscows · · Score: 1

      I think that for both the article writer and your average reader, that jump of logic is obvious. I don't think that the writer was actually attempting to imply that the child themselves would sue.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    2. Re:misdirection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless the parents wanted to bring an action for IIED, they could only sue on behalf of their child. Hence, technically the child would be holding the school responsible.

  32. And its not the body spray by geemon · · Score: 3, Funny

    After being inundated with all of those 'TAG' body spray commercials that show various teenage boys getting mobbed by teenage girls and being hit on my the teenage girs' moms, my first thought after reading the title was "Wow, that stuff must really work if they are having to ban it from schools!"

    And then I read the article summary and find it is just the schoolyard game. Too bad - I was hoping for some interesting reading describing just how well that stuff worked.

  33. It's conditioning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is an attempt to keep these kids from running from cops when they're older. But it's not like they ever have enough swings or whatever else for all the kids . . . .

  34. Dumb by tygerstripes · · Score: 1
    In the UK, the original concept that covered what responsibilities a school had was called "In Loco Parentis" - in effect, the school was the "parent". They weren't a company who was looking after your baby - he/she was their baby.

    So, anything that a parent could reasonably allow, the school could reasonably allow. Anything that would be neglectful for a parent to allow, just so with the school. It was a brilliant notion that prevented a lot of this idiocy, but the concept is being eroded by further and further defining the "responsibilities" of the school. It sounds like it's gone all the way already, in the US...

    --
    Meta will eat itself
  35. Good little boys and girls by Space+cowboy · · Score: 1

    Dear parent,

    From now on, all break periods will be taken by all children filing slowly and silently out to the playground in single file, 1 meter apart. They will then sit in their designated 1m square for a period of 15 minutes and file slowly back into class. If it is raining, they will be given an umbrella. Coats and galoshes must be worn at all times in case any cold- or water-based infection might be possible, even when sunny. Portable fans will be provided in the Summer. Talking will be permitted, but only to those within 1 square of the child doing the talking.

    In this way, the school hopes to reduce it's liability risk even further, for your protection. We have consulted parents, and at least one of them said "I prefer my child not to run around, she may fall down and cut herself. I think this is a good idea".

    The headmaster.

    Simon.

    --
    Physicists get Hadrons!
  36. everyone, in their own bubble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Otherwise, we'll pass the germs around, and then be liable of getting people a cold!

  37. I'm really glad I was born more than 20 years ago. by jfclavette · · Score: 1

    Jesus. You're not a kid if you haven't split your lip on a metal rail, broken your leg or been hit by a baseball ball in the crotch. It's not even such a big deal if they break all their teeths since they'll lose 'em anyway ! Has there, ever, been an incident of someone ever dying or being permanently crippled as a result of a tag-induced injury ? Touch-football was invented because football was deemed too dangerous without appropriate equipment, and I can agree with that somewhat. Now we are saying that the sport specifically designed to be a non-dangerous version of football is itself dangerous ? "My son feels safer now." Good for him, I bet he wasn't playing in the first place then.

  38. Aldous Huxley had it wrong by Norv · · Score: 1

    Should have been Wimpy New World.

  39. Sign o' the times by Wubby · · Score: 1

    We can bitch all we want about how wacky them Boston "lib'rals" are, but we'll also wonder why kids are using the same textbooks their parents used. If this isn't already a well known idea, then I want it to be called "Wubby's Axiom": If some one can be sued for something, sooner or later they will be. With a budget only so big if a school district is court ordered to pay out in a lawsuit, then there is only one place they can get it from, and that's everything else they have to pay to give your kids an education.

    --
    Sig
    Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars
  40. I hate to make gender-based.. by jvagner · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ..generalizations, I do. But I have a 2.75 yo son and I take him to the playground 3-4 days per week (his mom, the rest of the time). There's a fairly significant divide between how men and women treat their children at the playground. Dads tend to hang back, contributing support and help as kids need them (and to be sure, too many fathers hang on the park bench the whole time and can't be bothered to participate at all). Mom's hover, ensuring the kid never suffers a risky moment.

    Those kids tend to have less certain notions of what's possible, what isn't, and what's just plain stupid. Some of those kids certainly got it in the nature-equation - meaning those parents may, in fact, have some reason to be fearful. Plenty of other kids are developing much shallower skills with respect to falling and not falling.

    So, to wrap up with another generalization, it's more likely a mother would feel relieved at this ridiculous development than a father.

    1. Re:I hate to make gender-based.. by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      From a biological perspective, this makes sense. How much energy and effort does a father expend in the procreation process? Not nearly as much as the mother. Therefore the father, at an instinctive level, wants his progeny to thrive and be at the top of the heap, even if it means some of the weaker ones get culled along the way. The mother just wants them to survive, by any means necessary.

      This is offset somewhat by the fact that most people can think rationally (even if they refuse to do so) and equally important, learn from the mistakes of others without having to make them personally. Also, fathers have a considerable investment of time and energy (even if only in the form of money) in their progeny, just not at the level of bodily squeezing the little kneebiters out.

      Mal-2

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    2. Re:I hate to make gender-based.. by jwdb · · Score: 1

      I expect there's some truth to this, but it's also cultural for a large part. When I was 8 we moved to Australia for a few years and my mother would regularly take my brother and I to the local playground. She told me that one time we were wrestling with the other boys and throwing each other around a bit, but when she moved to stop us the other mothers held her back saying that boys need to get that out of their system.

      Jw

  41. Obesity... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 1

    The new plan to protect our children! Sod bubblewrap, put enough layers of fat on them and they become bouncy!

  42. Fat Kids & ADD by businessnerd · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And you wonder why the United States has an obesity problem that seems to be getting worse with the younger generations. They keep banning everything that gives them any excercise. The reason tag is so great is because it is so simple and meets an immediate need for hyperactive kids (read "all kids") to release all of that energy being balled up while they are sitting still in class and also starts them off young with a good perception of excercise. No wonder so many kids are "diagnosed" with ADD and put in special classes these days. In my day (born in '83) when a kid couldn't sit still in class, they would have him/her do some laps around the playground instead of pumping him full of drugs. After a couple laps the kid was more than happy to sit still and listen. Playing tag on the playground was the only thing keeping those kids attentive. Now they are told that all running and chasing activities are too dangerous, so therefore sports and excercise must be too dangerous, therefore, I should sit inside and simulate it on an xbox or ps[#] eating candy to occupy my time.

    Seriously I think my head is going to explode

    --
    "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how drunk you get." -- H. J. Simpson
    1. Re:Fat Kids & ADD by painQuin · · Score: 1

      I'm '83 also and I think I would've loved going for a run, but I got the drugs instead
      If we're lucky, the next generation, our children, will turn out better for all the stupidity we've had to watch

      --
      A guilty conscience means at least you've got one.
    2. Re:Fat Kids & ADD by AngryUndead · · Score: 1

      I was born in '83 too. From what I can remember most of my injuries were minor and in all cases but one or two a constant source of amusement for my Father and a source of consternation from my Mother.

      Once a folding table, one of the old all wood ones, fell on my wrist and that wasn't so funny.
      Another time my dad was teaching me to hit a baseball and I managed to 'foul' it off the bat and into my face. Yup right in the face. Dad thought it was real funny until Mom came barreling out of the house like all of hell's fury. Still pretty funny though...

      But these sorts of things build character, both with children and with parents. Eventually that child has to leave the nest... or at least they should. How can they do that when all of their life you've never let them walk out of range of your leash?

  43. ..not just dangerous virtual games are harmful.... by terrahertz · · Score: 1

    See, it's not just dangerous virtual games that are harmful to children!

    Absolutely right! We also have to worry about the harm done to a child's psyche after they run the bewildering gauntlet of contradiction that is a public education!

    As with everything at this level of BS, only the lawyers win :/

    --
    Slashdot? Oh, I just read it for the articles.
  44. This is so sad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Has it really come to this? When I was in grade school I remember running around the play structure with one of my friends, and at one point be both ran into each other face first. The playground attendant sent us to the office to get checked out, and the office lady went "boy, looks like you'll have a shiner tomorrow!". I didn't have any permanent injuries, and *gasp*, my parents didn't sue the school.

    We're gonna have a country of frickin' pansies in another 30 years when these children become adults.

  45. Obligitory George Carlin Quote by scourfish · · Score: 2, Funny

    It's not even a new idea; I first saw it in old newsreels from the 1930s, but it was hard to understand, because the narration was in German.

  46. Finally... by Rudifer_Rex · · Score: 1

    Finally someone has realized the dangers of school-yard sports...Sigh. I wonder what they'll do when someone chokes to death on a hackey-sack? I'll guess our kids will all be signing waiver forms for hop-scotch and eating with utensils in a couple years.

    "Mommy, can you call Betty's Lawyer and see if we can play marbles?"

  47. Why are kids today so weak? by FreakerSFX · · Score: 1

    I mean this as a generality....but kids today - they seem a lot softer than previous generations. My children act like they're freezing when it's 5 degrees outside.

    Kids today in general are rarely physically disciplined (something that does have it's place in limited fashion IMHO) and aren't subject to doing the same sorts of labour or work that kids in my generation did.

    I am not talking about 'uphill in the snow both ways' kind of crap either. It just seems that most parents today shield their little kids from too much - except of course when it comes to TV and violent video games.

    Banning 'tag' is right in line with that sort of weaken the humans concept. What'll our grandkids look like?

    --
    This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
    1. Re:Why are kids today so weak? by FreakerSFX · · Score: 1

      oops - that's 5 degrees Celcius....hey when the fuck are you 'mericans going to get on the metric bandwagon....it's not just for martian probes anymore - the rest of the world seems to like it too....

      I hate having to qualify a comment in translation.

      --
      This sig contains a manual self-destruct. Kindly please put your foot through your monitor in 8 seconds.
    2. Re:Why are kids today so weak? by alzoron · · Score: 1

      As far as i'm concerned 5 degrees in celsius or fahrenheit isn't really that bad. Living in Alaska for a few years or more kind of skews your perception of temperature.

    3. Re:Why are kids today so weak? by RxScram · · Score: 1

      Well, perhaps it's due to living in California for the last couple of years, but 5 degrees (Celsius) or 41 degrees (Fahrenheit) seems damned cold to me!

  48. OMG wont someone think of the childrens!!1111one by Demoulous · · Score: 1

    I can see a similar headline in a few years. Only with the children being taken to school in an automated exo suit that is also a self driving SUV. All so little jimmy and jane are 100% safe all the time and never put in any challenging or character building situations ever. I mean god forbid kids find out how to deal with life's downsides at all. Lets push them into the world thinking its all sugar coated and safe 100% of the time, then watch them go psychotic once they experience the death of a loved one as they are totally emotionally retarded.

  49. Nonsense by miceliux · · Score: 1

    You'll get ......... stupid adults!

  50. A Modest Proposal . . . by Orange+Crush · · Score: 5, Funny

    Not only is this a brilliant idea from a liability standpoint, preventing children from engaging in these sorts of dangerous games can reduce bruising and other possible damage during their critical growth period.

    I propose that schoolchildren not be allowed to move at all. They should be hung via sturdy cloth from the ceiling, thus immobilized, and fed heartily whilst at school. I have been assured by a very knowing gentleman of my acquaintance in Boston, that a young healthy schoolchild well-fed is at elementary school age a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled . . .

    1. Re:A Modest Proposal . . . by MooUK · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... Problem is, the kid takes a lot more effort to raise to a good eating age than most other meat animals. I'd prefer to spend that effort on other things.

    2. Re:A Modest Proposal . . . by nutshell42 · · Score: 1

      Argh, fscking drop-down menus. Sry, wrong moderation =/

      --
      Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
    3. Re:A Modest Proposal . . . by locokamil · · Score: 1

      Egads! An intelligent literary allusion on Slashdot!

      Now I've seen everything.

      Kudos... the one time I wish I had mod points, I don't have them.

  51. hmm by inKubus · · Score: 1

    Now they'll replace tag with mandatory military training, for their "safety". It's really amazing what pussies kids are today. Why, I used to have to walk 3 miles in 40 below weather and we didn't just play tag, we played "smear the queer", in a field of shoddy blacktop with broken glass and children's blood from last week's game.

    If you got injured, you were an idiot. It's called natural selection. The problem is that kids are so coddled today. But what's going to happen when today's kids are in their 20's and Mom and/or Dad stops coddling them? That's right, all hell is going to break loose. Because these people have no idea how to take care of themselves, terrorism is just the beginning of the fears that have been instilled in them. These kids are afraid to go outside because their Mothers coddle them so.

    I disagree with it, but the school must be covering it's ass--probably an angry parent with the media on their side. Still, you need to let kids be kids, stop trying to teach them to read by age 1 or keep them locked at home in bed. You have to roll the dice and take a few risks to get a great kid. Otherwise, your kid is going to grow up into a psycho.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
  52. Insanity by rlp · · Score: 1

    Excessive over-protection at it's worst. I suspect either a surfeit of political correctness, or fear of legal liability or both. In either case, it's not good for the kids, or for society.

    --
    [Insert pithy quote here]
  53. An end to reason by Deluxe_247 · · Score: 1

    What the hell is the world coming to? Now kids can't play flag football and 'tag' and similar 'chasing' games for fear of liability in case the kids get hurt? Honestly - this all comes down to stupid parents who want nothing but a free meal ticket, and our legal system (in the US anyways) is fostering this type of action.

    Kids get hurt - Deal with it! Boys will be boys and all that. Now we are sheltering our children from being... children!? When will it stop? Some people will always have something to complain about and the fear of being sued is slowly turning our younger generation into zombies. Soon enough they will only be allowed to read books 'approved' by the Government (since schools have been sued over non-approved literature) and video games are things of the past for anyone under 18. The sad part is that it's not even our Government doing it to us, its ourselves!

    I wish we could screen for integrity and ethics in people before they were allowed to become parents - sure, maybe im overreacting a little bit, but everytime I read a story like this it makes me feel bad for the children that will never get to experience the fun of being a child like I did.

    Change is not ALWAYS a good thing.

    --
    Its Deluxe, son. Deluxe!
  54. In other words. . . by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1
    go outside, sit on your fat ass, don't look at or talk to the kid next to you so you don't say something the might possibly be construed as offensive or threatening and hope a bee doesn't sting you.


    Kids can't be kids any more so why bother with the child labor laws? Just let them become drones at an early age and help their family earn enough to make up for the assualt on the Middle Class.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    1. Re:In other words. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Lou Dobbs fan who can't spell worth a fuck, that's a shocker.

  55. In other news by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

    In other news, schools ban teachers from failing students and students from dating each other. . Local school cited fears of being sued for emotional distress being the primary reasons behind this bold action.

    --
    "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
  56. Welcome to the hysterical future by Rik+Sweeney · · Score: 1

    I would find this story funny, but this kind of hysteria is happening all the time in the UK. One school made children wear protective helmets when playing conkers and only yesterday a referee was criticised for telling parents that they couldn't take photos of children playing football (soccer) because it was against the child protection act.

    Will someone please think of the children?

    We can't wrap our kids up in cotton wool, part of being a kid is falling over in the playground and scraping your knees, isn't it?

  57. Elem. students should ALWAYS be supervised by davidwr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I've never been in a school that had unsupervised playground time. An adult was ALWAYS watching.

    Now, if they are banning kid-organized tag games, that's just plain silly and harmful to their mental, emotional, physical, and social development.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  58. Unbelievable. by dpaluszek · · Score: 0

    Why do this kind of crap? It only shows the deteroriation of our future generations, and they are already terrible due to parents who could care less. I pray that the next generations will wake up to this kind of items and change it.

    The ironic thing is, 30 years ago, people of that time were probably saying the same thing about future generations.

  59. Waste of time by zaren · · Score: 1

    Back in grade school, we used to get our swings as high as they could go, and then jump off at the apex. I saw guys doing windmills and spins 10, 12 feet in the air, in front of the principal. They didn't always land gracefully. My school never banned swings.

    Back in the good old days, when it used to snow, the plows would pile the snow from the parking lot right up against the edge of the playground. We played king of the hill on hills 8, 10 feet tall. My school never banned king of the hill.

    I have a very vivid memory of participating in a soccer game, and the kid with the ball took a full-power kick to the shin from someone trying to steal the ball... snapped his leg in two, right in fron of me. He won an ambulance ride to the hospital and everything. My school never banned soccer games.

    You CANNOT protect kids from hurting themselves by playing games. It is an unavoidable fact of nature. In fact, some of my best life lessons were learned due to injuries (either my own, or someone else's). What you CAN do is teach kids how to play properly, and safely, and put some effort in to WATCHING the kids. Banning them from having fun only teaches them distrust and resentment and laziness.

    --
    Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
    1. Re:Waste of time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the 4th grade one of my classmates made up a game called "Jump" for a PE class assignment. "Jump" consisted of climbing to the top of the climbing net in our school's obstacle course and then jumping off. Our teacher not only approved it, but she was also one of the first to egg me on with "C'mon jump! Don't be a chicken!" when I volunteered to "play" first. Luckily I jumped off my fair share of swings and was a avid tree climber, the height kind of freaked me out momentarily but I didn't get hurt when I jumped. Several of the other kids tried it but some of them backed out due to the height. Looking back now I see that was a pretty good lesson about knowing your limits and respecting potentially dangerous situations.

      That's just an example of some of the things we did with supervision. I remember getting together with friends on the playground after hours and doing things like playing American Gladiator jousting matches on top of the jungle gym. They might not have allowed that at school, but we just found a way to do our own thing anyway. Banning things like a simple game of tag is just going to create unimaginative, inhibited kids that have no desire to go outside to play or explore.

  60. We are a doomed species for certain. by singingjim · · Score: 1
    Let's just take more healthy activities away from our kids and encourage them to be even more sedentary than they already are. Maybe someone needs to invent wearable airbag suits for kids just in case they fall down and might possibly skin a knee even. Take a way their bikes and skateboards while we're at it.

    Seriously, we're screwed if things keep going in the direction they are currently headed.

    Without touch football at recess I would have absolutely no "glory days" stories to tell whatsoever.

    This is a case where, "Won't someone please think of the children??", actually applies as it never has before.

    --
    Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
  61. hello overreaction by TubeSteak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And no, I'm not referring to the ONE school in Boston.

    I'm talking about the millions of people who will view the acts of a few schools around the country as the downfall of American society.

    The problem these schools are seeking to resolve is this: They have all the responsibility for what happens to your little angel/monster but none of the parental immunity that comes with it.

    Little Susie gets hurt playing a neighborhood game of tag. Nobody sues her parents. If little Susie gets hurt playing a school yard game of tag. The parents can sue the school.

    The parents might not win, but who wants to be sued for something that can be avoided?

    P.S. The difference between PE & recess is that you usually have to sign a waiver f liability for athletics.

    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:hello overreaction by k_187 · · Score: 1

      you're new here aren't you? /. without overreaction is not /.

      --
      11 was a racehorse
      12 was 12
      1111 Race
      12112
    2. Re:hello overreaction by BoberFett · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Except this is not overreacting. While this single event isn't the downfall of the US, it's a part of the attitude that nobody is ever at fault, it's always somebody else. Following closely is the idea that if it's somebody elses fault, then somebody owes the victim millions of dollars. While gross negligence has always been and should continue to be actionable, there's no reason that things which are truly accidents should be.

      To take it even further, I can see how the victim mentality that our legal system has fostered has extended to areas beyond suing anybody for anything. I mean, surely our foreign policy can't be to blame for terrorist attacks. It must be Saddam's fault. Let's sue him. I mean bomb him.

    3. Re:hello overreaction by Y0tsuya · · Score: 1

      So how about signing a waver for recess? Those whose parents didn't sign a waver can go into a padded room and play with nerf stuff.

    4. Re:hello overreaction by Shadowlore · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem these schools are seeking to resolve is this: They have all the responsibility for what happens to your little angel/monster but none of the parental immunity that comes with it.

      Time for a parent to speak up here. Tell me about parental immunity versus government immunity. You spank your kid, you go to jail. Teacher spanks your kid they might get a talking to. You take on educating your kid and s/he doesn't do "well enough" on mandatory tests: you face child abuse allegations and a visit from CPS (seen it happen to others, and some states have this in their law books). Teacher "educates" your child but child fails to do "well enough" in the same (or easier) mandatory tests: well it was the kid's fault.

      So don't tell me that parents have soem sort of magical immunity when the reality of the comparison is that parents' rights have been gutted by the very people promoting and mandating the poor performing "we are not responsible for your child's education" government schools. The courts have decided that the government schools have no responsibility to teach anything.

      And this isn't limited to one or a handful of schools. It is many schools. Fellow parents report this happening at various schools from around the country. It is also a combination of this and otehr similar actions that lead to a problem. A key problem is that those making the decisions tend to not be parents and have a vested interest in parents not participating,

      It legally dates back at least to when the courts decided schools were acting 'in loco parentis' - in the place of parents. Yet even this is shirked when it suits them,

      This is all exacerbated by the so-called teacher's unions and the career path and prerequisites for advancement. None of it is performance oriented at all, and those who dedicate less and less time to teaching will advance quicker.

      I also don't belive this to be motivated by the lawsuit threat. However, if these activities are banned that means the teachers and playground supervisors have much less to do, right?

      I know there are damned good teachers. But they are the minority, a very very small minority.

      P.S. The difference between PE & recess is that you usually have to sign a waiver f liability for athletics.
      Have yet to see a waiver need to be signed for playing any sport in PE classes. If you don't sign a waiver for your child to be in PE athletics do they get excused from PE? After all, PE is athletics.

      --
      My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
    5. Re:hello overreaction by trawg · · Score: 1
      The problem these schools are seeking to resolve is this: They have all the responsibility for what happens to your little angel/monster but none of the parental immunity that comes with it.


      Great summary of the issue.

      To solve problems like this it basically must be legislated that schools aren't liable for things unless it is as a result of a direct act of negligence. Letting kids play at lunch time isn't negligent (I'd argue that it's almost criminal to take that freedom away). Leaving a board with nails in it in the middle of the playground after a contstruction job is.

    6. Re:hello overreaction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There were no waivers for P.E. when I went to school AND it was required. Plus the state required some fitness program which I recall as being pretty pathetic.

  62. "contact sport" by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1
    Tag is a contact sport the way shaking somebody's hand is assault.

    Recess, or what's left of it, is rapidly becoming a period where children are permitted to trudge around in a circle once their doctor signs a note.

    Anybody wonder why the U.S. is becoming a nation of fatasses?

    --
    This is not my sandwich.
    1. Re:"contact sport" by theonetruekeebler · · Score: 1
      Okay, an elaboration and theory:

      I'm starting to believe that the reason American children are unhealthy fatasses is not videogames or television, but fear. For fear of injury, assault, or lawsuit, parents and teachers won't let children out of their immediately supervised play areas, and all of these are either small or indoors. Mommy won't let junior walk down the street for fear of child molesters. The McMansion's fenced-in back yard is the size of a pool table. The school board won't let junior play outside for fear of injury. Playground equipment is being replaced with smooth-cornered ergonomic junk. Swing sets are gone. See-saws are gone. The low branches of trees are sawed off. Bicycles? In this traffic? Pretty much anything requiring or allowing a child to expend energy is gone.

      And it's all because of raving paranoia fuelled by media reports and overzealous politicians. Fifty million children in this country, and if one of them --- a photogenic white one, anyway -- gets killed it makes national news. An Amber Alert goes out in Anaheim and a mother in Topeka decides to drive her kid to get ice cream instead of sending him out on his bicycle.

      And the sad thing is I can see myself being the same way around my kids, suckered in by the marketing of fear.

      --
      This is not my sandwich.
    2. Re:"contact sport" by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Tag is a contact sport the way shaking somebody's hand is assault.

      Hey, that gives me an idea...

  63. The Wonders of the Legal World...gotta love torts by TheGrit · · Score: 1

    Isn't great we live in a world where doctors have to move to different states or stop practicing altogether and now schools are afraid of liability issues with recess! Punitive damages and personal liablity suits as a whole have gotten beyond out of control. Good luck getting that tort reform bill through congress, maybe if they tack it onto a defense/homeland/national /whatever they are callin it these days/ security bill. Thank god for lawyers....I can't wait for whats next.

  64. Can't normal people get on with their lives? by cowscows · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems that we hear about two kinds of parents now-a-days. Ones who neglect their children so completely that the kids lose all sense of perspective and discipline and then go out and hurt innocent people. On the other hand there's a bunch of ridiculously over-protective parents who try to coddle their children every step of their lives, freaking out if the most minor of misfortune comes across their precious future.

    As is often the case, the majority of average, decent, middle of the road parents/children are dealing with the consequences of vocal extremes. On one hand, we have unsupervised kids causing all sorts of problems, and resulting zero-tolerence policies in schools where even a minor, accidental infraction can cause a serious interruption in the education even of a model student. On the other hand, we have over-supervised kids whos parents live in so much fear for their child that neither that kid nor their classmates can act like children are supposed to act.

    A normal child with decent parents will take some bumps and bruises as he/she grows up, and will end up stronger for it. While getting hurt is not pleasant, it's often an excellent learning experience. You learn that not only will certain things result in pain, but also that bad things are going to happen in your life, and you need to learn to cope with it. Denying a child the chance to learn such things is not good parenting.

    --

    One time I threw a brick at a duck.

  65. Homeschool ..... by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Homeschool .... it's the only way to get an education these days.

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    1. Re:Homeschool ..... by no_pets · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Mod parent up. As a single, childless adult I used to view the homeschooled kids as the oddities but from what I've seen of the homeschooled kids that I know and the rules, killings, crap that goes on in public schools I'm starting to see it the other way around.

      --
      "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
    2. Re:Homeschool ..... by tokenhillbilly · · Score: 1

      Or as Buffy the Vampire Slayer says:

      "It's not just for scary religious people anymore."

    3. Re:Homeschool ..... by singingjim · · Score: 1

      Holy crap! That's a scary thought. I hope you were being sarcastic.

      --
      Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
    4. Re:Homeschool ..... by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

      You might be surprised by how many teachers homeschool their kids .... or you might not.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    5. Re:Homeschool ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. It's just a sad truth. ;-(

      Our kids go to the best school in the best school district in the
      state of Oregon. And the reason the school gets best grades on state tests
      is that majority of parents either teach their kids at home or sign them
      up to afterschool education programs like Kumon or do both.

      It is a very sad truth: the school gets excellent grades despite all the efforts of school officials to prevent that from happening.

    6. Re:Homeschool ..... by BoberFett · · Score: 1

      Sadly, I'm slowly beginning to agree.

      My ex-wife and her husband are home schooling my daughter, and originally I wasn't too keen on the idea. They live in pretty decent school district, and I figured the socialization aspect of public school would be good for her. More and more though, I'm starting to wonder if school is really the best place for a child to become socialized. I'm beginning to think there's enough exposure to other kids through organized sports, clubs and extra-curricular activities that public school just isn't needed.

    7. Re:Homeschool ..... by dr_dank · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I can see homeschool working for parents who dedicate themselves to teaching as best they can, providing a reasonable structure, exposing the kids to a wide variety of subjects and experiences, as well as socializing them with other kids.

      Too many parents use homeschool as a means to get their kids away from the "godless liberals and queers" in public school and teach them that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church and little else outside of religious dogma.

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    8. Re:Homeschool ..... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 1
      More and more though, I'm starting to wonder if school is really the best place for a child to become socialized.
      Children do not go to school to be socialised. They go there to be anti-socialised.
      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    9. Re:Homeschool ..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have to agree with you. I was getting poor grades in school, so I was homeschooled. I was homeschooled for 2 years, for like second and third grade. I don't remember it perfectly. I did get good grades while being homeschooled by my Mom. Yeah, I know what mothers are like, but I did do great on all the tests that were also given to the kids at school. When I returned to school I continued to get As, and knew much more than the other kids about stuff they were taught last year.

    10. Re:Homeschool ..... by avatar4d · · Score: 1

      I think this may be a situation regarding the best of two evils. On one hand you have the BS that has been talked about throughout this thread. On the other hand you have homeschooling. The latter can eleviate the problems that have been discussed here (although this is actually one of the problems [over-protective parenting] that we have mentioned already).

      One thing to think about regarding home schooling is the lack of interactivity with other people. This can cause anti-social behavior later in life or just a lack in understanding how to interact and communicate with others. I don't have children, but I know that if/when I do I will be looking to put them in a private school of some sort. In the meantime I will be lobbying for the privatization of schools. Then you can choose where you want to send your children and not have to pay wasteful taxes on the schools that do this stupid crap.

      http://www.lp.org/yourturn/archives/000397.shtml is a decent article that talks a bit about public vs private schools.

      --
      Confucius say: "Man who associates with smarter men than himself is smarter than the men he associates with."
    11. Re:Homeschool ..... by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Though to be fair, your kid's not gonna be playing tag if you homeschool them either. There's *a lot* to be said for the interaction that going to school provides that you don't get even if you're being mentored with just 5 or 10 other kids.

    12. Re:Homeschool ..... by wrightam · · Score: 1

      Actually, that arguement against homeschooling is a little out of date in many areas. Some areas have organized group events for homeschooled students that parents can use to give their children chances to socialize with other kids. Some of these groups do things like museum visits, dances, and even allow the parents a place to pool their resources as far as lesson plans and to help make sure that they understand what they are teaching their children.

    13. Re:Homeschool ..... by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      Socializing? Pfft! I was homeschooled all my life, and now I'm halfway through a university degree (which I'm taking through distance-education from Athabasca University), and I've never had any problem with socializing. Besides, Canada is too socialistic as it is.

      Wait a minute... I'm posting this on Slashdot.
      Maybe you're right.. I obviously *did* miss out on critical socialization when I was young!
      Thanks a lot, Mom and Dad.

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    14. Re:Homeschool ..... by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      > Too many parents use homeschool as a means to get their kids away from the "godless liberals and queers" in public school and teach them that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church and little else outside of religious dogma. Wow, talk about throwing around wild assertions and accusations. Where's the documentation for that? I'd really love to see it. I was homeschooled all through elementary and high school, and am now into my third year of Bach Sci in Computing from Athabasca University (4-year degree).. I didn't have any trouble at all adjusting to the difficulty level of university courses, so I can only assume that means I had a fairly good education in terms of math and language, at the very least. Yes, my parents taught me about christianity (and furthermore, even now that I'm old enough and plenty well-educated enough to walk away from it if I so choose, I don't so choose), and yes, I happen to think the theory of evolution is claptrap (and furthermore, I can't understand why scientists support it - it's pure imagination and science fiction, from what I can see), but guess what? I can still do Calculus, know where the Illium and Sphenoid are located, understand a binary search algorithm, and know three or so programming langues quite well. All without being a member of the Church of Our Holy Order of St. Darwin, or ever having set foot in a public school except to visit its library or clean it (my sister worked as a janitor for awhile, and I helped out a few times). If you want to make accusations about weird religious ideas influencing parents to homeschool merely to get their kids away from public schools (and by the way, I can think of a few good reasons to keep kids out of public schools that have nothing to do with religion - though many have already ben mentioned), please, at least back it up with a little bit of data.

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    15. Re:Homeschool ..... by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      Argh! I meant to hit preview on that last post, and obviously it would have been a god idea. Let me try again:

      > Too many parents use homeschool as a means to get their kids away from the "godless liberals and queers" in public school and teach them that Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs to church and little else outside of religious dogma.

      Wow, talk about throwing around wild assertions and accusations. Where's the documentation for that? I'd really love to see it. No, really, I would.

      I was homeschooled all through elementary and high school, and am now into my third year of Bach Sci in Computing from Athabasca University (4-year degree).. I didn't have any trouble at all adjusting to the difficulty level of university courses, so I can only assume that means I had a fairly good education in terms of math and language, at the very least.

      Yes, my parents taught me about christianity [protestant/presbyterian, not Roman Catholic, by th way] (and furthermore, even now that I'm old enough and plenty well-educated enough to walk away from it if I so choose, I don't so choose), and yes, I happen to think the theory of evolution is claptrap (and furthermore, I can't understand why scientists support it - it's pure imagination and science fiction, from what I can see), but guess what?

      I can still do Calculus, know where the Illium and Sphenoid are located, understand a binary search algorithm, and know three or so programming langues quite well.

      All without being a member of the Church of Our Holy Order of St. Darwin, or ever having set foot in a public school except to visit its library or clean it (my sister worked as a janitor for awhile, and I helped out a few times).

      If you want to make accusations about weird religious ideas influencing parents to homeschool merely to get their kids away from public schools (and by the way, I can think of a few good reasons to keep kids out of public schools that have *nothing* to do with religion - though many have already been mentioned), please, at least back it up with a little bit of data.

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    16. Re:Homeschool ..... by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      (NOTE: This is a reply to two of the replies to the parent, not to the parent itself. I didn't feel like posting this twice, once for each of those replies, so here goes.)

      Venerable Vegetable (1003177) said:
      > School is where you learn to interact with the real, big (sometimes painful) world, you don't learn that at home.

      avatar4d (192234) said:
      > One thing to think about regarding home schooling is the lack of interactivity with other people. This can cause anti-social behavior later in life or just a lack in understanding how to interact and communicate with others.

      Argh, I hate how many people buy his one (not to mention how old an argument it is - my parents heard it alot when they were talking about homeschooling their kids in the late 80s). Public school is *not* like anything else in the real world.

      And furthermore, when you're a kid is not *supposed* to be when you learn all about the bad things that happen in the world. There's enough time to learn about all that later - and besides, what on earth makes you think they won't learn it at home? I mean, except maybe if they have no friends or siblings.

      School is an artificial society; all the kids' friends are exactly the same age as them, and they hardly ever mix with anybody from a grade level lower or higher (Come on, I've never been in public school, but don't tel me all those sitcoms are wrong - it's uncool to mix with lower lifeforms, i.e. kids in a lower grade, correct?).

      Where do you get that in the real world? Most of the time, you'll be interacting with a much broader group of people than in school, which sort of knocks out the 'public school is a broader experience than homeschool' idea - *neither* of them are representative of 'the real world', if you want to think of it that way.

      And, what, being home schooled means they won't have friends (and/or relatives) to acquaint themselves with? Actually, it's much more likely (from my experience at least) that they'll learn how to interact with a lot of different people - kids who are younger and older than them, and adults of varying ages - when they make friends and meet people *outside* of school (extended family, neighbourhood kids, church, whatever) than when they meet people *in* school. Anyone ever thought that maybe the reason little Johnny is disrespectful to his grandad might actually be in part because he has no idea how to act towards him, because he never spends any time around anyone but his peers (who are all, let's face it, a bunch of dumb kids like himself ;) )?

      And here's a really good one for you. When are kids most likely to do really stupid things? Uhmm.. when they're with other kids around their age, without any supervision, right? So, I have a good idea! Let's put all the kids of the same age together, all day long, and of course they have some supervision, but the supervisor doesn't actually have any power (no abuse in our schools! *shocked look* how could you even *suggest* that teachers be allowed to spank kids? *Parents* shouldn't even spank kids, you brute!). *Then* see what happens!

      *Sigh*.

      Why do you expect an ignorant (by nature) kid to learn more by spending all day around a bunch of other ignorant kids than he will by spending all day (or at least, a larger portion of it) around his parents, who are, I hope, at least a little less ignorant than the kids at school?

      Finally, if you can't get along with your siblings, how do you think you're going to ever get along with anyone *else* in the world? It logically follows that if you *can* get along with your siblings, you should at least have a good start at figuring out how to treat other people. So, yes, you can learn how to get along with people at home.

      And.. by the way.. I know a lot of kids who were (and some still are being) homeschooled, and I haven't found many at all of them to be hard to get along with, nor have I found them to be at all anti-social. (Even the geek and semi-goth ones ;) ) In fa

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    17. Re:Homeschool ..... by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      pfft.. have you ever heard of neighbourhods? There are other kids out there, beyond your yard, waiting to be discovered...

      Anyway, you could always just have some more kids for the older ones to play with - that worked for my family ;)

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    18. Re:Homeschool ..... by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

      The public schools call socialization "talking in class" and they discourage it.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
    19. Re:Homeschool ..... by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

      home schooling is the lack of interactivity with other people.

      I think you would be surprised by how much time home-schoolers spend outside their school dealing with people who aren't the same age as themselves. Don't believe the myths; do your own research.

      --
      Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  66. No way this happened in Boston by gillrock · · Score: 1

    This totally has to have come out of the People's Republic of Cambridge. Cambridge: The City that listens to 1000 viewpoints and satisfies them all. It's definately not the city I grew up in.

    I'm actually surprised tag hasn't been reduced to that scene in The Simpsons when they were force to wear school uniforms.

    "Tag.......you're it."
    "Now you are the one who is it."

    We're headed for it folks....here it comes!!! Americans will all be 40 year old virgins soon sitting on our couches singing 'I'm an Oscar Meyer weener'.

    WHAT NEXT!!!!!!!?????????!!!!!!!

    --
    "...the shortest distance between two points may be straight line, but it is by no means the most interesting."
  67. Americans can be pathetic by xaoslaad · · Score: 1

    When I was stationed on Okinawa, the Chaplain had regular volunteer visits to local school where us Marines could help teach English to young students. On one occasion less than a year ago, we got to the class room which started out empty. The bell rang, and within seconds an almost literal whirlwind of students came running in chasing each other and playing all kinds of games. I was amazed at how rough, and yet how jovial and friendly all the horse play remained at the same time. At least one kid took a very hard fall on the floor, another busted his head very hard into a wall... the teachers never stopped any of this. The kids looked happy, healthy, energetic, and stress free. It is a far cry from the morbidly obese, stressed out, candy munching, video gaming, slothful children of our country. America is falling behind other countries, and not just in math skills. Our litigious nature is our own downfall. It seriously needs to stop, for the sake of the countries future...

  68. In other news... by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

    Eenie meenie moinie moe, catch a nigger by the toe, if she loses sleep from emotional stress due to your racist nursery rhyme you you will lose $3 million.

    Vendors of murder simulators need to be hanged and left to swing as a warning to others who may Bully our children.

    Students must do the responsible thing and take their beating, even when backed into a corner by another student whooping their ass with a baseball bat. Remember we have a zero tolerance policy here and any hitting back will result in expulsion.

    What other stupid shit have I heard in the past 10 years....

  69. Memories... by daffmeister · · Score: 1

    I broke my collarbone in fourth grade when heavily tagged by Beth Hemmings, the cutest girl in the class. Happiest moment of my primary school career.

  70. Wuss by dlhm · · Score: 1

    I'm a nerd and my child will be called a tough guy, by default, just cause he can take a little pain without crying. I remember trading pucnches when I was in school.. I guess thats been rules illegal too, if you can't even play tag. America is Doomed if our children become to afraid of pain and harm that they won't take risk..

    --
    Ad eundum quo nemo ante iit!
  71. Generation of Wimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We are living a sheltered life of luxury without any difficulties. Without realizing there is a big bad world out there, we're going to get hurt badly. Look at the Romans... the barbarians destroyed their civilization which started the dark ages. We're heading towards a new dark ages because we won't be strong enough to keep away the barbarian hordes from the middle east.

    We can't play tag because we might get a few scrapes and bruises, but they're willing to become suicide bombers. Kind of makes you wonder who'd actually win in a war?

  72. More time for Food... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heaven forbid that these kids should run around. Exercise is now considered dangerous?! Exercise has ALWAYS been
    dangerous to some extent. Now instead of these kids running around and trying to stay healthy, they are just going
    to stand there. Great! No wonder this country has an obesity problem.

    Always being afraid of getting sued for liable, will soon translate into abhorent health care costs when people continue
    to die from heart disease at 30!
    PLUS, how many people don't have sufficient health care!?

  73. Patheticism by CarnivoreMan · · Score: 0

    When I was in elementary school they banned all Nerf toys.. we had been playing with a foam Nerf Boomarang and I think it hit someone.... as a result schools ban-stick smote us and our playground fun.


    School isnt a place for fun or physcical activity anyway. Students should each be in padded rooms with no hard surfaces or sharp corners. Any "writing" needs to be dont by means of voice recognition to avoid usage of sharp writing utensils. Reading is done from a screen flush in the wall covered by a thick transparent gel coating for maximum cushioning incase of bodily contact.

  74. Do they know what happens when kids collide? by antifoidulus · · Score: 1

    They aren't like 80 year olds, they get up and they go back to doing whatever it was they were doing. I guess the added mass coming from the childhood obesity I keep hearing about would give them more momentum than the days of old, the reduced top speed more than makes up for it :P

  75. I see this as the reason UFC is so popular by zomper514 · · Score: 0

    With so many in America taking the route of wanting to put kids in padded rooms so they can not hurt themselves or each other, the backlash from what I would call "normal" America is giving rise to the popularity of the UFC.

    This can be seen from the following article.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=bu ckheit/060905

    If kids are not allowed to play tag, where does it end?

  76. In my day.. by nrlightfoot · · Score: 1

    Back when I was in elementary school, we used to play tackle football during recess, and we didn't really get hurt that I can recall. The school did make us change to two hand touch part of the way through the school year because they were afraid someone would get hurt.

    --
    what sig?
    1. Re:In my day.. by MooUK · · Score: 1

      My primary school didn't have much grass space for use at lunchtime - the main field was a minute's walk down a path from the main playgrounds. Hence they banned tackle football on the concrete playgrounds.

      When kids were allowed on the grass, tackling and so forth happened as normal.

  77. Back in MY Day... by afternoon_nap · · Score: 1

    we'd play army dodge ball... sometimes at very close range... with golf balls.

    We also played some rough soccer at times, but never were we told to not play tag. Falling down was just part of the day.

    It's the parent's job at the playground to help pick the kid up off the ground, tell the kid to shake off the dirt, and get back in the game. After a while they learn to pick themselves up and won't bother crying in your direction. They just get back in the game. For my four year old son this policy has saved us a lot of kleenex.

    If your kid doesn't get stitches by the age of 12 then you better buy some rainbow bumper stickers.

    1. Re:Back in MY Day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh those soccer games. Now those were things that had my mother seen them she could rightfully complain like quoted in the summary, but not about near collisions.

      Anything's legal soccer, that's a game that builds character. And puts a large percentage of players hurt on the sideline by the end, too. Good times.

    2. Re:Back in MY Day... by An+ominous+Cow+art · · Score: 1

      Golf balls? Don't make me laugh. In *my* day, we used spiked softballs made of depleted uranium, covered in sewage, and if you flinched, all the other kids called you a sissy. *That* is how character is built.

      Kids these days...

  78. right, good idea by dilvish_the_damned · · Score: 1

    Right, we should only allow kids to learn from safe, approved methods. In this fashion they can learn not to do stupid things that can get them hurt when they are 18, then it will be their problem, and no one will have to take responsibility.

    Its safer for everyone. Everyone but the kid.

    --
    I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
  79. Setting themselves up for... by just_another_sean · · Score: 1

    ... a lawsuit by doing this. The more rules they try to make to cover these situations the more they highlight the potentially harmful situations they haven't decided to cover. Unless they make rules to cover every conceivable situation there will always be something a kid can do to hurt themselves. And if they could cover ever possibility (doubtful!) they are looking at a discipline nightmare where kids are eventually expelled for being kids.

    They'd be much better off making parents sign an indemnity stating that any child hurt during any activity on school property that is not related to a specific school activity is not the responsibility of the school system. Of course IANAL so I'm sure it could be worded better then that...

    --
    Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
  80. WT-Freekin-F? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our stupid government needs to update our corrupt and stupid legal system. White collar criminals walk easy after ripping off the hard work of thousands of families, while schools get sued because that clumsy kid fell down and banged his knee. WTF is this world coming to?

  81. I'm waaaay ahead of this... by shoolz · · Score: 1

    For years I've been sending my child to school in the equivalent of a giant hamster ball made of thick foam. He'll never have to worry about getting hurt or getting a girl pregnant.

  82. And it shows on Thanksgiving by netbuzz · · Score: 1

    This is why the North Attleboro High School football team stomps all over their coddled counterparts from Attleboro High School virtually every Thanksgiving Day. ... NAHS, '75.

  83. Old news in the Bay Area... by Coward+Anonymous · · Score: 1

    A local elementary school I know of has had anti-tag rules for a while already in the SF Bay Area. I imagine it is not the only one.

  84. I'm a parent, and my son has bruises. by RingDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Someone call child services. I play "chase" with my 2 1/2 year old son. We bounce on the couch. We jump on the bed. We have tickle fights.

    In the last week my son has earned him self probably 5 new bruises, a stubbed toe, a face plant on the coffee table, and too many trips, flops, crashes, bangs, ouchies, and other bumps to mention. Mom and Dad are right there, we intervien if he gets into a dangerous situation (ie: playing in the kitchen when we're cooking, climbing the back of the couch/chairs, playing with other heavy/electrified/hot objects, etc...) but for the most part, we let him develop his strengths and learn and challange his limitations.

    It's not much unlike my own childhood. In fact, I would challange any one of those board members to imagine their own childhood with out such games. I would also challange them to present any statistically meaningful data that would indicate a link between tag and childhood death or long term disability.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:I'm a parent, and my son has bruises. by ScottyKUtah · · Score: 1

      After they stop at your house they can stop at mine. Two of my four love the tackles, throws, launches, etc we do in the living room and around the house. My son (1.5 years) favorite game is "jump on dad from a great height". He's received his share of bruises, and so have I. Thanks to my son, I'm a proud member of the "busted nose" club.

      We'll continue to play rough in our house, the kids love it, and I've noticed that I'm actually losing a few pounds chasing them all around. It's good for everybody.

      As for them getting older, homeschooling is the way to go.

      --
      He who laughs last is at 300 baud.
  85. and the next generation... by blindd0t · · Score: 1

    ...will be a bunch of panzy asses at this rate! Will parents stop their kids from helping their father work on the car as a learning experience because they might get hurt? Will they not allow them to use computers and watch any TV at all because it might hurt their eyes? For that matter, maybe they should stop them from reading their textbooks for too long beause it too causes eye strain. What a bunch of fools! Kids need to get hurt to learn. I couldn't imagine life without getting hurt. I broke bones, dislocated joints, strained ligaments, and have been knocked out a couple of times, and I still function quite well if I must say so myself. While I agree the parents may want to avoid serious injuries like I got as a kid (I've been to the ER 11 times and have had 2 ambulance trips in 23 years (most of the ER trips were for XRays though)), what the heck is wrong with a bruise, cut, or the occasional freak accident where a collar-bone is broken by a baseball bat or something along those lines. Loosen up a little and let your kid learn the hard way some times, geeze!

  86. I don't care... by l3v1 · · Score: 1

    ...but I have to let this out...

    Oh. My. Friggin. God. Some people are stupid to such extent I can't comprehend with my small brain. Just trying makes me burst out in laughs and cry with falling tears at the same time.

    If you people - you know, not you, but you there who make these stupidities - now start making these regulations, then add another one: create an artifial island in the middle of the Pacific, surrounded with ten foot high walls for you kind and deport yourselves thankyouverymuch.

    It seems there exist martians, after all. They transformed, and look like us and walk among us. They just lost their brains in the transformation process.
     

    --
    I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.
  87. avoiding natural selection by AceJohnny · · Score: 1

    I say, let them go no holds barred and let natural selection do its work!

    (original quote is, I believe, "Let's remove all the safety labels and let natural selection do its work!" by I-can't-remember)

    God, I'm not even ironic. It's sad that stupid people have power enough through suing to provoke this kind of action.

    I'll expect my kids to come home bruised, having learnt important things, not sheltered and pampered, ready to be later eaten up by the first passing fox/politician. But then, I don't currently live in the US of A..

    --
    Misleading titles? Inflammatory blurbs? Keep in mind that Slashdot is a tabloid.
    1. Re:avoiding natural selection by geekoid · · Score: 1

      And when someone 25% bigger then your kid slams your kids head into the ground 7 or 8 times?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:avoiding natural selection by rotide · · Score: 1

      Are you serious? Are you talking about bullies, or someone not following the rules of tag/touch football and basically being a bully? So, you apparently ARE talking about bullies. What, and please explain this, does tag/touch football have to do with bullies? I had issues with bullies like most other children and it had zero to do with playground games. If a bully wants to be a bully, they bully you. Banning childrens games does nothing to curb your fears. Wake up.

  88. Attleboro != Boston by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

    Attleborro is basically next to Rhode Island. Clue to poster: there are parts of Massachusetts that don't lie within Boston.

  89. Unsupervised?? by no_pets · · Score: 1

    I thought recess always had a teacher supervising the playground. So, how can games of chase/tag be unsupervised?

    --
    "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
  90. Stupid people by Kollin · · Score: 1

    This will really help in the war against childhood obesity.

  91. smells like social communism by b-l4ke · · Score: 1

    Just another attempt at crushing any competitive spirit in kids these days. Soon they won't even bother marking tests or assignments. In some schools up here, markers are not allowed to use red ink when marking as it may hurt the children's feelings. I figure if you're stupid, get used to feeling bad!

    --
    http://kitties.b-log.ca
  92. Ti ruoy gat by Moken · · Score: 1

    How long until one of the kids forks tag and invents "gat" to get around restriction?

  93. Peanut Butter Too by spacemky · · Score: 1

    This is complete crap. I was talking to a coworker just the other day about public schools here have banned kids from bringing in peanut butter & jelly sandwiches in fear of the many kids who are allergic of peanuts. Kids need to get out there and get banged around a bit. It's a tough world.

    --
    640YB ought to be enough for anybody.
  94. Safety by MrShaggy · · Score: 1

    Safety Meetings... no-one works, no-one gets hurt.

    --
    I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
  95. safer and less active by WickedLogic · · Score: 1

    The school safer from liability? ... wait until someone sues due to encouraged inaction leading to being overweight.

  96. I would guess I'm a bit barbaric by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have my 14yo son, 12yo daughter, 9yo daughter and 7yo son doing Hapkido maybe 4 times a week. If there's one thing they can do is dish out and take pain and keep going

  97. I for one by davidwr · · Score: 1

    I for one, welcome the chance to walk all over our new Wimpy New World overlords.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  98. Need to go further by NorbMan · · Score: 1

    Recess is "a time when accidents can happen," said Willett Elementary School Principal Gaylene Heppe, who approved the ban.

    Sounds like recess needs to be banned. Replace it with some visualization exercises designed to simulate the stimulation of actual playtime.

    Actually, any time a kid walks he could trip and fall. Issue wheelchairs for all the kids

  99. protect from everything by baomike · · Score: 1

    prepared for nothing.

    You learn by running into things.
    The parents job is to make sure the collision isn't too damaging.

  100. Just to be sure... by Slovenian6474 · · Score: 1

    ...schools have also banned walking due to the fact that some kids may trip and bruise their knees. Instead they are all pushed around in little carts fully equipped with front, side, and rear collision airbags, 5 point seat harness, and a pre-programmed McDonald's call button. We are trying to protect these kids from the real world. Even if it costs them their health in an already overly obese country.

    But seriously, i'd rather my kids get bumps and scrapes as children than grow up unhealthily overweight due to lack of exercise. Out of curiousity, i wonder what those kids do play during recess...

  101. Near-collisions? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Now its been a few years since i've played, maybe the rules have changed.. but I remember running away from each other.

  102. It's the evangelists ... by really? · · Score: 1

    It's their way of trying to fight back against Darwin and his silly theories.

    --

    "Consistency is contrary to nature, contrary to life. The only completely consistent people are the dead." A. Huxley
  103. I'm Glad They're Doing This by eno2001 · · Score: 1

    I remember all too well getting beaten up and slammed really hard during battle ball. That was one of the worst traumas I ever experienced as a kid. To make matters worse, when I got glasses in the 4th grade, that made me an even better target. Kids would try really hard to hit me in the face just so they could mess up my glasses. I don't see why anyone would allow kids to play such a painful and psychologically traumatic game. The same thing with volleyball. I remember when it was my turn to serve and I had difficulty getting the ball to even go over the net or it would go off to the side. All the kids on my team would take it way too seriously and get angry at me. It was fucking gym class for crying out loud!!! They'd yell at me, call me "wimp" or "idiot" and just generally were horrible to me. I didn't deserve that for just a game. I'd prefer if they banned volleyball too. I still wish basketball was the sport I originally thought it was: You all form an orderly line and take turns trying to make a shot into the basket with every person getting three turns. The person who gets the most shots in after several successive tries in, wins. That way it's more about skill than anything else. All these "macho" posturing games really had me shivering in terror on gym days. Fortunately, I have a daughter, and we don't (yet) expect them to be "macho" when it comes to sports. I still don't get the reason why kids are so mean when you don't have any physical coordination or athletic skill. If the tables were turned and instead of gym class, there was brain glass once a week... and the smart kids got to get angry and disparage the jocks for not understanding the command line, I think the other side would get a taste of how it feels.

    --
    -"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
    1. Re:I'm Glad They're Doing This by Hubbell · · Score: 2, Funny

      Can I get 2 LOL's and a side of ROFL with that?

    2. Re:I'm Glad They're Doing This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said the lonely wimp: "Stupid people!!! I shake my fist at thee!!!"

  104. land of wussies by moankey · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Have we become New France?

    1. Re:land of wussies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In France, kids are allowed to play touch games. No wonder we're better than you guys.

      - a French guy

    2. Re:land of wussies by moankey · · Score: 1

      touche

  105. Oh, good Lord! by jrjarrett · · Score: 1

    Please. Like so many other comments have stated, getting hurt while playing is a normal part of growing up. It strengthens kids. Witness studies that show trying to protect children from the dirty, dirty world is creating generations of people who are allergic to everything. http://www.parenthood.com/articles.html?article_id =4230

  106. That'll Learn 'Em by umbrellasd · · Score: 1

    Teach those kids to live in fear and except restricted freedom while their young and impressionable, yes sir!

    1. Re:That'll Learn 'Em by Bassman59 · · Score: 1
      Teach those kids to live in fear and except (SIC) restricted freedom while their (SIC) young and impressionable, yes sir!

      While I agree with your sentiment, I think you spent too much time playing tag and not enough time studying grammar and spelling.

  107. Re:Attleboro, MA Boston, MA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, Attleboro, being on the Rhoad Island border, is actually nuch closer to Quahog RI than Boston.

  108. Sad state of public schooling by regular_gonzalez · · Score: 1

    And people wonder why home schooling is growing by leaps and bounds.

    --
    Due to circumstances beyond my control, I am master of my fate and captain of my soul.
  109. Re:Attleboro, MA Boston, MA by MS-06FZ · · Score: 1

    Yeah, apparently it's closer to Providence than to Boston...

    Still, I hate that dumb shit like this is happening so close to home...

    --
    ---GEC
    I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
  110. Re:Don't say "you're it"... by SlowMovingTarget · · Score: 1

    In order to play tag now you have to say "I waive all liability, tag, you're the party of the first part." Kind of like saying "They're coming right for us," before pulling the trigger while hunting.

  111. This is just scary by GweeDo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I can't believe crap like this actually happens. I have an 8 (almost 9) month old that is pulling herself up on everything now. She has lost her balance more than once and taken a tumble. Should I remove my coffe table/fireplace/couch/ect just so she won't hurt herself? No. She needs to pull herself up so she can learn to walk. She also needs to learn that letting go can be a bad idea from time to time. I'm not going to let her really hurt herself, but a little tumble now and again isn't bad for any kid.

    1. Re:This is just scary by Lemmeoutada+Collecti · · Score: 1

      Like my dad used to say, "Baby bums are padded for a reason, and that reason is not sitting."

      --

      You can have it fast, accurate, or pretty. Pick any 2.
  112. This isn't new... by mybadluck22 · · Score: 1

    My elementary school banned tag ever since I went there, which was 12 years ago. They also assigned us play areas. We could play kickball, basket ball, handball, or volleyball, but it was their choice which one we played and where. If we did something else, we were told to sit on a bench for the remainder of recess or lunch.

    --
    If I could rearrange the keyboard, I'd put U and I together.
  113. Guessing no more smear the queer either? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I grew up north of boston and we played a lovely game called smear the queer aka kill the man with the ball. Now that was a game. 15 kids trying to kick the living shit out of you while you run around with a ball. We also played full contact football and rugby through the 6th grade. Nobody cared, you got hurt...oh well go to the nurse. This was a very affluent area too.

    The school administration tried to stop us from playing unsupervised baseball after someone got hit in the head with a bat playing catcher. They banned bats and gloves from recess. So we used big sticks from the woods, tennis balls, and our bare hands. Man I wish I was a kid again, but not in this stupid litigious soceity we live in now.

  114. so when... by Masque+Noir · · Score: 0

    ... are we going to see the first case of a kid getting expelled for playing tag...??

    "Dear parents,
    It has come to our attention that your child has recently taken part willfully in what the kids call a "game of tag", which as you might now is now banned from our school as a very violent and dangerous activity. We are very concerned about little Billy's behaviour, as he seemed to enjoy running around and performing near collision stunts with other mischievous children. We had at least 4 bad cases of collision last year due to tag alone and this got to stop, so we have no choice to kick your kid out of school as an exemplary measure. We recommend that you pay attention to your child activities as they might involve other violent things like touch football, hide and seek or, god help us, playing doctor with the little girl next door.

    Yours etc..
    A very concerned principal"

    Bleh... wrong solutions to problems that doesn't even exist..

  115. Erm... by pr0nbot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You ban "unsupervised contact sports". By definition, no one is supervising. So how do you enforce the ban?

    1. Re:Erm... by darkstar949 · · Score: 1

      Logic like that doesn't apply when it comes to "saving the children"

    2. Re:Erm... by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      You suspend, post facto, the kids after someone gets injured. Everything remains the same, really, but the schools can at least try to say the kids were at fault. (But then, kids are always at fault and that's why you have to supervise them.) You are right in that this will do nothing.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    3. Re:Erm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Girls.
      Girls are narcs.

    4. Re:Erm... by Stripsurge · · Score: 3, Informative

      In my elementary school we had 1 or 2 volunteer parents to walk during our breaks to "watch out for our safety". While we played our game of tackle football we'd always have to keep one eye looking for the parent coming around the corner. The first person to see her would yell something to the effect of "WOW! This sure is a fun game of TOUCH football. Yup. Nothing beats playing TOUCH football on a lovely day like this." There was often one idiot that didn't quite clue in and made a huge tackle in the presence of the parent. Bye-bye football! Fscking D.K. I still hate her to this day. Luckily our principle was cool and would always give the football back at the end of the day. Admitidly there were a lot of injuries, especially to one kid. Just about every day he ended up in a puddle of tears. Playing tackle football at lunch time is one of my best memories from elementary school.

      If a kid gets caught playing tag or some other "violent" game what's the worst that could happen? If I got a call from my kids' school saying little Billy was in trouble for playing games I would reward him for not caving to stupid rules. Yes. That's right. I'd teach my child not to follow the laws. He very well could grow up and become that guy you always see J-Walking. Who knows what other new-fangled laws will come into act by the time he grows up.

    5. Re:Erm... by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      Admitidly there were a lot of injuries, especially to one kid. Just about every day he ended up in a puddle of tears. Playing tackle football at lunch time is one of my best memories from elementary school.

      So are you a bully, or a total asshole? Let me know if I've misread you.

      As mentioned by a couple posters above, while this is a radical overreaction, games like tag and dodgeball are an excuse by bullies to enact serious injuries on other kids and have an excuse to fall back on. The games themselves should continue to be played, but they need to be supervised.

    6. Re:Erm... by Stripsurge · · Score: 1

      I'm far from a bully. I'm on the nerd side of the coin, although in elemtary school I was on the fringe of being a cool kid. It wasn't until highschool that my nerdiness blossomed.

      The injuries aren't what made it fun. Is that what you thought I was saying? There was never any intent to injure people. It just happened. The injury prone kid wasn't a nerd. I think the one guy just had a low pain threshhold. It wasn't from successive dirty hits. Afterwards there weren't any unresolved hostilities towards players. "Just about every day" is a bit of an exaggeration though.

      Now that you mention it though one time the school bully played with us and went a little overboard. I remember being afraid to tackle him because I thought he might beat me up if I stopped him. Others sensed the impending trouble so we started our own game down the field a bit, rather than standing up to him. Really what 6th grader wants to stand up to the 7th grader with 2 older brothers? Luckily he neither tried joining the secondary game nor came back to try and play again. I can see your point though. Things definitely could have turned worse.

      This may sound a bit cheesy but its true. I'm from a small town and everyone has moved off to the city or beyond. When people come back here for the holidays we still get together to play our one football game of the year. Its the only time I ever see a lot of those people.

      There was however one act of classical violence out on the pitch. There were two new kids to the school and the younger brother got tackled. I guess the older brother thought there was malicious intent because he was unfamiliar with the way we played (hard but fair). Being the new kid he wasn't about to see himself or his brother get walked all over, so he punched the tackler in the face. The tackler and the punch recipiant actually became friends not too long after the event.

      Perhaps I was lucky in that issues always resolved themselves on the field. The small town factor probably helped in this sense. To alienate yourself from a whole group of people left few people left to be friends with. As for what's going on with bullying in schools nowadays I'm not up to date. I know that when I finished highschool ('99) it was pretty bad. Sickening in hindsight. I can only guess that its still getting worse... but that's a topic for another day.

    7. Re:Erm... by schon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      games like tag and dodgeball are an excuse by bullies to enact serious injuries on other kids

      Yeah, and math and chess clubs are excuses by homosexuals with no social skills to hide from girls. (See, two of us can make completely baseless and false generalizations!)

      In short, cry me a river, Poindexter.

      For the record, I played (and was good at) dodgeball, football, hockey, and most other sports.

      I also played D&D, hung out with the computer geeks, and got picked on by bullies (yes, even kids good at sports get picked on.)

      If you want people to take you seriously, try growing up a little.

    8. Re:Erm... by dubiousmike · · Score: 1

      RFID tags coupled with shock collars.

  116. An Army of Wimps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's all the USA will be able to field in a few years, if things go on like this.

    "Mommy! He shot at me! Waaaaaah!"

  117. TAG Slip up by Faith_Healer · · Score: 1

    To show you how good advertising is, I thought this was about banning TAG body spray untill I read the article. =)

    --
    Faith_Healer -- The antethsis to almost everything, and the worlds worst speller.
  118. Tagging by CODiNE · · Score: 1

    You have to admit that tagging does lead to a life of gang membership and unruly behavior. It's good that they nipped this problem in the bud! Say NO to tagging!

    Oh wait... you mean like FREEZE TAG?? I supposed PE classes will be canceled now too. After all kicking projectiles at one another or attempting to prevent one from hitting your head while dozens of kids are running around you is certainly a lot more dangerous than simply running around without the flying objects. Guess all they've got left is jumping jacks and running laps... heh, I bet teaching them a few songs to sing while doing laps might improve morale.

    --
    Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
  119. Tag Body Spray? by se7en11 · · Score: 1

    Did anyone else think this was about the Tag body spray?

    I was just thinking "No way! Those commericals where right!"

    1. Re:Tag Body Spray? by Wanado · · Score: 1
      Did anyone else think this was about the Tag body spray?
      Yep. I figured junior high boys were spraying too much of this crap on themselves so they banned it.
      --
      Somehow along the way I made a bad choice in life and now must live with 0 Karma.
  120. Same bloody thing with bikes... by Rooked_One · · Score: 1
    I'd love to see some percentages on this stuff... sure I had my fair share of spills on my bike when I was a kid but no helmet would have done much to help me out, but yet you won't see a kid under 15 without one. I swear they are just a way to make some cash.

    But thats what we get for living in a world run by people who fear the unknown so greatly. Maybe our next president will be an atheist or something... I'm not say it would be better, but different could always be good. Don't get me wrong and call this flamebait.... I've seen lots of the personal clips of our current president, and he seems like a really fun guy and i'm sure I would have liked hanging out with him... I just don't want him in the seat he is.

  121. well... by Leviance · · Score: 1

    wouldn't be an issue if people in America weren't so prone to sue..

  122. Good ole Paddleboro for ya by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah yes! Attleboro, Massachusetts. We fondly refer to the town as Paddleboro, Massachusetts after a spank club was run out of town by the cops. This happened after the cops went in undercover to spank a few butts themselves, of course.

    Google --> Paddleboro

    Anyway, Gaylene (great name) prolly developed an aversion to all forms of human contact after having her ass reddened at such an event. Her handler probably did not hear her use her safeword. There can be no other explanation.

    Welcome to America. Where you can punch the lving daylights out of someone in a boxing ring, but can't play tag on a playground - or paddle someone's ass in a warehouse in Attleboro, Massachusetts.

    Enjoy.

  123. It's the parents, not the kids. by JGuru42 · · Score: 1

    Stuff like this doesn't happen based on what any of the kids think, and it's really sad. This is more about making sure that no one gets sue happy and goes after the school, which as public schools go have way too little money to begin with

    It's bad enough having to live in a padded room once you've gone crazy but to have the world decide to pad the walls of your cage from the very start is enough to drive a person crazy in the first place.

    In learning to walk, I failed many times.
    In learning to ride a bike, I failed many times.
    In learning to program, I failed many times.
    In learning to socialize, I failed many times.
    In learning to love, I failed many times.
    But guess what? I didn't let the pain stop me and kept going and became a stronger person because of all of it, and I'd be very surprised if there isn't another person on Slashdot who can't say the same.
  124. This will create fatter kids!! by madhatter256 · · Score: 1

    Limiting contact sports in schools, ESPECIALLY inner-city schools will start to see an increase in obesity among those children as they get older.

    Those kids must be playing some rough tag if a kid ends up with a broken bone. I played those games and the worst I got were scrapes and bruises. I am fit as a whistle thanks to a childhood that involved sports, with some videogames, but just going outside and playing with neighborhood kids. All it is now is a blame game. If your kid is messed up, its not your fault, it is the schools, your parents, their friends parents, etc. This country needs to get rid of these politically correct people. Too much PC an it can destroy this country inside-out. Have some common sense!

    I will make sure that my kids have an active and healthy lifestyle. Not a lifestyle people like these want you to have where you kids sits on their ass all day and get fat and die from a heart attack at age 40.

    --
    Previewing comments are for sissies!
  125. "No touching!" by thatguywhoiam · · Score: 1
    My mother is a kindergarten teacher (this is in Canada). Her school adopted a policy years ago that goes even beyond this: no touching.

    That's right. No physical contact of any kind between children at recess. Nothing.

    I was stunned when I heard that. I thought banning peanut butter was bad, but I can at least see the health issue (kids trade sandwiches at lunch etc).

    But no touching? That's gotta have some serious impact on social development, don't you think?

    And its all because of shrieking parents. Every one of these measures can be traced back to some hysterical (rightly or no, depends on situation) parent who reacts strongly. Schools basically can do fuck all about parents who act irrationally, other than buckle and ban things.

    --
    If Jesus wants me it knows where to find me.
  126. Re:I'm really glad I was born more than 20 years a by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1
    Has there, ever, been an incident of someone ever dying or being permanently crippled as a result of a tag-induced injury


    Hey! I'm confined to wheelchair due to a freak accident involving tag, two goats and a broken jar of vaseline, you insensitive clod!!

  127. Misread "Jesus Allah and Muhammed" by nathan+s · · Score: 1

    ...as "Jessica Alba and Muhammed" which made me double-take.;-)

  128. America by TBBScorpion · · Score: 1

    I think this is ridiculous. The United States of America didn't become one of the strongest countries in the world because we were afraid of kids occationally getting hurt. I don't want the next generation of Americans growing up telling the next Hitler, "I'm sorry, I can't deal with you because I'm not allowed to deal with situations in life... I might get sued."

    I mean come on! Touch football teaches you how to work on a team, how to strategize, make friends, etc. If some bully comes along and starts getting rough, then the school can revoke his right to play Touch football. That will teach concequences... Or has the education system lost any backbone it had?

    And guess what, kids get hurt! It happens. In the future, if I have to sign a paper telling the lawyers that I won't sue the school if my kid gets hurt for playing touch football, then I would. I think any Judge SHOULD (doesn't mean will) see that holding schools accountable for kids getting hurt in normal acts of playing during recess, is like telling a writer they will be sued if they use incorrect grammer or misspell anything!

    Kids need to have experinces and work through a few tough situations while they are growing up. I'm not saying they should have to deal with school shootings. I'm just saying a little touch football is probably going to do them more good then bad.

    By the way, did I meantion taking away touch football is more likely to teach them revoking peoples freedoms is not only ok, but expected and therefore tollerable. Schools should be trying to teach the next generation of Americans to live life and understand why we live in such a great country, the importance of freedom, and why it should continue to be a free country... I fear for the future of our country when kids can't play touch football during recess. What is this country coming too?

    I wish people could think about the long term consequences/benifits of making major decisions. Oh, that's right, everyones blinded by "I might get sued.", rather than, "You know, there are many benifits to a game like touch football." (Assuming it doesn't get out of hand, but that's why they send teachers out during recess to monitor situations like this.)

  129. Why home schooling is booming by mcrbids · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Home schooling and other alternative education programs (EG: charter schools, distance education, etc) are growing at exponential rates, approaching 50% per year in many areas.

    With absurdities like this, is it any wonder why?

    Take a look at the new Los Angeles Unified Director - he wants to "crack down" on children, make them all wear "regulation uniforms", adopt a "zero tolerance" set of rules, etc. None of which encourage anything like creativity, individuality, or happiness. And so the march of students into alternative programs grows ever stronger every year.

    In my own home town of Chico, CA, there's a newspaper piece a few times per year, something like "Where are all the kids?". The census demographics indicate that Chico has a young population, inclined to produce lots of children. So for years, they've braced for this tidal wave of kids, that never came. Enrollments are lower than ever, and they're dealing with some fairly serious budget shortfalls.

    So, they closed down the most remote school - a small school with like 50-60 kids - with the idea of bussing the children to a larger school closer in to save operating costs. Guess what happened? The parents of the school that closed down got a charter and opened up their own alternative education program in the same building as the old school. And *that* school now has almost 100 students! Closing the school actually *cost* the district money since now they no longer get the funding from either the kids they already had, nor the additional kids now enrolled in the new educational program!

    It's choice in action - I wonder how long it will be until they get a clue and start competing?

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:Why home schooling is booming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Does this charter school teach real science or 'intelligent design'? Does it teach things the parents would rather not discuss with their children, like sex ed?

      The only problem with both home schooling and charter schools is that parents, like everybody else, has their biases and they pass them on to their kids. We got away from home schooling years ago because it was better to teach if you knew what you were teaching. Not all parents really know their material, nor do all parents teach things that are.. questionable. Such as the age of the universe, the bible is literal truth and intelligent design, blacks are a lesser race or any of hundreds of other biases.

      I'm not for public education quitting. I'm for parents actually involving themselves in school districts directly and the school districts paying attention.

    2. Re:Why home schooling is booming by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Hello fellow Chico Resident. :-D

      There is another "charter" school here in Chico, that has enough kids to fill a school or two. The District, (I am an employee) is really hurting finacially because of "declining enrollment", especially chilling in light of the population growth of this city.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:Why home schooling is booming by Ikalta · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of equally absurd situations. In Florida there was a "zero tolerance" policy, such that when a child brought in his step-father's gun to a trusted teacher because his step-father threatened his mother he was suspended for bringing a gun to school.

      Even beyond these growing absurdities of the education system are the lack of uniform funding (hello property tax), growing set of standards that are meant to make the system better by being help more accountable, but instead removes any opportunity for truly motivated teachers from doing anything but teaching to test and not foster intellectual curiosity. The reasons for concerned parents to look at home schooling are growing not getting better.

    4. Re:Why home schooling is booming by n-baxley · · Score: 1

      They won't compete as long as the state and federal governments are there to bail them out. This is a perfect situation where vouchers from state and/or federal governments can help tip the tide. If a parent can pull send their tax dollars some where else competition will have to flourish. The main objection to vouchers, IMHO, is that since many of these private schools are currently religious schools the "liberals" in congress don't want to be seen as supporting anything remotely religous. It's not a matter of religion, it's a matter of capitolisim. The better schools will drive the worse ones out of business and the overall quality will improve through competition.

    5. Re:Why home schooling is booming by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky creatures, and you know it.
      I believe it's "people are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it."

    6. Re:Why home schooling is booming by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      The District, (I am an employee) is really hurting finacially because of "declining enrollment", especially chilling in light of the population growth of this city.

      So encourage the district to compete! Put more attention into Oakdale and/or similar programs, and work on "child-led" and/or "individualized" learning options.

      Competition has come - things will never be like they used to be, and it's not a bad thing!Charter schools and similar programs are busy decimating districts used to a monopoly marketplace - but there are key advantages that a district has over charters. For example, charter schools don't do well at sports programs. EG: Football/Basketball.

      Oakdale should be a shining example of a program that's directly competetive with charters. But, from where I stand, it seems to be treated something like a necessary evil. For example, the teachers there have to share the use of computers that were ancient years ago - despite the immense time this wastes. A mere $400 per teacher would dramatically improve their lives - but they don't get it. If you can get an "in" with the powers that be, I can provide you with many resources to help you/them out.

      Reply to this if you want to contact me in a more personal forum.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    7. Re:Why home schooling is booming by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Informative

      Does this charter school teach real science or 'intelligent design'? Does it teach things the parents would rather not discuss with their children, like sex ed?

      Charter schools receive state funds, and so must teach to state standards in education. You can teach the material by any of various means, but it still has to be taught. Follow the money....

      The only problem with both home schooling and charter schools is that parents, like everybody else, has their biases and they pass them on to their kids.

      But, that happens anyway. You think 1 hour of class, 1 time per day, for 175 days is going to change the bias of 18 years of parental supervision? How many US adults who are graduates of the public education system still believe that womankind started a few thousand years ago when a guy in a white robe pulled out a rib? Heck, how many even believe that men have 1 less rib than women as a result? Ask around - you might be surprised.

      We got away from home schooling years ago because it was better to teach if you knew what you were teaching. Not all parents really know their material, nor do all parents teach things that are.. questionable.

      We got away from home schooling because of rampant illiteracy. It's a common, well-known statistic that children of college graduates are overwhelmingly more likely to be literate, do well in school, and go to college. So, what has really changed? So long as the option is open to all, and the state provides a good failsafe, then the only way to go is up. Or have you seen the statistics for public education in the USA against other "developed" countries? We're busy blowing it on education.

      Such as the age of the universe, the bible is literal truth and intelligent design, blacks are a lesser race or any of hundreds of other biases.

      See above. Charter schools are state funded, and must teach to state standards.

      I'm not for public education quitting. I'm for parents actually involving themselves in school districts directly and the school districts paying attention.

      Then we agree, even though it sounds like we're arguing. The charter schools are exactly a form of what you're talking about, since the school districts et al have generally been glacially slow in responding to the changing workplace. Charter schools are legal school districts, managed by the state, and overseen by state auditors. (At least in California)

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    8. Re:Why home schooling is booming by MeanderingMind · · Score: 1

      I was fortunate enough to have two college grad parents, one well versed in the sciences and mathematics and the other in the arts and linguistics. Between the two of them I received a very good pre-college education.

      Some things got handed off to the local high school when my parents decided having hazardous chemicals lying around the house for teaching chemistry was a bad idea. After being homeschooled for so long following being taken out of elementary school due to the stagnation and being an outcast, high school was beyond mind numbing. In an hour of teaching I felt I had learned 5 minutes worth of material. At first I dutifully did homework, but eventually that became so boring and pointless I stopped, save in classes where it was graded. Even in the AP courses I took homework was rarely done, classes were given minimal attention, and I wondered why we couldn't be given a brief lecture, assignments, and then stay only as long as necessary to complete them. That way, all the talented or diligent kids would be able to leave and flew their brain cells rather than fall asleep in class, while all those who remained could receive the help and attention they needed.

      Four years of highschool that I'm certain could have been done in two, not accounting for time intensive hands on work for a class such as Physics. Did we really have to start Spanish 2 by spending the first semester covering Spanish 1?

      This isn't to say homeschooling is perfect, but you hardly need to be perfect when you're capable of bringing a kid through both fifth and sixth grade in one year enjoying it the entire time. It's not for everyone, but if you're capable of it I highly recommend it (and finding a local support group for socialization purposes).

      --
      Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
    9. Re:Why home schooling is booming by planetmn · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Home schooling and other alternative education programs (EG: charter schools, distance education, etc) are growing at exponential rates, approaching 50% per year in many areas.

      With absurdities like this, is it any wonder why?


      Actually, yes it is. The thing I have never understood about complaining about public education, is that by the very nature of being public, every tax payer has a say in how it is run.

      If you don't think the local schools are doing a good job, run for school commitee, or just attend the meetings, make your voice heard.

      Most people who complain about public education have never attended a school commitee meeting and have never stood up when the commitee was looking for input (something my local one does at every meeting).

      -dave

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
    10. Re:Why home schooling is booming by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Computers in schools is a big issue. Most of the computers in the district were old 4 years ago, and what we do get, are often hand-me-downs, and we're happy to get them.

      You would not believe the restrictions placed on funds in a Public School. Most of it is stupid, rule created by people who have never seen the inside of a classroom.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:Why home schooling is booming by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      How would you like me to contact you?

      I'd indicated that if you wanted me to contact you, to reply, but your profile doesn't display any public information.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    12. Re:Why home schooling is booming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My belief is that the problems with public schools are mainly due to lack of parental involvement, rather than poor teachers/administration/curriculum. Parents who don't care about their children's education end up with uneducated children. The parents who care enough to apply for vouchers are naturally going to have better-educated children.

      The problem with vouchers is that is just reinforces the stratification of schools, making the educationally-rich kids richer while making the educationally-poor kids poorer. Followed to its logical conclusion, public schools would just end up being educational baby-sitting warehouses for children whose parents are either too busy, too unavailable, or too unaware of the importance to care about their children's education.

      Just look at PTA involvement. Parents who are involved in the PTA have children who get higher test scores. That's not because PTA meetings somehow make the parents' children smarter. It's because parents who care enough (and have enought time) to go to PTA meetings also care about their children's education.

      So the problem with public schools isn't that they just can't spend their money properly, it's that it just costs a lot of money to baby-sit. The solution is to spend money on changing things so that the children want to learn. Maybe this requires indoctrinating the parents, or maybe it involves programs that keep the parents out of jail, or maybe it means babysitting programs so that a 12-year-old can do his homework instead of having to watch his younger siblings while his parents are working the night shift.

      dom

    13. Re:Why home schooling is booming by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      Wow, I didn't realize that public school was such a blatant attempt at controlling the populations thoughts. I mean, I knew that was what it was for; I just didn't realize that public discorse now accepted that- I thought you had to know the secret handshake, in order to hear people talk like that.

      If we're now at this stage, where the nasty secrets are all now public discourse, then I suspect theres very little time left for the public schools as they are.

    14. Re:Why home schooling is booming by LionKimbro · · Score: 1

      You can complain a lot and get very minor changes.

      But you aren't going to change the structure of the system.

      Everyone wants to raise their kids in radically different ways.

      My daughter thrives at ClearWater. What's the chance of making my local public school work like that? Basically, 0.

  130. Meanwhile, back in Nebraska by Doctor+Memory · · Score: 1

    Virtually all of the state's skate parks were shut down after a ruling by the state Supreme Court that overturned twenty years of case law by voiding the protection from liability lawsuits previously afforded to public parks. No word yet on whether the public pools will open next summer.

    Sucks to be a kid here -- I may move to save my daughter the trauma. Too bad Wyoming doesn't have better broadband coverage...

    --
    Just junk food for thought...
  131. Now that it's banned it will be more popular by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's a pretty smart move. Now the cool kids will be playing tag behind the bike sheds instead of smoking.

  132. We're all here by Quila · · Score: 1

    Sometimes I wonder how the previous generations managed to make it this far, allowing their kids to play tag, not locking up kids who taunt others, etc..

    If this trend keeps going we are truly going to raise a generation of fat wimps.

  133. Tag is dangerous? by be-fan · · Score: 1

    I remember doing all a manner of life-threatening things as a kid. There was the obligatory sledding down near-vertical slopes at a construction site (closed for the winter!), as well as the usual stick fighting, jumping off moving swings, playing chicken, and jumping your bike over creeks full of broken glass. One time my friends and I had the brilliant idea of having a brick fight, which I lost after taking one square to the head.

    My point, aside from noting how incredibly stupid I was as a child, is that children are pretty durable. In retrospect, the brick fight was probably a bad idea, but children aren't really going to hurt themselves running full speed into each other playing tag.

    Of course, in this day and age of 100 pound 8 year olds, is that even true anymore?

    --
    A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
  134. One more step towards the pussification of America by pete.com · · Score: 1

    Dodge ball creates self esteem issues.... Kids might fall if the play tag....

    For the record living is a dangeous business. Injuries happen, you do the best you can to protect the kids in whatever they do but ultimately accidents can and will happen.

  135. why we're so screwed up by imadork · · Score: 1
    There are several things going on here, a series of little things that escalate into this absurdity:
    • The cost of health care skyrocketing in general.
    • The litigiousness of the American Public, who view any injury as a chance to Get Rich Quick via personal injury and liability lawsuits.
    • The increasing cost of health and liability insurance, due to the increasing cost of health care and more exposure to liability suits.
    • An educational system that puts so much of an emphasis on test scores in funding that they can't afford to spend money on anything that won't directly increase test scores. (like ever-increasing liability insurance premiums).

    We're going to see more absurd stuff happening unless some of these trends get reversed.

  136. Physical activity and obesity by Glass+Lizard · · Score: 1

    So if schools are banning games like tag, could we have an increase in childhood obesity? We should be encouraging children to exercise during recess, not preventing them from doing physical activities entirely. I can't imagine safety being such a huge problem that it justifies this sort of ban.

    1. Re:Physical activity and obesity by Ichijo · · Score: 1
      So if schools are banning games like tag, could we have an increase in childhood obesity?

      If I were a parent of an obese child, I'd sue the school for not providing enough exercise.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  137. No by JonnyCalcutta · · Score: 1
    Stop swapping one fear for another. Lets take normal, sensible precautions like we used to. Will some children get hurt? Of course they will. But that is life. You have to hope your child will never be molested or break their neck playing football but to eliminate the risk 100% is a ridiculous goal which leads to the banning of tag in schools or creating such a large barrier to entry that the good teachers will do something easier (like becoming peace negotiators in Palestine).

    Maybe the two are related - when the good teachers are fed up living in a climate of fear, who's going to take the risks?

  138. Uhh... by mgmatrix · · Score: 1

    Life is an unsupervised contact sport.

    --
    Looking for something to do? http://www.grinion.com
  139. Sad... by posterlogo · · Score: 1

    ...since no man accepts leadership without the challenge of combat. Try and engineer social darwinism into elementary school and we'll end up with a bunch of pussies come high school.

  140. hardly news... by dahwang · · Score: 1

    my school banned tag when i was in grade school as well. that was like 20 years ago in Los Angeles

  141. Clue by geekoid · · Score: 1

    Almost no one has heard of Attleboro
    A lot more people have heard of Boston.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:Clue by be-fan · · Score: 1

      So? If something didn't happen in Boston, it didn't happen in Boston. Even if way more people know where Boston is, it still didn't happen in Boston.

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    2. Re:Clue by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1
      Almost no one has heard of Attleboro A lot more people have heard of Boston.
      Does that mean it's ok to say that the schools in Luxembourg are located in Germany?
  142. The next generation is *really* in trouble... by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

    I once read that pain is the sign of stupidity leaving your body. If this is true, then considering the (stupid) laws being passed by my generation, and considering how my generation is coddling their children, I'm really afraid of how the next generation is going to turn out

    --
    MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
  143. And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another parent was quoted as saying that the other woman's kid was a whiny little pussy.

  144. Attleboro... by MyLoveIsAJoke · · Score: 1

    This is the same damned town, that back about 5 years ago, kicked in the door fo a private S&M party and arrested everyone for sex crimes. This really doesn't supprise me.

  145. wow... by LinuxDragon · · Score: 0

    This is worse than what happened at my old high school... In my senior year, they banned burn.. all because one kid fell and scraped his knee. Geez the kid was fine, and didn't complain hell he kept going an got hit by the ball in the knee and didn't even flinch. God this world is becoming so screwed up. PARENTS WATCH YOUR KIDS! KIDS FIGHT BACK AGAINST THIS! Do what we did at Rockville, we fought back. we got over 300 signatures from fellow students and teachers. Show the school what you want! don't let them push you around!

    --
    I'm the kid who does dragon wallpapers for Linux Users.
  146. STOP BEING PUSSIES! by lewp · · Score: 1

    Fin.

    --
    Game... blouses.
  147. I'll Tell You What's Harmful To Children... by Petersko · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...raising them in a goddamned bubble.

  148. Tale of two pairs of boots by xoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I bought some Italian motorcycle boots today. The label tells me that motorcycling is an "ultra-hazardous activity" and that the boots won't protect me from all possible injuries (up to and including death). This is mildly patronising, but I can understand why the manufacturer would want to place a limit on their liability.

    I bought some American snowboard boots last year. The label told me the same as above. It also told me that, if fitted with an avalnche transponder the product will not actually stop an avalanche.

    One is patronising. The other is just plain stupid.

    1. Re:Tale of two pairs of boots by jb.hl.com · · Score: 1

      One is patronising. The other is just plain stupid.

      There are many, many stupid people out there who are likely to believe in some capacity that avalanche transponders will stop gigantic walls of snow coming down a mountain at high speed. It is for them that the stupid warnings are made.

      Given that, in my experience, some people cannot read and obey simple two word signs, it makes a teensy bit of sense.

      --
      By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    2. Re:Tale of two pairs of boots by rkanodia · · Score: 1

      WARNING: Chest plate is not bulletproof. Cape does not allow wearer to fly.

    3. Re:Tale of two pairs of boots by xoyoyo · · Score: 1

      A teensy bit; it seems to me more likely that the warning is there for people who treat product liability like a lottery with better odds.

  149. Perhaps they should care more... by Kjella · · Score: 1

    ...about kids sitting around in front of the TV, console or computer all day on their lard ass than when they're actually in activity? Of course, with the current hysteria over how dangerous everything is, I guess many people feel "safe" that way. I don't recall my childhood as being particularly active, but I do remember playing soccer during breaks, king of the hill (push others down in winter, when it was covered in ice), basketball, tag, a game that was basicly like wrestling on a bar pushing the other down first and so on. I think the closest I got to hurt was when I fell down from a tree I was climbing, hit a lower branch belly first, then fell on my ass to the ground. I was black and blue and gasping for air, but not seriously hurt. Even the crazy winter soccer we used to play (small orange ball, plenty sliding tackles, no referees and decisions by snow wrestling) didn't lead to any big injuries. Supervised play is overrated, most of the time the supervisor has no chance to stop any accidental injuries anyway unless someone is being completely reckless.

    --
    Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  150. First Dodge ball, and now this by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    What bothers me is that America's lawsuit happy ways are coming home to roost. Perhaps, the schools should get the parents to sign a waiver that says that they will not sue under a number of conditions. Then create a website to allow parents to check off on what there kid can/can not do. For those without computers, they can offer a computer at school for parental useage.

    Sad thing is, we as a nation are getting obese. The solution for this is more playtime/gym. At the same time, we are killing it off in the interest of money. We have become a nation that pays lip service to the future.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  151. lame by Intangion · · Score: 1

    geez thats lame, whats next? ban any activity involving balls to avoid kids getting hit with them?

    lets ban running too just incase kids might trip

    you know what lets just ban outdoor activity alltogether, i mean there are bugs that could sting them

    its weird seeing how kids today grow up, its nothing like when i was a kid, i had freedom, i was 'supervised (school)' barely a quarter of the day, i rode my bike wherever the hell i wanted to go ;), no cell phones, kids today are never out of sight of a parent of caregiver. its very unusual to me.

  152. Please think of the children when chaining them up by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 2, Funny

    Consider brightly-colord safety chains for kids:
    http://www.greatcompanions.com/images/GC1013_.JPG

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
  153. Re:Near-collisions? An Open Source Opportunity by borg007 · · Score: 1

    Is there an Open Source Air Traffic Control System that could be hacked to work on a playground? Of course, the screens would be manned by under-paid, drug abusing, union workers, but that can't be all bad. Can it?

  154. It's about time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's about time someone put a stop to this web 2.0 bullshit.

  155. Everywhere in the western world... by rsd-17 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...this crap is being foisted on us by the twin horrors of insurance liability and the femininization of the education system.

    Take my son's school in Ontario, Canada for example.

    The mother of one of my son's female classmates succeeded in getting the school to ban the playing of ballgames at recess because "her daughter has the right" to stand in the middle of the basketball court while a pickup game is in progress.

    However what can you expect from a school board that has banned kids from packing juice in their lunch bags, because juice "attracts bees and wasps, and some children are allergic to bee stings."

  156. Ban Mantels! by Mateo_LeFou · · Score: 4, Funny

    I did the same thing with my kids, but during a small earthquake they fell off and shattered. I'm suing someone over this, btw.

    --
    My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
    1. Re:Ban Mantels! by GreyPoopon · · Score: 1
      I'm suing someone over this, btw.
      Let me know when you figure out who to sue. I want to be ready just in case I have the same problem. Maybe I'll go ahead and fill out the court papers ahead of time so that I can be completely prepared.
      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    2. Re:Ban Mantels! by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 2, Funny

      Let me know when you figure out who to sue

      That's easy; God. I can just see the reality show opportunity: God Court. This will totally work if I can get James Earl Jones to play the voice of God.

  157. Tag? by astralbat · · Score: 1

    Where I come from, we call it 'Tig'

  158. Pussies! by bchernicoff · · Score: 1

    All this PC BS is rendering our kids unbale to cope with the stress of the real world. My little brother and sister have panic attacks any time the slightest thing goes wrong. They both lived with my mom until they were like 22. What the hell is going?

    "The Greatest Generation" got that name because of what there were able to achieve in the face of so much adversity.

  159. Lost Teeth playing Dodge Ball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I broke 2 front teeth because of a collision playing dodge ball on the play ground. I was in first grade at the time, and can remember the pain and denist visit vividly. I've had to endure significant pain over the years as the teeth re-broke and each time the dentist had to drill more of the nerve away. I now have my front teeth capped, and if the caps come off I have to get false teeth screwed in.

    Thousands and Thousands of dollars and lots of pain all down the drain because I ran into someone playing a stupid game of dodge ball.

    And you know what? I still love playing dodge ball and tag 22 years later. They are idiots for banning tag. Kids get hurt. They cry, they bleed, they heal. Its part of growing up.

  160. just imagine by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 1

    When these kids start to drive.

    Yipe!

  161. America! Stop being pussies! by Tony · · Score: 1

    C'mon, America! It's time to stop being pussies.

    Really.

    Shouldn't we be more concerned about our children getting adequate health care? How about decent employment opportunities when they grow up?

    Like Dennis Miller used to say back when he was still cool, "Life is tough. Wear a cup." Our kids will be ill-prepared for the real world if they can't survive a 15-minute game of tag. It's not like it's mandatory, either. If you get picked on, don't play. That's another important lesson: how to opt-out of shit you don't like.

    I am a very liberal person. Well, not really, in that I support the right to own weaponry, and I believe the constitution should be upheld on all levels. I believe the federal government should be small, and stay the fuck out of the states' internal affairs.

    I believe there should be universal, free health care. I believe there should be programs to help those with very little to get a little bit more. I believe corporations are intentionally fucking over our nation and our society, with the help of the government, to line their pockets with booty and power. I believe President Bush and his cabinet have fucked over America worse than any President ever, and have done so with clear eyes and an easy conscience, and that those who still support him are pussies.

    And I believe kids should grow up not being pussies. I was a geek when I was a kid, but I was never a pussy. Okay, I shouldn't say never. But I was generally not a pussy. Kids can be cruel, and mean, and downright nasty little fucks.

    But if you don't learn to survive a game of tag, how the hell do you expect to survive the real world?

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:America! Stop being pussies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the federal government should be small

      I believe there should be universal, free health care. I believe there should be programs to help those with very little to get a little bit more.


      heh. don't even think I need to add anything, besides the fact that I wish you couldn't vote, since people like you are screwing the country.

  162. Nothing wrong with tag by Zerbey · · Score: 1

    We played a game called "British Bulldogs", I'm sure variants exist worldwide. Similar to tag only two teams and one person is "it". Each team has a base, you charge the other teams base and the "it" tries to tag as many people as possible. Last one standing at the other teams base wins. Great fun, and:

    * Promotes teamwork
    * Promotes excercise
    * Promotes tactical thinking

    Sure, sometimes kids get hurt. Kids are going to get hurt no matter what you do, it's part of growing up. Deal with it.

  163. Not a moment too soon! Oops... wrong tag by Senior+Frac · · Score: 1

    As a high school teacher, I completely misread the subject of this post. I took it to mean the body spray. As a person with a lot of allergies, I was pretty exicted to read the article!

    Boy, what a let down that was.

  164. It can be dangerous. by shelterpaw · · Score: 0

    My nephew lost all of his front teeth while playing tag last year. He lost a few more teeth playing baseball this year. However, there's no way we would hold the school or baseball league responsible. Kids get hurt, it's part of growing up. Any parent that sues for this is just looking for an easy way to screw the system for money instead of actually earning it.

    Seems to me we're on the road to blaming everyone else for our own mistakes. I'm glad I signed the petition to stop frivolous lawsuits, too bad it didn't go through.

  165. and another thing by psbrogna · · Score: 1

    I never got hurt playing tag but while they're at it they should ban those frickin see-saws, I don't know how many times I jammed my damn spine and nearly ended up in a wheel chair because of see-saw antics.

  166. Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by DG · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This keeps coming back to the Col. Dave Grossman (On Killing, On Combat) Sheep, Wolf, Sheepdog analogy.

    I'll paraphrase:

    Most people are Sheep - not in the pejurative sense, but rather in the sense that they are utterly incapable of doing violence to another human being. Most people will go through their entire adult lives without ever comitting - or even witnessing - an act of violence (not counting TV etc, which isn't "real" violence)

    Sadly, there are Wolves, who prey on Sheep. Wolves seek out sheep to fuck them up, because they know that sheep cannot protect themselves.

    Happily, there are also Sheepdogs; those who place themselves between the Sheep and the Wolves.

    But to a Sheep, a Sheepdog looks a lot like a Wolf - same shape, same teeth, same snarl. So sheep are very uncomfortable around sheepdogs, because sheepdogs trade in violence, and it is violence (not intent) that most upsets sheep.

    Sheep are always trying to make sheepdogs more like sheep, even when that is counter to their own long-term interests, because the ideal SheepWorld is a nice, safe, non-violent bubble where nothing bad ever happens to anybody.

    So Sheepdogs must remain vigilant and active - not only counter the Wolves, but also counter the Sheep. It falls to the Sheepdogs of the world to prevent the sheep from defanging their own protectors.

    As an aside, there's a local radio commercial here that just drives me absolutely insane - it's an ad for a jewelry chain, in which a soccer mom (with the most teeth-gratingly patronizing voice ever) congradulates her husband on his "evolution" - he packs lunches, he makes playdates, he cleans the house - but when it comes to buying gifts, he still sucks. So go to Jeweler X and don't screw it up this time. Oh, and don't forget to pick up the daughter and get her (irony alert!) to Tae Kwon Do by 5:00....

    This is a PRIME example of the sheep trying to sheep-ify the sheepdogs.

    But here's the real question: if you are a Sheepdog, what are YOU going to do about it?

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    1. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Ubergrendle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That was perhaps the worst possible analogy I've ever heard. My criticism would start with the premise that the analogy is self-serving, as the Colonel obviously has a vested interest in his power stemming from his military command.

      I think the fucking & assholes analogy from Team America: World Police is a more legitimate world view IMHO.

      For those of you who think sheepdogs are important, I ask you the following -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

      --
      John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
    2. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Turn-X+Alphonse · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What world are you living in man? Most people are sheep sure.. but backed into a corner they will bite.

      People who protect the sheep arn't sheepdogs, they're just sheep willing to bite.

      Wolves are.. well wolves. Theres always assholes but they can be assholes for multipule reasons..

      --
      I like muppets.
    3. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by chris_mahan · · Score: 0, Troll

      I realize this might offend some people, but there it goes:

      As a Sheepdog, to protect the sheep, you've got to be meaner, stronger, faster, and smarter than the Wolves.

      So you want to make sure the Sheep don't actually see you.

      So you wear a nicely pressed uniform with a tie and keep the M-16 in the trunk.

      You can also make sure the videos the Wolves produce get aired on CNN, so the Sheep will quiver agitatedly and pay the nicely uniformed Sheepdogs handsomely.

      Of course, the Sheepdog must never let the Sheep or their journalists find out just how brutally and gruesomely the Sheepdogs deal with the Wolves. Besides, bloody Wolves body parts strewn haphazardly across cratered fields does not make for great TV.

      Am I offtopic enough yet?

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    4. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...or you could just go for the "Team America: World Police" Dicks, Pussies, and Assholes anology instead.

    5. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This reminds me of Team America : World Police :
      We're dicks! We're reckless, arrogant, stupid dicks.
      And the Film Actors Guild are pussies.
      And Kim Jong Il is an asshole.
      Pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks.
      But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything.
      Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls.
      The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that.
      But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes.
      I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!


    6. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by operagost · · Score: 1

      The sheep should, but they're too busy being sheep and lack the conviction to take action if it was required. You simply don't get it.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    7. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by operagost · · Score: 1
      What world are you living in man? Most people are sheep sure.. but backed into a corner they will bite.
      ... the sheepdog, because obviously it's HIS fault for antagonizing the wolf.
      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    8. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by operagost · · Score: 1

      What's your point?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    9. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by aristotle-dude · · Score: 3, Insightful
      What was that? All I hear was "Baah, Baah, Baah". You still do not get it do you? The Colonel was not just talking about military but also paramilitary forces such as police and fire departments. I see that you have been brainwashed quite throughly but did you ever stop to think why they are called public servants? They do the job that the average citizen is either unwilling or unable to do themselves.

      For those who think that sheepdogs are irrelevant, let me ask you, what would you do to protect yourself from the wolves?

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    10. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by deKernel · · Score: 0

      Actually you aren't off-topic regarding the parent comment. Your approach is actually quite well thought-out.

    11. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      answering the gp's question:

      > This is a PRIME example of the sheep trying to sheep-ify the sheepdogs.

      > But here's the real question: if you are a Sheepdog, what are YOU going to do about it?

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

    12. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Sebastopol · · Score: 1


      This is an offtopic pep-talk for pro-war tough guys.

      While I agree this law is ridiculous, many people with a right-wing tilt are crying, "The sky is Falling! The sky is falling! No one will defend america if our kids can't play tag!"

      Puh-leeez!

      This is such a obvious, glaring, strawman argument you should be embarassed for posting it.

      The assumption is that if kids can't play tag, they will grow up to be soft and weak and the nation will suffer.

      Show me a shred of proof this is true!

      Has anyone attempted to see if there are scientific correlations to show that nerfing recess makes a nation of pussies? Please. Show me any evidence you have that attempts to recess-aged kids from rough-housing will make them scared of physical contact or violence later on. Any study would be nice. Like maybe kids that don't play tag as kids never play sports in highschool, or enlist int he military, or engage in potentially physical harmful activity later in life, like skydiving or becoming a fireman.

      Got those studies? No? Didn't think so.

      Until you have some evidence __STFU__ if some podunk little town wants to eliminate physical contact from recess or PhysEd!! At least this school still HAS a PhysEd program.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    13. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by TnkMkr · · Score: 3, Informative

      I recommend reading the whole essay, it actually puts it much better than the summary stated in the GF post.
      See here:
      http://www.blackwaterusa.com/btw2004/articles/0726 sheep.html

      The sheep dogs, by definition, must police themselves. Is it easy? Of course not, and that is why the world is in the state it currently is.

      Although to be fair, it is a statement of ideology and puts everything into a black and white (or sheepdog, wolf, and sheep) classification, which does not always hold up when you compare to the real worlds shades of grey.

      While I agree that the analogy from Team America is similar, I think it is a much more pessimistic view of the situation. Not to mention it goes out of its way to be as vulgar and offensive as possible. (but hey... that's funny)

    14. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's not a matter of the relevance of sheepdogs, but of the analogy itself. i'm not a sheep; i'm a person. if i get attacked by a wolf, and i don't have the means to shoot it, i went in to the woods unprepared. literally; this is not an analogy and don't try to make it one.

    15. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by CptPicard · · Score: 1

      And how do we know when the sheepdog turns into a wolf? The most efficient wolf would be one who makes the sheep believe he's there to protect them. There is a very good reason to be wary of your usually self-proclaimed sheepdogs and their assurances... a good litmus test is indeed whether the sheepdog is spiteful of the "ideal world where nobody gets hurt". We may not be there yet, but if you're unwilling even to strive for it, there is something funny about your priorities...

      And yeah, I consider myself to be quite a proud sheep. I would be able to kill in immediate self-defense, but I won't enter the slippery slope that finally sees me killing pre-emptively.

      I am really proud that in my relatively non-violent, non-US country people are not in general so afraid of each others' potential "intentions" that they would, for example, feel the need to arm themselves. This general nonviolent disposition of the society at a whole DOES make for a better place to live in, no matter how you yanks spin it. The sheepdoggery that is needed is perfectly well handled by the police when neccessary.

      And before you start laughing that we're sissies, we're a country with a universal conscription. Yeah, all guys here have actually handled an assault rifle, and yet they do not feel a need to own one. And we beat back Stalin in WW2... don't come educate us about self-defense and machismo :-)

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
    16. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take it from a wolf: Insightful? No. Stupid and wrong? Yes.

      Most people are sheep and sheep don't fight back. They curl up into little balls and hand over their wallets. Try it sometime and you'll see what I mean. The trick is to be able to tell by sight if a person is a sheep or a sheepdog.

    17. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Problem: some of those claiming to be Sheepdogs are Wolves. (Actually, some of those believing themselves to be Sheepdogs are Wolves.)

    18. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by spun · · Score: 0, Troll

      So sheepdogs are on top. Funny, an essay written by a sheepdog, putting them on top, with no checks or balances. What's to keep a sheepdog from turning into a wolf? What if the sheep don't want any fucking sheepdogs, should the sheepdogs force their protection on the sheep? What are sheepdogs without sheep and their need for protection? Nothing but furrier wolves. Maybe the sheepdogs and the wolves are in cahoots, pretending to fight each other to keep the sheep too scared to notice that sheepdogs don't eat grass, either.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    19. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of the final speech in team america that I don't want to quote because I'm at work right now.

    20. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by nanoakron · · Score: 0, Troll

      I really want some of what you're smoking.

      Your parable is just thinly-veiled support for military power, written by a (surprise-surprise) squaddie.

      What next? Doctors likening themselves to the vet that sheep don't like but still need to go see when things go wrong and how vets are really really important?

    21. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Bright+Apollo · · Score: 1
      But here's the real question: if you are a Sheepdog, what are YOU going to do about it?

      I'm gonna shit on your lawn, bite your kids, roam free, contract rabies, and die in agony, alone.

      It's true, I saw in on Lifetime. Meredith Baxter-Birney starred as the Vet with a Heart of Gold.

      -BA

    22. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by f1055man · · Score: 1

      The role of police is to "protect and serve" their masters. The only difference between wolves and sheepdogs in this idiotic analogy is that one already has power over the flock. They are called "public servants" in order to provide some semblance of legitimacy. Some places where the police are actually beholden to the people, "public servants" might apply. Here in the USofA, I have seen enough shit to know who it is they protect and serve.

    23. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by lightning_queen · · Score: 1

      There's a problem with your argument... they've all but banned human testing/experimentation in general, let alone long-term testing on children (anyone who's ever had a Phychology class knows where that stemmed from, too).

      And honestly, there should be no need for a study. Simple common sense and actually seeing what's already in front of your eyes will go a long way. When a child first gets hurt, they cry like it's the end of the world, do they not? And they have good reason to, too. Their skin is soft and sensitive from lack of use and "weathering." As time goes by, their skin toughens, so that same little bump that made them bawl last year just dazes them for half a second before they're back up and running this year. And this year, it takes a fall off a bike into gravel that results in embedded rocks to get them to even stop, let alone cry.

      What happens if they don't experience things like that as a child? Their skin remains soft and sensitive. As adults, they may not cry, but it'll probably still hurt more than someone who was "weathered" with the same injury. Evidence of this is seen now in various types of workers. The carpenter or other trademan that works all day in conditions that are far from ideal develops callouses to protect his hands and feet, his skin becomes darker if he works in the sun. On the other hand, you've got the office worker who rarely works with his hands in conditions to what the carpenter works in every single day. His hands and skin are soft and more fair-toned. The same knife will cut the office worker deeper than the carpenter.

      The sheep/wolf/sheepdog analogy doesn't have to pertain to politics (even if that was the author's original intent). It can pertain to any part of life in which you have a protected/threat/protector environment. The protector does not want the protected to see that the methods used again the threat are equivalent to those used by the threat, but the protected sees both the threat and the protector as one and the same and therefore either fears the protector or trusts the threat. It is the protector's job to simultaneously teach the protected to fear the threat and trust the protector.

      The situation here, however, is one where the protector teaches the protected of a false threat. The protected may associate other false threats as real threats, and when the protected becomes the protector, it will teach the protected of this new false threat. After a few cycles of this, you have the sue-happy, pillow-lining society that we are turning into.

      Sadly, you, and others, will forget about this thread and the story from which it spawned, and years down the line, you will be teaching your kids that going outside is dangerous because they might get kidnapped, that running is dangerous because they might fall and get hurt and that they have to watch what they say because they might offend someone, somewhere, in some remote way, and you won't think there's anything wrong with that picture. You will accept it as a fact of life and go about your business without a second thought, even if it's completely opposite of everything you once knew.

    24. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      For those of you who think sheepdogs are important, I ask you the following -- Quis custodiet ipsos custodes.

      The Sheepdogs, duh. Main thing that you appear to be missing is that anyone with the inclination can become one.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    25. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by wwillia99 · · Score: 1

      That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. That analogy by Col. Dave Grossman (On Killing, On Combat) is so blind.
      If anything I would say we are all wolves. Every man woman and child is capable so much more that he gives them credit for.

    26. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      I find it fitting that the article was hosted by Blackwater, a mercenary army.

      Also, does this not sound exactly like the argument from the trial scene at the end of "A Few Good Men"? "You can't HANDLE the truth!" "You need me on that wall!", etc?

    27. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Fallingcow · · Score: 1

      It actually reminds me a lot of Hobbes' Leviathan. So, yeah, authoritarian as hell.

      Also (as I mentioned elsewhere in this discussion), it reminds me of the trial at the end of "A Few Good Men". heh.

    28. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by DG · · Score: 1

      As I said in another response, any analogy can only be stretched so far, and the problem of how to deal with sheepdogs who "go wolf" (or with wolves who misrepresent themselves as sheepdogs) is real and non-trivial. So we are in agreement there.

      As far as being "spiteful" (I would have used "disdainful" myself) of the "ideal world where nobody ever gest hurt"... that is not the case at all. Certainly MY ideal world is one where sheepdogs are unecessary, as there are no more wolves, and nobody ever WANTS to be a wolf.

      But my observation is that that ideal world is a long, long, long way off, and (human nature being what it is, only a couple of million years removed from us swinging in the trees) maybe we'll never get there. So we need to be actively promoting sheepdog production, and otherwise building up the skills for living in the real world of bumps, scrapes, setbacks, and the occasional wolf.

      You build up immunity to something by exposing yourself to controllable doses of the pathogen or stressor. If you spend your entire life inside a climate-controlled, sterile bubble, then the first time you get exposed to the tiniest disease, it kills you (or at least has a much greater effect on you) Same deal with any stressor. You don't help kids by isolating them from life, you help kids by mitigating their exposure to extreme stressors and helping them deal with the minor ones.

      BTW, I'm not an American either... I assume you're a Finn? Well with your universal conscription example, you proved my point - you have had some degree of exposure to sheepdoggery yourself, and so are better prepared to deal with life than someone who has not had that opportunity.

      DG

      --
      Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
    29. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look to most of Western Europe to see what happens when someone is over protected.

      Hell, look to business to see competition and how it is important. But, oh my, that's evil capitalism.

    30. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      A sheepdog is just a wolf who has all the sheep in his territory. Wolves are territorial creatures and sheepdogs are much closer related to the wolves than the sheep. Sheepdogs eat sheep too just in case you didn't know.

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    31. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Schnapple · · Score: 1
      You do realize that this is the same Lt. Col. David Grossman who wrote a book on "Killology" where he basically says that FPS video games are "Murder Simulators" and is the original person to blame Columbine on DOOM, right?

      I would consider any analogy from him to be sort of flawed from the outset.

    32. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      How about I make it a little more clear: Quis custodiet ipsos ovicanes? As in, who watches the sheepdogs and prevents them from becoming worse than the wolves?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    33. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Same answer. You watch the sheepdogs by becoming one.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    34. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They do the job that the average citizen is either unwilling or unable to do themselves.
      I hope you realize this could be applied to literally any job. The guy who asks 'do you want fries with that' is doing a job you are unwilling or unable to do yourself. I mean, when was the last time you asked yourself that question.

    35. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Niten · · Score: 1
      What's to keep a sheepdog from turning into a wolf?

      More of the sheep becoming sheepdogs themselves. The central thesis of this essay is that the world is still full of evil nations, organizations, and individuals, and in order to survive we need enough people who are willing to fight that we can keep these potential enemies at bay - or intimidate them from ever attacking in the first place.

      To me, this seems like plain common sense. I wish that the world were a perfect, peaceful place. But until it is, we must be able to defend ourselves.

    36. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whether or not the analogy is self-serving is beside the point as a criticism for its applicability to the argument. That is, your criticism is (heads up, more Latin) ad hominem and (here comes some more) , q.e.d., fallacious.

      As for your "Quis custodiet...etc.", you can watch them all you want, but if they are empowered with both the means AND the motivation (the point of Grossman's essay) to exercise their intent through superior force, you have no other answer but the same in kind or greater. This is true whether you are talking about sheepdogs, wolves, kung fu black belts, professional wrestlers. Both means and motivation are required, since standing there with your fists up or a gun in your hand won't work unless you are comfortable with using them to have your way. The only restraint upon those with the means is motivational. What the means are is purely a question of technology.

      Whether or not the motivation is socially or neurologically determined, the technique can be acquired. Sheep have neither the technical skills nor the motivation to acquire and use them. They need sheepdogs who have both the skills and the motivation to acquire and use. This motivation needs to be provided by socialization from among the sheep, else any alignment with the sheeps' needs will only be randomly determined. So they need wolves who are obligated to the needs of the sheep. This is (here's some French), au fond, an emotional bond.

      Joseph de Maistre once said, "Any society ultimately rests on the shoulders of the public executioner." All societies endorse capital punishment since all societies implicitly approve of the fatal sanction, the use of force and consequent threat of death, under some circumstance - either in some clean room at a penetentiary or on the street under assault - from a wolf. The only questions are where the line gets drawn and is there someone on hand who can handle the task in the manner required to achieve success.

    37. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good god, Ayn, get a grip. I live in an inner-city neighborhood. I have good locks on my doors, common sense, attentive neighbors, and a medium-sized dog who barks, and that has kept all of the 'wolves' out so far. And if god forbid I should need to call the police or fire department, they'll come because it's the job they get paid with my tax dollars to do, not because they're part-sheep and part-wolf.

      I suspect that the sort of people who like this moron sheepdog analogy fantasize about being in the military themselves. Just because somebody carries a gun for their job doesn't make them somehow more deserving of respect than your average inner-city grade school teacher or ER doctor. Or janitor, for that matter. It may not be as glamorous, but if what you do is worthwhile, then you've got my respect. Just quit fetishizing the military and police. Sure, it's a dangerous job that requires bravery. So does washing skyscraper windows.

      The problem with the wolf sheep bullshit is that it implies that an otherwise normal person cannot get paid to protect other people without becoming in some way the criminals they are opposing. That's disrespectful, and is an apology for shit like Abu Ghraib.

    38. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Western Europe is doing fine. Running a business has nothing to do with playing tag. However, your persecution complex regarding "evil capitalism" is quite telling. Is that big bad world out to get you?

    39. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by seifried · · Score: 1

      I don't see how this is incongruent with the warrior ethos. I do most of the cooking in my primary relationship, one reason is scheduling, the other reason being that I love cooking and feeding people (especially my fiancée) healthy nourishing food. It gives me the same feeling that cavemen got when they brought dead things home on the end of a stick, or when my cat brings me a mouse (nothing like a surprise present at 5am). I think the problem for most men is finding a mature, modern style of life that works in conjunction with the warrior ethos. For example I don't have children yet, so I take the time to work with male kids and role model (what I feel is anyways) appropriate male behavior to them. Again the same feeling cavemen got from teaching their kids how to knap flint and set deadfall traps.

    40. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      When a child first gets hurt, they cry like it's the end of the world, do they not? And they have good reason to, too. Their skin is soft and sensitive from lack of use and "weathering." As time goes by, their skin toughens, so that same little bump that made them bawl last year just dazes them for half a second before they're back up and running this year. And this year, it takes a fall off a bike into gravel that results in embedded rocks to get them to even stop, let alone cry.
      Seriously, you don't have kids and have no idea what you're talking about. The opposite of what you claim is true: when they're little, they fall and stop crying fairly quickly, because the initial pain and surprise disappear quickly and when that's gone there's nothing to cry about. Babies are made out of rubber, much tougher than they look. As they grow older they learn that crying is the way to get attention, and being hurt requires attention. At this stage if you baby them THEN they become adults who are too sensitive. Later on, when the kid falls off the bike in gravel, they cry because they are embarassed and need to make it look like the fall was more serious than it was to save face, and also they want attention. Later, the same fall won't produce much crying because they've learned that they get negative attention from their peers for being crybabies.

      As for banning human testing, there's no reason you couldn't do a statistical study, which is generally how this sort of science is done. No need to perform an experiment directly on humans.
    41. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rest assured, your so-called "sheepdogs" are as easy to dupe as anyone else. In fact, they're often even easier. Just inflate their egos and you can lead them by the nose.

    42. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      You'll have to get trained by an existing sheepdog to do that. Which will:
      • Teach you to like the current sheepdogs(although lawyers aren't exactly sheepdogs, they're a good example: about 80% of lawyers go in wanting to do some sort of advocacy but only 20% of lawyers go out wanting to do such)
      • Still be weaker than the current sheepdogs, and when you try to stop them, have the media calling you a wolf
      • If you happen to still be both stronger and rebellious after becoming a sheepdog, you become the new alpha male. The cycle starts all over again.
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    43. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1

      What was that? All I hear was a storm of violent barking which is also the signature of the wolves.
      Tell me. How, with your bullshit "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror", are you better than the wolves?

      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    44. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I prefer the Team America analogy. It has swear words, which make it better. * ducks *

    45. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      And the sheep get ate, sound like a damn good reason to be a sheepdog or a wolf.

      BTW your sig' is nonsensical. Ask the cops not to bring there rifles, shotguns, pistols, batons, pepper spray, tasers, or stun guns and you will figure out quickly that they don't make very good protectors. Technology, tacticts, and training are all necessary.

      Not doing evil doesn't mean you have to let evil fuck you every chance it gets.

    46. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      and nobody ever WANTS to be a wolf.

      Please explain? What intrinsic part of the human mind says 'I should not do evil things'.

    47. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      And the sheep get ate, sound like a damn good reason to be a sheepdog or a wolf.
      What if my goal is to not be a sheepdog or a wolf, and be as far away from the sheepdogs and wolves as possible?
      BTW your sig' is nonsensical. Ask the cops not to bring there rifles, shotguns, pistols, batons, pepper spray, tasers, or stun guns and you will figure out quickly that they don't make very good protectors. Technology, tacticts, and training are all necessary.
      My sig is intended as a response to "Guns don't kill people". Oh, and by the way, British cops don't need guns nearly as much as American cops seem to.
      Not doing evil doesn't mean you have to let evil fuck you every chance it gets.
      If you fight evil using the methods of evil, you become evil.
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
    48. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't teach your kids how to knap flint? My kids will piss all over yours after the nukes fall and we're all reaching for the sticks.

    49. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      Hypocrite.

      Your "thinned skin" analogy is just your opinion. You have no facts to back up this opinion. Your drivel is just wives tales and "conventional wisdom" that you invented stated as fact. Nice try.

      And of course, there's another big problem with the last part of your argument, too: it starts with "ad hominem".

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    50. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Sebastopol · · Score: 1

      There's a problem with your argument... they've all but banned human testing/experimentation in general, let alone long-term testing on children (anyone who's ever had a Phychology class knows where that stemmed from, too).

      Your "facts" are wrong again. Ever heard of Ritalin? Do you know how the manufacturers figured out if it helped children? By trying it on them. That's how a lot of drugs are prescribed to children today, via clinical studies (the PC version of "human testing"). Not to mention: there are plenty of behavioral observations of children in affect today, believe it or not: that's what child psychologists actually do for a living. Surprised?

      I'm really amazed that your reply has so many words, but is so utterly without meaning, consistency, or factual support.

      --
      https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
    51. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by PlusFiveTroll · · Score: 1

      1. Predators hunt prey, while an individual, such as yourself may be able to hide, its not a long term survival plan.
      2. They only need enough guns to shoot people in the subway, unarmed at that. Guns are a tool, I don't see mankind putting down there tools any time soon.
      3. Short is the time it takes the freedom fighters to become the oppressors, the cycle continues on. If we rid the world of freedom, will that also rid the world of evil?

    52. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      being a god-boy and all, you must love your sheep. nothing like grabbing the rump of some spring lamb,, coming in from behind and...

      BAHHHH!!!

      oh yeah :-P~

    53. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think thats a rather broad over-simplification, but it is somthing Ive noticed as well.

      "But here's the real question: if you are a Sheepdog, what are YOU going to do about it?"

      I joined the Marine Corps.

      Seriously. Im posting from Iraq right now.

    54. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by lightning_queen · · Score: 1

      Actually, the experimentation I was referring to was Little Albert (see Classical Conditioning). My implication was also that human testing is severely limited and generally isn't supposed to be done without explicit permission (ie - the reciever/legal guardian of reciever is told that a drug/method is experimental and the reciever/guardian has to approve of using said drug/method). There comes a point where a given drug/method has to be used on people, otherwise we wouldn't have meds at all.

      As for my interpretation of the analogy, it's exactly that: an interpretation. It's not meant to be cold, hard facts. And as for the stuff about the carpenter and the office worker. Take a look for yourself. It's as simple as finding a person who's rarely/never worked in a blue-collar, hard labor job and a person who's worked in a blue-collar, hard labor job his/her whole life. No, it's not cold, hard facts that have had years of studying and are now in black and white papers, encyclopedias and the like, but then again, neither is the simple fact that kids will get bumped and bruised from time to time. I'd like to think things like that shouldn't have to be studied and researched and experimented ad nauseum for people to realize that it's been there all along.

      Now, in regards to the last paragraph in my last response, note the part of "and others," implying that "you" is no longer the personal, singular you, but the collective you, as in people in general. If you truly think that I attacked you personally, then you've already proven my point that this society has come to the point where nothing can be said or done without the fear of offending someone, somewhere, in some remote way. And come on, do you really think you're going to remember this very thread even this time next year? Unless you get some profound epiphany from it that you'll remember for the rest of your life, I highly doubt you, or anyone else involved in this entire thread, will remember much, if anything of this. The point is, even ten years from now, chances are, your ideas, values, and outlooks will be different from what they are now, partly because of the society we live in. Granted, what I said before may have been an exaggeration, but at the rate we're going, it may not be much of one. Political correctness and senseless paranoia have been taken to an extreme, and it doesn't take ten years of laboratory experimentation to figure that out.

    55. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      > What if my goal is to not be a sheepdog or a wolf, and be as far away from the sheepdogs and wolves as possible?

      Then you're a good sheep, and to quote from the article:

      "If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive
      citizen, a sheep." ...
      "Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that
      there are wolves in the land." ...
      "If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay,
      but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your
      loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you."

      And, finally:

      "This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no
      dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of
      degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and
      on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one
      end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between."

      > If you fight evil using the methods of evil, you become evil.

      And is having sharp teeth evil? Is *killing* people evil? Some people seem to think it is, and that it always is, no matter what, but I think otherwise - I think it depends very much on the circumstances.

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    56. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      And your solution is?

      No more sheepdogs?

      Live in reality: we *need* the sheepdogs. So if you have an idea about how the system can be better than it is, by all means, get out there and promote your idea. Otherwise, if you're not interested in doing anything about it, then sit back and hope someone else will, because that's about the only other option.

      The sheepdogs *expect* a lot of the sheep to dislike them.

      They go out there and do the job anyway.

      And, by the way, if you're talking about corrupt military, police, etc, then you're talking about wolves, not sheedogs... but even though I'm Canadian, I find your hinting that the American Military and police are wolves to be quite insulting. Hitler's Germany? Oh, wolves. Stalin's Russia? Wolves, definitely. No, not all of them (in either case), but plenty enough to matter. The USA today? I completely disagree that any majority are more wolves than sheepdogs.

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    57. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      >I would be able to kill in immediate self-defense, but I won't enter the slippery slope that finally sees me killing pre-emptively.

      So you wouldn't kill someone who had a loaded gun pointed at your head, but hadn't pulled the trigger yet?

      Self-defense is pre-emptive killing.

      What a novel concept.

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    58. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      > Your parable is just thinly-veiled support for military power, written by a (surprise-surprise) squaddie.

      I didn't notice it was veiled at all. It seemed pretty blunt and obvious.

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    59. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by CptPicard · · Score: 1

      As far as being "spiteful" (I would have used "disdainful" myself)

      Fine, I'm not a native speaker, bear with me ;-)

      Certainly MY ideal world is one where sheepdogs are unecessary, as there are no more wolves, and nobody ever WANTS to be a wolf.

      This brings us to an even more complex point of general politics... who is a wolf? I tend to, for example, believe in both our welfare state model AND the need to know how to defend one's home when genuinely neccessary (like, when Hitler and Stalin decide to carve up Europe and you end up on one side of the line)... this doesn't including everyone going out on the streets toting guns "just because they can". This would, in some people's eyes, make me a defender of wolves who want to destroy a healthy survival-of-the-fittest society through Socialism by allowing the weak live at the stronger ones' expense and favouring those who believe similarly... I have serious trouble subscribing to the general right-wing model of thought here, as it seems to turn the world into a rather dire battleground. The point here is that liking to play sheepdog does not mean that you need to escalate things just because you feel like it. There is quite a responsibility in drawing the line.

      You build up immunity to something by exposing yourself to controllable doses of the pathogen or stressor. If you spend your entire life inside a climate-controlled, sterile bubble, then the first time you get exposed to the tiniest disease, it kills you (or at least has a much greater effect on you) Same deal with any stressor. You don't help kids by isolating them from life, you help kids by mitigating their exposure to extreme stressors and helping them deal with the minor ones.

      You're actually not too wrong here. The only problem with the argument is that you don't build even more immunity by sending your kids to be child soldiers in Africa.

      BTW, I'm not an American either... I assume you're a Finn? Well with your universal conscription example, you proved my point - you have had some degree of exposure to sheepdoggery yourself, and so are better prepared to deal with life than someone who has not had that opportunity.

      Correct. And the reason why I felt the need to respond is that I believe this stuff is being argued way too much through a false dichotomy (which are dangerous political arguments to begin with). Finland has spent the 600 of the past 1000 years in a state of war. We are still around, as an independent country these days no less. You would think we are somehow particularly militaristic. We're not. We have very little gun crime because there are no guns... our violent crime mostly consists of drunken brawls with knives at worst. You can avoid those by not being a drunkard in the first place. The whole idea that a people who doesn't arm themselves to the extreme can't possibly be one that has had a history of self-defense is bull.

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
    60. Re:Sheep, Wolves, Sheepdogs by CptPicard · · Score: 1

      So you wouldn't kill someone who had a loaded gun pointed at your head, but hadn't pulled the trigger yet?

      Counts as immediate self-defense. The point is you don't push the concept too far, or everything becomes justified.

      --
      I want to play Free Market with a drowning Libertarian.
  167. War! with real rocks. by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid, we played war with real rocks- probably 4-6 ounces (kid fist size).

    Probably could have been seriously hurt.

    Last year, at the voodoo concert in NO a mosh pit formed and I got to get slammed. It was *very* enjoyable (didn't get out in the middle- which was a good decision since there was a broken thumb and a broken ankle-- these were marines on break from afganistan it turned out later in the parking lot.)

    --
    She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
  168. getting hurt by nuggz · · Score: 1

    Kids do break bones running into each other. Some parents are very overprotective.
    Makes me think of the games we used to play, one was to line up holding hands and people would try to run through your line, I'm pretty sure a game like that is banned.

    I don't know what it will take for people to realize that there is a problem with banning risky behaviour.
    As a child the penalty for misjudgements is a minor injury.
    Unfortunately we've turned into a society of not-my-fault and lawsuits.

    I watch out when I approach a door because I know it will hurt if I get hit by it. I'm sure someone has sued when they weren't careful approaching a closed door.

    1. Re:getting hurt by EvanED · · Score: 1

      Makes me think of the games we used to play, one was to line up holding hands and people would try to run through your line, I'm pretty sure a game like that is banned.

      "Red rover, red rover, sent Timmy over!"

      Wow, I hadn't thought about that for ages. (I'm not all that old either, so there's still hope this nonsense will be temporary...)

    2. Re:getting hurt by nuggz · · Score: 1

      Red rover aka
      Pomper, BBD, King of the Castle/Hill

      Lots of fun, a few scrapes bumps and bruises.
      Nobody really went overboard, and we just didn't let the more aggressive kids play.

  169. Case of misplaced priorities by patio11 · · Score: 1

    How's about we focus a wee little more on the unsupervised contact of fist-to-cheek, which happens often enough in our schools as I'm sure some Slashdotters can attest, and a little less on the unsupervised contact of palm-to-shoulder? I remember plenty of days when I went home bruised and/or crying and exactly none of them were caused my tag (or dodgeball, for that matter). Somebody slip our litigation-adverse administrators a memo that the kid getting picked on has hired Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe.

    1. Re:Case of misplaced priorities by robertjw · · Score: 1

      Not sure how it is where you live, or how long ago you went to school, but I have a friend with kids in elementary school. These days fighting is a SERIOUS issue - they get the police involved.

      Personally, I don't see any problem with fights either, as long as they don't get out of control. On some level I have a theory that some of this school violence (shootings) we continue to see might be related to the vicious no-fighting policies the schools have. It would be safer if the kids could settle problems with their fists rather than an AK-47.

  170. KIDS GET HURT IS ABOUT GROWING UP!! by jellomizer · · Score: 1

    It is very simple. Kids get hurt. They may break bones. A rare some may unfortunatly die. What the kid gets out of playing tag (Connection physical activity with Fun, Exercise, Getting it out of their system so they are more behaved durring class) is worth a lot more then a broken bone (normally at worse).

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  171. Its the same reason by Broken+scope · · Score: 1

    As when they banned tag recess because the "fat" children were feeling leftout as they were not able to enjpy the fun filled activites.

    --
    You mad
  172. Fond memories by smittyoneeach · · Score: 1

    We'd hit the playground with a nerf football and play tag with it. Really needed to work on the hand/eye coordination and agility, plus little wind sprints to retrieve the ball after a miss.
    Genuninely wish I could feel surprise that the state which has elected T. Kennedy, Kerry, Dukakis, Studds, and Romney would take such a tack.

    --
    Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
  173. Ridiculous... by ilzogoiby · · Score: 1

    Society is too dangerous... let's keep them from speaking with other kids, too...

  174. And people wonder ... by LaughingCoder · · Score: 1

    ... why people are leaving Massachusetts in droves. Having lived here most of my life (much to my embarrassment), I think the state should be renamed Nannychusetts.

    --
    The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
    1. Re:And people wonder ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you think people are leaving MA because of things like this you are out of touch. People are leaving because they can't afford the cost-of-living. Housing prices are completely out of wack with incomes.

      I hate to break it to you but this lawsuit driven micromanagment is nationwide.

  175. Oh my ... can we suppress this story? by golodh · · Score: 1
    I think there is a good case to be made that this story should be suppressed ... in the National Interest.

    Just imagine what would happen if word of this ever got out ... the sniggering, the laughter ... the disrespect ... the loss of credibility. Imagine how the French would ridicule us if they knew. Now estimate how much this could cost in lost contracts and in Political Capital. Political Capital that is needed more than ever to combat Terrorism.

    I propose an immediate news blackout and containment of all persons involved. This story cannot be allowed to leak out.

  176. bragging rights by RingDev · · Score: 1

    I played with lawn darts as a child, and we didn't sue anyone!

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  177. So when? by RexRhino · · Score: 1

    So when child obesity grows to even more extreme levels, because government schools don't let kids engage in "potentially dangerous" physical activities, and when kids are harrassed by police when they play ball in the vacant lot or ride their bikes in the street... and pretty much the only thing kids are allowed to do are supervised indoor activities... how will we blame child obesity on the cola companies and capitalism? Who are the American people going to sue for this?

  178. Geeks everywhere rejoice by alta · · Score: 1

    I can hear the thousands of geeks, nerds and dorks reading slashdot yell a collective 'why didn't they do that when I was in school'!!!

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    1. Re:Geeks everywhere rejoice by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I can tell you are not a true geek, at least not one that was picked on in school. The thing with tag is, YOU CAN CHOOSE NOT TO JOIN. If something happens to you it's your fault. The problem comes with things like dodgeball, where you are forced to play, and there are guys a foot taller than you trying to throw the ball as hard as they can so it hurts. Also the problem is when someone is picking on you and the yard suprivisor is standing right next to you and does nothing about it.

      --
      Qxe4
  179. The Underground History Of American Education by frenchbedroom · · Score: 3, Informative
    Recommended reading :

    "The Underground History Of American Education" by John Taylor Gatto

    If you're thinking about homeschooling your children, go read it. The entire book is there, online, for free. (just try not to slashdot it !)

    1. Re:The Underground History Of American Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>just try not to slashdot it !

      Yeah. So everybody but me stay the hell out.

      While you're at it, get off the internet. I'm about to download music and videos.

    2. Re:The Underground History Of American Education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i've owned the book for quite some time... awesome read.

  180. Die Hippie, Die by Smackintosh · · Score: 1

    Unfortunate, but true.

    This type of trend begs for analysis as to the true cause. Many would say it's the neverending lawsuits. I believe that's part of the equation, but I believe another contributer to be the parents of today which came from the baby boomer and flower child timeframes. I believe their 'openmindedness', 'free spirit', and general lack of personal accountability have resulted in weak overall parenting. Parents today no longer seem to hold their child accountable for anything and no longer support other adults (i.e. teachers) in disciplining their children properly. If a child gets poor grades, it must be the teacher's fault afterall. And if the teacher scolds or disciplines the precious child, the parent doesn't say 'Well, you got what you deserved', they go after the teacher and then the principal.

    I know I was taught much differently by my parents...who, thankfully, became adults and parents just prior to the late 60's/early 70's ridiculousness. I am a child of the 80s. Mine was a disciplined, sometimes physically enforced, upbringing. I had respect for my parents, partially out of simple fear of threats given for negative behavior. I had respect for all adults for the very same reason. I no longer see this same respect given to adults by children today, and I believe part of it is due to the lack of any martial discipline being employed. Poor parenting, with no manner of enforcement used to back up threats, only leads to poor children.

    And to those naysayers who label martial discipline as somehow inhumane: I say little Johnny can only be manipulated so much via psychological techniques and timeouts before he becomes a master manipulator himself.

  181. Mmmm, Mutton. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 2, Funny

    if you are a Sheepdog, what are YOU going to do about it?

    Eat the Sheep, invite the Wolves over, have a party?

    Oh, wait ... that's not it.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  182. British Bulldog by rHBa · · Score: 1

    There was a particularly violent varient of tag played at British playgrounds throughout the eighties called British Bulldog:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Bulldogs_(gam e)

    It was banned from all the schools in our borough (district) after two kids were taken to hospital with head injuries! It probably wouldn't have been so bad if they'd allowed us to play on the field out back but there weren't enough staff to keep an eye on us there so we played on the concrete playground instead.

    Personally I hated sports at school (I was never very atheletic) but this game was liberating 'cause there was no pressure to win for your team (the 'team' changed after every round of the game).

    It did have the unfortunate side effect of putting pupils in A&E on a regular basis but that was all part of growing up back in my day, no parent would have sued over it.

  183. We called it "High Water" by wandazulu · · Score: 1

    Heh, that's funny, in my school it was called "high water". The "it" kids would yell, more or less in unison, "HIGH WATER!" which was the call to run. We did it on a big concrete parking lot, so there was a lot of running and pushing with all that momentum behind it. Lots of falls to the ground, some tears, but good times and fond memories...I don't know of anyone who ended up getting walked to the nurse who wasn't out playing it again the next day.

  184. Who "feels safer" by Irvu · · Score: 1
    A parent was quoted as saying that her son feels safer now and that she'd witnessed enough "near collisions"


    Is it her son who feels safer or her?

    Seriously I doubt her kid is so fearful that he's afraid of playing tag. Or if he is then it's his mother who has issues. I had a friend like that in school. His mother made him wash his hands ten times a day to guard himself agains anything and everything. As a result he became a nervous wreck that she then felt the need to fill with (prescription) drugs so he would 'relax'. At that point it became a vicious cycle. She got nervious, he got nervous, she got more nervious because he was nervous, etc.

    IMHO some parents need to realize that their kids are far less fragile than they are, especially once they get out of diapers (nappys) if their parents ever let that happen.
  185. Ooooh by cybrzndane · · Score: 1

    When I saw the title of the article I thought they meant the body spray. ;-)

  186. That's all? by TobyRush · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I just recently learned that our school district (Greeley, Colorado) has done away with recess altogether. Apparently the superintendent feels that the time should be better used in the classroom.

    I know a teacher in the district (in fact, as I recall, she was recently named "Teacher of the Year" for the district, if not the state), and her experience confirms what most people would find obvious about the system: the kids hate it, the teachers hate it, the parents hate it, and student's ability to concentrate (especially in the afternoon hours) has taken a nosedive.

    --
    Sam! If you will let me be,
    I will try them.
    You will see.
  187. In a Future Story... by alta · · Score: 1

    Local school Bans movement.

    It is deemed that movement is deemed and unecessary risk and will be banned at all schools.

    In other news.... Schoolage kids' health in declined. It seems that kids these days are just too sedentary

    --
    Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
  188. Uniforms... by 22FF001100 · · Score: 1
    Hello mcrbids,
    I agree with your post. Except for this small part:::

    make them all wear "regulation uniforms",

    Now, in highschool, I was of the same idea that there shouldn't be any "uniforms" for school. Just... let me wear whatever I want.
    BUT! My school had really, really great teachers and administration "people". Grown-ups.
    Once, my entire class was discussing various issues with some faculty/administration members, and we brought up the "uniform" topic.
    We were ALL behind the fact that we should NOT have to wear uniforms.

    Well, I got convinced very fast with their arguments.
    Why did they prohibit "casual" clothes instead of uniforms?
    Because the school I went to was, erm, really costly.
    Affluent families and such.
    The school provides (to this day it does, funded 100% be ex-students donating $) scholarships to kids that don't have the economic means to attending.

    So, if we started wearing casual clothes, the kids with $-affluent families would start wearing fancy clothes... and such.
    Fine with that.

    But, us being kids, for sure there were going to be problems of "making fun" of kids that used the same shirt (OMGWTFBBQ!) two times the same week.
    Or the kid that probably had a limited closet of clothes.
    So, I agree with having "uniforms"... although it sucks if you're trying to be Mr. I'm-the-most-rebelious-teenager-in-the-planet-argh h-stop-looking-arghhh-stop-reading!

    Nothing, I see this "playing tag band" really stupid.
    And to those people::: YOU STUPID FUCKS.

    But anyways, I thought I loose my daily 10minutes of life here on /.
    God knows I don't want to contribute to 70 days of my life playing WoW.

    Peace and love /.

    Taco's Long Lost Anon Poster

    1. Re:Uniforms... by Doctor+Faustus · · Score: 1

      Uniforms are fine, as long as they're decent uniforms. They should be a choice of school shorts and a school T-shirt, jeans and a T-shirt, or jeans and a sweatshirt. Maybe allow skirts, with the same shirt choices.

      What I'm against is forcing a bunch of kids into fussy, impractical dress pants / white dress shirt / tie / sweater vest getups.

    2. Re:Uniforms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think skirts should be the mandatory school uniform, along with tights. This goes for boys as well.

    3. Re:Uniforms... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a guy, and I'd love to wear a skirt and tights every day.

  189. What a way to get rid of childhood obesity... by kbox · · Score: 1

    ... To ban all light exercise that may result in a slight injury or grazed,knee. Might as well ban walking too.

  190. Snowball Fight by PrestoChango · · Score: 1

    I got in serious trouble in 3rd grade (early 90s) for having a snowball fight at recess. They had told us not to (something about ice chunks hiding in snowballs), but come on! We were little kids and there was a foot of snow on the field. What did they think was going to happen?

    People are over protective of their kids. Yes, I know it hurts to see your kid scrape his knee, but he probably had a lot of fun doing it. It's a risk he takes playing tag (or whatever). Teach him how to identify risk and recognize when it's not worth it. Unless it's something that could kill or seriously injure them, show them how to do it safely.

    I realize it's probably harder than I'm making it out to be (I don't have kids), but the amount of trust you have in your kid's judgement needs to increase with time or they'll never learn to trust themselves. My parents responded very well to my snowball incident. I got the "you broke the rule and the punishment is fair" kind of talk, but they didn't care that I got in a snowball fight. They trusted me to know not to throw ice at people and to leave if people started throwing it at me.

    The world is a dangerous place, but there's a lot of situations that aren't nearly as dangerous as people pretend.

  191. Simple, encase them in carbonite by Critical+Facilities · · Score: 1

    They should be very well protected....if they survive the freezing process.

  192. It's a liability issue, people by hubritc · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think we can all agree this is silly. TFA makes it to be a liability issue. So though it may be silly to try to protect kids from simple games, it's worse having to do it because someone could sue and possibly win substantial money for what we know are scrapes and bruses and such that are a part of childhood.

  193. outlaw tag? by Holy+Gamer · · Score: 1

    so, that's what's going on? We complain that children are obese because they eat mcdonalds three times a day, then ban tag and other sports/activities that actually get them moving around. The hipocrisy is so deep, I think I hav to start holding my breath.

    --
    J. Ginsberg Wholly Gamer The Path Leads Upwards
  194. Animals by Wiarumas · · Score: 1

    God forbid an animal ever chases them... they won't know what to do then.

    --
    I will bend like a reed in the wind.
  195. Wow... how stupid... by dasunst3r · · Score: 1

    ... and we are wondering why kids are becoming more fat these days. Solely taking away "unhealthy" foods will not help. There needs to exist a balance between the healthy and unhealthy stuff.

  196. Wrong question. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1
    How are kids supposed to learn a damn thing when the schools are run by idiots?
    It's not a question of if the kids are learning or not, because kids always learn. Every child (except for those with true mental defects) is learning, all the time. The real question is "what are we teaching them?"

    Because they're going to learn; if not in the classroom than from example. If they learn that all risk is bad, then they're going to become adults willing to throw everything away, just because of the possibility of harm.

    If we live constantly in fear, then they are going to learn that living in fear is normal, and our responses to it are the correct ones.

    The question is never just "are we teaching," it's "what are we teaching."

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  197. Good by rsk · · Score: 1

    I'm glad to see this happen, for too long children have been able to do "stuff" and see "things". With rulings like this and future parents suing for what their children eat, to who they talk to, to what they do when they ditch school even, I am really looking forward to a school system that is instead run by fear and looks a lot like a penitentury or a nursing home.

    As long as kids are held back from experiencing anything, then I feel safe. And as long as I feel safe, that's all that matters... or I'll sue you.
    http://www.breakitdownblog.com/2006/10/18/boston-s chool-bans-tag-and-other-unsupervised-contact-spor ts/

  198. British Bulldogs anyone by joss · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This nambification has been going on for ages. When I was at school
    everyone used to play British Bulldogs [on tarmac], but that was banned
    (and this was decades ago) since it caused too many injuries
    [about one broken nose or equivalent per day].
    Bloody fun game though - a bit like rugby, but not nearly as
    safe http://web.ukonline.co.uk/conker/games/sept.htm#bu lldog

    --
    http://rareformnewmedia.com/
    1. Re:British Bulldogs anyone by digitalhermit · · Score: 1

      Oh yeah.. Well when I was young we used to engage in a sport called "Bulldog Baiting". Mrs. Baker, the neighbor down the street, had a big black bulldog. It barked at anyone that walked near the chainlink fence. On the way to school we had to walk by it. That puny chain around her neck wouldn't stop her from jumping the fence... and the school was on the same side of the road so it would look sissy to cross the street then cross back. So we braved the bulldog. One time the dog wasn't chained and could move around in the yard. Boy, that near gave us a heart attack. Most days we just ran by. On some days, to prove our courage, we'd stand in front of it for 10 seconds or so that seemed an eternity. So you can talk about your namby pamby schoolyard game of "touch the boy", but I faced death, man. :D

    2. Re:British Bulldogs anyone by Mushdot · · Score: 1

      We are currently holding conker championships in our office ( the conker in your url reminded me!). I didn't realise that conkers had been banned from schools unless kids wore protective eye goggles!

    3. Re:British Bulldogs anyone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To be fair, British Bulldogs can be an extremely violent game. Rugby has just 2 rules that are there for safety - No high tackles, and blood substitutions. British Bulldogs has neither! I survived without injury by being tall and heavy, although I ultimately never "won" because of not being the fastest.

  199. Lawn darts by nuggz · · Score: 1

    Yeah but the neighbour got pretty pissed at what they did to his nice new deck.

    I remember lawn darts being banned, but everyone I knew was careful because they could hurt you.
    Then we got these safety darts, and people stopped worring and got hurt MORE.

  200. kids already wear uniforms; jeans and t-shirt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As someone who had to wear 'regulation uniform' years back at school, I can tell you that it probably fosters your individuality more than not having one. The natural response of any kid is to rebel against such restrictions, and therefore it encourages creativity and individuality rather than extinguish it.
    As the clothes aren't stuff you'd like to wear, you don't give a shit about covering them in mud, grass-stains and blood. :)

    Everyone subverts the rules, you just have to know how far to push it without getting bollocked. I think we all agree that is a key learning experience...

    The kids all have their own uniforms, even if there's not a 'regulation uniform'. It just depends on how much cash they've got, who their friends are, what music they're into, etc. Ironically their own desire to belong to a group is actually stronger than 'being an individual'.

    Brian - You are all individuals!
    crowd- Yes! We are all individuals!
    bloke - I'm not.

  201. Coddled Kids by thethibs · · Score: 1

    You have to feel sorry for the kids.

    Natural selection will ultimately fix this, but it will take a few generations.

    --
    I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
  202. Ah, the release forms. by Kadin2048 · · Score: 1

    In most states those release forms are meaningless, because you can't sign away the rights of a minor child, and neither can they.

    They exist more as a discouragement against people bringing suits, than any real defense in court if they did. If your child is injured while in someone else's care, and you can demonstrate that they were negligent and convince a jury of this, a release form isn't going to stop you from collecting. And of course, ususally you can just threaten to create enough of a hassle in court to force a cheaper out-of-court settlement with the insurance company. Avoids the trial but still means higher insurance premiums for everybody.

    Varies state by state, I'm sure.

    --
    "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
  203. What next? Banning paper? by borg007 · · Score: 1

    In other news, Joe Pedophile, Principal of the local elementary school announced that his decision to ban paper in school was NOT made in haste. "Listen up people. This stuff is dangerous. Just this morning I cut myself and I've been involved in education for over 30 years! There's no money in the budget to train people to safely use it, so I'm forced to ban it. The good news is that sissors are out too. We no longer need them." This just in breaking news, 300,000,000 Americans sign a class-action lawsuit against the paper industry, citing the industry's history of marketing an unsafe product to minors. Sissor and paste makers were listed as co-conspirators. I'd smile, but I can see this happening.

    1. Re:What next? Banning paper? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Joe Pedophile, Principal of the local elementary school

      I wondered where Foley and other republicans would go after Congress.

  204. VIVA LA BIGTOY! by torbo · · Score: 1

    Yes.. Telephone poles held together by steel tubes. The best thing in the world for a child at recess. They could crack heads, dislodge teeth, and tear flesh. For decades the BigToy playground equipment taught kids the things they could not learn from teachers... What hurts and why not to do that again. All the BigToy equipment in my home town has been replaced with rubber coated shapes which have no right angles or sharp edges of any sort. Children are being coddled by the schools because they are afraid of being sued by parents who would rather place blame than take accountability for their children. We're teaching kids to be soft and showing them that their actions don't have consequences.

  205. Games kids play(ed) by MoxFulder · · Score: 1

    Lessee... in elementary school we played Tag, Smear the Queer, Dodgeball, Kick the Girls (!!), and some rather brutal tackle snow football. I was a small scrawny nerd and got plenty of scrapes, bruises, and blows to the head. In retrospect, that was all good cause I needed some toughening up.

    Smear the Queer is obviously too politically incorrect to be played anymore, Kick the Girls is not very nice, global warming is going to eliminate snow football, Dodgeball can cause concussions... the only one left is Tag, which is a ridiculously non-dangerous game. Banning tag is going to be unenforceable. Any time one kid starts running, and another starts chasing--there's a game of tag going. Playing games like tag is so primeval and innate that even animals do it.

    This reminds me of how my liberal mom decided I shouldn't have any toy guns. I guess she figured if I didn't have toy guns I would be a non-violent, upstanding person! Of course, this just caused me to make my own toy guns, and spend lots of time tinkering with them and thinking about them. Then my friend's dad, who made his own archery equipment, carved us a pair of super awesome rubber-band rifles... and my mom pretty much threw in the towel :-)

    1. Re:Games kids play(ed) by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      Any time one kid starts running, and another starts chasing--there's a game of tag going.
      don't let the children run, ever. then sue when they get fat.

      --
      We are all just people.
    2. Re:Games kids play(ed) by MoxFulder · · Score: 1

      Also, don't let the kids eat peanuts. They might be allergic. Don't let them eat meat. It's cruel and too fatty. Don't let them eat dairy. See above. Give them only refined carbohydrates, nice and safe. Then sue when they get diabetes =)

    3. Re:Games kids play(ed) by Noodles_HK · · Score: 1

      My oldest daughter want to be a "ganster" (not a gangta) for halloween, so we'll get her a "rubber tommy gun"... and I had to ask her friend's parents if that was OK... luckily, they were reasonable people, and said toy guns are OK. Life is not the same without a toy gun...

  206. ObSimpsonsQuote by pjcreath · · Score: 1
    From Brother's Little Helper:
    Pharm. 2: ...This pill reduces class clownism 44%.
    Pharm. 1: With 60% less sass-mouth.
    Pharm. 2: The only thing more effective is regular exercise.
  207. Tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought the article was referring to Tag Body Spray...

  208. Tag, Your it! by MrJerryNormandinSir · · Score: 1

    These are the idiots teaching the generation of kids growing up? Gee.. give me a break! Every kid deserved the right to play tag. My kids were playing hide and seek the other day, except now kids call it "Manhunt". How about Whip! Have you ever played a good old neighborhood game of Whip when you were little? That's when you get 10 or more players on each side, hold hands and put together a gauntlet, run into each others opposing teams and knock each other down. That's a game for 6 year olds... it evolved into a rushing game, no hand holding, just run into each other's opposing team in a tight formation and knock everyone down. That evolved into a game we called "Last Man Standing". Hey.. I still have all my teeth. what I'm getting at is tag is nothing. next thing you know the kiddies won't be able to play "Duck, Duck, Duck, Duck, Goose!"

    I only had to stop my 14, 17, and 20 year old sons to stop one game , it was dodgeball, with a 5lb medicine ball!
    It was my 14 year olds idea.

  209. slashdot effect? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here is the school's website...
    http://wes.attleboroschools.com/
    ya know.. just in case you want to click on it a few times to let them know we are out here.

    AC because I already moderated in this story

  210. the liberal title may have been mangled by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 1

    What a liberal is may have been distorted by talk show hosts. The people whining about liberals here may be acting like name calling brats (and have done nothing to help the situation). They still have a point that this trend was started by people who fit the liberal mold. Yes, I consider myself a liberal, but I just want to throw pies at these people who want these stupid useless restrictions. It shames, but I think the current crop of 'safety' pushers is beyond liberal or conservative.

    These are the 'swing' voters who run from party to party trying to find that will protect them the most. These are the 'security moms', the people who fear Columbines or terrorist missiles aimed at their childrens' schools and will vote accordingly. This is the descendent of the 'temperance' movement and the anti-gambling and anti-prostitution movements.

  211. to continue by a.d.trick · · Score: 1

    I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for schoolmasters, who, as they have already devoured most of the child's mind, seem to have the best title to the body.


    I wish I had mod points for the parent today, but such is life. For geeks will a rather modest literary exposure, the allusion is to Johnathan Swift's A Modest Proposal. Highly recommended reading.

  212. Happened to Me :( by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

    We used to play British Bulldog on a grassy field at my elementary school till they cancelled it.

    I guess it was pretty dangerous, especially in winter when the field was 4cm thick ice...

    It was fun though, people are too strong to really play British Bulldog anymore, last time I tried to get people to play 5 young adults got hurt :(

  213. You think thats bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where i come from some schools have banned Children from running... anywhere.

    Partly because the dont have space for them to run, partly because they dont have enough teachers to supervise, and mostly because of fear of getting sued.

    Why not just ban excercise completly and give in to obesity.

  214. Reminds me of an email forward by Thanatos69 · · Score: 1

    This is dedicated to
    Those Born From 1930-1979!

    TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's !!

    First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant. They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.

    Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

    We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking.

    As infants & children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts or air bags. Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.

    We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle. We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.

    We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank koolade made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because .

    WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!

    We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

    No one was able to reach us all day.
    And we were O.K.

    We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes. After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.

    We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound, CD's or Ipods, no cell phones!, no personal comput ers , no Internet or chat rooms.......! WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

    We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

    We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

    We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays,

    made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not put out very many eyes.

    We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!

    Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

    The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of.
    They actually sided with the law!

    These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
    The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
    We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned

    HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!

    1. Re:Reminds me of an email forward by haapi · · Score: 1

      yeah, I've seen that before. We just received the above on a family mailing list. My 15-year-old daughter responded with:

      To all the old people who were born in the 20's, 30's... yeah you know who you are.

      You've made cities for us with busy roads and paved streets. You've made us wear helmets.

      You've told us not to get in cars with strangers.

      We've heard countless lectures from you on the importance of wearing a seatbelt.

      We've had friends who have gotten sick from sharing soft drinks.

      Your healthiness is spilling over onto us, so we eat wheat bread and drink diet pop or water.

      You've given us cell phones so you always know where we are.

      We play sports, but it's hard to get outside when you have homework to do.

      If we don't make the team, you still insist on making us play on a less competitive team so we can be active.

      Hey... thanks.

      --
      Well, apparently, you only have to fool the majority of people for a little while.
  215. As a Bostonian I must say... by shotgunefx · · Score: 1

    This is wicked fuckin retarded.

    --

    -William Shatner can be neither created nor destroyed.
  216. Re:Simple Child Care - Just say no... by dextromulous · · Score: 1

    ... to the Keanu Reeves.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: those who divide people into two types and those who don't.
  217. whatever! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When you keep kids from playing activities like that where theres a chance that they'll hurt themselves, you breed in weakness. I think it's better to let a child get hurt a little playing some game like tag (it builds muscles and endurance too) than having them get the shit beaten out of them in later life because theyre too naive and know nothing of pain and strength. seriously, make the parents sign a disclaimer or something, I bet most would, but I think it's unfair to not allow children to play tag or other physical sports.

  218. prevention of what? by NRISecretAgent · · Score: 1

    The question is, in banning tag at recess, have they made playing safer or merely prevented the harm of lack of supervision? Here's a genius idea, maybe we can ask a few teachers to take their breaks outside. It seemed to work pretty well for us. Teachers stand around and chat during the break and just make sure that nobody gets hurt. What "real" teacher wouldn't want to make sure that their students weren't supervised? At least that way when a kid gets told that they can't play by one of the teachers then they can engage in the favorite past time of "I hate Mr/Mrs. so-and-so."

  219. Huh? by impleri · · Score: 1

    What is this thing called "tag"? I thought it was something Technorati invented because people couldn't think well enough to organize their thoughts around 3 categories: sex, food, and toys...

  220. Thats just sad by castusalbuscor · · Score: 1

    Maybe its because I come from a middle eastern country, maybe not, but banning tag is just sad!
    So what if the child falls! Isnt that a part of growing up?
    If the parents are afraid that thier children are going to get hurt then I recomend they home school them

  221. Final solution by sjames · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Clearly, we can't allow any pain or injury at all. Therefor, all children should have all sensory nerves severed before entering school. To prevent injury we can epoxy a big wrapping of foam rubber on to them. They can breathe through tubes connected to HEPA filters.

    Then, when they turn 18, we can send them to Iraq. If they live through that for at least 3 years we can let them drink in lieu of actual psychological help but we must all agree to disapprove on the record and wonder aloud why they can't just be productive little consumers like their parents.

    I suppose we COULD insist that our civil law system acknoledge once and for all that sometimes stuff just happens and that it's really not reasonable or just to randomly subject people to thousands in legal bills they can't afford just to affirm that. Then....NAAAH! It'll never happen, pass the epoxy and a scalple!

    Now if we could just figure out where they get the idea that popping some pills is a reasonable answer to life's little problems.

  222. Oh, that kind of tag by gumplunger · · Score: 1

    I thought this was going to be about a school banning the Tag spray because young men were getting raped, like on the commercials. But yeah, this sounds pretty dumb.

  223. Body Spray? by SAN66 · · Score: 1

    By just reading TFH at first, I thought they were refering to the lame guys cologne that smells like ass and has equally bad commecials. I was going to praise them for a ban on that... in good taste, but now I see its the game tag and well banning it is just stupid. *tag* You are it.. ahh *walks to feet to lightly tap docile school patron **tag* Now it is you who are it

  224. OT: Burnball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Our variation of that game, was called Assball, if you miss, you get an "A". You miss again you get an "S", until you spell A-S-S. At that point, you go up against the wall, bend over and everyone pelts you with the ball.

    1. Re:OT: Burnball by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      Whoah! I grew up in Castro Valley, California, and we called this game "Red Ass." Where are you from?

      BTW, the craziest game of this I ever saw took place in an emptied swimming pool. And instead of going "up against the wall," you had to hang from the diving board.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    2. Re:OT: Burnball by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. I thought it was an East Coast thing. I grew up in New Jersey, outside of Philly.

  225. perfume? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid we used to beat up boys who wore perfume.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  226. Really? Who are they going to play tag with then? by Venerable+Vegetable · · Score: 2, Insightful

    School is where you learn to interact with the real, big (sometimes painful) world, you don't learn that at home.

  227. Old news in UK by Goodgerster · · Score: 1

    My secondary (11-16) school here in the UK banned contact sports a long time before I arrived in 2001. It seems to have worked somewhat, although the smoking chavs haven't yet been noticed...

  228. Back in my day... by sam991 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All 6 years ago, we used to play British Bulldog in the dark. This involved two teams of about 30 kids in the sports hall, no lighting whatsoever and we'd just run at each other in the pitch black. Whoever had the most people still standing was declared the winning team. We'd also play rugby thrice a week and not a single week would go by without a broken bone for someone in my year.

    This was at an exclusive private school and i have to say that most of those people in my year grew up to go into law, medicine, business or sports. I firmly believe that had we not had the freedom to do such things, we probably would not have had the independance, drive and ambition to strive for goals in life. When you're constantly told aren't allowed to do something, you start to wonder just what you can do.

    It seems to me that the problem isn't with the education system per se but with the state education system, where ridiculous lawsuits often do happen. Admittedly we're some way off from this situation here in the UK but i can see a ban on contact sports happening within the decade and that will be a very sad day for traditional sports.

    --
    "No, no, no, don't tug on that! You never know what it might be attached to."
  229. Sue the School by Morosoph · · Score: 1

    Ridiculousness should be met with ridiculousness.

    Lack of touch seriously hinders emotional development (by that I mean innocent touch, such as when playing tag (!)). The school are acting in order to avoid liability. The lesson should be that they cannot avoid liability in quite such a brain-dead and controlling fashion. With a good lawyer, a potential liability can be made near-certain, and this piece of brain-dead control-freakery can be reversed.

  230. Smaller families == more protective? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One thing that's happened over the past few decades is that families are getting smaller. When you've got 4 kids, if something bad happens to one, it's easier to write it off as there's backups. But, when parents are putting all their eggs (make that egg) in one basket, they're going to be a lot more protective. Not sure there's an easy way to solve this.

  231. Banned by Shadyman · · Score: 1

    School bans 'Tag'... Nazbatag unavailable for comment.

  232. It is a by Dak_Peoples · · Score: 1

    victory for USA lawyers! Pretty soon we'll have to bubble wrap our kids up and send them off to school.

    --
    This is my signature.
  233. Or move to a red state by Bob+4knee · · Score: 3, Informative
    We gave up on the east coast and "moved to america" three years ago. The kids here don't have a sense of entitlement, and don't feel like everything is somebody else's fault. The adults think the same way. The government leaves people alone, in general, and the people don't go running to the government or courts for redress when they fall down and skin their knee.

    My 8 year old is on an organized football team. Aside from the comic relief provided by a 64 pound (in full gear) defensive end, there are no problems. Kids twist ankles, get bruises, and get their hands stepped on by other kids in cleats. Nobody has been sued yet.

    He's also active in cub scouts. We've got lots of rules from the national level that folks out here in America just can't understand. Being a recent transplant, I try to explain some of the rules (e.g. we can't ride on a float in next week's parade, or carpool kids to a campout w/out prior permission, insurance verification, and signed parental permission slips). The people who have lived here their whole life can't believe that a parent would/could sue when a kid falls down and gets hurt. Some of them probably think I'm making stuff up when I tell them the way it is "back east".

    Out here it's not a federal case when a kid splits his head open on the monkey bars or sprains something falling off a swing. It's considered part of growing up, and a learning experience. Most of the kids aren't obese, they have chores and sports and other activities. There seems to be a lot more really tough, really old people around here also. Hmmm..

    1. Re:Or move to a red state by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The kids here don't have a sense of entitlement, and don't feel like everything is somebody else's fault. The adults think the same way.

      Well, they talk a good story, but for the most part they're a bunch of fucking leeches. whose entire lifestyles are entirely due to their sense of entitlement to *my* wallet.

      No wonder they're so fucked up when they're living in that deep of a delusion.

      You didn't move to America. You moved to Leechland.

  234. Us 'mericans. by UseTheSource · · Score: 1

    Besides the fact that we're stubborn, I think it also has something to do with the fact that a degree Fahrenheit is a much finer unit than a degree Celsius. Sure, you can say (roughly-speaking) 4.5, 5 or 5.5 degrees Celsius, but it's a lot neater to say 40, 41 or 42 degrees Fahrenheit. Sure, an extra couple of degrees really doesn't make a noticeable difference, but we 'mericans like to be exacting like that sometimes, even when it doesn't matter all that much.

    As in, "gee, it's supposed to be colder today than yesterday," even if the difference is only 1 degree F.

    Anyway, why should we change? Can't the rest of the world change for us? :P

    --
    "Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer." -Adolf Hitler
    "We are one Nation, we are one People." -The One 'leader'
  235. In other news... by lattyware · · Score: 1

    In other news, school children will be bubble wrapped as of next year.

    --
    -- Lattyware (www.lattyware.co.uk)
  236. The real danger! by macwarriorny · · Score: 1

    So as I understand it, to keep the children safe they're restricting their physical activity at recess and shoving glorified fast-foods down their throat at lunch time? Beautiful. The Good ol' USA - land of the lard.

    --
    Life is such a sweet insanity. The more you learn, the less you know.
  237. The dangers of shortsided thinking by Admin_Jason · · Score: 1

    While I can understand the need for schools to protect themselves from the litigious nature of society, this goes too far, and also does not take into account the long term downsides. I fear for our youth who will grow up obese, diabetic, on Ridalin, and are unsocialized. When the youth of today grow up and are walking down the streets of New York are they going to sue everyone that dares to nudge them on the busy sidewalks? Oh wait - they won't be on the sidewals because the city will have banned walking in public for fear of being sued!

    --
    Just another nameless binary in a crowd of 1's and 0's
  238. Million dollar litigation by blueZ3 · · Score: 1

    comes not from punitive awards (at least not as the root cause) but from the ability of lawyers to take a "cut" of the cash. If lawyers were required to charge a set fee, you'd never see class action suits where the lawyers ask for $1 billion dollars and each plaintif gets $0.38 while each lawyer gets $1 million.

    I don't know what the solution is, as all the proposed remedies have downsides (loser pays, etc). But the current system sucks.

    --
    Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
  239. Bolo Ball by PenGun · · Score: 1

    When I was a kid, think late 60s, we invented our own game at school. We played it for 3 weeks till they banned it. The infirmary was way to busy.

      Take two hard rubber balls, a bit bigger than fist sized is nice. 3/4" nylon rope about 4' long. Drill holes in the balls for the rope and knot it both sides of the balls to make a "bolo" 'bout 3' long.

      Broken hockey stick handels 'bout 3' - 4', tape the ends eh', and a football field is all you need for "Bolo Ball".

      No rules except to score you gotta wrap the bolo round some part of the opposing team's goal.

      We played full contact tackle, rugby with sticks, and the whole school would come out and watch. It was mayhem with fairly serious injuries in every game. Damn it was fun.

        PenGun
      Do What Now ??? ... Standards and Practices !

  240. I'm working in a primary (elementary) school atm.. by Stormx2 · · Score: 1

    I'm doing work experience. Beleive me, the kids here play all the time and get hurt sometimes. Its part of growing up, they never have serious injuries. There just isn't a climate here in semi-rural england for lawsuits, people don't do that sort of thing. Every parent has enough sense to know what the school does all it can to keep children out of harms way without ruining their education

    And you've got to remember than when you first start primary/elementary school, there is almost no devisions between "working" in a classroom and "playing" outside. Most of the stuff done in the classroom is play-related.

  241. Small lessons w/minor consequences by cwills · · Score: 2, Insightful
    To quote a STNG episode
    "If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you oughtta go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires both subtle and gross; but it's not for the timid." -- Q (Q Who?)

    We are ending up with a society that is afraid of its own shadow, that cannot make real life and death decisions, and that wants to be protected from all harm. Without being exposed to activities where one could possibly be hurt in a minor fashion, people do not have a frame of reference to make decisions when things really do matter. Instead when someone does get hurt, there is a huge outcry to ban whatever activity caused the injury, no matter how minor.

    I hate seeing anyone hurt, especially kids, but the lessons that can be learned from a minor mishap can hopefully be applied later when making a decision that has real consequences. Some of natures more harsher tests are a pass/fail grade with no chance to take the test again, it's much better being able to take some of the smaller pop quizes.

  242. DCFS by sadler121 · · Score: 1

    That's fine until your children tell their teacher their parents are not feeding them, and the DCFS comes and takes your children away...

    1. Re:DCFS by rblancarte · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The wuss answer for things of course - have someone else fight your battle for you.

      This is prime example of what they have spoken about as far as the Wussification of America. We don't play tag, we don't play sports to win or lose, we have to cry to the authorities when things don't go our way.

      This is a joke. Sports and especially games like Tag and Dodgeball teach prime lessions about life. That is mainly - if you don't like being the guy picked last or the one that is always it, or always getting hit first - GET BETTER. Seriously. If you are slow, and you are IT in tag, you better get faster or else you will always be it. If you don't like getting hit by the ball in dodge ball - learn to catch, and then learn to dish it out when you do have the ball.

      Hell, sports - places don't want to keep score because "it will hurt feelings." BOO HOO. If you don't like losing - start winning. Learn to play better. Catch the football, hit the baseball, work out your jumper.

      The amazing thing is that some of our best athletes were guys who learned that they hated to lose - Jordan (guy didn't even make JV his Sophmore year in high school!!!), McEnroe, Sampras, Montana, Gretsky (canaidian, but you get the point).

      Fact is - IMHO, things like this are what are taking the competitve edge away from our country. It is starting the wusses young and making them that way as they grow up.

      RonB

      --
      It is human nature to take shortcuts in thinking.
    2. Re:DCFS by aevans · · Score: 1

      Michael Jordan was varsity his sophomore year. His sob story was that he didn't make varsity his freshman year and had to play JV until a growth spurt between 9th and 10th grade.

    3. Re:DCFS by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      "Dodgeball is a sport of violence, exclusion and degradation." - Patches O'Houlihan There ain't nothin' wrong with Dodgeball!

    4. Re:DCFS by EveLibertine · · Score: 1


                "Sports and especially games like Tag and Dodgeball teach prime lessions about life. That is mainly - if you don't like being the guy picked last or the one that is always it, or always getting hit first - GET BETTER."


      Sports taught me something different. Even though I was fairly good at most sports, it slowly occurred to me over time that sports are a pretty retarded waste of time. By the time I was in high school I had made the full conversion into a geek.

      Besides, there are other alternatives to sports that teach kids about working hard and competition. Some people just don't find it interesting enough to chase someone down and take their ball or whatever. If you want to see some real competition, why don't you play me in a game of 'Go'?

              "Fact is - IMHO"
      Also, why would you bother stating your opinion as fact?

    5. Re:DCFS by porcupine8 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      You think it's bad in sports! They're just catching up with the rest of schools. You can't give kids Fs or keep them behind a grade because it'll hurt their feelings. You can't put kids in accelerated classes or skip them a grade because it'll hurt the OTHER kids' feelings.

      It's only just starting in sports, but soon it'll be just like the academic subjects: Everyone who wants to play a sport gets randomly distributed onto teams of mixed ability levels, and everyone is encouraged to play at the median level. Those who are faster, more flexible, more skilled, etc will have to sit on the sidelines until the rest of the team "catches up". The ones with real talent will have to look to outside programs to have any chance at developing their skills further.

      --
      Warning: Apple/Nintendo fangirl. Likes her electronics cute & cuddly. May be rabid.
    6. Re:DCFS by Tambourman · · Score: 1

      I feel that this doesn't only apply to sports. I feel it applies in learning as well. My main concern in the dumbing down in America is the creation of curriculums that everyone can get, no matter what. I worry that many students remain in the dark because they were never challenged. My 2 cents...

    7. Re:DCFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Hasn't it been proven yet that all old people think that all young people have it too easy?

      Ain't it true that--once out in the 'real world'--it's also not the case that the most competent ones get ahead? I'm glad the schools are teaching kids that the world isn't fair and that hard work doesn't necessarily get you anywhere. Maybe people will learn to have fun once they learn the futility of hard work.

      --off to play tag

    8. Re:DCFS by IcyNeko · · Score: 1

      This only occurs if the overall education level isn't dropping. Unfortunately, if we start making things sissy just to make sure that Timmy doesn't feel like he needs to cut himself because Susie beat him in the National Fitness score, it may eventually transition to other parts. We'll get soft on the kids. We'll be nicer to make education "easier" and more "for the kids" than "for the kids' future". The real problem is that "mom" and "dad" aren't doing their fracking job and "teaching the kids" and "spending time with the kids". Instead, "mom" and "dad" are too busy with the TV, WoW, a sports bar, work, etc. Your kid isn't a sissy because of society. It's because you aren't teaching your kid to stand up for themselves.

    9. Re:DCFS by IcyNeko · · Score: 1

      Religion has no similarities with sports. Sports ARE opt-in. People have plenty of other choices at Recess. Religion in schools is not warrented. No one school would honor all religions. They would go with the religious majority. It wouldn't be opt-in. What about the atheists? What if a Muslim had to pray 5 times a day... would they be excused to leave from a lesson to pray? Most likely not. Finally, religion causes people to be blind for some reason. They lose sight of the fact that religions provide a moral guideline, rather than an accurate account of historical fact. You get intelligent Design asshats who sit there and denounce science (what HAS a place in schools). I can't believe someone would try and package a "we're too soft on kids" argument with "We need religion" agenda. You're a tool for trying. GTFO the internet.

    10. Re:DCFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not religion that is similar to sports; it's the situation concerning both of them being removed from the school systems. Religion is opt-in too. Where in the United States do you know of where you are forced into practicing a religion? Religion in schools IS warranted and wanted, just not by people like you, but again, you are in the minority just as with parents who think their kids are better off w/o sports. Even if schools went with the religious majority, that doesn't mean it is forced upon the kids. The fact that I even mentioned religion in this thread doesn't mean I was advocating schools to indoctrinate kids by teaching them how to pray and what to pray about and the teachings of the Bible (although as a "history" lesson this is being done to kids with Islam). You assume that because you have no other defense so as soon as you hear "religion" you go running like a chicken with its head cut-off. I'm stating that schools should let kids practice what they believe but not endorse anything. Get that through your thick liberal skull and you might see my point. It should be opt-in with religion as with sports (in or out of recess) not mandatory but some schools prevent kids from exercising their right to play as well as their right to freedom of religion.

      And what about the atheists? They don't believe in God anyway so what about them? If they don't want to pray then don't pray. It's OPT-IN remember (or at least its supposed to be but you don't realize that and neither do some school systems), just like playing dodgeball at recess? I don't know if Muslims would be excused but they would need to be allowed to pray just as anyone else instead of letting no one pray (freedom of religion remember?). How do Muslims handle it now since they aren't allowed to pray? Religion only makes *some* people blind, just like no religion makes *some* people act violent or have no morals or think no one else should have a religion if they don't have one. History books don't necessarily portray history as accurate so don't think they are perfect. As a whole religion is a good thing which I stated in my OP, that is the case whether its Islam or Christianity. It's the extremists who you seem to be focused on and that isn't how people make informed decisions including you. Allowing religion in schools would not be teaching anything and therefore not be providing any moral guideline; it's simply a matter of allowing children to practice whatever they practice because some of them aren't even allowed to do that right now. You're an ass for denying someone the righ to freedom of religion just because it doesn't have any place in your life but you forget that other people do have a place for it.

      The fact we have certain parents/lawyers/judges who don't want kids to practice sports due to them being "hurt" or others being left out (such as when it comes to picking team members) is the same reason why religion isn't allowed: certain people are too afraid of how some kids would view the situation. Let kids be kids whether it is to let them play tag or to pray. In the end the kids are more well-rounded individuals. If you have kids they may even want to pray(or if not imagine if they did); are you going to prevent them from doing so in or out of school whether directly(punishment) or indirectly(by voting)?

    11. Re:DCFS by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 0

      The issue runs deeper than that. Our entire society is based around the concept of reducing the impact of evolution on the human race. We vaccinate, we heal, we council. We protect people, but this takes its toll in the form of wussiness. I'm still trying to figure out where to draw the line between protection and survival of the fittest. Certainly the latter is easier, since it's all natural.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
    12. Re:DCFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no we can't have anybody being superior. The Handicapper General would be very upset if we did that, and pipe those awful noises into my head again.

    13. Re:DCFS by foolAloof · · Score: 1

      alternatively, if you are really that bad with agility/dexterity games, you can switch your game with something you're better at, eg, computer games. but then, they (the wussy ones) will start complaining about obesity and stuff. i got a hunch that they had a boring, lifeless childhood, and want to impose their monotonous life to their (and others') children.

    14. Re:DCFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Sports taught me ...
      Sports taught me that I should get really, really good at grammar and mathematics ... and, when in need, strike first and preferably somewhere low.
    15. Re:DCFS by raduf · · Score: 1


          Uh... I got pick last. An you know what I did? Learned programming and linux. Now whoz making the big money?
      Oh, and later spent a year or so at the gym, so no, i'm not even weak.

    16. Re:DCFS by bobcote · · Score: 1

      The worst part is the kids who don't get to burn off excess energy at recess will be labled with ADD and put on Ritalin.

    17. Re:DCFS by EricTheMad · · Score: 1

      The worst part is the kids who don't get to burn off excess energy at recess will be labled with ADD and put on Ritalin.

      Which just makes thinks worse since Ritalin is a pretty powerful stimulant.

      --
      -- Remember, we're not happy until you're not happy. -- Local FAA Inspector --
    18. Re:DCFS by IcyNeko · · Score: 1

      The point is missed on you, then. Religion is a behavioral guideline that should be taught... at home. Teaching religion to a captive audience (and yes, pre-college IS a captive audience) serves nothing except to detract from other educational venues. Before college, kids need to know the fundamentals: math, reading, sciences, history, music, physical exercise. Religion need not be taught because no one can teach religion with the proper cultural context that is suitable for each student. You are imposing your religions (and to an extent behavioural) views on a child whose parents may or maynot accept it. In college, students can elect to take courses on religion, to better understand other cultures around the world. Unfortunately, even those classes are inadequate because it's taught by a single professor who has one particular religious view, and they teach from a textbook written with a generalized view of religion. In order to properly teach about religion, one must allow students to experience religion. Mixing pray-time, even in an opt-in environment, brings peer pressure into the environment. Maybe you haven't had to grow up as a non-christian. I have. And let me say taht your arrogant view is typical of everyone who looks and goes "Well, This is how I do it so everyone should be like me in their feelings." When I was at camp and everyone was taking turns saying grace (which is OPT-IN as well), IT FEELS QUITE AWKWARD. IT FEELS EVEN WORSE WHEN EVERYONE TALKS ABOUT STUFF AND YOU SEEM LIKE YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON WHO DOESN'T GET IT. There are better things to be learning and doing in school -- things more pertenant to advancing human culture. That is what school is for. When learning about family values and religion, that is what HOME time is for.

    19. Re:DCFS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not talking about teaching religion. Where did I say I wanted religion to be taught? Care to quote me? All I said was that schools need to let kids pray if they want to pray. By not allowing kids to pray just because your kid may not pray means my child can't exercise his religious freedom. So exactly how is that constitutional? You are taking his freedom away just because you don't agree with it. No one forces your child to join in by letting my child pray (so he still has religious freedom) but it doesn't work the same when you don't want my child to be able to practice his religion because your child doesn't have one. There is already peer pressure but if peer pressure would develop because someone isn't praying I gotta say that is a heck of a lot better than the same children pushing another into taking drugs or smoking. I'm not saying your child has to do anything to match what I or my child does so if you think I'm arrogant for that then you are wrong because I'm not advocating that in the first place.

      Sounds like you just don't like feeling left out, like the kids whose feelings get hurt when they aren't picked for school activities, the same kids whose parents fight to remove all school activities so their children aren't so sad anymore, wah wah wah. This is analogous to you also wanting to remove religion from the schools because your child may feel left out. Maybe your child wants to join in? Ever think of that? It would kill your argument. But anyway, you just made my initial argument about sports/religion. Human culture involves religion and practicing religion instead of snuffing it out advances human culture; it may not be part of your culture but it is a part of the Amercan culture.

      Bottom line is that you shouldn't be taking away my or my child's right to exercise my/his freedom of religion just because you feel it might hurt you/your child in some way. None of your rights are being violated however one of his is and *that* means allowing kids to pray trumps your want to prevent them from praying no matter how arrogant you believe I am. Your personal feelings are no match for Constitutional rights.

  243. Four legs good, two legs better by Comboman · · Score: 1

    Your analogy doesn't have enough animals; try this one. The problem is not with the sheep or the dogs, it's the pigs.

    --
    Support Right To Repair Legislation.
  244. Its not so much the game........ by Anachragnome · · Score: 1

    .......Nor is it really the running. Its the impacts.

    Getting your skull cracked is probably THE best way to reinforce, in the mind of a child, the whole idea of LOOKING where you are running. I don't know how many times I have seen some pretty spectacular kiddie collisions on the playground, usually the result of Dodgeball game A overlapping into Tag game B, cause some pretty good hurtin'.

    But the real issue is that we are raising our kids to be pampered, padded and ill-equiped to deal with NORMAL activities, such as running through the park without braining some poor little ol' lady on her way to her bridge game.

    We are subverting the whole premise of "survival of the fittest" and allowing our kids to be less and less capable of the demands we put on them as adults, later in life.

  245. Pathetic by CrtxReavr · · Score: 1

    It's become a mamby-pamby world.

    I blame the lawyers. The US makes up about 1/20th of the world's population, yet we have 70% of the world's lawyers.

    Shakespeare's Jack Cade had the right idea.

    -CR

    --
    "So is the BSD licence even more 'free' (than GPLv2)? Yes. Unquestionably." --Linus Torvalds (TinyURL.com/2vugzl)
  246. get sued by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Insightful

    the issue is not child safety, or health and fitness. it is an issue of living in a litigious society.
    I think most of us live in far more fear of civil courts than we do of terrorists. Likely soldiers in Iraq are more afraid of getting hauled into court on trumped up charges than they do the insurgents.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    1. Re:get sued by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Could someone do me a favor and explain to me how what I said is 'flamebait'. I'm rather surprised. (likely other people are confused too)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  247. Mod Parent Up by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

    Far too true. The point here isn't to shield your children from all of the ugliness and potential (non-serious) dangers of the world. I know I learned a lot about people, the world, and how it all goes around from my time in school - things that my protective parents would never have exposed me to had they homeschooled me.

    Not to mention the fact that school is a wonderful place for kids to have fun and make friends (and enemies, but such is a lesson of life that must be learned). Little Johnny might get to know some kids from soccer practice, but that's nothing compared to being able to hop on a bike down the street to Timmy's house.

  248. Schools and Lawsuits by Hoi+Polloi · · Score: 1

    Schools get sued more than you think. Just the act of defending yourself is enough to drain valuable funds from a town. And one big successful lawsuit, especially if the town's insurer deems it not covered, can really impoversh a town. The threat of a lawsuit alone is enough to turn government agencies and businesses into pathetic nannies who have to point out the obvious dangers of everything so someone can't claim they didn't know better in court.

    Now you can get sued if the curriculum doesn't make every single parent happy. Good luck with that! Lexington MA Lawsuit

    --
    It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
    1. Re:Schools and Lawsuits by meme_police · · Score: 1

      Wow. That's pretty f'ed up. This article is quite timely since my niece just broke her arm playing dodgeball last Friday. Are my brother and sister-in-law suing the school? NO. Shit happens. Unless the school provided a cannon to shoot the ball out of I hardly see that they're liable.

      --

      The meme police, They live inside of my head

  249. keep them home by wardk · · Score: 1

    is letting these kids go to school with these administrators something a parent should even do?

    seems more dangerous to be taught by morons than getting hurt playing tag

    just keep the kids home. the tv will take care of them.

  250. Elementary School Memories by CrimsonSamurai · · Score: 1

    Oh man, this reminds me of when I was in elementary school. Yoyo's got banned because kids were hitting each other with them. Then the pokemon card craze hit and those were banned because the older kids were ripping off the younger ones (buying a holo charizard for $1 or something like that). Then in high school we had some super-safety PE teachers, so we never played dodgeball (which happened to be on of my favorite games) or any other sport like it. It's way to easy to over stupid things in America. Let the kids have fun! I had stitches 3 time when I was younger (mostly from doing stupid kid things) and I don't wish I would have been "safer". Stitches build character!

  251. And they wonder why... by NokX · · Score: 0

    and they wonder why our kids are getting fatter and they're hyper in class... they're not getting exercise! i guess they just expect us to feed 'em diet pills and ritalin.

  252. its not boston by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it's not IN boston. It's attelboro, about 30 miles south of boston.

  253. Teaching to the Test by fwr · · Score: 1

    I never did understand the reason people use "teaching to the test" as a reason against uniform testing. Either the students know the material or they do not. And I'm not sure why teachers can't make the experience of learning the material that is on the tests interesting. I suspect it is because teachers resent being held to account and told exactly what their curriculum must include (not that they couldn't ADD any other materials they wanted to). Or, the fact that they were not teaching the basics to everyone from the beginning and letting certain students slip behind and only paying attention to the "curious" students. This ultimately results in problems for the whole class when all of a sudden they are holding Johnny and Jim Bob to the same standards as everyone else. Since teachers are "graded" on the overall performance of their students they now must give Johnny and Jim Bob that extra effort, reducing time spent with the curious students and making those students life boring (just teachning to the test).

    In my opinion it is all the fault of the public school teachers and their unions. If they were teaching the BASICS to EVERYONE in the first place then Johnny and Jim Bob would have no problem passing those standardized tests, the teachers wouldn't need to spend extra time with them, and could still make their instructions interesting for everyone.

    Of course my perspective comes from being taught in private Catholic schools until the College years, and at least in my case our teachers blew away the public school teachers in the area. They made things interesting and they would actually fail students who didn't pass our tests. Granted that may be the exception even in private schools, and our tests were not standardized like now, but since we were learning at such a high level above the same grade in public school I can't come to any other conclusions.

    1. Re:Teaching to the Test by planetmn · · Score: 1

      You are making one major assumption: That the test is testing the important material. A lot of tests do not.

      Of course my perspective comes from being taught in private Catholic schools until the College years, and at least in my case our teachers blew away the public school teachers in the area. They made things interesting and they would actually fail students who didn't pass our tests. Granted that may be the exception even in private schools, and our tests were not standardized like now, but since we were learning at such a high level above the same grade in public school I can't come to any other conclusions.

      Your perspective is from a school that can arbitrarily reject student's from attending. Can drop failing students from the school and can pick and choose who they allow. Whereas the public school must accept every students, must teach every student, and is responsible to every tax payer in the community. Not being able to come to any other conclusion shows that critical thinking was not taught in your private school.

      -dave

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
    2. Re:Teaching to the Test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with standardised teaching is that it plays to the lowest common denominator. It's the level playing-field argument. Apparently, all children can achieve the same results, and as a result, teachers have to get all students to the same level.

      Unfortunately, people aren't really like that. If you teach to the lowest common denominator the best you can hope for is to keep the average grade the same, but it usually results in raising the baseline at the cost of lowering the overall standard. If you do this, you end up with a mediocre population, with everyone barely capable of getting by and no-one excelling. I regularly hear these complaints about it all being the teachers' fault, and how it's so obvious that they should teach everyone the same. You know something? It's always by people who have never been involved in the education system, and usually by people who were average or lower in school. To these people, it looks unfair for the teachers to spend time with the smart kids, they don't need as much help do they?

      One look at human history will show that the progress of mankind is led by its best and brightest. All people are not created equal, and not everyone can grow up to be a high-achiever.

      I know that I'll get modded down for the heresy above, but I can back up my claims. I used to teach in Japanese high schools. Japanese education works on the cookie-cutter principle, and as a result are churning out mindless drones. The majority either end up as subsistance farmers (bet you didn't know that little fact about people outside the major cities), housewives, or as salarymen working 70 hour weeks but not actually achieving anything. The exceptional people are mostly ones who failed in school, or were educated abroad.

    3. Re:Teaching to the Test by fwr · · Score: 1

      Well, to be honest I question the whole involvement of the Federal government in education. Since I don't believe that you can get good results with a national education system I tend to view public education as the lowest common denominator. If parents want better education for their children they can either make the personal sacrifice necessary to homeschool or pay for private education. (I personally believe that we should have vouchers but that's a whole 'nother argument that I won't get into). My parents, who were not rich by any measurement and if anything were on the lower end of middle class, did what was necessary to send all 9 of their kids to private school because they thought it was better. I find it hard to feel sorry for children of today who's parents spend more time worrying about their fantasy football ranking than their child's education.

    4. Re:Teaching to the Test by fwr · · Score: 1

      You make some valid points, but I'll respond much like I did to another poster. The public school system is the lowest common denominator as far as education. If parents want a good education for their children they will either homeschool using a good curriculum (and not "unschool" like some so-called homeschoolers do) or pay for private education. It's my view that the public education system is the safety net that will ensure a minimum level of knowledge necessary for minimum wage jobs and the basic skills to live in today's society. It's not where you send your kids if you want them to be leaders, or a future Nobel prize recipient. I'm not saying that there are not leaders or Nobel prize recipients who attended public school. Keep in mind that public education in America didn't actually exist for a long period of time, and we are now seeing its collapse. I'll refrain from any personal attacks.

    5. Re:Teaching to the Test by planetmn · · Score: 1
      The public school system is the lowest common denominator as far as education. If parents want a good education for their children they will either homeschool using a good curriculum (and not "unschool" like some so-called homeschoolers do) or pay for private education. It's my view that the public education system is the safety net that will ensure a minimum level of knowledge necessary for minimum wage jobs and the basic skills to live in today's society.

      I don't think I could disagree more. The public school system is what the local community makes it. It is given funds by a city/town and run by a democratically elected school board. In areas where people don't care about the public schools, they are bad. In areas where people don't properly oversee the public schools, they are bad. In areas where the public schools are adequately funded and overseen by intelligent, rational people, they succeed very well.

      Basic skills must be taught, period. It does not matter if you are a product of public or private schooling, reading, math, etc. are all things that need to be taught. You seem to feel that this is all that public schools teach. Which I find odd.

      My public highschool offered numerous AP level courses, pretty much the entire range. About half of the students graduate having at least taken Calculus I (everybody must take pre-Calc). There were also numerous music and art programs available. These are all above the "knowledge necessary for minimum wage jobs and the basic skills to live in today's society."

      I am a product of public schools, as are the vast majority of my coworkers (Engineers). The private school educated coworkers I have for the most part attended a religious school because their parents wanted them to receive a religious education (I have no problem with that, just not my cup of tea).

      It's not where you send your kids if you want them to be leaders, or a future Nobel prize recipient. I'm not saying that there are not leaders or Nobel prize recipients who attended public school.

      Private school is for the elite. Plain and simple. Do you have to be rich and well-connected to attend? No, but it sure helps. A lot of whom we know as leaders are not leaders because of knowledge, they are leaders because of connection. Sure, in this sense private school would do them very well, as they would be classmates of the children of the rich and powerful.

      It's interesting that you claim that private school is where your kids should go to become leaders or a future nobel prize recipient, yet you provide no evidence that there is any correlation (much less causation) between the private education and the success.
      • Warren Buffet - Attended DC public schools
      • Bill Gates - Attended public, then private middle/high school
      • Andrew Fire (2006 Nobel Prize) - Attended Fremont Public schools
      • George Smoot (2006 Nobel Prize) - Attended public school in Ohio

      The two names above were the only 2006 winners that I could find any information on their pre-college education.

      I would expect that the "average" public school student would look to perform worse on paper than private school students. But this is going to biased by the fact that public school must teach to all, and not pick and choose students like charter and private high schools can. But I also think of this as a benefit. It allows kids to learn to succeed and work in an environment where they have to deal with different people, with different skill levels and comprehension abilities.

      Keep in mind that public education in America didn't actually exist for a long period of time, and we are now seeing its collapse.

      I'm not sure where you find the evidence to support "we are now seeing its collapse." In a lot of areas it's thriving. Sure, Bush has been talking a lot about how bad public schools are and promoting vouchers, but it's political rhetoric, not grounded in any facts. Like I said a

      --
      /., where "Apple and Google provide Iran with nukes" will be refuted with "But Microsoft is a convicted monopolist"
  254. Tag! by flibuste · · Score: 1

    Each time I get a new breath of hope for the USA, some story like this pops up and non-sense takes yet another dimension.

    I for once welcome our future asocial coach potatoes overlords! At least I feel safer in being less moronic.

  255. as a resident of ma by minus_273 · · Score: 1

    as a MA native, rest assured, this kind of thing is incrediby common. Political correctness rules the state. There is no one to oppose thin kind of stuff because it is the only one party state in the US.

    --
    The war with islam is a war on the beast
    The war on terror is a war for peace
    1. Re:as a resident of ma by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      With a Republican govener?

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    2. Re:as a resident of ma by minus_273 · · Score: 1

      a symbolic republican governor who has no real power because there are only 20 mostly liberal republicans in the legislature. Even that token opposition is probably going to go away when a democrat is elected in november.

      --
      The war with islam is a war on the beast
      The war on terror is a war for peace
  256. Practice by j00r0m4nc3r · · Score: 1

    Tag is just practice for running away from the kid the AK-47 and grenades. We are stripping our children of all their defenses!

  257. Translation by EComni · · Score: 1

    To translate the Team America metaphor into this, the point needs to be made that the only people watching the Sheepdogs are the Sheep. It's up to the Sheep to keep the Sheepdogs from getting out of line and attacking everything, just as its up to the Sheepdog from letting the Sheep get too idealistic and defang the Sheepdogs.

    However, Sheep can't turn into Wolves. That's where I can't translate it, but that's primarily because the Team America metaphor fails here. The Dic... er, Sheepdog has a much better chance of becoming an As... um, Wolf than the Sheep. The Sheepdog has the means and the power to do the same things the Wolf; the only thing he's missing is intent. Add misguided or bad intent like, say, controlling the Sheep by killing the "bad" Sheep or trying to make the Sheep lives better by taking the land of other Sheep/Sheepdogs, and voila. Wolf.

    But both metaphors are still off for being far too simple. And self-serving.

  258. Tried to ban baseball at my school by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 1

    They tried to ban baseball at my elementary school in the early 80s because of the risk of injury from the relatively hard baseball. Of course we just ignored the ban because there was only one teacher on the field observing during recess and lunch. Then they announced that we could no longer play British Bulldog or Red Rover, and again we just ingnored it and went on our merry way.

  259. What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I played tag when I was little, and sure I did ran into a few things. However, I was never seriously injured. Heck I still have most of my teeth left. :)

  260. What liability? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 1

    All right, let's take a quick look at common law here:
    Volenti Non Fit Injuria

    Basically, "There can be no injury to the willing." If you're partaking in a dangerous activity, you cannot blame anyone but yourself for your injuries.

    But it's fucking TAG. Is the US populated by hemophiliacs with osteogenesis imperfecta?

    Kids get hurt. I know; I was a kid and I have two of my own. I got hurt by other kids, often, and on purpose. You know what? Life hurts and has no mercy.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  261. Argh! by palantir · · Score: 1

    Stick a fork in U.S., we're done

  262. Remember Dodgeball? by Hahnsoo · · Score: 1

    There was a big hoopla over dodgeball (and its removal from schools) a while back... it's sad to see that the slippery-slope that we were thinking about back then is coming to pass now. However, I did not imagine that it would be our litigious society that would be the impetus behind the downward slide. Is this how we are going to teach our kids? That if you have a problem, you have to sue? Or that we should be afraid of lawsuits all our lives? I suppose if you want them to grow up to become doctors, it would be a good life lesson. *sigh*

  263. This is not news by EXrider · · Score: 1

    My stupid ass elementary school in Cincinnati Ohio had banned all that stuff way back in the 80s as well, I'm 25 now, do the math. How is this news again??

    --
    grep -iw skynet /etc/services
  264. Then why teach kids how to walk? by thewiz · · Score: 1

    If people are afraid of their kids falling down, then why do they bother to teach them how to walk? After all, falling is part of learning to walk and learning to persevere.

    It's amazing that some people are so risk-adverse that they try to protect their kids from everything.

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  265. Am I the only one... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who thought this article was refering to Tag deoderant?

    1. Re:Am I the only one... by dwayner79 · · Score: 1

      I did too... Was actually disappointed when I realized it wasn't.

      --
      Religion and politics, without the flame. godgab.org
  266. Tagging by fractalVisionz · · Score: 1

    Damn, now all those school kids can't use the beta tagging on /.

  267. I guess this also precludes 'Smear the Queer'? by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    Maybe it isn't even played anymore...but in the early 70's, it set the playgrounds in Wyoming on fire!

    Smear the Queer was a reverse-tag kind of game, played with a nerf football on a snow covered grassy area. Whoever had the football was the queer, and everone else tackled, piled on, and generally abused this worthy until somebody could wrench all or most of the nerf football from them, thus becoming the queer.

    Score wasn't kept. Nobody won. To my mind, it was the purest distillation of football ever devised. It was a blast!

    Has anyone else heard of this game? I'd be interest in knowing if it was just a local phenomenon.

    1. Re:I guess this also precludes 'Smear the Queer'? by kimvette · · Score: 2, Funny

      That game would not fly here in Massachusetts - after all, this is the commonwealth where the courts ordered the legislation to make it legal for gays to "marry." See, if that game were played here, Johnny's parents, who happen to be two guys, would sue the school claiming that the school supports "hate crimes" and that they are "offended" because their liberal mind cann't understand that one can have a difference of opinion without the presence of hatred.

      (Now, my own personal position on gay "marriage?" Marriage is a religious construct which is by its very definition between a man and a woman; government has no business in getting involved, whether it's a normal marriage or a gay "marriage" so what the courts should have done is invoked the establishment clause and removed commonwealth interference in the family to begin with)

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    2. Re:I guess this also precludes 'Smear the Queer'? by Ill_Omen · · Score: 1

      Oh no, you weren't alone.

      We often called it by a less poetic, more literal name, though: "Kill the Man With the Ball"

    3. Re:I guess this also precludes 'Smear the Queer'? by joeytmann · · Score: 1

      When I was a kid in the late 70's/early 80's we played a very similar game. Named the same, but it was with a kickball. The boys from two classes were pitted against each other. The team that could make it back to the "line" when the teacher blew the wistle won. When the teachers heard what we called that game, we couldn't play it anymore. So I came up with 'Kill the guy with the ball' as a new name and we started playing again a few days later. A teacher asked if we were playing Smear the queer, we said "no this is Kill the guy with the ball." A few of us would get a bloody nose from time to time but nothing serious.

      My favorite game was called ASSES UP, again with a kick ball played in a sort of odd nook in the building where there were 3 full walls. Toss the ball off the walls and some one has to catch it. If you are hit or drop the ball, you get a letter. Once ASSES UP was spelled for some one, that person had to go up to the front wall and everyone got a shot with the ball to hit him in the ass. The teachers never did figure out the name of that game. Ahhhhh childhood memories........

      --
      Insert funny smart-ass comment here.
    4. Re:I guess this also precludes 'Smear the Queer'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      played it as a kid in the mid 70s by the same name... within 30 miles of San Francisco. Try that now and you'd get expelled for trying to commit a hate crime or some other happy horse sh!t.

  268. It's funny? by d_54321 · · Score: 1

    If this were not a true story, then I'd say this could fit under the category of "It's funny. Laugh."
    However since it is a true story, this is not funny. This is very sad and scary.

  269. WOW by moos3 · · Score: 1

    Ok I'm wasn't a big on not being safe when I was younger but isn't the whole point of playing these games to have fun and if you get hurt you get up a walk it off. Enorder to make you tougher then were before? I can see the next ban on the playground no jungle gyms, why are people so dam sue happy? let your get hurt thats the point of being a parent is that you can teach them on how to pick themselves up and try again but harder.

  270. what ever happened to lawn darts? by freezin+fat+guy · · Score: 1

    Man, when we were kids our parents practically encouraged us to get hurt.

    They gave us *woodburning pencils* for Christmas. Oh, it wasn't enough to give a little boy a sharp object - it wasn't a real toy unless it also heated to 500 degrees.

    A conversation at my friend's house:

    Q: "Dad, we need some nails to build a rocket ship."
    A: "You kids can use anything you find in the junk pile. Just don't use my fresh lumber."

    In the end he even provided a rusty saw we could use to cut panels for the nose cone.

    Do they even sell band-aids anymore?

    1. Re:what ever happened to lawn darts? by Pontiac · · Score: 1

      They were banned in 1988 by the Consumer Product Safety Commission

      http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/pubs/5053.html

      Effective December 19, 1988, all lawn darts are banned from sale in the United States. Lawn darts, used in an outdoor game, have been responsible for the deaths of 3 children.

      A set of lawn darts usually includes four large darts and two targets. The darts typically are about 12 inches long with a heavy metal or weighted plastic tip on one end and three plastic fins on a rod at the other end. The darts are intended to be grasped by the rod and thrown underhand toward a target. While the tip may not be sharp enough to be obviously dangerous, these darts can cause skull punctures and other serious injuries.

      The Consumer Product Safety Commission urges parents to discard or destroy all lawn darts immediately. They should not be given away since they may be of harm to others.

      Consumers who find lawn darts still being sold, should contact the Consumer Product Safety Commission on the toll free hotline: 1-800-638-CPSC (2772). A teletypewriter for the hearing impaired is available at 1-800-638-8270. Consumers also may write to: Compliance, Consumer Product Safety Commission, Washington, D.C. 20207.

      --
      If you think it's expensive to hire a professional to do the job, wait until you hire an amateur. --Red Adair
  271. Grammars by umbrellasd · · Score: 1
    Is it unreasonable to expect that people will accept an occasional grammatical exception? Mistakes show their face when fingers exceed mental pace; they're hardly a proof of poor diction.

    :-)

  272. You know America is the fatttest country when ... by bsytko · · Score: 1

    ... they ban the only exercise these kids probably get all day. O.o

  273. Smear the Queer anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would now be a federal hate crime and get you expelled.

    Oh how times have changed. Not saying whether for better or worse, just wow...

  274. Re:Attleboro, MA Boston, MA by Peter+Desnoyers · · Score: 1

    In fact, it's 40 miles south. (no, that's not 40 miles somewhere out in the middle of nowhere where you'll maybe pass a cow or two and a couple of mile markers - that's 40 miles where you leave the Boston metro area and its suburbs, and enter the Providence RI suburbs. About the same as the distance from Manhattan to Edison, NJ)

    Actually, what's weird is that this isn't a suburban soccer-mom school where I would expect something like that. It's an old, small city, and a look at the state stats for the school shows that it has a significant proportion of low income and minorities, as well as relatively low test scores. Plus (unlike most schools in Boston) from the pictures on their website it looks like they have grass to run around on during recess, instead of asphalt.

    I wonder if there's something going on here that they're not saying anything about.

  275. Obligatory Futurama by Man+of+E · · Score: 1

    That Guy: Let's cut to the chase. There are two kinds of people: Sheep and sharks. Anyone who's a sheep is fired. Who's a sheep?

    Zoidberg: Uh, excuse me? Which is the one people like to hug?

    That Guy: Gutsy question. You're a shark. Sharks are winners and they don't look back 'cause they don't have necks. Necks are for sheep. [Everyone sinks down and covers their necks.] I am proud to be the shepherd of this herd of sharks and I am gonna lead you to the top in this industry of ... of--

    Fry: (whispering) Package delivery.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une sig
  276. Bullrush by dafing · · Score: 1
    In New Zealand we call our version "Bullrush", but its different as we have the one guy in the middle who then calls for either Bullrush or singles out one person to run past them. If a person is singled out, then they can call, at any time, Bullrush, which makes everyone else run too.

    The other difference is that you only had to be touched by the "catcher" and then you had to stand still where you were caught, and try and reach people running past to add them to the captives. Its quite fun because of this rule, you get walls of people on the field as of course people can only catch those running past them. Eventually they mostly cover the entire width of the field and make the runners have to worry about getting past these AND the guy who is moving, who could pretend to be a stationary catcher.... :)

    --
    --- ...or a new slashdot signature. Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all
  277. My Answer! by socalguychris · · Score: 1

    Bubble Suits for everyone! Careful, the zipper might snag u!

  278. please clarify by Original+Replica · · Score: 2, Insightful

    When you say WMD do you mean: most powerful military in the world lead by commander-in-chief that has dismantled any check on his power and agenda? or do you mean the chemical weapons we never found?

    --
    We are all just people.
  279. Forgotten Items to ban by Hercules+Peanut · · Score: 1

    It seems like they left out a few obvious things to ban for fear of injury like:
    Stairs - Broken bones from falls
    Knives - cuts and accidental (or not) stabbing
    Shop Class - just too many to mention
    Music Class - Possible hyperventilation due to lack of outdoor exercise like "Tag"

    Come on, I'm sure /.ers can help me think of a few more.

    Are you sure they didn't mean the body spray. Those adds are annoying enough to merit banning IMHO.

  280. Let them chase WMDs by MegaThawt · · Score: 1

    But since exercise is important for health, instead of something dangerous like tag, they can do something completely safe ... let them run around and look for WMDs!

    --
    All sigs should be as funny as possible, but no funnier.
  281. Kids will play by GreasyBloater · · Score: 0

    Or maybe the kids will just play tag, touch football, etc anyway.
    That's what we would have done when I was a kid.

  282. This is as good a place as any for rebuttals.... by DG · · Score: 1

    The problem with analogy is that it is, at its heart, simplification of a complex problem - and with simplification comes a loss of detail.

    So one needs to be careful with extrapolation of analogy.

    One should not take the analogy as recommendation of rule by elites; the "who watches the watchmen" problem is very real and non-trivial. To put it in terms of the original analogy: Sheepdogs are human, and sometimes they can morph into Wolves. So some of the distrust of Sheepdogs by Sheep is well founded. There is a balace to be struck between the Sheepdog's desire for more power and effectiveness in the fight against the Wolves, and the Sheep's desire to limit the destructive potential of the Sheepdog, should he "go Wolf".

    Incidentally, although Col Grossman's work was originally on soldiers and soldiering, he has expanded his definition of who constitutes a "sheepdog" to include police officers, firefighters, paramedics, and others who put themselves in harm's way in the defense of others.

    That work, by the way, is based on intense, SCIENTIFIC studies on the PHYSIOLOGICAL (note the emphasis) effects of stress and violence on human beings, both actors and victims. He has discovered, for example, that the fight-or-flight mechanism is far more sophisticated than first suspected, and while there are certain universals, many people have different reactions. It is not at all unusual for someone involved in a deadly force encounter to experience a slowing down of time, an increase in visual acuity, a decrease in hearing perception (to the point where they don't hear their own gun go off) and a loss of bowel/bladder control.

    Read the books, they are full of great SCIENCE and make fascinating reading.

    The "Sheep, Sheepdog, Wolf" analogy springs from the fact that most people have a phobic-level stress response to exposure to physical violence; not just when they are participants, but when they are observers. Most people, when backed into a corner, DO NOT bite.

    But it is also possible to inoculate people against this stress; to teach them to remain functional when in mortal danger. Anybody who has gone through any sort of military basic training can attest to this.

    And the converse is also true - the more you remove stress from people's daily lives, the poorer they handle stress when they ARE exposed to it. Prevent kids from playing and roughousing (within reasonable limits) and you are setting them up for fragility in later life.

    Like it or not, the real world is full of bumps, setbacks, and wolves - the problem is not how to avoid the instances of them, but rather, how to handle them when they happen to you.

    Finally, NO soldier is "pro war" - not one who has actually seen the elephant at least. But somebody has to stand between the monsters and the weak, and boy howdy, are there ever monsters out there.

    If that's not you, fine. You are in the majority after all. My job is to protect you, not like you.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  283. RTFA by metternich · · Score: 1

    Elementary schools in Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Spokane, Washington, also recently banned tag during recess. A suburban Charleston, South Carolina, school outlawed all unsupervised contact sports.

    Some pretty Red states there. This is not just a Massachusetts thing. Also Attleboro is relatively conservative by Massachusetts standards.

    --
    Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.
  284. This is a troll? by spun · · Score: 1

    Looks like I bad-touched a poor mod right on his hero fantasy. Naughty spun. Bad, naughty spun. Sheepdogs really, really need to believe they aren't just another sort of wolf. And they will rip the throat out of any sheep that tells them otherwise. Sheep gotta know their place.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  285. anyone else thinking of... by UltraAyla · · Score: 1

    the flanders children? I say, let them eat dirt and get hurt now so they don't all die of the common cold or cry because they broke their arm when they're 37. It truly works. Just look at how long civilization has lasted.

  286. The Amygdala by hobbeswalsh · · Score: 1

    This has already been brought up, but I thought I'd elucidate:

    There's a part of the brain - right in the middle - called the "amygdala." The word is derived from the Latin for "almond," because surprisingly enough it looks like one.

    It is believed that the Amygdala is primarily responsible for storing pain memory, and it seems to be the section of the brain least prone to forgetfulness and most easily accessed. If you fall over and scrape your knee on the playground's asphalt (or - more seriously - touch a hot stove or fall down the stairs), your brain will tuck away the memory of that pain in the amygdala. Any time a silimar situation arises (hot pot on the stove, running on asphalt, whatever) you will unconsciously recall this memory of pain.

    Let me make this clear: this is a very good thing. It not only tells us what not to do, it also causes us to empathize with the pain of others. Someone already said something to the effect of: "and then we send them off to war." Exactly - how do you expect someone to make a responsible decision about killing another human being if they have very few stored memories of pain themselves?

  287. Shoot em by 3choTh1s · · Score: 1

    No seriously. Shoot the parents and administrators who insist on these silly rules. That'll teach them that there are more important things they need to be worried about.

  288. Wolves In Sheeps Clothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pretty neat.
    However when ten times as much of the federal budget goes into military expenditure as into health or education despite the country not being invaded since the war of 1812 then I suspect those making the big desicions are wolves in sheeps clothing.

    1. Re:Wolves In Sheeps Clothing by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because, I mean, everybody knows the last war (fill in the blank for whichever war that was) was the war to end all wars, and there will never be anoher one. I don't know about you, but to me, it seems that maybe part of the reason why the country *hasn't* been invaded is *because* you have a good army.

      I mean, look at Canada.. in 1812 we didn't have an army, just militia. If we'd had a big army, would the US have thought twice about attacking us just because they were mad at England (and probably also because they didn't mind the idea of more land)? Umm, yes, they would have thought twice.

      Would the USSR have thought twice about invading the US, in oh, say, 1950 or so, if the US hadn't had an army? Trust me, they wouldn't have; it would only take them however long the boats took to get there before the US was just another part of the USSR.

      And what about Saddam Insane? In first gulf, he went up against the US *even though* they had a better army than he did. I doubt he'd have worried about taking them on if it had been his army that was twice their size.

      You really think there isn't anyone out there today who would be quite happy to take advantage of a major decrease in the size of the US's armed forces? I can think of a few.

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
  289. Bad subjects by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1

    This is labelled as "funny". It is not funny. It's a symptom of a deadly serious problem in the US that has been getting worse over the past few decades. We are raising a generation of risk-averse cowards. Children learn to cope with risk and pain by dealing with the kind of moderately risky situations and minor injuries that are typical of childhood. Raise them insulated from all that, and they'll start to think they are entitled to a world where they can be perfectly safe at all times. This is not the real world, and they will be utterly unprepared to deal with it. It's already bad enough with all the panic over "terrorism". This can only make it worse.

    --
    And the brethren went away edified.
  290. MOD PARENT UP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The teachers probably know what's best. The judges are the ones that need to think more about this matter.

  291. There are limits though... by DG · · Score: 1

    Don't let the hoster colour your perception of the article...

    OK, let's address your "A Few Good Men" example. On its face (and in its heart) it is well-founded, as the Nickleson character in the movie is indeed a sheepdog who has lost the plot and has "gone wolf" to some degree.

    But notice that in the movie, it is **other sheepdogs** who bring the rogue back into line.....

    That is part of the dillema of being a sheepdog. There **IS** a line beyond which you must not cross. Ultimately, you **SERVE** the sheep; you are not their masters.

    Which opens up an interesting observation: consider that in the parent/child relationship, there exists a kind of sheepdog/sheep relationship; the parent's job is to protect the child from harm.

    Is it not then the case that a parent that seeks to protect the child by preventing it from playing "tag" might be similar to the rule of a military elite "for the good of the citizens"? Is not the parent in this case the one shouting "you can't HANDLE the truth"?

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  292. Are we all paying attention? by Amilianna · · Score: 1

    So - while I agree with many people on here who say that banning tag would be ridiculous, did anyone catch the one *key* word in the article? No, nobody? Well, let me just point it out for you then. The key word is "unsupervised"! Now, I'm not sure exactly how people in Massachusetts mean this, but I take this to mean that as long as a yard duty is out there to keep an eye on things (and deal with accidents if they happen) then the kids can go ahead and chase after each other all over the playground. Perhaps they have a different definition of "unsupervised" than I do. However, if my kid got hurt at school because there was no adult in sight, you better *believe* that I'd have quite a few choice words for that principal! As long as there is an adult around to deal with problems as they crop up, I have no issues, but I would never want my kid to be running around unsupervised at that young of an age. What if some crazy stranger pulled up and decided to try to abduct a few kids? Small children should *never* be left unsupervised. This doesn't mean the adult watching them needs to coddle or bubblewrap them from any and all possible dangers - just the major ones, like running out in front of cars, or getting abducted by strangers, or, yes, touching the stove (as I read someone mention already). My daughter is 3 and she understands what "hot" means without having touched the stove and gotten severe burns. So, I tell her the stove is hot, and she *doesn't touch it*! She doesn't even want to... hot *hurts*! I guess this makes me part of the sissy-makers in that I don't let my child experiance all of lifes hurts without at least *trying* to warn her and keep her from the ones which would require a trip to the ER. Eh... I think I'm doing a fine job, so anyone who doesn't can just screw off.

    --
    "Does bouncing count?" - Silk, Magician's Gambit by David Eddings
  293. MassHoles by tsunamiiii · · Score: 1

    OK, The first step is to admit you have a problem. Hi my name is Rob and Im from Ma. We suck. We send a fat bloated pig into office term after term, ban Halloween and stop kids from playing tag. Be careful who you vote for because the rest of the Massholes want to protect you from your self. Look at our Gov race the lead guy wants to give public housing to Illegal Immigrants along with in-state tuition and drivers licenses.

  294. MOD Parent UP! by mashade · · Score: 1

    I rarely go meddling with other localities' affairs, but this one spurred me to action. Please, take the moment you were going to use for posting to compose a message to the principal and superintendant.

    --
    Technology tips and tricks.
  295. They could *ban* the activity... by Majeric · · Score: 0

    *Or*, I dunno if this will sound foolish.. Supervise them.

    The law should not dictate out lives.

  296. Cat People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wolves generally hunt in packs, and take out only the weakest members of the sheep herd. That doesn't sound terribly challenging or much fun to me. It actually sounds rather cowardly, to tell the truth. I can do without the silly pack of wolves, howling and yapping to tell the world how great they think they are, just like some little old lady's annoying, spoiled pet poodle. I always thought I was more of a large tiger with big nasty fangs and sharp claws. Silently and alone, I stalk my prey in the dark, steamy jungle, waiting for just the right moment to pounce and tear out my prey's throat.

    1. Re:Cat People by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But do you act like it, or are you just a huge pussy?

  297. Dangerous fun! by slappyjack · · Score: 1

    I remember a game back from grade school, it didnt really have a name, but it basically involved EVERYONE getting out on one of the all-dirt softball fields behind the school and playing a form of dodgeball.

    With frisbees. Lots and lots of frisbees.

    Like, "Everybody bring as many frisbees as you can find from your basement and bring them to school, becuase after lunch, all hundred of us are going to go out to the softball field and fling them at each others heads as hard as we freaking can."

    I don't even remember anybody ever being "out" when they got hit, that just meant they got another frisbee to fling back at the other side, hopefully damaging more of your schoolmates.

    Bonus coolness was to the kid who could use one frisbee to block another, Tron-style.

    I can also remember playing dodgeball where one kid was throwing at everyone else, who was standing against a brick wall. If you got hit hard enough, you'd get smashed into the wall, too. Last kid standing got to be the next thrower.

    ah, good times.

    1. Re:Dangerous fun! by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's really sad now.

      My little brother plays wall ball and they don't play with pegging or spread eagle. And if you "accidentally" hit someone YOU are out, not them. Dodgeball has been out for a few years too.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  298. Huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, that doesn't make sense to me. Unless... you're saying that dying together with hundreds or thousands of other people is more severe than dying alone or with a few friends???

  299. All I can say is by OSS_ilation · · Score: 1

    Whew! that they weren't talking about the body spray. Am I right or am I right?

  300. Children forbidden to ... everything by Fuzzums · · Score: 1

    Life is dangerous! It will kill you!

    --
    Privacy is terrorism.
  301. Safer, but not safe! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "A parent was quoted as saying that her son feels safer now and than she'd witnessed enough "near collisions".""

    Does anyone else see how stupid that parent's statement is? She, that is, the mother, saw more "near collisions" that she though appropriate (she probably saw at most one, and more likely didn't see any but only imagined the possiblity), and now a regulation alleviating HER fear makes her SON feel safer. WTF?

  302. Obligatory "The Replacements" quote... by Gadgetfreak · · Score: 1

    From Neo himself: "Pain heals. Chicks dig scars. Glory lasts forever."

    --
    "No fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it!" - Professor Hubert J. Farnsworth
  303. Yup. by DG · · Score: 1

    Just because he's right about one thing, doesn't mean he's right about everything....

    He's wrong about video games - although I understand how he got there, based on his studies.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  304. and they plan to enforce this how? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    banned "unsupervised contact sports"

    Key word is unsupervised. So if they ain't watching whats to stop the kids from playing.

    On another note I may be from Soviet Canuckistan, AND went to public school, but I could barely pick my own nose with out being "supervised" or watched. What kind of messed up schools to these kids go to that they are unsupervised? Unsupervised school? What do the kids do all just congragate once and day and teach each other?

    Rather than make stupid unenforceable bans, hows about you watch the children? For the Sake of the Children for gods sake! Argh! [BOOF] head 'sploded...

    1. Re:and they plan to enforce this how? by asuffield · · Score: 1
      Key word is unsupervised.


      Yeah. In this country (UK) they aren't allowed to leave the kids unsupervised, while they're at the age when they like to play these sort of games - if they did, the school would get shut down pretty quickly, and a new management staff installed. What the heck do they think they're doing over there, letting them run around without an adult watching? Anybody with half a dozen functioning brain cells could tell you that is both stupid and irresponsible.
  305. "man's hobbies" by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1
    If you want a "man's hobby" for your childen, get into historical reenacting. They can learn to shoot a gun, dress in military uniforms, pretend to kill people, cook food over an open fire, and camp under the stars all in the same day. If you join something like a competitive target shooters club, they can fire live rounds at targets too. In fact, there are clubs that fire live artillery rounds. That's a real man's hobby. Forget bowling.

    Martial arts are not bad either, pick one that includes sparring fights early in a student's career. They can acquire some hand-to hand fighting skills and learn to take the occasional bruise (even if nobody intends it, minor accidents will happen).
    At the same time, there is not much danger of a serious accident involved. I did Karate for a few years at university, and we had less serious accidents in our group than similar groups of soccer or volleyball players.
    With serious accidents I mean things like torn ligaments, broken limbs or anything bigger.
    --
    C - the footgun of programming languages
    1. Re:"man's hobbies" by fifedrum · · Score: 1

      excellent suggestion. it teaches quite a bit of discipline too, and a different type of discipline than what's used elsewhere in life.

  306. We blew it! by Roadkills-R-Us · · Score: 1

    We homeschooled our kids, and they got to play all these violent, dangerous games. If they occasionally got hurt, we taught them to get back up and keep going.

    Fools! We should have upped our insurance and sued ourselves! We could be retired on a beach somewhere today...

  307. There are no sheepdogs by spun · · Score: 1

    There are only wolves and sheep. A sheepdog is what sheep call their own wolves. A wolf is what sheep call other sheep's sheepdogs. The wolves pretend they are sheepdogs, their to fight the wolves and protect the sheep. But they are all just intent on eating the sheep. The sheep think they need a sheepdog to protect them from the wolves, but they conveniently ignore the fact that sheep keep disappearing and the sheepdog keeps coming back with a bloody muzzle. Funny how the ones who usually die are the sheep.

    Arguably, the world was an even more violent place when, say, Jesus or Buddha lived, yet neither one of them argued for violence as a solution. Maybe there's a reason that few of humanities greatest spiritual leaders ever advocated violence. The path away from violence is not paved with more violence.

    We aren't sheep, sheepdogs, or wolves. We are human beings. If every human being on the planet refused to be subjugated, and was willing to die, not kill, for their beliefs, there would be little violence and no war. You say we aren't there yet, and I agree, but I don't think more violence is the correct solution.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    1. Re:There are no sheepdogs by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      > We aren't sheep, sheepdogs, or wolves. We are human beings. If every human being on the planet refused to be subjugated, and was willing to die, not kill, for their beliefs, there would be little violence and no war.

      Wow, you're exactly right! Because by then everybody would be dead.

      Especially ever since the invention of nuclear weapons (something we hardly think about anymore, except as interesting fiction, even though we *still* have no defence against them if someone was crazy enough to use them), humans have had the ability to wipe each other out if they really wanted to. About the only thing stopping them is that they know whoever they attack will fight back (why do you think I'm not in favour of gun control? And to think, I'm Canadian).

      Many people have been willing to die for their beliefs in the past, and did so.

      Now, I'm not about to say they were complete idiots and should have fought back.. for one thing, I'm Presbyterian and happen to have a great deal of respect for the many people who were persecuted and killed by the Roman Catholics in scotland in the 1600s, just for one example (not to mention Christians in Rome, way back in the early days of Christianity, and on and on).

      But I also don't have any condemnation for a man who's willing to take up arms and defend himself and his family from someone who's trying to kill them.

      And even less for a man who'll take up arms to defend total strangers who share nothing but the same flag with him - and who also spend half their time talking behind his back about what an idiot he is, or worse, how he's exactly the same as the people who are trying to kill them. That is, until they day they need him.

      And if you think I'm just another flunky who's glorifying the military, I have this excellent book you should read. It's called "Starship Trooprs" by I-suspect-you-know-who... (and NOT that horrible movie, either; it was nothing but an insult to the book, pure and simple).
      Oh, or another, more recent book, "The Road to Damascus", by John Ringo and Linda Evans.
      In fact, John Ringo has a few other excellent books, most in the sci fi genre so anybody on slashdot should at least be inclined towards liking them.

      If you were talking about Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia, then yes, there were plenty of wolves to go around, and not many sheepdogs. But you're not. Stop insulting people who're ready and willing to die for you and your family if and when the time comes.

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
    2. Re:There are no sheepdogs by spun · · Score: 1

      If I came off as insulting people who are ready and willing to die for me and my family, I apologize. I'm a liberal but I come from a military family and I don't want to be one of those liberals. I just think that violence, although sometimes necessary, should never be glorified. I am not talking about the average soldier (or cop, for that matter) who really is a good sheepdog. I'm talking about the wolves in sheepdog's clothing at the top who tell that soldier which wolves to kill.

      I've read Starship Troopers and The Road to Damascus, as well as pretty much everything by David Drake. I like wargames. I read about historical battles, strategy, and tactics. I came across as a little strident and one-sided because I was trying to make a point. I just think that many wolves like to puff up their egos and keep the sheep in line with stories about how great it is to be a sheepdog.

      So if you think I'm just another hippy peacnik who's disrespecting the military, I'm not. I'm presenting an honest critique of the use of violence, and the ultimate goals of the leaders who claim to want to protect us. Again, there's a reason that most of humanity's greatest spiritual leaders have advocated some kind of non-violence.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    3. Re:There are no sheepdogs by cobras2 · · Score: 1

      That's *much* better - now that you've actually specified which wolves-in-sheepdogs'-clothing you're talking about, you sound much more reasonable, and I agree with you.

      Obviously, the best thing for a wolf is if the sheep think he's a sheepdog (Hitler, etc etc), which is why real life is always more complicated than any simple analogy (and also why analogies aren't there to explain everything, they're only there as, hopefully, an aide to understanding).

      > Again, there's a reason that most of humanity's greatest spiritual leaders have advocated some kind of non-violence.

      Yes, I agree, I just wanted to point out that, at least in the case of christianity, I don't believe Jesus was saying we should *never* defend ourselves. I believe it's a lot more complicated than just 'no violence' - which doesn't mean violence is ever the desirable solution; sometimes it's just the only choice besides being killed ourselves.
      It is not, however, something that ever should be taken lightly.

      --
      Early bird may get the worm.. but the second mouse gets the cheese.
  308. O beautiful for spacious skies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For amber waves of grain ....

  309. What about the shepherd? by muellerr1 · · Score: 1

    That's a lame analogy: who is the shepherd? You know what their role is, right? To sell those sheep to be slaughtered and eaten, or have their wool shorn off, and then slaughtered and eaten. He'll probably cook and eat a few sheep himself, probably giving the scraps to his sheepdog. The shepherd is the one who controls both the sheep and the sheepdog, and sometimes kills the wolves himself with his shotgun. Which, according to your analogy, makes him a sheepdog.

    Or maybe the shepherd is the guy who leaves the flock to their own devices and has tons of forbidden monkey sex with the other manly shepherd back at camp. Either way, when the sheepdog is off duty I guarantee you that he'll just go back to licking his own balls.

  310. What the fuck! by Vincent+Vegga · · Score: 1

    Ok, I may not be the greatest product of our fine public schoold system but I think I speak for, oh....anyone who wasn't the kid sitting in the liberary reading during recess. Parents try too hard to protect their childern for video games, bullying, discrimination and anything else that might prepare them for the REAL world. I news for theose parents THE WORLD ISN'T FAIR! Lets just strip all our children of their social skills so that when they grow up and get a job and someone pats them on the back and tells them they did a good job they can sue them for physcial abuse. Great job to you parents. Oh ya and another thing, if your kids don't listen to you and they want to revolt just take them to the doctor and have them diagnosised with ADHD and let the drugs do your job.

  311. sue school by Tama00 · · Score: 0

    im gonna sue the school cause my kid doesnt get to play tag now bwhaha! the system works again

  312. A nation of wusses by chia_monkey · · Score: 1

    Great...just what we need. RULES to make sure we raise a nation of wusses. Like we don't have a problem as it is with our kids being slugs and sheltered beyond belief. Sad...truly sad...

    --

    "He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
  313. In other news... by Icemaann · · Score: 1

    In other news.... childhood obesity is up 89%!

    --

    Icemaann
    http://www.nugg.org
  314. How about a nice game of chess? by schattenteufel · · Score: 1

    A strange game. the only winning move is not to play.

    You learn from playing, sometimes the learning can hurt.

    --
    Schatten Teufel
    There is nothing "Common" about Sense
  315. In communist america by Monsuco · · Score: 1

    Football tackle you

  316. What next, a ban on booger jokes? by mooncaine · · Score: 1

    Or a ban on boogers?

    What about dirty looks?

  317. Why do we fall down, Master Bruce? by Chabil+Ha' · · Score: 1

    So we can learn to pick ourselves up.

    --
    We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
  318. But the idea was to BE the queer... by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

    ...if there was any scoring at all, it was in getting and holding on to the ball. One might go so far as to say "it sheperded a sexual awakening" in the terms of the administration wombat did a whitewash study of prison rape.

    Of course, the queer was always hunted to extinction, so I suppose there is a negative connotation there. I'm not sure we even knew what a queer was back then...

  319. Funny... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

    Funny, I hear that kind of logic all the time when a kid is bringing pain down on another kid that is outwieghed by 30 pounds. Of course when the smaller kid uses his skills and competative edge to use a tool, and shoots the entire football team, out come the "Ooohhh... the schools are too violent crys." Make up your mind. It is either ok for kids to inflict bodily harm on each other or it is not.

    Mind you a game of tag is rearly going to inflict bodily harm, and if one kid IS hurting other kids when playing tag, he is cheating, and just using the game as an excuse to commit violence. So, tag doesn't really apply to my statement.

    1. Re:Funny... by justchris · · Score: 1
      That's a pretty disingenuous arguement. There is a significant difference between a sport or game and bullying. The difference being, the former has rules and/or limitations. The latter is only limited by what you can get away with. In dodgeball, for instance, intentionally wounding another player is punishable, and even if it wasn't, trick shots work better than power shots, because a power shot is straight and easier to catch.

      The rules exist for a reason, as long as everyone plays within the rules, it all comes down to talent, skill, ability and ingenuity. If you break the rules, you no longer deserve to play the game. This model also holds for adults. You break the rules, we put you in jail, so you no longer get to play the game. As long as you act within the rules, if you have the skill and ingenuity to succeed, we encourage you to do it.

      --
      just some guy
    2. Re:Funny... by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty disingenuous arguement.

      Your description of sports games does not exist in schools. The fact is that schools do not enforce fair play. While you will see better enforcement of fair play in grade schools, once out of grade school, you can forget about it. It is that exact kind of denial that creates Columnbine scenerios.

      It is amazing how violence can be encouraged in schools, and the whole time, people will support it by telling fairy tales about learning life lessions, and how there are rules (which are largely unenforcable) that prevent the violence.

    3. Re:Funny... by justchris · · Score: 1
      The rules were enforced when I was in school. I can't speak for other schools or for now, as I am not an educator, but I do know that often the rules are not properly enforced, or are even ignored. However, to say the rules are unenforceable seems a bit of a stretch. Educators and coaches may be unwilling to enforce the rules for various reasons (wanting to win, internal politics, fear), but that doesn't mean it's not possible.

      Either way, the entire argument is more complex than it is being presented. To simply pare it down to 'everyone should play fair' or 'since people get hurt they shouldn't play at all' ignores the actual problems. Neither fixes anything.

      --
      just some guy
  320. LFG by cdrdude · · Score: 1

    LF1M tag, need healer, pst!

    --
    This sig is neither interesting, nor humorous. Including meta-humor.
  321. Nothing new to New Zealand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At my intermediate school (10yo-12yo) they'd banned playing games with girls, and any form of catch type games 20 years ago.
    The theory being if the girls got hit in the breast they would get breast cancer, which has now been debunked.
    And also that kids in general wouldn't get hurt.
    This was all just a general sign of male teachers getting out of primary schools because of the prevailing opinion driven by the fear generation that all mean who work with children are paedophiles. This is now happening in high schools too, meaning male children no longer have role models at school and are generally turning in to pussies.

    And if you want to talk about no longer grading people, that was implemented 10 years ago, now we have 'did not achieve' and 'acheieved' as our grades at high school. Which means anyone with half a brain just does the minimum to get achieved and the universities are now suffering because people don't know how to do anything anymore when they get to them.

  322. Re:This is as good a place as any for rebuttals... by Guuge · · Score: 1

    A soldier should never be without a sense of humility. Do not make the mistake of overestimating your own importance. The truth is that you depend on the "sheep" more than they depend on you. I know it's not a pleasant thought, but you ought to get acquainted with it.

    Banning games of tag is, of course, pointless. I doubt it will have any effect on the kids once they grow up.

  323. Make the world a better place by dtjohnson · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The same people who stress about the cost of litigation arising from kids playing tag at school probably have no problem with military recruiters at the high school and they wave their little flags and cheer when 18 y/o kids go into the military. Then they avert their eyes when a kid with missing legs rolls across their field of view. Let the kids play tag and send the worry-about-litigation-cost republicans to Iraq and the world will be a better place.

  324. To sum up all comments... by powermung · · Score: 1

    Most men/boys want to have fun! More women/girls prefer safety.
    No, we're not raising our kids to be wusses, just feminine.

  325. Hheheheheh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "unsupervised contact sports". Is my worst subject anyway. Last time I played a game of "unsupervised contact sports" the girl fell fell asleep

  326. a real education by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My 4th-grader had this happen to her, but I found out about it as she was describing her progress in getting the new draconian rules repealed. She got a bunch of kids to politely refuse to obey, and as enough kids followed, so did the new Principal. I came in after "march like soldiers" and "put your head down after you eat" were repealed, and before tag, four-square, and using the playground equipment were reinstated.

    At this point the only privilege left to be re-instated is touch-football, which they are going to get back this week.

    She's getting a real education at that school.

  327. They already made the movie by ynotds · · Score: 1

    Way back in 2001, the year everyone seems to have selective amnesia about.

    The Man Who Sued God

    --
    -- Our systemic servants do not good masters make.
    1. Re:They already made the movie by idonthack · · Score: 1

      What a great opportunity. Now you can sue for retroactive payment on the movie rights!

      --
      Why is it that when you believe something it's an opinion, but when I believe something it's a manifesto?
  328. GET BETTER... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is mainly - if you don't like being the guy picked last or the one that is always it, or always getting hit first - get a gun!

  329. Zero Loss mentality by ruckc · · Score: 1

    This is a zero loss mentality. Most individuals and businesses are adopting policies like this because of the threat of lawsuits. This is one of many of the various zero loss rules that is going to hurt our children in the long run. Children need to have injuries while they are young. Otherwise when they grow up and have never done anything of any count they are either 1) too afraid to try because of the possible risk involved or 2) they try everything possible to make up for what they didn't have as a child.

    The U.S. Military is adopting many policies like this to create a zero-loss environment. For us to play water-polo we have to have a battalion commander approval because of the possible risk of soldiers drowning. We are seriously going to cripple our children by having zero loss ideas like this because there is no moderation.

  330. Let kids Be kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Today,s kids spend more time playing video games than ever before. I'm not saying video games are evil, but they hurt the development of social skills, especially at a young age. Kid are more likely to interract with human beings while they are at school, not after hours. Go out and tell kids they can't be in physical contact, you'll end up with a huge number of people who can't interact normally, this could cripple many aspect of interaction.

  331. The most amazing thing I ever saw. by PatTheGreat · · Score: 1

    I was at a pirate festival once (I swear, only once). It was the kind of place you might take your kid for the afternoon, spending $10 on a pirate hat and a patch. When the parents needed a break, they sat down in front of the stage, where there was some grass surrounded by benches. Since these kids all now had pirate swords, etc, the activity du jour was beating the snot out of each other with plastic in the little grassy area.

    So the most amazing thing? No one got hurt. These kids were having this awesome three-foot tall fight scene, swords clashing and whatnot, and not a one of them managed to get hurt. One kid fell - so the other kid said "Sorry," and helped him up. Kids know how to play. Let 'em.

    --
    Google: "All your data are belong to us."
  332. Teachers are human too by everphilski · · Score: 1

    The only problem with both home schooling and charter schools is that parents, like everybody else, has their biases and they pass them on to their kids.

    Teachers, like everybody else, have their biases and pass them on to their students.

  333. OMGWTFBBQ!?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Millions of people grew up over the years playing things like tag or having BB gun wars or running with scissors. This over-protectionism is getting way out of hand and we are quickly raising a generation of people who have no idea how to deal with pain.

    Is it really any wonder they react violently when they actually experience it?
    They have no filter for it and they lack the ability to cope. This is complete bullsh*t.

    Cheers,

  334. let's turn them totally uncapable by dindi · · Score: 1

    let's turn them totally uncapable of doing anything other than driving to the mall and eating a double fry&burger....

    I admit I am on the other hand, and did bmx racing, mountainbiking, skating, diving, klimbing etcetcetc..... and i did hurt myself several times, and i took guys to the hospital and popped their knees back into place after nastier crashes ....

    and when the time comes to escape the burning building, and when your reflexes count to avoid a car crash, or when you run for your life or just after a bus..... well then all those parents who "feel safer now" will damn sorry because their children will be totally unable to anythin with their bodies other than burn/fall/die ...

    even when you do not prepare to be a parachuter, rockclimber or a race driver, a little "near collision" or kick in the head might give you some balls and teach you things ....

    just my 10c ....

  335. Re:Really? Who are they going to play tag with the by Russ+Nelson · · Score: 1

    You're kidding, right? School is where you learn to sit down, shut up, soak up information and regurgitate it on a test. In what way is that real, big, or worldly? Homeschooled kids, on the other hand, aren't stuck in a building, and learn to deal with people of all ages, not one adult and 20-30 kids just as ignorant as themselves.

    --
    Don't piss off The Angry Economist
  336. Re:This is as good a place as any for rebuttals... by Jerry+Smith · · Score: 1
    He has discovered, for example, that the fight-or-flight mechanism is far more sophisticated than first suspected, and while there are certain universals, many people have different reactions.

    Did he also discover the freeze-or-fiddle-about mechanisms? Over 90% of the European citizens acted in thóse ways during WWII. When is the last time Col Grossman found himself fighting a war IN his own country? From his essay: "What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another." All those guns are just for hobby? And the 'Defence'-expenses (one might say 'War'-expenses) of the US of A, are meant to hurt non-Americans? All those billions could not better be used to support fellow Americans, starving children et cetera et cetera?

    If that's not you, fine. You are in the majority after all. My job is to protect you, not like you. Thank you for that. But think about it: a soldiers job is to protect his/her fellow citizens from... other soldiers protecting THEIR fellow citizens?

    --
    All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
  337. Society of litigation by Belgand · · Score: 1

    Yet another sad casualty to our society based almost entirely around litigation. When I was a kid (not that long ago, I was born in '81) if you got hurt playing tag it was just a harmless accident. I mean, if someone was actively antagonizing you, well, the teachers would say there wasn't anything they could do about it and tell your parents that you should just avoid them in the future (yeah great idea, I wasn't trying to do that before), but if you fall down playing a friendly game of tag then someone might sue.

    Hell, I got punched in the face on the way home from school my Junior year of high school and the school didn't even do anything about it (nor did the cops actually, despite having the guy's license plate number and the jackass being stupid enough to drive by my house about 20 minutes later).

    I have to wonder how these schools would respond to classic schoolyard games like Red Rover where the object is clearly to knock other people down (hell, my debate squad had an annual game of it in high school and nobody bitched) and the always fun, albeit poorly named, Smear the Queer. A game whose entire point was to pound on the kid who had the ball until you could steal the ball from him... never said we were very smart.

    1. Re:Society of litigation by neminem · · Score: 1

      We never called it "Smear the Queer", though I can see where the name comes from, given that "queer" once just meant "different in some way", like for instance, he has a ball.

      I've always just heard it called "Kill the Carrier", though. Which, it should be noted, makes me think of Starcraft.

  338. running home to momma by nilbog · · Score: 1

    Cool, let's never let our kids get hurt. At all. Ever. This will ensure that they grow up to be well-rounded, responsible, and experienced adults.

    --
    or else!
  339. I'd love to see... by Builder · · Score: 1

    the administrator's face if he ever saw a game of British Bulldogs :)

  340. The most appropriate quote by Builder · · Score: 1

    The best quote I've ever heard on this topic was from George Orwell:

    "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to to visit violence on those that would do us harm.."

  341. Re:This is as good a place as any for rebuttals... by DG · · Score: 1

    As much as I am in favour of gun control (I am Canadian, after all) it only takes a few minutes of searching to find out that the majority of guns in the US (and Canada for that matter) will *never* be used on another person.

    Some are for sporting purposes, others for recreational hunting, still others for collecting or similar hobbies, and the rest are more like touchstones, representing some sort of assurance of personal security, even though they will never be used as intended, and most would find themselves unable to use them should the opportunity actually arise.

    I don't have any figures to break these down by category, and I'm afraid that any figures coming out of the NRA would be suspect... but a simple count of the number of guns extant, divided by the number of shootings per annum, shows that most are never used as weapons.

    As far as the percent of GNP spent on the American defense establishment, and the worth of that money vice other potential places to spend it... this is a slippery topic that is closely tied to American partisan politics, where "my side" is always right, and "your side" is always wrong, and to hell with the merits. This makes debate likely to be counterproductive, so I'm not interested it discussing it.

    I will offer, however, that I would not advocate American levels of "Defence" spending for MY country, and that engaging in a protracted military adventure where there was no credible threat, at the expense of an operation where there WAS a credible threat and a job of national reconstruction yet to be completed (that would be Afghanistan) and in so doing squandering a huge amount of hard-won political capital, while simultaniously spending billions, was perhaps not the wisest course of action.

    As far as my own country goes, I would like to see military spending increased, but only slightly. We have been commited to a venture - a noble and just one, as it turns out - but our current budget does not include sufficient funds to replace badly worn-out equipment and training for those not on operations. We need funding to match the missions, but funds in excess of that should be earmarked elsewhere. We simply do not need a fleet of aircraft carriers, $2B USD each stealth bombers, or three different latest-generation fighter aircraft.

    As far as the last comment goes, we have long gone past the days of the armed forces of nation-states vying with each other for supremecy and empire. It is simply no longer acceptable for any nation-state to annex the territory of its neigbours through the use of military force; wars of conquest are quite simply over.

    Modern militaries are now more about restoring order to failed states, or removing of regimes whose behaviour threatens global security - such as the Taliban in Afghanistan allowing Al Quaida to operate freely within their borders. Clearly, this could not be allowed to continue, and so military force was necessary, right, and just.

    We are, however, on a hell of a learning curve here, and not everything we do is as effective as we'd like. We (the global "we") really dropped the ball in Rwanda, and in Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia, and in Somallia, and we're learning the right and wrong ways to do things. Those lessons ARE being learned, and they ARE being applied at the pointy end.

    Operations like Afghanistan are NOT about conquest; there's nothing there we could possibly want anyway. They are about restoring peace and security to a land that has been too long without it, and setting the conditions for sucessful rebuilding of the country. Afghanistan has one of the shortest (if not THE shortest) life expectancies, and unbearably high infant mortality rates. That is unacceptable in this day and age, and we have a moral obligation to do something about it.

    You may not believe me; you may choose to believe that there are sinister, alterior motives. Believe what you want; I know why we are doing the job, and if I thought it was sinister, I wouldn't be doing what we do.

    DG

    --
    Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
  342. tag banned for many years by Luyseyal · · Score: 1

    I know no one will read this, but I thought I'd mention that Doss Elementary in Austin, TX has had tag banned for around 5 years now.

    -l

    --
    Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
  343. Idiotic by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1
    Help him work out his underlying issues? His issue is that he's a kid and he has siblings. Kids have antagonized their siblings since time immemorial. How in the Sam Hill are you or Alfie Kohn going to solve that one, short of feeding one of your offspring to the dog?

    Fortunately, there are other other approaches to parenting than, "You're a bad kid, Timmy!" and, "Gee, Timmy. You seem to be fighting with your sister. Clearly you have issues, because fighting with your sister is abnormal. There is something wrong with you, and we need to work together to fix your personality defects."

    Ever thought about separating the action from the emotion? How about, "I understand that you are angry with your sister. Sometimes people get angry with each other, even loved ones, and you are not a bad person for feeling angry. But practicing physical violence against those with whom you are angry is not ok."

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    1. Re:Idiotic by Dirtside · · Score: 1
      Ever thought about separating the action from the emotion? How about, "I understand that you are angry with your sister. Sometimes people get angry with each other, even loved ones, and you are not a bad person for feeling angry. But practicing physical violence against those with whom you are angry is not ok."

      That, as a matter of fact, is part of unconditional parenting. But you don't *stop* at "...is not ok." Leaving it at that doesn't do any good, because unless he *believes* it's wrong, he's not going to want to refrain from doing it in the future, and unless you help him learn to believe that it's wrong (by helping him understand why it harms people, and how they might feel because of that, for example), he's just going to dismiss it as parental blathering.

      Perhaps you should read the book. :)
      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  344. Ohhhh you're a sheep then, by /dev/trash · · Score: 1

    Well Baaaaaaa

  345. speaking of tag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm, 'USA' on the tag list. This shouldn't be a site where Nazis can do whatever they want. The tag list may have to go

  346. Not inconsistent by Tony · · Score: 1

    Great comment, AC.

    The fact is, we could have universal, free health care *and* a smaller government. These goals aren't contradictory. With the amount of money we spend on healthcare already, we could run a real universal healthcare system, such as those found in Norway or Japan.

    As far as smaller government goes: we could quite easily reduce the government by cutting back on non-essential spending, and reducing government interference in what amounts to states' rights.

    The fact you wish I couldn't vote pretty much indicates you are anti-democracy, and your own opinions are pretty much not well-thought-out.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.