Slashdot Mirror
US Ed Dept Demanding Principals Censor More
Toe, The writes "Education Department officials are threatening school principals with lawsuits if they fail to monitor and curb students' lunchtime chat and evening Facebook time for expressing ideas and words that are deemed to be harassment of some students. Under the new interpretation of civil rights laws, principals and their schools are legally liable if they fail to curb 'harassment' of students, even if it takes place outside the school, on Facebook or in private conversation. When children are concerned, where is the line between protection and censorship?"
WTF!
On the one hand we teach kids about the Constitution and Bill of Rights. On the other hand, we tell them "Hey johhny - what you say can get you in trouble if you make fun of that fat kid in the playground...
Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me?" Have we become such a bunch of pussies that we can't even deal with having people call us bad names? What ever happened to "hey - here's two pairs of boxing gloves - go behind the gym and work it out?"
And finally, doesn't the Dept of Ed have ANYTHING else to deal with besides this BS?
I'm so glad the government is getting involved in the day-to-day activities of the students. This will make everything better!
Soon they'll be tapping into laptop cameras and filming what the students are doing in their bedrooms.
not unexpected, quite disheartening/painful. we'll try back at #1 to see if we're asking too much;
all will please disarm immediately. you have no idea what you're doing, to us, yourselves. please stop at once. thanks.
Ok hold on, I can understand dealing with kids in hallways, or locking down school computer access and whatnot, but off school hours? Limiting kids' speech at lunch? Besides the entire privacy and free speech aspect, how exactly do they propose to do this without massive amounts of money and manpower, and the inevitable legal fees that will accumulate once the lawsuits start pouring in?
-As a warning, don't read the comments in the article, your brain will start to melt.
This doesn't sound nice but in general I'm not sure teenagers should be entitled to full freedom of expression about each other. Other things perhaps but not each other. Not being responsible for your actions cuts both ways.
What kids do outside of school, in their own time with their own equipment, is no business of the schools. It's down to the parents.
Worked in (UK) education for 7 years. I offer advice and training to teachers to introduce safeguarding and online safety into the curriculum, and so far have positive feedback. What the kids do at home, however, isn't our business.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
This strikes me as a profoundly bad idea. While we're delegating parental responsibility over to the principal (which is weird), are we also going to hold them accountable if the kids aren't vaccinated or eating healthy enough?
I didn't rtfa, but surely there is some qualification of reasonability? If the school could reasonably be expected to know about harassment (like if they're told about it or it's witnessed as blatantly obviously out there), they should try their best to do something about it.
Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
We keep on addressing effect after effect, when we need to be addressing the cause of the problems. Our problems don't stem from Facebook or music or video games, they come from the 'values' in our society. Our 'me first' attitude of competition is coming home to roost. Don't like bullying, well guess what, it's been taught to us from day one to 'win' and to kick someone when they're down so we can stay on top. From kids to corporate america to congress we need a values 'regime change'. Imagine what our country would be like if we were taught from day one to think of the other guy first.. and to help people succeed so that they can be around to help us when we're down. Negative reinforcement from the time we're kids to young adult hood to the workplace... and people wonder why everyone is always afraid these days. I think my boss summed it up for me one day when talking about the company.. he said "It's all punishment and no reward." seems like a fair assessment of our society.
so, if the live rounds don't get us....
When exactly did the USA remove the right of free speech from their constitution?
"Hello students, this is your principle seaking, I'd like to remind you that bullying will not be tolerated, in particular, calling Josh Smith a 'whiny little faggot' or 'a little bitch' because he complained about being bullied to school staff is not acceptable. Anyone seen beating him up after school behind the gym, which is out of line of sight from any teacher office, will be disciplined."
Whilst I agree whole-heartedly with the school being made responsible for stopping bullying (verbal or physical) during school time and on school grounds, they cannot realistically control what the children do outside of school. The only way to achieve this would be to change the rules by which FB operates. If you read FBs T- ..... ....."
"No information from children under age 13. If you are under age 13, please do not attempt to register for Facebook or provide any personal information about yourself to us.
Parental participation. We strongly recommend that minors 13 years of age or older ask their parents for permission before sending any information about themselves to anyone over the Internet and we encourage parents to teach their children about safe internet use practices.
Maybe the way round this all is either;-
a) Anything posted by a person under the age of 18 (verifiable age by credit card or similar) MUST be approved by either a parent or their school before it goes live - lots of work, but it would mean employing at least 1 person in each school just to carry out this job.
b) Anyone signing up to FB must provide a credit card or similar proof or age. If they are under 18 then the parent/guardian provides this proof and take FULL responsibility for EVERYTHING that is posted by the child - from a legal as well as a moral standpoint. How many parents are going to allow their kids to post "Jonny's a fu$$ing fag and I'm gonna kill him" if they know that the law will come after them for inciting hatred or something similar.
"If you are sending your children to public school that is tantamount to child abuse." - Neal Boortz. They certainly aren't learning any principles that our country stands for. But hey, say its for their own protection, throw the word "Columbine" out there and parents won't care.
Then the DofE has two choices 1) demand all students install spyware which scans their phones/laptops and photographs the user. 2)Wait until a child suicides and say it isn't their fault
Don't confuse everyone.
Children don't have the right to free speech, only adults do. In this case, their parents.
OTOH, principals at private schools can make pretty much any rules they like regarding facebook posts or threaten ejection from the school. Public schools don't have that choice, IMHO. Kids being mean to other kids has happened for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The best way I know to handle it on FB is for parents to demand to be friended on their child's page. If not, completely shut off FB from home.
Let's teach our children that they are being monitoried 24/7. Let's teach them to be afraid to speak their mind. Let's label every sentence a kid utters as "bullying." Let's use the schools to create a police state that children will not only learn to accept, but come support when they raise their children.
Does anyone remember the Cold War and what we struggled against? This is as Stallinistic as can be. Hello Soviet States of America!
"Who will rid me of this turbulent priest"...
A couple of years ago in my senior year of high school, I got called down to the principal's office for trolling another student on facebook, because she was caught naked in the boys bathroom sucking some guys dick. And I got in trouble for making fun of this girl.
You must be 18 or older to create a Facebook account. Problem solved.
just yesterday, there were reports of staple punctures, & failed lunch orders, at the million dollar a day meetings of the 'can't we wait/defer' committee. deferments are ongoing. if anybody thinks that's easy, they can just go starve/die.
They just passed a law which gives schools outrageous powers over students even in their own homes. Bullying is not such a simple issue. Young males often push each other to "buck up". That is to meet the mark, make the grade, ford the stream, beat the hazard or whatever. Name calling and a bit of pushing around are all part of this process. You see it when recruits go into military training. You certainly see it from both staff and students on football and other sports teams.
Yes there are bullies who are sort of mini terrorists who are a pain to all in schools. But many a milder child has made his mark in maturing by fighting back against a bully. This is just normal human behavior.
As far as youngsters who hang themselves over bullying think about how many young boys and girls commit suicide because they are charmed by members of the opposite sex and then rejected. Love is surely more lethal than the school bully who delivers a punch to the nose. Perhaps these school administrators should consider requiring girls and boys to dress in baggy sack cloth with ashes smeared all over them so that we don't see love sick teens offing themselves by the light of the moon.
The D of E has two options: 1) Demand spyware on every phone and photograph the user. 2) Create a toothless policy and when a teen suicides insist their policy is working.
We have the right to say whatever we like about whoever we like. PERIOD. Schools and governments would do well to re-read the basic framework of our nation.
Or, alternatively, how about we teach them about how pointless and petty such things truly are? How about we teach them that words cannot hurt them unless they let themselves be 'hurt' by the words? Someone else's opinion of you matters little (no matter the amount of people that feel the same) and cannot actually harm you (unless they resorted to physical violence, in which case I would agree that intervention would be necessary). What we are doing is essentially placing them into a bubble that filters out everything that they don't wish to hear. They will never learn how pointless being offended by such things truly is, and when they are forced to leave that bubble, they will be lost. This is completely pointless and counterproductive if your goal is to raise a generation of free-thinking people who utilize logic in making their decisions, but from decisions such as this, I'm guessing that that isn't the goal at all.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
24 hour a day supervising principal overlords!
teenagers are mostly idiots. adults are mostly idiots, but at least they are fully legally accountable for their actions. teenager's actions are still a reflection of their parents, legally and logically, and so curtailment of their rights, according to their parent's wishes is good common sense. i don't think any RESPONSIBLE parent would have a problem with school admin monitoring and policing what their kids do while they are at work, and in fact, probably appreciate it
unless everyone here wants to register an opinion on this subject as if all teenagers were perfect responsible darlings all the time
pfffffffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Thought is now a crime and any of those which the government disagrees with will be dealt with.
This is clearly shortsighted. Why does it stop with graduation? I say principals should be legally responsible for all bad behavior throughout your life. Let's just pick a class of people as the designated "responsibles" and absolve ourselves, our parents, our families and friends from any social responsibility. Case closed.
...teachers are overpaid whiners with gold-and-fairy-dust-plated benefits and retirement packages who go home at 2pm and only work 9 months anyway. This just evens the balance and makes them work as hard as your average CEO. Thanks Fox for helping me see through their average-appearing deception!
According to the Slashdot hivemind:
Ganging up on and bullying a child, calling them faggot and queer, ridiculing and harassing them into depression and alienation, and in some cases suicide == free speech.
Calling a child into the principals office and telling them that this behavior is not acceptable == fascism.
One of the first things we were taught in high school is that as children in school, we really don't get freedoms at all, because of the special nature of schools. So dont expect freedom of speech, or any privacy rights because legal precedence has always favored the school "for the safety of the children". This was pushed on us in homerooms in the first week, and during our government class. Mainly because the teachers didn't like how it effected children and they wanted to make sure we were aware of our lack of rights before we pulled something.
Though not from the US this is nonsense mission creap. The Department of Education is
unconstitutional, and uses up resources that would otherwise be available to support
educarion.
They constantly interfear with the running of schools and in the British system have taken
a working system and destroyed it.
Get rid of these people and leave harrasment to the police.
When children are concerned, where is the line between protection and censorship?"
About 40 years ago and we crossed it without looking back.
The idea that they should correct bad behavior on school premises is fine. After all we have a choice as to wether we send our kids there, teach them ourselves, or pay a private entity to teach them and part of sending kids out to learn is teaching them how to survive in an environment where they may not agree with those in power or those around them. That said, the idea that they're responsible for kids once they leave the school is absolutely absurd, censorship, and nanny state BS.
Can we request the US Ed Dept be censored more? Just saying...
This sounds like an un-funded, all-stick, no-carrot mandate, like NCLB. I imagine this will hasten the departure of good school administrators.
Do you suppose that the Capitol Hill will allow schools to install Cell-Phone jamming technology to combat this sort of thing, keeping students off their cell phones during lunch and between classes? (I'm sure parents will be up in arms over something like that.)
It takes a village to raise a child, which means more than the local school needs to be accountable for the overseeing of our children. Perhaps we should include some 'legal action' that includes the children, not just the schools and administrators, we'd see better results?
Awk! Pieces of eight. Pieces of eight. Pieces of seven... ERROR: General Protection Fault. [Paroty Error.]
poor choice of words. described differently (not at all) on cnn. being newclear advocates, we note that the water poisoning facility has been 'out of service' for years, but the 'stuff' is still there. no place for it to go, for how long? are they all going to 'leak'? yuk. good time to gather with our sacred trusts/ask for help. less vibration? fewer explosions? something?
Oh for crying out loud. This is what passes for news at lame wannabe Tucker Carlson's attempt to mimic Politico? The guidance letter was published in October 2010 and you can read it here: http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/letters/colleague-201010.html
Define tyranny. When the federal US Department of Education attempts to dictate the behavior of citizens, even outside of an educational environment. Hey, US Dept of Education, read the US constitution and then screw off. State and local governments, and the citizens themselves, can take care of these issues. In fact, in these cost cutting days, remind me again why we even need a federal level Dept of Education. You didn't even exist until 1980, and that's about the time that our schools REALLY began their decline here in the US.
Let me just point out the "original article" here is pointing to a news editorial site run by Tucker Carlson. The actual website run by the government dealing with bullying is http://www.stopbullying.gov/
There is legislation pending in congress to make bullying more serious
(Full Text: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-540)
There is no line. Children have (almost) no rights, only their parents have rights.
I want my Cowboyneal
Or "So and so is a muslim and laughed at 9/11". Instant death sentence.
(PS did you ever watch that episode of Top Gear where the three presenters went driving round the southern USA and put slogans like "I heart man love" on their cars? They ran for their lives).
how much we *really* value freedom of expression.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Education Department officials need to get a grip on reality.
I would like to see them follow 1 tweet , facebook and myspace accounts for one person, let alone the 600 or so students you can have in a small school. Then asking 1 person without adding to their budget for such things, is really stupid....it shows their level of computer comprehension...none, zero, zip, nada....they know absolutely nothing about what they are asking....and that is bad, especially that they make decisions about our school system.
so, censorship must work?
I am not a parent but here's what I think.... - 65%
I am not an $educator but here's what I think.... - 12%
I am a parent and I dis/agree because.... - 11%
Here's my solution even though no one freaking asked - 10%
Meta comments - 2%
You don't teach a child to swim by teaching them how to avoid water.
These kids are going to drown when the real world comes knocking on their door.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Raise your hand if you truly, sincerely believe that this will never be used to punish kids who gripe about their teachers or administration. After all, if Johnny tells his parents that Mrs. Smith is mean and picks on him, then he's clearly usurping her authority and disrupting her teaching and the school must put a stop to it.
Remember, "it's for the kids" is always a lie. Always. Without exception.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Is *none* of their damned business. It the child's parents responsibility. Period.
While in school, sure, they can enforce restrictions that don't pertain to the job of providing an education, but that ends once the school day is over.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
A child has not proven they can be treated as an adult. Like it or not, they really are different.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Probably never. So much for your "real world."
What a twisted bit of reporting. The Daily Caller is upset because this policy would recognize harassment of gay students as a bad thing, and this apparently threatens the superstitious beliefs of its target demographic. (Many of them -- and try not to laugh -- believe that an omnipotent, all-loving invisible person in the sky will sentence a person's ghost to eternal torment if that person is gay.)
This isn't about the free expression of ideas, it's about harassment. Harassment is, and should be, against both the law and school policy. If a boss is sexually harassing an employee, say constantly calling them at home to ask for a date, "it happened out of the office" is not a defense -- every intelligent person understands that the consequences of that harassment reach into the workplace. Same with school bullying; as the letter quoted in the article correctly states, it "creates a hostile environment ... [which can] limit a student's ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by a school."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The right of a child to express themselves is superseded by the right of the parents to guide that child in the way the child expresses themselves. The Convention would have taken the parents rights away. The whole purpose of the Convention on the Rights of the Child was to take away the rights of the parents and give those rights to the State (Government). The Convention is an invention of Liberals/Progressives who believe that children should not have parental discipline in their lives but rather be raised by a State run by those self same Liberals/Progressives who think they are smarter than everyone else and think that the parents are incompetent to raise their children. That is why the USA did not ratify the treaty.
And to treat the comments of another commenter, you may think that children are treated as chattel. They are not. They are the responsibility of their parents until they reach majority and therefore under the authority and responsibility of their parents and others that are responsible for them until this point in life. I would hazard a guess that your parents "limited" you as far as you are concerned; it was and is the right of parents to do so within the scope of their responsibility and authority. In the USA when you reach 18 you are allowed to totally screw up your life as much as you want.
A helluva lot closer than these assholes are placing it. Argument is becoming useless, but I don't relish the idea of having to shoot people yet.. We're getting closer though. Time to throw a hearty "FUCK YOU!" to the censors. In lead if needed.
For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
So let me get this straight....
In an effort to "prevent bullying in all its forms", the Obama administration will now use it's "PURSE POWER" to ****BULLY*** schools into going beyond their mandates and responsibilities, by denying funding to schools unless they SPY on kids in their personal lives?
Did I miss something?
Then you missed:
Under the new interpretation, principals and their schools are legally liable if they fail to curb “harassment” of students, even if it takes place outside the school, on Facebook or in private conversation among a few youths.
So now the schools become liable for stuff happening outside of school. While this is certainly bad stuff and kids need some "re-education" if they are doing it, this is pushing into a dangerous slippery slope, expecting the schools to be proxy parents 24x7, and follow them everywhere. Next thing you know, your principle might be sued or go to jail just because you fail to RTFA.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
In true /. form, I have not RTFA yet. However, I can speak on this currently looks like in the real trenches of middle school. We have no interest in what kids do on the weekends or evenings, and little ability to monitor it. I am busy enough that even if I could scrape 400+ student Facebook pages, I would have no time to do so.
The only exception to this is when an online posting creates on-campus disruption. Then we do indeed act, using existing law. Nothing is allowed to disrupt the learning environment, plain and simple. New law is not needed to address this, in my opinion.
If your cyber life remains in the cyber realm, I don't care. If you disrupt or distract at my school, I'll handle it. It is essentially that simple.
Then you missed:
Under the new interpretation, principals and their schools are legally liable if they fail to curb “harassment” of students, even if it takes place outside the school, on Facebook or in private conversation among a few youths.
So now the schools become liable for stuff happening outside of school. While this is certainly bad stuff and kids need some "re-education" if they are doing it, this is pushing into a dangerous slippery slope, expecting the schools to be proxy parents 24x7, and follow them everywhere. Next thing you know, your principle might be sued or go to jail just because you fail to RTFA.
Yes, and do you know what it happens? Because principals HAVE said "Oh we can't do anything, it's not happening on school grounds" or whatever excuse they need to justify their inactions, because doing something well, that'd require work instead of golfing.
It's a goad to action, and it's necessary.
What ever happened to "hey - here's two pairs of boxing gloves - go behind the gym and work it out?"
That's just brilliant. A big bully is picking on the little kid so you tell them to go out back and fight!?! Where did you learn about justice? The witch trial in Monty Python and the Holy Grail? That was supposed to be funny not a lesson in practical jurisprudence.
This is slashdot, news for nerds, you know the little smart guys who got beat up as kids, not the big oafish bullies who did the beating. The anon coward, and the idiots who modded this up should all be banned from slashdot since they clearly are NOT real nerds.
Though perhaps I'm not being entirely fair. I forgot about that other type of nerd, the completely maladapted sociopaths that are smart but incapable of sympathy and as adults have entirely forgotten what it was like to be young and harassed.
-- QED
Reference your local jurisdictions laws on harassment, hate speech, etc.
In CA it's under stalking 646.9.(e) defined in the penal code as, "a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. This course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the person."
(f) ..."course of conduct" means two or more acts occurring over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct."
It's in the civil code as well and carries prison time, fines, potential registration as a sex offender, and a permanent restraining order.
TLDR: its serious business.
Good. It's about fucking time schools are forced to start taking responsibility for ensuring a harassment-free environment. That it's taken so damned long is a travesty.
The root cause is kids that have poor values, role models, or are insecure that leads to online and other bullying. The US Dept of Ed (or perhaps the principals) should require all kids to join a scouting program, be it American Heritage Girls, Girl Scouts, Boy Scouts, Venturing, Campfire, etc. These programs all have a goal to help develop character, citizenship, and making ethical and moral choices over a lifetime.
Whatever bad behavior we see documented online today, the same has been happening live and in person forever.
It is laughable to try solve the online bullying/ harassment/ sex/ drugs/etc. problem by trying to keep people offline. Online is not the thing we need to eliminate.
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
Did you ever go to kindergarten? Did you ever play team sports and get the lecture about sportsmanship? Were you ever a cub scout? The USA worships the concept of "fair play" in sports, business, and life. My impression of Europe is that people live in rigid class structures and expect to be victimized. Europeans seem to want a nanny government that will protect them from each other at the cost of individual liberty. The USA expects people to treat each other fairly without the intervention of a nanny.
Education is a state and local responsibility. There shouldn't even be a federal department of education. More bloated government bureaucracy diminishes everyone's freedom. Just go away. -
I should start signing all my letters as /b/ :D
WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
Surprise: people who are socially oppressed are intolerant of oppression
Excellent post from someone who was not harassed in school. You are looking at this from the point of view of a mature adult. Get out of yourself for a minute and think about it from the point of view of a thirteen year old smart, shy, overweight girl with glasses. Every time you go to school all you hear is nerd, fatty, four eyes, lezbo. Others laugh when they hear it. Every time you hear it you feel physical pain. You see the same posts on Facebook. You can never escape the pain. You start to believe you are worthless.
Here are a couple of points that you seem to ignore.
1. There are many forms of speech that are not protected by the Constitution or Bill of Rights. Liable, slander, hate and harassment are four of them. Would you prefer the school deal with these issues or would you rather have the courts clogged.
2. These are children we are talking about. They are emotionally and logically immature. The harassers do not understand the consequences of their actions and what kind of speech is protected. The victims do not have the defences an adult has and have a tendency to believe anything if heard often enough. Saying "get a thicker skin" is irrelevant because that children have no emotional skin. Saying "grow up" also doesn't work because that takes time and hormones.
Children need to know what is protected speech and what is not. School is a great place to learn that.
So "might makes right"? What if one is significantly smaller than the bully? What if the bully always has friends around? I was physically abused by other students and was in several fights. They never helped. If I lost I got beat up again. If I won they went and got friends to help them next time. Fist fights by children is never a solution even temporary.
Given that reality, I find it humorous that the /. crowd that is always arguing that it is the job of the parent (not the government) to control a child's internet access (a sentiment I agree with), now argues that schools, which are obligated to act as the parent during the school day, should not meet these obligations when it comes to the internet.
They are obligated to stop bullying in the schoolyard, but some here want them to ignore bullying in social media (often done while using school resources, mind you). Apparently the tubez on the interwebz are immune from their responsibilities now?
Those of us who are parents send our kids to school with the knowledge that the school is empowered to act as our agent. This protects our kids. This protection should not stop when kids sit down at a keyboard.
Of course such a rule could (and inevitably would) be misused by a teacher or principal. What rules would be left if we eliminated all of them that could be misapplied by corrupt or selfish authorities?
As to your broad assertion that anyone claiming anything done for the children is lying, I know that to be false. (The way you framed the argument only requires a single counter example). My wife has been teaching for many, many years and I have been a part of decisions she has made to confront parents, argue with administration and generally do things not in her self interest. On those occasions it has been for the good of a child.
Though they really mean white, male landowners, we've expanded that definition to include all citizens of voting age. Children, alas, do not fully qualify.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
And your wife is now a legislator who passes laws (or a bureaucrat who issues regulations) "for the children", plural, which is the context of my statement?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
To hold the principal of the school responsible for the conduct of those under his or her supervision is one thing, while they are within the confines of his or her jurisdiction, but it seems they have neglected a key factor in the equation, the parents of the misbehaving. I have listened to 10 year olds tell their parents to go f* themselves. I have seen children do ruthless things to other children, as their parent stood there and watched. The parents may have their children for a few hours in the evening and on weekends but guess who has to babysit them through out the working day. Should it be the responsibility of the principal for their developed attitudes? It should be the responsibility of the parent to get a handle on their kids. I am no pro for beating a child till they are black and blue but parenting as a whole, has become soft. Parents are more reluctant these days to punish their children appropriately.
Yes, this is kind of a nutty over-reaching on the part of the Education Dept, but think of the context.
There was a time when, thanks to a high progressive tax rate, lots of powerful unions, modest corporate executive culture, and far less pervasive marketing... there was a time when one parent at a blue collar job could support a family, leaving the other parent to raise children and keep the house. There were (I'm told) family meals, homework, and our public education was the envy of the world. In the 70s that began to change, thanks in part to the gipper. Now unions are weak, the poor and the middle class sacrifice their own interests to protect the one guy living in a mansion on the hill, executives don't feel fulfilled unless they make 500 times the average salary in their company, and government is small and feeble. Schools can't afford to provide nutritous food, so McD jumps in and "helps". Cities can't afford to maintain parks, so malls are where kids congregate.
The public sector is poor and weak, parents make too little money and are overextended. Our bloated, all-powerful corporate oligarchy uses neuropsychology to design marketing campaigns which flood our citizens' visual fields. Marketing drives culture, which pressures our citizens to overspend and overborrow.
Government knuckles under by espousing a bogus American "dream" of an "ownership society", where if you don't own a home, something is wrong with you.
So we're dumb, fat, in debt, angry, and can't tell the difference between Intelligent Design and Biology. We turn to our gov't to do what we can't because we're too disorganized, overworked, and frightened to be parents.
Pathetically sad. In two generations we'll be sneaking into Canada to take low paid jobs that Canadians will disdain.
The important line is the tear-off strip in the packaging of the box of condoms. Use that and you don't need to worry about shit like this.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"