Anti-gun lunacy continues

We ought to be used to the stories by now — “Student suspended for toy gun”; “Boy Scout tool nets student suspension”; “Tweety Bird key chain cause for expulsion.”  Still, when we read of a fourth grade student being hauled into a school prinicipal’s office because his LEGO policeman figure is carrying a two-inch long plastic rifle, it is hard to resist the urge to pull at one’s hair in reaction to the sheer idiocacy of the adults who do such things.  This latest example of a grown-up appearing to be a simpleton in front of a child, took place at Public School 52 in Staten Island, NY. 

According to a spokesman for the school system, Principal Evelyn Matroianni was simply following the Staten Island school system’s “no tolerance” policy that prohibits all “weapons” at the school, when she hauled the 9-year old into her office and called his parents. 

Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary defines a “weapon” to be “something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy.”  Now, I know we have become in many respects a people afraid of our own shadows, but if Ms. Matroianni considers that a two-inch long plastic rifle held by a three-inch tall LEGO police figure will “injure, defeat, or destroy” someone or something, then this is definitely not the sort of adult I would want teaching my children or grandchildren anything.  This is a person so afraid of the world around her that she probably leaves her bedroom light on at night to help scare away the boogey man hiding under her bed.  Perhaps she holds down a second job at TSA.

240 comments Add your comment

Davo

February 12th, 2010
1:29 pm

Good column, BB.

What the left, and to a lesser extent, the right fail to grasp is that no rights can be guaranteed without a degree of responsibility. If our school teachers fail to teach our children how to become and participate as citizens of our nation, then what we are left with is these statists drones that irrationally fear guns, and not the individual behind them.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could have a well-educated public, instead of the mish-mash of the barely literate and the over-educated, and gun control at the same time? Impossible?

Why Switzerland Has The Lowest Crime Rate In The World
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nf1OgV449g&feature=aso

“Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” Mahatma Ghandi, 1927

“I’m all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let’s start with typewriters.”
Frank Lloyd Wright, architect

“Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are
willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom.” John F. Kennedy

“The unarmed man is not just defenseless – he is also contemptible.” Machiavelli

JoseyWales

February 12th, 2010
1:36 pm

Rational person:

I really don’t care if he said it or not; that wasn’t the point. And if you take a little time to actually read some history, you will find that in almost every major discussion of invading the mainland United States this issue has come up. “Farmers with hunting rifles” is just an ignorant comment. And the “formidable Japanese army” absolutely worried about armed US citizens. Go “fact check” that one for yourself.

I don’t worship guns. I appreciate them. And I enjoy them. And if need be, I am going to protect myself with them. So when the proverbial dump hits the fan, don’t come to my house for protection; I’m not going to let you in. You can rely on the state. I’ll take care of my self.

OneFreeMan

February 12th, 2010
1:52 pm

I remember when you could bring a rifle to school and clean it shop class.

Lyle Lee

February 12th, 2010
1:56 pm

Federal defination of a deadly weapon: “Any object,animate or inanamite, that is used for or is readily capable of causing great bodily injury or death”. When will Speaker Pelosi be arrested for weilding that big wooden mallet, in our House of Representatives, where only law enforcement officerson duty may posses arms?

Scout

February 12th, 2010
2:05 pm

Big D and Normal:

A couple of points here:

1) The only idea I was trying to get across …………. is that if things ever got so bad in this country (and that is not an impossibility down the road) that citizens by the hundreds of thousands took up arms, then those same citizens have friends and relatives in the military who probably feel the same way they do. Therefore, it would never be just citizens against the military. It would be a little of both.

Note: Remember, those in the military and law enforcement give an oath to the Constitution (not the President, the Congress or even the Supreme Court).

2) Normal: Do you have a sign by your mailbox that says “There are no weapons in this house”.

3) This M-16, AK-47, automatic weapon thing is overblown.

First, you waste a lot of ammo on full auto. Two rounds bursts are much more effective and weapons can be modified to do just that with each pull of the trigger.

However, should I have to kill as many people as possible in a confined space (let’s say Islamic terrorists held up in a middle school cafeteria) I would choose a good 12 guage pump with #8 buck.

Just one man’s opinion …………… now have at it .

Scout

February 12th, 2010
2:08 pm

OneFreeMan :

Yes, and go rabbit or squirrel hunting after school ! So what has changed? The inanimate object (gun/knife) or the degeneration of our nation?

Chris G

February 12th, 2010
2:08 pm

Big D

The AK is iconic not because it can inflict greater damage per round than the M16 and its variants, but because its durability is legendary. However, the M’s durability has been improved over the course of time and is much better than it is used to be. A lot of AK’s built today are built from sub par materials, and as a result are not as durable as those manufactured years ago.

Scout

February 12th, 2010
2:12 pm

Chris G:

You are correct sir and you can carry twice the ammo for the same weight. Been there done that.

Scout

February 12th, 2010
2:14 pm

Mr. Barr:

Your thread has gone to page two already today. This is good.

Rational Person

February 12th, 2010
2:17 pm

Bubba
February 12th, 2010
1:03 pm

“This imaginary quotation has been attributed to many Axis leaders; none of them said it or thought it.”

I have no idea whether he said it or not, but the factcheck.org site doesn’t refute it; it says nobody has verified it.

——————

What Factcheck.org actually says:

The e-mail’s historical information is not much better. One of the more fanciful claims in the message is that during World War II “the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!” In fact, according to the U.S. Army’s Center for Military History, Japan in World War II had set its sights mainly on Asia; its attacks on U.S. military targets were intended to clear the way for Asian conquests.
American Military History, p. 165: Japan entered World War II with limited aims and with every intention of fighting a limited war. Its principal objectives were to secure the resources of Southeast Asia and much of China and to establish a “Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” under Japanese hegemony. Japan believed it necessary to destroy or neutralize American striking power in the Pacific (the U.S. Pacific Fleet at Pearl Harbor and the U.S. Far East Air Force in the Philippines) to secure its otherwise open strategic flank before moving southward and eastward to occupy Malaya, the Netherlands Indies, the Philippines, Wake Island, Guam, the Gilbert Islands, Thailand, and Burma.
Japan had no thought of invading the U.S. mainland, and the idea it was deterred from such an invasion by fear of homeowners with guns in their closets is historically absurd.
(Note: The author alludes to a belief, widely held by supporters of gun rights, that Japan’s WW II Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto advised his country’s leaders against invading the U.S., supposedly saying “You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” This alleged quote appears literally thousands of times in various Internet postings. So far we have seen none that cite any source, or even give a specific time, date or place where Yamamoto is supposed to have said or written this. We invite any of our readers who can validate this remark to send us a citation that we can check out. Until then we must classify this alleged quote as unverified and probably a fabrication.)
Update, May 11: We contacted Donald M. Goldstein, sometimes called “the dean of Pearl Harbor historians.” Among his many books are “The Pearl Harbor Papers: Inside the Japanese Plans (1993)” and the best-selling “At Dawn We Slept: The Untold Story of Pearl Harbor (1981).” He is a professor at the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh. He told us the supposed Yamamoto quote is “bogus.”
In an exchange of e-mails he said:
Prof. Goldstein: I have never seen it in writing. It has been attributed to the Prange files [the files of the late Gordon W. Prange, chief historian on the staff of Gen. Douglas MacArthur] but no one had ever seen it or cited it from where they got it. Some people say that it came from our work but I never said it. … As of today it is bogus until someone can cite when and where.

Katie Barr the Door

February 12th, 2010
2:20 pm

After Columbine, it’s understandable that a zero tolerance policy would make some principles appear foolish.

Better to have a few red faces than a few red faces.

GGG

February 12th, 2010
2:26 pm

Way to Go Big D! You are absolutely right! The intent of Our founding fathers was for us to have far more freedom to keep and bear arms than we currently have! Someone needs to read up on their history! I am so thankful that we have the NRA, of which I am proud to be a member, fighting for our 2nd Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. It shouldn’t even have to be discussed! Like it or not, it is a constitutional right for every law abiding American. Criminals are excluded, just as they should be.

Van Jones

February 12th, 2010
2:26 pm

Sandra “I’m just sick of being told I as a person have no freedom of choice when it comes to guns.”

Is someone making you go out and buy a gun? I didn’t think so. Next!

Scout

February 12th, 2010
2:33 pm

Rational Person:

You have obviously never seen the movie “1942″ (with John Belushi as “Wild Bill Kelso”) or you would obviously know the truth of this matter …………………. :o

Duh

February 12th, 2010
2:38 pm

Rational Person, if it’s on the interwebs then it MUST be true. By the way, nobody has verified that I have never been to mars…

Big D

February 12th, 2010
2:45 pm

Chris, I won’t get into a pissing contest on lethality , because I’ve seen both and hands down the 16 is more. The AK is a short .308 or 7.62 about 155 grains and it stabilizes in flight making an in and out wound. The .223 or 5.56 is 55 grains ( it was originally designed for 75 grain, but was for more lethal in 55 ) and in the current configuration does not stabilize. If it hits you say in the shoulder it may just take off down or sideways, not in and out. If you couple that with 1450 feet a second better velocity the initial trauma is very evident. The only thing that was wrong with the original version was the head spacing was set to close, not allowing for any contamination of the chamber. If it does not go into complete battery the hammer will not fall and you cannot pull the upper receiver retaining pin to take it apart. This the reasoning for making the second run with a foreword assist. The AK is a very loosely made weapon even in it’s post WWII variant. Most of the NVA carried the SKS.

DAVID: AJC -Truth Detector

February 12th, 2010
2:46 pm

ONE WORD SAYs IT ALL……….LIBERALISM…..Liberals have taken over education….Public Schools & colleges……KOOK LIBERALs……

Northern Songs, LTD

February 12th, 2010
2:47 pm

jack @ 1:11 — The pharmacy called; your meds are ready.

Big D

February 12th, 2010
2:53 pm

Chris, if you do want to get a good AK buy the Polytek Chinese made. They are made with a milled receiver instead of being stamped and spot welded like the Norinco. The AR-180 ( AR-18 ) was the gun that Stoner preferred over the M-16. If you can find one made at Costa Mesa buy it, they are great.

DirtyDawg

February 12th, 2010
2:54 pm

Gotta say, you people are scary. You quote Machiavelli and are proud of it? Now that’s lunacy! When this idiocy about guns thing turns into armed insurrection, I wonder who’s going to be the first to ask, ‘Now what was this all about?’

Big D

February 12th, 2010
3:00 pm

DD, you are right… war or any form of armed conflict is the highest form of insanity. The sad thing is that it has become a everyday reality, therefore it must be addressed for the same reasons you buy insurance…something may just go crazy, especially with the group of under informed liberals we have running the insane asylum.

UMCP Grad

February 12th, 2010
3:02 pm

Rational Person, in the interest of fact checking, Gordon Prange wrote At Dawn We Slept. I believe Prof Goldstein as his student and maybe got some writing credit. I know this because the late Prange’s widow was in one of my history classes at the University of MD in 1981, when the book was published. Prange was a History professor at UMCP until his death in 1980. This does not diminish the veracity of Goldstein’s email, though it does call into question yours (minor as it may be).

Scout

February 12th, 2010
3:10 pm

Big D:

Just in case you haven’t seen this before:

“When civilized man can no longer stand the horror of war and refuses to fight, then he will surely be killed or enslaved by the uncivilized who can.”

Author Unknown

Chris G

February 12th, 2010
3:11 pm

Big D

I was not disagreeing with you–I was trying to say the AK was iconic because of its durability. You’re preaching to the choir. I prefer the M and its variants for accuracy. I saw a post a while back about the AK’s accuracy and barrel durability from a person with the handle FrankenMauser, and I quote:

“Accuracy is crap when they’re new. Accuracy is crap when they’re not new.

Therefore, I deem it impossible to wear one out; provided the bullets continue to exit the proper end of the tube.”

Big D

February 12th, 2010
3:12 pm

Scout, no I haven’t, but he was a smart man and I completely agree.

Big D

February 12th, 2010
3:17 pm

Chris, that’s a pretty good assessment.If you can find one of the early Chicom Polyteks you would be very surprised at how good they were made as well as being very accurate. The Marines had the Polytek M1A in the armory along with Winchester and Springfield Armory.

Chris G

February 12th, 2010
3:18 pm

Big D

I have one that was passed to me by my uncle. During his career, he served as a guard along the Berlin Wall during its construction during the early 60’s and it is a East German made 7.62mm MPi-K. Extremely rare this side of the pond, from what I understand.

MrJake

February 12th, 2010
3:21 pm

I suggest for the facts go to this link about guns.
Published by Harvard…yes, that Harvard.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

In it, the review states that the evidence points that countries that have bans on firearms or restrictive firearm laws are just as dangerous or more dangerous than nations that have lax gun laws. The reason is not the gun (how can it be? It’s only a tool) but violence exists where guns are or are not available. People die to gun fire in this country because guns are available. To deduce that we are violent because of guns is silly. If guns are unavailable, people will still be violent. Notice in the review that statistics show countries with draconian gun laws are just as violent as others without draconian gun laws.

When a drunk driver kills a family of 4, does the news report the cause as a 2003 GMC Sierra or a drunk driver?

Problem is people blame the tool(gun) and not the person yielding it.

About dictator quotes, he’s one for you that was said:

“The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country.” –Adolf Hitler

This is a tough article, as I have been attacked by just about everybody.

1. For believing that any law-abiding individual in the US can own whichever gun he/she wants for personal protection against the US Government.

2. For being a public school teacher. (I’m a high school teacher, I teach history)

the US Bill of Rights was written not to grant Americans rights, but acknowlege that these rights are unalienable rights that can never be taken away.

Rick

February 12th, 2010
3:25 pm

I’ve made this same comment on dozens of articles and posts about the Second Amendment. I read some good comments here by folks with some education and common sense. But, many comments show the ignorance taught by teachers who were taught by progressives, who learned their progressive garbage in ivy league institutions which were taken over by progressives. Originally Ivy League Schools were founded to train pastors for churches. My, how times have changed.

Part of the problem with misunderstanding why militias are mentioned in the Second Amendment with the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The founders fully intended for all states to maintain militias to protect themselves from abuses of an overreaching central government, and from other states. Everyone who was able-bodied was a part of the militia.

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee, writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

“A Well Regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.” (1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789. James Madison.

It should not even be a question whether or not the Second Amendment applies to the states. “And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …” Samuel Adams, quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”

Prior to the War Between the States, each state maintained a militia, regulated by the respective governors. The militias were regulated, not citizens or guns. Both the North and South fought the war with their militias. Governors today have been stripped of their right to regulate militias by the unconstitutional National Guard Laws which were enacted under an interpretation of ‘the Militia Act of 1792.

Today, Both Israel and Switzerland’s militias are more like our Second Amendment intended for the U.S. Would that our Governors would all wake up.

MrJake

February 12th, 2010
3:25 pm

On issues of .223 or 7.62×39mm I’d take the 7.62. The .223 is great if your target is out in the open, but I’ve noticed that when people get shot at they tend to hide behind things….

I prefer my m1a, which has more ft/lb of energy and will cause a larger wound channel. Almost 2x the energy of a .223

Big D

February 12th, 2010
3:27 pm

Chris, yea that’s a completely German built AK ….very good gun. Most people who get the used AK’s( Asia and East Europe) get guns that used corrosive primers and it just eats the gun up if not cleaned properly. Stay away from that copper washed ammo from China…it’s bad.

Del

February 12th, 2010
3:34 pm

The M16 was a pos when it was first placed in service because it was pushed on the military without adequate testing. The theory of small Cal. high velocity ammo that produced somewhat of a dum dum effect upon penetration thus producing greater shock in a wounded enemy all sounded great. The problem was that the gas impingement system that Stoner used produced carbon build up in the weapons chamber and upper receiver causing jamming and stuck rounds. Stoner blamed the problem on the military’s utilization of 5.56mm ball ammunition that exceeded pressure limitations. The problem was partially solved by chrome platting the chamber and eventually the barrel. The travesty was that many lives were lost due to malfunction of this weapon in combat. The M16 and M4 have evolved into reasonably effective infantry shoulder weapons but at a cost. Even now troops are reporting instances of over penetration with the current issue 62 and 70gr 5.56 ammo. It seems ironic that 3rd. world countries can produce a simple inexpensive yet effective weapon as the AK 47 even with it’s 7.62 over penetration it was still a better performer.

Big D

February 12th, 2010
3:37 pm

Mr Jake, the M1A and M-14 are chambered for the .308 / 7.62x 51 not the 7.62x 39 AK round. I agree the full .308 round is very powerful, but the 7.62x 39 does not have that kind of power. I was in the jungle on both my tours and there is not a lot of things to hide behind.

Marine

February 12th, 2010
3:38 pm

Next week Bob’s going to have a headline “They want your gun”. No story and it will go five pages. Get a life, please. 99% have never fired for reason, 50% would freeze if they needed to. So 1/2 of you are full of it.

neo-Carlinist

February 12th, 2010
3:41 pm

I think we need to know if the Lego policeman was armed with a M-16 (.223) or AK-47 (7.62)? it’s a tough call which ammo is more effective vs. plastic criminals (or heaven forbid, dinosaurs and aliens)?

Big D

February 12th, 2010
3:43 pm

Del, you are right ..I went through boot camp with an M-14 and went to the M-16 in AIT and the nomenclature on it was XM-16 and we called it the Mattel riffle after the toy company. The small caliber was adopted by the USSR in the seventies with the AK-74.

Big D

February 12th, 2010
3:53 pm

Marine, One of my favorite things to tell the people I talk to at gun stores that have never served…it isn’t hunting till the deer shoots back. Most of us are raised so moral that when the day comes that when do you put a man in your sights it’s the worst moment of you life and you never stop thinking about.

Hillbilly Deluxe

February 12th, 2010
3:56 pm

Are they still allowed to play softball at recess like we did? Do they get to use bats?

Del

February 12th, 2010
4:03 pm

Big D,

I was in 61- until early 67. I went through boot camp with an M1 after boot camp and what was then called ITR I reported into my first infantry unit and my fire team leader said congratulations you’re going to be the BAR man. It was a sweet weapon except it was heavy to hump. I was glad when we went to the M14 a few months later. The Marine Corps wasn’t issued M16’s until the Spring of 67 right in the midst of the hill wars. I came back just before then so I never really had much personal experience with the weapon. I’ve heard others refer to it as the Mattel rifle.

neo-Carlinist

February 12th, 2010
4:27 pm

the “Mattel” reference was due to a perfect storm of events in the mid-1960’s. the M-16 was manufactured by Colt, but used a plastic handle, which was manufactured by Mattel (the toy company). Many of the original M-16s in Vietnam had the Mattel logo on the pistol grip. this, combined with the (initial) reports of poor performance in the field (specifically Vietnam) let many a grunt to dismiss the weapon as a worthless “toy”. And, as a child in the 1960’s, I played “army” with friends who had the Mattel M-16 Marauder (I had a M-14, made by a different toy company). I guess the 2nd Amendment didn’t apply to 8 year-olds, as my liberal, peacenik mom took my M-14.

Katie Barr the Door

February 12th, 2010
4:34 pm

That explains the mattel reference very satisfactorily! But how was the “Kung Fu grip” on the GI Joe reference born?

Or is that too close to DADT?

Sally

February 12th, 2010
4:55 pm

We need laws that make school administrators accountable for their actions. If they want to act like knee jerk morons then the parents should have the right to sue them PERSONALLY for their actions. Let a judge or a jury decide if the administrator was out of line and did not use common sense. If the student was harmed as a result of their actions then the student should be able to recover damages from the moronic administrator (not the school system).

jconservative

February 12th, 2010
4:57 pm

twinkletoes – The Supreme Court in its Heller decision last year said that the “militia” part of the Second Amendment had nothing to do with a right to keep and bear arms. Nothing. They ruled that the Second Am gave each “individual” the right to keep and bear arms. Sorry.

MrJake

February 12th, 2010
5:11 pm

Sorry Big D, i know the ak round is a lower weight bullet but of the same caliber (.30 cal).

I know 7.62×51mm typically run 147gr as NATO spec. I know the ak round is in the 120gr and is only running 1,200fps while .308 runs 2,600-2,800fps.

In the jungle, did you not encounter a lot of foliage? I know the .223 is flatter and you can carry more ammo with .223 than 7.62×39mm. Maybe in a jungle setting a flatter shooting round would be ideal but in a urban setting (not the thin walled huts in Vietnam) but mortar/brick stone I’d prefer the AK round to defend myself.

Del

February 12th, 2010
5:34 pm

MrJake,

You don’t want to confuse .223 with NATO military issue M193 Ball or M855 Ball ammo. M855 is now standard issue and has a steel core. It’s identified with a green tip and can penetrate 1/4″ to 1/2″ steel. You shouldn’t attempt to fire 5.56 ammo in a rifle chambered only for .223. Since most social work would be within 200 meters. urban or otherwise and with military grade ammo being what it is now, choosing an AR weapon wouldn’t be such a bad idea. In the home, however, buck shot is the better choice.

Hard Right Hook

February 12th, 2010
5:34 pm

“The AK is iconic not because it can inflict greater damage per round than the M16 and its variants, but because its durability is legendary. However, the M’s durability has been improved over the course of time and is much better than it is used to be. A lot of AK’s built today are built from sub par materials, and as a result are not as durable as those manufactured years ago.”

Kalishnikov wasn’t trying to develop a great weapon; he wanted to develop a weapon that the Russians could mass-produce cheaply. An AK version is made virtually everywhere now, the reason all those peace-loving Muslims have one, right next to their rocket-propelled grenades.

MrJake

February 12th, 2010
5:42 pm

Del,

I know 5.56 round have steel penetraters but what happens to the round after it penetrates a barrier? It fragments and loses a lot of it’s energy. .308 will still have a large portion of the bullet intact and will then still be able to cause damage to the target behind the barrier.

I’m not knocking the .223 round as I had an AR, but looking at wound profiles of .30 cal v. .22 cal there is a big difference. Especially if your target is on drugs, you will need more rounds to knock him down. You will get better results with a .30 cal bullet.

Each bullet will have it’s strength and weakness, a .223 will have a flatter trajectory and a soldier will be able to carry more ammo. A 7.62×51mm round will have 2x the torque and has better post barrier penetration and will knock a man sized target down with 1 hit (permitting it’s in or near the vitals) even if he is on a narcotic. I want to put as much energy on my target as possible not only to stop them from shooting back but to not be able to shoot again.

MrJake

February 12th, 2010
5:45 pm

I forgot to tell you Del, look at the wound profile of 62gr 5.56mm ammo vs. .30 cal. The wound profile is more than 1/3 of a .30 cal bullet. 62gr 5.56ammo penetrates great but lacks on the wound trama factor (Unless it hits a vital then it does not matter which caliber you use.)

Del

February 12th, 2010
6:00 pm

MrJake,

It really gets down to what your most comfortable with as either can get the job done. I have both in my gun cabinet and God willing I won’t need to choose one over the other.

Have a good one.

Family Guy

February 12th, 2010
6:40 pm

If we wonder why our public schools are failing, here’s part of the answer: many of those running them are idiots, incapable of exercising independent judgment or basic common sense. An administrator who thinks that a two-inch piece of plastic is a “weapon” and thus covered by an otherwise legitimate policy, is a perfect example of someone who fell into the ideal job for people who don’t have to produce anything; just go through the procedures and you can’t be fired no matter how utterly moronic your decisions. Sadly, those who have to silently endure this kind of willful obtuseness everyday are those good teachers out there who are powerless to do anything other than comply with the demands of bureaucrats who could care less about actual outcomes, only processes. Who cares what happens to the ship, as long as the deck-chairs are properly aligned?