Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

typoon · Oct 29, 2003, 03:40 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101569,00.html

A 14-year-old New Jersey schoolboy � whose dad and stepdad are in the military � was suspended for five days because he drew a "patriotic" stick figure of a U.S Marine blowing away a Taliban fighter, officials said yesterday.

petehammer · Oct 29, 2003, 03:52 PM

Scott said school officials may have been edgy because of an earlier incident in which other students had drawn a "very Columbine-ish" picture.

Officials said they were concerned because his drawing contained a reference to another student who they feared might have been a potential target.

BRussell · Oct 29, 2003, 04:30 PM

At least O'Reilly will have something to talk about this week.

petehammer · Oct 29, 2003, 04:38 PM

Originally posted by BRussell:
At least O'Reilly will have something to talk about this week.

And it might go something like this:

Principal: We were worried about Columbine. Besides, the picture was quite disturbing and violent.

O'REILLY: Columbine had nothing to do with it.

Principal: So the Columbine students that drew violent images threatening other students were...

O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this.

Principal: Well, I hope she is.

O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore.

Principal: OK.

O'REILLY: Out of respect for the Columbine kids...

Principal: I thought you said they didn't matter to this?

O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up.

Principal: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up.

O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for Columbine, fine American students, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians...

Principal: Barbarians who had warned in advance...

O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore.

We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR.

Principal: That means we're done?

O'REILLY: We're done.

thunderous_funker · Oct 29, 2003, 05:05 PM

How does this fall under the heading of "political correctness"?

Maybe under the heading of "principle who sees danger signs where there are none" or "too freaked out by memory of columbine to weigh evidence clearly and fairly".

In fact, is there anything political about this at all?

eklipse · Oct 29, 2003, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by petehammer:
And it might go something like this:

I'm more concerned that someone feels it is 'patriotic' to depict 'blowing people away'.

macvillage.net · Oct 29, 2003, 05:25 PM

The principle loses regardless.

If he didn't do anything... People like O'Reilly would be telling viewers to call their politicians demanding that he be held accountable for murder.

IMHO he did the right thing. At least this way the threat as addressed.

MacNStein · Oct 30, 2003, 11:34 AM

It's ok for a girl to write disturbing things in her diary (everyone was pissed regarding her freedom of speech) but bad for a boy to draw war pictures (aren't you guys always saying that art is "speech")? Huh?

Sven G · Oct 30, 2003, 11:53 AM

Yet another proof that the public schooling system is essentially (exceptions occur, of course: many teachers are excellent individuals, not denying this!) a piece of authoritarian crap - both from left or right, for that matter...

asleep@thewheel · Oct 30, 2003, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by typoon:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101569,00.html

A 14-year-old New Jersey schoolboy � whose dad and stepdad are in the military � was suspended for five days because he drew a "patriotic" stick figure of a U.S Marine blowing away a Taliban fighter, officials said yesterday.

shouldn't the taliban be shooting the marine as that's the way things are going...

brainwashed american kids think the u.s. is winning.

Spliffdaddy · Oct 30, 2003, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's ok for a girl to write disturbing things in her diary (everyone was pissed regarding her freedom of speech) but bad for a boy to draw war pictures (aren't you guys always saying that art is "speech")? Huh?

ditto

You folks would crap your pants if you ever visited an elementary school near a military base. I'd guess 90% of the kids' artwork is somehow related to aircraft, tanks, and Bradley fighting vehicles - obviously, they know what their parents do for a living.

finboy · Oct 30, 2003, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by thunderous_funker:
How does this fall under the heading of "political correctness"?

Maybe under the heading of "principle who sees danger signs where there are none" or "too freaked out by memory of columbine to weigh evidence clearly and fairly".

In fact, is there anything political about this at all?

Acting on the basis of appearances rather than fact is certainly related to "political correctness." The kid's drawing, was, if anything, at least politically insensitive. A threat? Hardly. But the overreaction is similar to the type of overreaction we see on polarizing political issues all the time. So, yeah, they're related.

petehammer · Oct 30, 2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
Acting on the basis of appearances rather than fact is certainly related to "political correctness." The kid's drawing, was, if anything, at least politically insensitive. A threat? Hardly. But the overreaction is similar to the type of overreaction we see on polarizing political issues all the time. So, yeah, they're related.

Oh, so when I overreact when someone hits my mailbox, it's political?

Because the emotions are the same? Neato, makes a lot of stuff political!

thunderous_funker · Oct 30, 2003, 04:51 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
But the overreaction is similar to the type of overreaction we see on polarizing political issues all the time. So, yeah, they're related.

Did you mean FoxNew's overreaction or the principle's?

I'm perfectly willing to let the principle err on the side of caution. You know, the Precautionary Principle?

The principle was correct to take the picture seriously, but wrong to take such action without consulting with the kid. Seems to me the kid is old enough to explain himself and they should have been able to determine if the drawing was harmless expression or subconscious aggression.

But making it about "patriotism" or politics at all is completely bogus. Seems to me that element was introduced by the media covering the story, not the school, principle, or even the kid.

macvillage.net · Oct 30, 2003, 06:28 PM

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
ditto

You folks would crap your pants if you ever visited an elementary school near a military base. I'd guess 90% of the kids' artwork is somehow related to aircraft, tanks, and Bradley fighting vehicles - obviously, they know what their parents do for a living.

Yep... but if there is ever school violence in those schools... the blame is going to the military not the school... in the public eye.

So it's different.

I know someone who was suspended in his High School for having a picture of George Bush with a bullet hole in his head. They said it was "threatening". It violated policies implemented post-columbine, and since it was post 9/11, it was considered a terroristic threat and a police report had to be filed (although nobody did anything, since it was just a stupid pic from the web).

It didn't appear that *he* wanted to kill it... just found it amusing when he saw it online.

What's threatening?

A kid draws a picture killing a teacher?
Another student?
A foreigner?
A politician?

Which ones are allowed?

Why is this situation just a suspension and not a criminal record?

If I were to have had a picture of someone from my yearbook with a a knife against their throat... is that a problem?

Who can I show pictures of dying?

finboy · Oct 30, 2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:

Why is this situation just a suspension and not a criminal record?

Your other questions are valid, as this one is. Why don't we do a locker-to-locker search of the school in question and arrest EVERY kid who's drawn the same kind of thing, across the nation. You know, if we find them now, we can help them become better people. At least that's what I recall them saying in A Clockwork Orange.

petehammer · Oct 30, 2003, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
Your other questions are valid, as this one is. Why don't we do a locker-to-locker search of the school in question and arrest EVERY kid who's drawn the same kind of thing, across the nation. You know, if we find them now, we can help them become better people. At least that's what I recall them saying in A Clockwork Orange.

Yup, no continuum. Either nothing or everything. JACKBOOTED GOVERNMENT THUGS ARE COMING!

finboy · Oct 30, 2003, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by petehammer:
Yup, no continuum. Either nothing or everything. JACKBOOTED GOVERNMENT THUGS ARE COMING!

Sounds like you'd get some agreement from some of the folks here. Any drawing must mean that the kid is a danger to himself and others. I wonder if he wears a trenchcoat?

MacNStein · Oct 30, 2003, 07:48 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
Sounds like you'd get some agreement from some of the folks here. Any drawing must mean that the kid is a danger to himself and others. I wonder if he wears a trenchcoat?

We wore trenchcoats in HS (back in the `80s). I also carried a .22 rifle around (disassembled and in a case) on Fridays, the day we had rifle team practice, for four years. Even had ammo on me, it was in my trenchcoat pocket.

I used to clean the thing in Civics class. The teacher didn't care and it made the debates we had in class more interesting.

But you know, none of us ever pointed these rifles at anyone, nor did we even fully assemble the rifles until we got to practice. The idea of hurting someone with them was completely alien to us.

macvillage.net · Oct 30, 2003, 08:03 PM

Originally posted by finboy:
Your other questions are valid, as this one is. Why don't we do a locker-to-locker search of the school in question and arrest EVERY kid who's drawn the same kind of thing, across the nation. You know, if we find them now, we can help them become better people. At least that's what I recall them saying in A Clockwork Orange.

The question is comparing the two situations.

Why is printing out a picture of the president shot... a worth a police report... and this not?

Zimphire · Oct 31, 2003, 01:16 AM

Originally posted by MacNStein:
It's ok for a girl to write disturbing things in her diary (everyone was pissed regarding her freedom of speech) but bad for a boy to draw war pictures (aren't you guys always saying that art is "speech")? Huh?

Yeah I noticed the double-sidedness too.

swrate · Oct 31, 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by Zimphire:
Yeah I noticed the double-sidedness too.

With Nintendo- play station -dvd games, people kill others; usually representations of governments or secret services from one side or the other.

Why is this allowed and not to take ones aggressive feelings symbolically out on a photograph? Isn�t it the same?

I mean as long as no real bad action is taken, it can allow the frustrated person to exorcise his/her feelings.

What about in theater, music or films? Arent the scenarios offensive somtimes? why not forbid that too then?

Mister Elf · Nov 2, 2003, 03:38 PM

Originally posted by asleep@thewheel:
shouldn't the taliban be shooting the marine as that's the way things are going...

brainwashed american kids think the u.s. is winning.

We ARE, but it will take a while. Look at the numbers, will you?

shmerek · Nov 2, 2003, 03:45 PM

Originally posted by Mister Elf:
We ARE, but it will take a while. Look at the numbers, will you?

The numbers?