Update on previous thread: June 25, 2009 9:52 AM   Subscribe

Update on the Ibuprofen search thread (now closed): Strip search illegal.
posted by sperose to MetaFilter-Related at 9:52 AM (86 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

Clarence Thomas dissenting opinion focused on underwear aspect of case: "Redding would not have been the first person to conceal pills in her undergarments," he said. "Nor will she be the last after today's decision, which announces the safest place to secrete contraband in school."
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:55 AM on June 25, 2009


In a dissent, Justice Clarence Thomas found the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.

Officials had searched the girl's backpack and found nothing, Thomas said. "It was eminently reasonable to conclude the backpack was empty because Redding was secreting the pills in a place she thought no one would look," Thomas said.


Clarence Thomas! Takin' a hardline pro-using-the-justice-system-to-get-into-panties stance!
posted by Greg Nog at 9:58 AM on June 25, 2009 [2 favorites]


JINX!
posted by Greg Nog at 9:58 AM on June 25, 2009


I would like to smuggle my hungry alligator into the Supreme Court in Thomas's underwear.
posted by The Straightener at 9:58 AM on June 25, 2009 [4 favorites]


Wow. That's great! I am glad Clarence Thomas is not the principal of my kids' school.
posted by Mister_A at 10:00 AM on June 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Clarence Thomas ... focused on underwear

I think that's pretty much your rule of thumb in any given situation.
posted by mkultra at 10:00 AM on June 25, 2009 [3 favorites]


Clarence Thomas is the GOP.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:04 AM on June 25, 2009


the safest place to secrete contraband in school

I don't see how you have much choice about which parts of you secrete contraband and which don't. It's not like I can decide to secrete contraband from my ears instead of my more downstairs region.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:05 AM on June 25, 2009 [5 favorites]


Gawd, Thomas really is the worst justice in the modern history of the court, isn't he?

I'd advocate sending him lots of high fat, high sodium foods, but Hal Turner's bust has me skittish.
posted by klangklangston at 10:05 AM on June 25, 2009 [2 favorites]


Clarence Thomas: ALL UR PILLZ IN UR UNDERWEARZ ARE BELONGS TO US.
posted by ob at 10:08 AM on June 25, 2009 [3 favorites]


the safest place to secrete contraband in school

I think he just means putting the pills in your panties, not your pooper.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:14 AM on June 25, 2009


Damn. In this 8-1 decision, Clarence Thomas pretty much just proved to the world how much he sucks.
posted by dunkadunc at 10:16 AM on June 25, 2009


I'm shocked that he's still a pervert. In the same way I'm shocked that the zebra I keep penned up in my backyard is still all stripey.
posted by heyho at 10:23 AM on June 25, 2009 [4 favorites]


I wonder if when you go to see a case argued in the Supreme Court, if the security check will now be "Empty your pockets and take off your belt, shoes, and underpants."
posted by rtha at 10:25 AM on June 25, 2009


IM IN UR COURT TALKING BOUT UNDEROOS
posted by exogenous at 10:25 AM on June 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Clarence Thomas dissenting opinion focused on underwear aspect of case

I read that it was a 8-1 decision and I instantly just knew it had to be him, seriously. He's been voting literally out of spite for, what, almost twenty years now.
posted by matteo at 10:26 AM on June 25, 2009 [2 favorites]


Look on the bright side people--Thomas didn't just point at Scalia and say "I'll vote how he's voting".
posted by DU at 10:37 AM on June 25, 2009 [6 favorites]


This may serve as the tiniest of speed bumps to our current trend, which is that no amount of infantilization, inflexibility, and humiliation is too much when it comes to preserving the merely physical well-being of children against any number of gibbering hypothetical specters.

We might as well keep them in medically-induced comas, muscles carefully worked with TENS units, for thirteen years and rename the decanting ceremony "graduation," as which point their content-free minds begin to guide rubbery legs out of their tanks, ready to make the first actual decisions in their lives.

Stripping wee lassies to protect against the potential drama of ibuprofen so spectacularly misses the point, but then "policy" beats reason and dignity every time. That the United States Supreme Court is the one to have to point this out suggests that The Plain Frikkin' Obvious has has been unceremoniously booted from practically every level below the SCOTUS.

Common sense is now on the endangered list.
posted by adipocere at 10:43 AM on June 25, 2009 [23 favorites]


It's so wonderful to be parent in the U.S. and have to sit down and discuss with your kids about what to do in case of a shooting or officials demanding strip searches.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:46 AM on June 25, 2009 [9 favorites]


I'm boggled to discover that the original incident happened in the town where my grandparents lived for many years. (And actually, I think my step-aunt still lives there.) I knew it was a middle-of-nowhere town, I just didn't know they were...wow. Seriously?

And way to stay classy, Thomas.
posted by epersonae at 10:47 AM on June 25, 2009


To the non-American Mefites, is this allowed in your particular country? What's the general feeling on that?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:54 AM on June 25, 2009


Reading further:
The court also ruled the officials cannot be held liable in a lawsuit for the search. Different judges around the nation have come to different conclusions about immunity for school officials in strip searches, which leads the Supreme Court to "counsel doubt that we were sufficiently clear in the prior statement of law," Souter said.
So it may be illegal, but ain't nobody gonna care.
posted by boo_radley at 10:56 AM on June 25, 2009


Not so, boo_radley. The article suggests that the school district may be held liable in civil action.
posted by Mister_A at 10:58 AM on June 25, 2009


The safest place to hide yr dope at school is to tuck it under the bumper of the principal's car.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:03 AM on June 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Good. Thomas really is a piece of work.
posted by OmieWise at 11:03 AM on June 25, 2009


I have an elaborate dope-smuggling scheme involving the governor of South Carolina.
posted by Mister_A at 11:04 AM on June 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Ah, you're correct: a lawsuit would name the school district, rather than individuals involved in the search.
posted by boo_radley at 11:07 AM on June 25, 2009


the safest place to secrete contraband...

Related: Never trust a fart!
posted by ericb at 11:07 AM on June 25, 2009


The safest place to secrete contraband in school is in a copy of the Bill of Rights, which doesn't apply to you, missy!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:09 AM on June 25, 2009 [7 favorites]


Surely there's a joke here about pubic hairs on ibuprofin tablets that I just can't quite put together.
posted by aught at 11:12 AM on June 25, 2009 [2 favorites]


I have never said this before but Christ, what an asshole (Clarence Thomas, that is)
posted by supermedusa at 11:21 AM on June 25, 2009


This may serve as the tiniest of speed bumps to our current trend, which is that no amount of infantilization, inflexibility, and humiliation is too much when it comes to preserving the merely physical well-being of children against any number of gibbering hypothetical specters.

And it's all the more horrifying when you think that things that actually protect our children - well-funded schools, programs for at-risk students, truthful education about sex and drugs, health insurance - are always first on the chopping block when the economy goes south. Well, at least the kids will get three hots and a cot in juvie!
posted by rtha at 11:21 AM on June 25, 2009 [11 favorites]


The opinion doesn't actually say that you can't strip search students. They're just saying you better have a GODDAMN GOOD REASON to do it, not just hearsay allegations from a known delinquent along the logical premise that "hey, if we can't find it in her backpack, then she certainly must have hidden 1000mg of ibuprofren under her boobs!" That GODDAMN GOOD REASON means it's still okay to strip search kids if you saw them stick a brick of uncut heroin in their scivvies.

Thomas is a sick fuck. He would have allowed the skeezy janitor to perform cavity searches, and then justify the hall monitor tazering the girl in order to perform surgery in order to see if she ingested the drugs.
posted by jabberjaw at 11:22 AM on June 25, 2009


Common sense is now on the endangered list.

Now?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:37 AM on June 25, 2009


Doin' a heck of a job, Clarence.

If I came across him dying in the desert, I wouldn't spit on him, in case the moisture gave him the strength to make it to water.
posted by mephron at 11:41 AM on June 25, 2009


Yes, now.

The last eight years we had Bush, and ain't nothin' gettin' in on the endangered list while he was in office.
posted by adipocere at 11:41 AM on June 25, 2009 [3 favorites]


My stash has been in my underwear for years now.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 11:42 AM on June 25, 2009


It's so wonderful to be parent in the U.S. and have to sit down and discuss with your kids about what to do in case of a shooting or officials demanding strip searches.

I know a lady who, when called by the cops about it, actually authorized them to strip-search her underage son because the principal suspected him of posessing pot. Kid didn't even have any on him.
posted by dunkadunc at 11:42 AM on June 25, 2009


I like to think that when George H.W. Bush goes to hell, he'll be met by the devil, who present him with the following challenge: name the Most Horrible Thing You Did, you fucker, and you're free to turn around and go to heaven.

And ol' Poppy will be screwed, because he knows in his heart of hearts he can't possibly choose between having sired Dubya and having appointed Thomas.
posted by scody at 11:43 AM on June 25, 2009 [7 favorites]


If I came across him dying in the desert, I wouldn't spit on him, in case the moisture gave him the strength to make it to water.

shorter...

I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire.
posted by edgeways at 11:48 AM on June 25, 2009 [2 favorites]


I know a lady who, when called by the cops about it, actually authorized them to strip-search her underage son because the principal suspected him of posessing pot.

When I raised a stink about the police doing random drug searches with dogs of grade school kids, I got a lot of flak from parents. They welcome the searches, as they felt it made their children safer and they were literally THANKING GOD that they could worry just a little bit less about their kids.

Words failed me then and to some extent, they still do.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:49 AM on June 25, 2009 [2 favorites]


Unfortunately, adipocere, Common Sense is on the Best Seller List!

*vomits in mouth*
posted by barrett caulk at 11:59 AM on June 25, 2009


In the waning years at my high school we got some real bible-thumper parents who got worried that their little innocents might be in danger of 'abusing drugs' which one parent said included drinking under 21.
So, they got in contact with some sort of social services bureau and had five or six ex-junkies come in. This lady told us all about how after getting in trouble with the law, she stopped doing heroin, got back on track, and now has car payments and a great job at the Dell call center. Of course, this program was all a part of their terms of release.
We all cringed and thought it was completely ridiculous and uncalled for, especially since the hardest drugs going around were Adderall and maybe mushrooms and there was no way in hell we were going to party with those lame Christian kids anyway.
posted by dunkadunc at 12:00 PM on June 25, 2009


Justice Thomas reminds me of Hemingway's description of Wyndham Lewis in A Moveable Feast:

Some people show evil as a great racehorse shows breeding. They have the dignity of a hard chancre. Lewis did not show evil; he just looked nasty.
posted by Joe Beese at 12:01 PM on June 25, 2009 [4 favorites]


I think he just means putting the pills in your panties, not your pooper.

I know.

I was trying, and failing miserably, to make a pun on the two meanings of secrete: hide versus exude.

Thomas's statement could be read that it is safer to have your body produce and expel ibuprofen tablets from any of the convenient glands and orifices in your underpants area than it would be to have, say, your sinuses make them and then you could sneeze them out.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:12 PM on June 25, 2009


I'm still kind of shocked that anyone bothered to search for fricking ibuprofen at all, let alone that thoroughly.

O NOES!!!! Our children might be relieving minor aches and pains!!!! Oh, the humanity!!!! Clearly, the only way to protect their fragile innocence from these evil Advil-pushing monsters is by paying minimum wage to an all-too-eager army of middle-aged ex-cops with chips on their shoulders and giving them carte-blanche to molest our children at every given opportunity!!!!

And, like, the lines are so blurry that the case makes it to the Supreme fucking Court?

What. The. Fuck.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:21 PM on June 25, 2009 [7 favorites]


How the hell does someone hearing this case get the facts of; 1.) Girl, 2.) Minor 3.) Over the counter legal drug, and 4.) Strip-search and come up with "Ok, yeah. That seems reasonable".

I mean, perhaps he was trying to base his opinion on previous precedents or something, but this particular case was so unambiguously a violation of the kid's rights and safety as to be absurd.

Therefore, in the absence of better evidence, I have to conclude that Clarence Thomas is an asshole.
posted by quin at 12:26 PM on June 25, 2009


Breyer later added a moment of levity to the hour-long argument when he misspoke while explaining why he would expect students to hide contraband in their underwear.

When Breyer was a child, “people did sometimes stick things in my underwear,” the justice said, apparently intending to say “their underwear.” The remark drew extended laughter from both the audience and his colleagues on the bench.

“Or not my underwear,” he quickly corrected himself with a smile. “Whatever. Whatever. I was the one who did it? I don’t know. I mean, I don’t think it’s beyond human experience.”

posted by electroboy at 12:37 PM on June 25, 2009


fwiw, and this doesn't invalidate anyone's major points, it was presumably prescription strength Advil and Aleve they where looking for, not the OTC variety. Not that the distinction matters a whole heck of a lot, just noting for the record.
posted by edgeways at 12:46 PM on June 25, 2009


"Vernon: Everything's a big joke, huh Bender? The false alarm you pulled, Friday, false alarms are really funny, aren't they...What if your home, what if your family...what if your dope was on fire?

Bender: Impossible, sir...It's in Johnson's underwear..."
posted by ShawnString at 1:01 PM on June 25, 2009 [4 favorites]


fwiw, and this doesn't invalidate anyone's major points, it was presumably prescription strength Advil and Aleve they where looking for, not the OTC variety. Not that the distinction matters a whole heck of a lot, just noting for the record.

The whole thing was completely asinine and it's actually made worse by a policy that bans prescription drugs across the board, without notifying the school. The fact that the pills she had are the exact same that any gas station in the country carries, except she'd need to take two at a time of those, is really the icing on this stupid cake.

America's really fucked itself with zero tolerance bullshit.
posted by 6550 at 1:30 PM on June 25, 2009


Well, 6550, I actually agree with the policy on notifying the school about prescription drugs. That is the only part of this school's drug policy that I seem to agree with.
posted by Mister_A at 1:35 PM on June 25, 2009


To the non-American Mefites, is this allowed in your particular country? What's the general feeling on that?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:54 AM on June 25 [+] [!]


I don't think anybody here (Belgium) has ever even considered the possibility. So, it may even be legal, for all I know, but it would be fucking ridiculous. And over ibuprofen, really?! As Suter has put it, it should not take a constitutional scholar to see that strip-searching a thirteen-year old child is an invasion of privacy.
posted by Skeptic at 1:35 PM on June 25, 2009


I don't think anybody here (Belgium) has ever even considered the possibility. So, it may even be legal, for all I know, but it would be fucking ridiculous

Yeah, well, it's fucking ridiculous here in the USA as well.
posted by Tomorrowful at 1:38 PM on June 25, 2009


Well, 6550, I actually agree with the policy on notifying the school about prescription drugs. That is the only part of this school's drug policy that I seem to agree with.

I disagree with the idea that schools should, by default, have access to students' private medical information. Even if it means it's easier for kids to get access to illicit Ritalin or Oxycontin, I'll err on the side of less busybodying, nannying, and interference in any aspect of anyone's private life.
posted by 6550 at 1:42 PM on June 25, 2009 [3 favorites]


I can't believe this had to go all the way to the Supreme Court.
posted by Sailormom at 1:44 PM on June 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Here in Austria, you see high school kids standing outside smoking butts. In the afternoon, they go to the store, pick up a case of beer, and sit down by the river. It's all totally legal.
posted by dunkadunc at 1:45 PM on June 25, 2009


I was trying, and failing miserably, to make a pun on the two meanings of secrete: hide versus exude.

Secrete only has one meaning. It's not 'hide'.
posted by kingbenny at 1:51 PM on June 25, 2009


Oh son of a. I'm wrong. Carry on.
posted by kingbenny at 1:52 PM on June 25, 2009


Well there are many good reasons to have school personnel know what prescription drugs your child is taking, not least of which is to make sure that the child is actually taking the medication as prescribed.
posted by Mister_A at 1:58 PM on June 25, 2009


Perhaps Clarence Thomas is a Schwarzen'aficiando.
I mean, I'm sure we all recall that that is exactly where Maria Conchita Alonso hid the evidence tape in 1987's The Running Man.
posted by blueberry at 2:01 PM on June 25, 2009


God, I hope this decision was announced before The Daily Show taped today. I'd love to hear Stewart riff on Thomas being the lone asshole/pervert on the court. Something along the lines of "Stealing the top-asshole crown from long-time champ, Scalia."

I can wait for Monday, if I have to, though.
posted by Thorzdad at 2:03 PM on June 25, 2009


Here in Austria, you see high school kids standing outside smoking butts. In the afternoon, they go to the store, pick up a case of beer, and sit down by the river. It's all totally legal.

Ditto in Canada. (Except for that last bit.)
posted by Sys Rq at 2:05 PM on June 25, 2009


God, I hope this decision was announced before The Daily Show taped today.

Unrelated: This morning I saw an ad for today's Entertainment Tonight which asked the bold question, "Could these be Farrah's last days?" Hopefully someone over there is choking on their tastelessness.
posted by Sys Rq at 2:08 PM on June 25, 2009


I disagree with the idea that schools should, by default, have access to students' private medical information.

No kidding! And anyone who thinks ANYthing at a public school is really confidential is deluding themselves, no matter what the law says.
posted by small_ruminant at 2:16 PM on June 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


Wait. What? Wait.

When I was in high school, a whole 7 years ago, I had a bottle of Ibuprofen on me at all times. I wrestled (yeah, yeah, I've heard all the jokes) and that was a painful occupation. I would pop three or four of those suckers at a time. What the fuck is up with it not only being banned, but requiring a strip search? How did I miss this the first time around? What is wrong with America? And what the fuck is wrong with Clarence Thomas?
posted by Caduceus at 2:21 PM on June 25, 2009


Thomas finally has something he can point to that explains how the famous pubic hair on the can of pop he was telling Anita Hill about, and which she foolishly mistook for sexual harassment rather than the surprised yet straightforward observation it so clearly was, got there in the first place!

Some precocious high school girl must have been carrying it around in her panties along with all the other contraband!

Vindication after all these years!

But, um, Clarence, how did you happen to lay your hands on this contraband can of pop a minor girl was carrying around in her panties?
posted by jamjam at 2:27 PM on June 25, 2009


the school was acting on a tip from another student.

Did this other student by any chance refer to the pills as "softcore taters"?
posted by granted at 2:35 PM on June 25, 2009


What the fuck is up with it not only being banned, but requiring a strip search?

Welcome to the middle of the slippery slope we started down with Zero Tolerance policies. It was just too difficult for teachers to figure out which kids were dealing with headaches like good boys and girls, and which kids were popping ecstasy in class, because there just isn't any obvious behavioral effect with illicit drugs that could provide them with any clues. =p
posted by nomisxid at 2:41 PM on June 25, 2009


Doesn't everyone secrete their drugs in their pooper? *shifts in seat*
posted by deborah at 2:41 PM on June 25, 2009


Well there are many good reasons to have school personnel know what prescription drugs your child is taking, not least of which is to make sure that the child is actually taking the medication as prescribed.

I completely agree that there are plenty of good reasons for school personnel to know that information, and it's not just medications. It's also good for the school to know if a student is, for example, an epileptic, or a diabetic.

But required is a completely different thing. Required leads to zero tolerance. Required leads to a Stasi-like administration that deems it okay it strip search a student for ibuprofen.
posted by 6550 at 2:53 PM on June 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


i know it's off topic, but I would just like to point out that upon hearing that michael jackson has died, my first thought was "if I rush, I can get this onto mefi!" I then restrained myself so that someone with more time and thought can put together a proper post.

I hope others do the same.
posted by shmegegge at 2:53 PM on June 25, 2009


but alas, I hoped in vain.
posted by shmegegge at 2:57 PM on June 25, 2009


What the fuck is up with it not only being banned, but requiring a strip search?

As nomisxid said, it's zero tolerance. And it's dumb. It's an attempt to abdicate liability by implementing inflexible rules and removing the need for any human judgment.
posted by GuyZero at 3:02 PM on June 25, 2009 [3 favorites]


I have some experience with this kind of thing kinda. My mother was giving my 13 year old sister unsubscribed psychiatric medication and surprise surprise, she got caught at school with them and was arrested on the spot. She had to go through weekly drug testing until next week, which would be a year. I fully support her being arrested and am glad there are people looking out for that kind of stuff. Of course, this case is very extreme and ridiculous. Oh, and I hope Clarence Thomas drops dead today.
posted by dead cousin ted at 4:46 PM on June 25, 2009


it was presumably prescription strength Advil and Aleve they where looking for, not the OTC variety.

There's no difference. 3 200mg OTC pills is exactly the same as 1 prescription 600mg pill. They just give you prescription strength for certain things so that you don't have to swallow so many pills at once. It's probably cheaper per mg as well.
posted by Justinian at 4:55 PM on June 25, 2009


My mother was giving my 13 year old sister unsubscribed psychiatric medication and surprise surprise, she got caught at school with them and was arrested on the spot. She had to go through weekly drug testing until next week, which would be a year. I fully support her being arrested and am glad there are people looking out for that kind of stuff. Of course, this case is very extreme and ridiculous. Oh, and I hope Clarence Thomas drops dead today.

Wait, wait, what? Your mother or your sister was arrested?

This zero tolerance is ridiculous. All that happens as a result is the kids can't take Tylenol when they have their braces tightened. They still have to walk through all the smokers who stand just outside the gates to the school every morning.
posted by misha at 5:04 PM on June 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


My sister was arrested. My mother and sister lied about where they got the pills and my mother faced no charges. Unfortunately.
posted by dead cousin ted at 5:10 PM on June 25, 2009


This zero tolerance is ridiculous. All that happens as a result is the kids can't take Tylenol when they have their braces tightened. They still have to walk through all the smokers who stand just outside the gates to the school every morning.

Don't forget that they will happily, nay, enthusiastically dispense all imaginable varieties of crank up to and including methamphetamine so long as you have a doctor's prescription. But may god have mercy on your soul if you try to sneak in a Flintstones chewable vitamin.
posted by Justinian at 5:15 PM on June 25, 2009 [1 favorite]


So how much further does it go before enough people with common sense demand a stop to it? Or is this level of stupidity and assholism a permanent feature of the culture?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:32 PM on June 25, 2009


Ontario repealed zero tolerence policies in '07. Apparently because everyone expelled under zero tolerance was a minority or disabled.
posted by GuyZero at 6:54 PM on June 25, 2009


Well, 6550, I actually agree with the policy on notifying the school about prescription drugs.

My last year of high school I was taking contraceptive pills. Totally legal, pretty normal amongst my friends. I had no legal obligation to tell my parents, no way in fuck I was telling the school. I was a very good student at a very small school, if that got out it would definitely have changed how the teachers treated me and for no reason (I took it to lengthen my very short menstrual cycle because I was anaemic). I was actually sexually active by that time (also totally legal) but not while I was on the pill and again, not my school's business. I

The vast majority of prescription things that high school children are taking have nothing to do with their school and there is no way it should be mandatory to tell them. Your premise here is wrong.

Well there are many good reasons to have school personnel know what prescription drugs your child is taking, not least of which is to make sure that the child is actually taking the medication as prescribed.

In NZ at least it's illegal to force someone to take medication against their will. Parents do have the right to force their children of course, but other adults don't. Also not all teachers or school administrators know how to ensure your kid is adequately medicated, what if they get it wrong? Expecting a school to make sure your children are medicated is opening a whole can of worms, there's no way this is their responsibility.

It is normal to fill in a form that tells the school if your kid has a serious problem, like epilepsy for example, but they don't need to know how the child is being treated or to hear about every little prescription that they're taking. It is still the job of the parents to look after their kids, and that includes being responsible for their medical care.
posted by shelleycat at 1:15 AM on June 26, 2009


I am strongly on the side privacy, especially privacy from governmental agencies. Making it mandatory to tell the school about your child's medical issues is absolutely insane. Making kids parade down to the school nurse for their medication makes of them a spectacle. If a kid needs supervision to take their medication, maybe the parent and teacher should have an understanding, but it shouldn't be in the record.

Now, I realize I come from a time and place when there was more direct involvement between parents and teachers. But I suggest that is one of the reasons why school worked better then than now. (now I gotta go, someone is blowing an alphorn outside my building, and sounding awesome!)
posted by Goofyy at 3:48 AM on June 26, 2009


So, out of all the people going "this is stark mad insane" is anyone considering the possibility of not packing the kids off every morning to places where stark mad insanity is increasingly likely to happen? Or are the counter-arguments just too powerful to resist? Counter-arguments being 1. It's compulsory, if we refuse we'll get in trouble; 2. refusing might somehow be seen as aiding the LOLHOAMSKOOLIES; and 3. we're helplessly dependent on our tax-funded babysitters for daily kid storage, no matter what it's like for the kids.
posted by jfuller at 10:26 AM on June 26, 2009




Another invasive search. Another lawsuit. Apparently it's only the threat of being sued that makes some people think twice about doing stupid-ass shit to kids.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:48 PM on July 3, 2009


« Older Metafilter post about Ye Olde Metafilterre. Help?   |   Tightening up the Tenth Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments