"red rover, red rover, we call the principal on over"...
news item: massachusetts elementary school bans tag
can duck duck goose be far behind? are these people for real? kids have played tag, touch football, and any number of other "unsupervised chase games" since the beginning of time... give or take a few millenia. people have become afraid of their own shadows anymore. i hate to put all the blame on trial lawyers, but i do understand how our increasingly litigious society would cause a school to stop and think. but if we're going to start suing over a game of tag or two-hand touch, something's seriously amiss.
how do you have school boards across the country coming out with all kinds of school nutrition guidelines because our kids are too fat (and they are), and then right on the heels of that, you tell them they arent allowed to exert themselves at recess? (btw, i had this written this morning before whaley told me fox news already worked that angle). you watch... it wont be too long before somebody sues some school somewhere because their kid was denied proper exercise, and now he's even more obese than he was from eating twinkies and kool aid for lunch before bill clinton single-handedly (dont believe it? just ask him) removed junk food from school lunch menus.
also, they made a pretty fine point of making sure we all know they are banning "unsupervised chase games" from the playground... as opposed to what?? what exactly constitutes a supervised chase game? i submit to you that a parent inclined to sue (read: greedy, opportunistic and/or highly susceptible to the advances of ambulance-chasing lawyers) would be even MORE inclined to do so if there was supervision ("you mean to tell me that there were teachers right there and my kid still got hurt??")
[a little side note concerning ambulance chasers... not even 2 weeks after filing workman's comp to recoup medical expenses from my wife's OTJ injury and subsequent surgery, we've already received letters from 2 lawyers who scour new workman's comp claim files in search of people they can entice to sue somebody, ANYBODY even remotely connected to the accident. in this case it would boil down to the owner of the property where the horseback riding accident occurred, or the owner of the horse she was riding... the former is a fellow church member, the latter is a co-worker, and even if we werent related to them in those capacities, suing would never be a consideration].
so, how far do we carry this nonsense? when mark wegley writes stuff like "pseudo-intellectual, equine laxations" when commenting on my blogs, can i sue him for making my brain hurt? when jeff noble gets through explaining to me the finer points of "parking a domain", can i sue him for making my brain hurt?? enough with the lawsuits already... probably the most disturbing thing in the whole article was the last quote, attributed to one celeste d'elia, whose son is a student at the school in question. says she: "i've witnessed enough near collisions." OH PLEASE! i guess we better start sending our kids to school dressed like this-->
ma'am, with all due respect, please dont emasculate your son... he's an elementary school boy. its his job to have collisions.
one last thing... how come schools are so worried about what parents might do to them for allowing their kids to run around on the playground, yet be so insensitive about parents' concerns over things like giving their children birth control without their knowledge or permission, or forcing them to sit through indoctrinations into islam or homosexuality without their approval? talk about swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat.
can duck duck goose be far behind? are these people for real? kids have played tag, touch football, and any number of other "unsupervised chase games" since the beginning of time... give or take a few millenia. people have become afraid of their own shadows anymore. i hate to put all the blame on trial lawyers, but i do understand how our increasingly litigious society would cause a school to stop and think. but if we're going to start suing over a game of tag or two-hand touch, something's seriously amiss.
how do you have school boards across the country coming out with all kinds of school nutrition guidelines because our kids are too fat (and they are), and then right on the heels of that, you tell them they arent allowed to exert themselves at recess? (btw, i had this written this morning before whaley told me fox news already worked that angle). you watch... it wont be too long before somebody sues some school somewhere because their kid was denied proper exercise, and now he's even more obese than he was from eating twinkies and kool aid for lunch before bill clinton single-handedly (dont believe it? just ask him) removed junk food from school lunch menus.
also, they made a pretty fine point of making sure we all know they are banning "unsupervised chase games" from the playground... as opposed to what?? what exactly constitutes a supervised chase game? i submit to you that a parent inclined to sue (read: greedy, opportunistic and/or highly susceptible to the advances of ambulance-chasing lawyers) would be even MORE inclined to do so if there was supervision ("you mean to tell me that there were teachers right there and my kid still got hurt??")
[a little side note concerning ambulance chasers... not even 2 weeks after filing workman's comp to recoup medical expenses from my wife's OTJ injury and subsequent surgery, we've already received letters from 2 lawyers who scour new workman's comp claim files in search of people they can entice to sue somebody, ANYBODY even remotely connected to the accident. in this case it would boil down to the owner of the property where the horseback riding accident occurred, or the owner of the horse she was riding... the former is a fellow church member, the latter is a co-worker, and even if we werent related to them in those capacities, suing would never be a consideration].
so, how far do we carry this nonsense? when mark wegley writes stuff like "pseudo-intellectual, equine laxations" when commenting on my blogs, can i sue him for making my brain hurt? when jeff noble gets through explaining to me the finer points of "parking a domain", can i sue him for making my brain hurt?? enough with the lawsuits already... probably the most disturbing thing in the whole article was the last quote, attributed to one celeste d'elia, whose son is a student at the school in question. says she: "i've witnessed enough near collisions." OH PLEASE! i guess we better start sending our kids to school dressed like this-->
ma'am, with all due respect, please dont emasculate your son... he's an elementary school boy. its his job to have collisions.one last thing... how come schools are so worried about what parents might do to them for allowing their kids to run around on the playground, yet be so insensitive about parents' concerns over things like giving their children birth control without their knowledge or permission, or forcing them to sit through indoctrinations into islam or homosexuality without their approval? talk about swallowing a camel and straining at a gnat.
posted by dean at 8:10 AM
5 Comments:
I love it when you get on your soapbox! You're TOO FUNNY! You state your case so amusingly that is almost hard to disagree with you. Crazy! Even the title of this post is insane!
In all honesty, I do agree with you, however, like I mentioned yesterday, I also agree with this new guideline. Not because I don't want to see children play anymore, but our society has become SOOOO legalistic it's unbelievable! People are looking to sue for the slightest infringement...and in many cases, are willing to fabricate a reason. I'm even convinced that if security cameras were placed inside public bathrooms, one could be sued over the way he/she folds their toilet paper!
I also stand in line with you about suing Mark. I have to take two Advil before I click on his blog or read his comments :)
BTW...the last paragraph is great fodder for you next post...I anxiously await.
BTW again...I still have my thoughts on the horse riding incident!!!!!
If you guys take too much Advil while reading my blog, and sue me over the resultant kidney damage, then I'll be forced to counter-sue both of you over your slander, your drugged-up online stalking of me, and my resultant hernia from laughing so hard at you. :)
Meanwhile, I hope you looked up the term "equine laxations," because that one was FUNNY, and it so accurately describes my commenting today!
Toodles.
One side of my brain says this:
I don't know about how any of you played on the playground and in PE when you grew up, but when I was in school (gosh that sounded old), there were teachers with paddles who could take care of issues such as bullies who got too rough intentionally during such activities. I remember flipping rubberbands at a girl in 6th grade and getting into trouble for that! It sounds like to me the powers that be (whoever they are ) that decided to keep teachers from being able to discipline on an appropriate level (and not detention or a-school - PLEASE!) have created the need for such a decision like what your post reports. So, since punishments for bullying or rough-housing are not "appropriate" anymore, the next course of action is to remove fun during playtime for everyone.
Of course the other side of my brain (sorry I can't think with half my brain cells tied behind my back) mentions the fact that the faculty of the public school system are dealing with issues that were virtually non-existent when I was in school. More students are living in chaos at home, being abused or being allowed to do whatever they wish with no consequenses. So, maybe the decision being made is in light of the fact that too many kids are so hopelessly out of control.
jim and tj...
while i agree that what used to be illegitimate concerns (frivilous lawsuits) in this country, are now legitimate and have paralyzed with fear many an organization, just cant see following these decisions to their ridiculous conclusions.
what exactly do decisions like this mean for church and church camp recreational activities? maybe our own church members wont' think to sue the church and its leaders over an activity-related injury (yeah, sure! right, jim?), but what about visitors? someday i see church policies being handed down that state either high-energy activities are forever banned, or at the very least, our kids may no longer invite their un-churched friends to such events (the latter only if we really are naive enough to believe that our own members wouldnt try to sue).
i think in light of everything, mc donalds better re-think that skinny-kid playground they're building out on the highway (see jeff noble's comment on my "ok,i give up" posting).
Right!
Post a Comment
<< Home