Support
Contact
Ace:
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
aceofspadeshq at gee mail.com
CBD:
cbd.aoshq at gee mail.com
Buck:
buck.throckmorton at protonmail.com
joe mannix:
mannix2024 at proton.me
MisHum:
petmorons at gee mail.com
J.J. Sefton:
sefton at cutjibnewsletter.com
Strip Search Case Goes to the Supreme Court
Friday afternoon the Supreme Court granted certiorari in a case we've been watching here at the HQ for almost a year now, Redding v. Safford Unified School District #1.
This is the one where a 13 year-old student was subjected to a strip search in the nurse's office after another student who was caught with prescription-strength ibuprofen implicated her. The search of her bag turned up nothing, but the school has a "zero tolerance policy" when it comes to drugs of any kind, so the administrators lost their minds and made her strip. And shake. Ace first mentioned it in April when a panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the search was not a Fourth Amendment violation (the comments got pretty heated). I wrote about it in July when the circuit sitting en banc reversed in a close decision (6-5), holding that the strip search was far from reasonable and unjustifiable even under the modified Fourth Amendment jurisprudence applied to public schools. Now it goes to the Supreme Court where I'm not sure what the justices will do with it. The last major case involving drugs and public schools was the First Amendment contest in Morse v. Frederick. The Chief Justice, joined by his conservative colleagues (plus Kennedy), held that deterring drug use by schoolchildren is an “important—indeed, perhaps compelling” interest which justified restricting free speech rights in school and at school events. It will be interesting to see if they follow their conservative colleagues from the Ninth Circuit who believed the strip search in Redding was permissible or perhaps the second group of dissenters who believed that even though the search was impermissible the school officials should receive immunity. If you're interested, the en banc decision is here.Comments
(Jump to bottom of comments)1
Sorry, I don't see anything "conservative" about allowing public (or private, too) school administration drones to strip-search underage kids on suspicion of possession of aspirin. Or heroin. There has to be a line somewhere in this drug war.
Posted by: Luca Brazzi at January 17, 2009 02:41 AM (2p0eN)
Posted by: Nom de Blog at January 17, 2009 02:43 AM (081Cv)
3
Some dick principal at my middle school searched my purse. Two minutes later, he was rubbing on my thigh. Searching is for moonbat pervs.
Posted by: Amanda at January 17, 2009 02:53 AM (WHzLu)
4
Has NAMBLA filed an amicus brief? I'm sure Eric Holder will help them out. It's not like they are terrorists, or anything.
Posted by: George Orwell at January 17, 2009 03:00 AM (AZGON)
Posted by: Nom de Blog at January 17, 2009 03:16 AM (081Cv)
Posted by: Amanda at January 17, 2009 03:32 AM (WHzLu)
7
There is no situation so serious that it requires 13yr old children to disrobe in front of strangers.
I'm tired of this zero-tolerance nazi bullshit.
I'm tired of this zero-tolerance nazi bullshit.
Posted by: Jones in CO at January 17, 2009 03:33 AM (KOkrW)
8
I don't think school employees should ever be allowed to strip search anyone. If a student is suspect of possessing or distributing controlled substances they should be detained while parents and police are notified.
It's a decision for the cops to make, whether or not to go ahead with a search, and in the case of friggin' ibuprofen (prescription or not), such measures seem extreme. It's not exactly Oxycontin we're talking about here.
In any case, I say again, school officials should never be allowed to strip search anyone (unless my 8th grade math teacher wanted to search me). The notion is preposterous and, if my lawyers so advised, I'd go ahead with a lawsuit if they did it to my kid.
It's a decision for the cops to make, whether or not to go ahead with a search, and in the case of friggin' ibuprofen (prescription or not), such measures seem extreme. It's not exactly Oxycontin we're talking about here.
In any case, I say again, school officials should never be allowed to strip search anyone (unless my 8th grade math teacher wanted to search me). The notion is preposterous and, if my lawyers so advised, I'd go ahead with a lawsuit if they did it to my kid.
Posted by: [cli]tickler at January 17, 2009 03:33 AM (849eL)
9
"Nurse, I'm knocked up, can you drive me to the abortion clinic?"
"OK, but don't tell your mother"
"CALL IN THE SWAT TEAMS, WE GOT A TYLENOL JUNKIE HERE!!"
"OK, but don't tell your mother"
"CALL IN THE SWAT TEAMS, WE GOT A TYLENOL JUNKIE HERE!!"
Posted by: khan noonien singh at January 17, 2009 04:06 AM (miw86)
10
Zero Intelligence Policy
Posted by: kbdabear at January 17, 2009 04:08 AM (miw86)
11
These so-called zero tolerance policies are what leads to this insanity. First some moonbat liberal (isn’t it ironic that it is liberals who do this kind of shit?) determines that aspirin is a controlled substance that goes on the policy then they determine that strip searching a 13 year old girl is the “right thing to do”.
This is not a war on drugs, which BTW I think needs to be declared over, this is a war on sanity. If I had been the head of that school district the person who ordered that strip search would have been fired that day. Of course she was most likely a union teacher and therefore immune from firing or any requirements for sanity.
The problem with this winding up in court is that it is not the job of the supreme court to determine if a law or rule and its implementation are sane or even just. It is the job of the court to determine if it is permitted under the Constitution and incorporation.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
First off the court must determine if minors in school are “people” for the purpose of the amendment. They have made a real mishmash of this in previous rulings by calling them people who the amendment is applicable to but who the State has a compelling interest in limiting their rights in school for the purpose of controlling drugs. The second part is to determine what is “reasonable”. You could say a third part should be where was their warrant?
My feeling under the current status of interpretation is that there is no “war on ibuprophen”, it not being a controlled substance. And that strip searching a 13 year old girl for anything less compelling than a life or death situation is NOT reasonable.
I hope that someone besides the taxpayer gets to wear the civil suit for this one. Mainly the idiot who ordered the search.
This is not a war on drugs, which BTW I think needs to be declared over, this is a war on sanity. If I had been the head of that school district the person who ordered that strip search would have been fired that day. Of course she was most likely a union teacher and therefore immune from firing or any requirements for sanity.
The problem with this winding up in court is that it is not the job of the supreme court to determine if a law or rule and its implementation are sane or even just. It is the job of the court to determine if it is permitted under the Constitution and incorporation.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
First off the court must determine if minors in school are “people” for the purpose of the amendment. They have made a real mishmash of this in previous rulings by calling them people who the amendment is applicable to but who the State has a compelling interest in limiting their rights in school for the purpose of controlling drugs. The second part is to determine what is “reasonable”. You could say a third part should be where was their warrant?
My feeling under the current status of interpretation is that there is no “war on ibuprophen”, it not being a controlled substance. And that strip searching a 13 year old girl for anything less compelling than a life or death situation is NOT reasonable.
I hope that someone besides the taxpayer gets to wear the civil suit for this one. Mainly the idiot who ordered the search.
Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2009 05:44 AM (f6os6)
12
1: Heroin is one thing, IMO, but ibuprofin?
These kinds of incidents expose the "Zero Tolerance" policies for what they really are: Zero Thought Policies that lead mindless drones to do stupid things, as though they have all the judgment of an organ grinder's monkey...
These kinds of incidents expose the "Zero Tolerance" policies for what they really are: Zero Thought Policies that lead mindless drones to do stupid things, as though they have all the judgment of an organ grinder's monkey...
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 17, 2009 06:00 AM (iafWn)
13
Wow. Epic fail. So idiot school teachers are now enforcers of federal statutes and Controlled substance policies? Fail. Was the item they were searching for a controlled substance? No. They searched a minor for a legal substance?
They should be arrested and charged with crimes of a sexual nature against minors, is what. That is fucking repre-fucking-hensible. School district personnel are not qualified to even judge whether or not any such search is warranted, much less request and carry out such a search. Fucking disgusting.
This was the result of some moonbattery bullshit, for sure. Schools in the public education system aren't exactly hotbeds of conservative thought...
They should be arrested and charged with crimes of a sexual nature against minors, is what. That is fucking repre-fucking-hensible. School district personnel are not qualified to even judge whether or not any such search is warranted, much less request and carry out such a search. Fucking disgusting.
This was the result of some moonbattery bullshit, for sure. Schools in the public education system aren't exactly hotbeds of conservative thought...
Posted by: flashoverride at January 17, 2009 06:18 AM (E/X9t)
14
Would you like a Link Exchange with our new blog COMMON CENTS where we blog about the issues of the day??
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
http://www.commoncts.blogspot.com
Posted by: Steve at January 17, 2009 07:12 AM (iL+ar)
15
Hey, 'Steve,' fuck off.
Posted by: nickless at January 17, 2009 07:36 AM (MMC8r)
16
These policies take the place of judgment. Policymakers don't want judgment anymore, they want robots. We're about to get robots, er, Obamabots in spades.
Do I look racist when I say that?
Do I look racist when I say that?
Posted by: huerfano at January 17, 2009 07:48 AM (knHvu)
17
Clearly the differences here are the extent to which the school went and the fact that we're talking about Ibuprofen. I don't believe there is a compelling reason to restrict someone's rights over Ibuprofen. If it were Heroin, then I might buy that argument.
Frankly, the girl should have refused, and then she would really have a case after the administrators physically assaulted her.
Frankly, the girl should have refused, and then she would really have a case after the administrators physically assaulted her.
Posted by: deadrody at January 17, 2009 08:22 AM (TxMs4)
18
Lefties always know whats best, so just shut up and let them do their very important jobs, you right wing, sexist, homophobic bigots.
Gotta quit so I can hit Steve's website. He's putting these links in a couple sites i visit so it must be good. what a cockholster.
Gotta quit so I can hit Steve's website. He's putting these links in a couple sites i visit so it must be good. what a cockholster.
Posted by: billypaintbrush at January 17, 2009 08:23 AM (IfW8C)
19
Luca Brazzi: "...There has to be a line somewhere in this drug war."
Yes indeed. A line where no pre or post pubesent, nor adoselent daughters are EVER allowed to be searched without a parent being PRESENT to monitor. Seriously.
HOWEVER;if its a Male teenagerthen all I (as a non-parent) would require that the school system do ishire themost strip search_qualified_nurses.Female teachers vary alot, and thereis no easy sure fire solution for every boy, but in order to save all of the children, they must not be traumatised by the strippingprocess in the insane WOD whichrequiresit insure their safety.
Therefore for such searches of teenage men we must requirethatall school nursesbe smokinghot (Concerned PTA fathers doingspot reviews), that the doorbe locked, and maybe some music before, and a juicy-box when its over. Maybe let them use their cell phone cam on school grounds to, em, documentthe severity of the interaction...
A line thatDebra LaFave, nor Mary Kay-L never crossed.
Yes indeed. A line where no pre or post pubesent, nor adoselent daughters are EVER allowed to be searched without a parent being PRESENT to monitor. Seriously.
HOWEVER;if its a Male teenagerthen all I (as a non-parent) would require that the school system do ishire themost strip search_qualified_nurses.Female teachers vary alot, and thereis no easy sure fire solution for every boy, but in order to save all of the children, they must not be traumatised by the strippingprocess in the insane WOD whichrequiresit insure their safety.
Therefore for such searches of teenage men we must requirethatall school nursesbe smokinghot (Concerned PTA fathers doingspot reviews), that the doorbe locked, and maybe some music before, and a juicy-box when its over. Maybe let them use their cell phone cam on school grounds to, em, documentthe severity of the interaction...
A line thatDebra LaFave, nor Mary Kay-L never crossed.
Posted by: Young Peter North at January 17, 2009 08:26 AM (prdCq)
20
11: when you think about it, it FIGURES liberals came up with anti-ibuprofin insanity. It's the same zero-tolerance they apply to religion in public life. To wit:
1. Heroin is bad, so we can't have ibuprofin!
2. Can't endorse a religion, so we can't call it a Christmas tree!
You can see the inner logic - or lack thereof - of their thought process. For people that talk of nuance all the time, they demand an awful lot of overly simplistic policies that lead them down these weird outcomes.
1. Heroin is bad, so we can't have ibuprofin!
2. Can't endorse a religion, so we can't call it a Christmas tree!
You can see the inner logic - or lack thereof - of their thought process. For people that talk of nuance all the time, they demand an awful lot of overly simplistic policies that lead them down these weird outcomes.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 17, 2009 08:29 AM (iafWn)
21
On hisww.commoncts.blogspot.com sit, I did not read that 'Steve' is a sucker of cock, emeritus. Go figure?
Posted by: JoeTee at January 17, 2009 08:33 AM (prdCq)
22
Gabe,
Maybe you saw this over on HA or the LA Times the other day.
http://tinyurl.com/7s8st4
With this ruling the school officials can probably get away with strip searching your kids and call it an honest mistake.
The 4th amendment is becoming increasingly meaningless.
Maybe you saw this over on HA or the LA Times the other day.
http://tinyurl.com/7s8st4
With this ruling the school officials can probably get away with strip searching your kids and call it an honest mistake.
The 4th amendment is becoming increasingly meaningless.
Posted by: turtle at January 17, 2009 08:40 AM (PIChw)
23
One thing that shouldn't be overlooked here is that the school officials had zero evidence. Zero. Other than an accusation by another student.
Even if they were talking about heroin instead of ibuprofen, they better have something stronger than little Marissa's accusation before going all prison guard.
Even if they were talking about heroin instead of ibuprofen, they better have something stronger than little Marissa's accusation before going all prison guard.
Posted by: Andy at January 17, 2009 09:06 AM (B+HYX)
24
This drug war started in guess who's asministraton? Nixon. A Republican, but one of those not do conservative ones; his administration gve us the DEA. Don't forget the very StalinaesqueNew York drug laws inacted at the insistance of Gov. Nelson Rockefeller, not a conservative, but a Republican anyway.Nancy Reagan gave us "just say no." Ronald Reagan took the Drug War to the next level. Reagan was a great President, but the current state of drug enforcement in schools in one of his legacies. We can also thank Reagan for mandatory drug testing by employers. This insane grug policy cannot be blamed on a bunch of nameless liberals alone.It was a conservative initiative, and they can be insane also.
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 09:12 AM (nw+cE)
25
So.. wouldn't the prudent thing to do, in this situation, is after finding actual drugs on the person, call in the cops and have them do their search?
and let the cops handle the chain of evidence and see if a body search is warranted?
but then.. school officials aren't necessarily the sharpest tools in the shed..
I pick up the occasional 2600 digest and there are always letters in there from students who, from their perspective, found a security hole, informed the IT teacher.. and got suspended for showing how dumb the IT teacher is.
if the student that got searched is guilty of anything, then it's basic stupidity for passing off the ibuprofen to her friend. should have told the friend to go to the nurse...
So.. wouldn't the prudent thing to do, in this situation, is after finding actual drugs on the person, call in the cops and have them do their search?
and let the cops handle the chain of evidence and see if a body search is warranted?
but then.. school officials aren't necessarily the sharpest tools in the shed..
I pick up the occasional 2600 digest and there are always letters in there from students who, from their perspective, found a security hole, informed the IT teacher.. and got suspended for showing how dumb the IT teacher is.
if the student that got searched is guilty of anything, then it's basic stupidity for passing off the ibuprofen to her friend. should have told the friend to go to the nurse...
Posted by: Dave C at January 17, 2009 09:13 AM (279/S)
26
"not so conservative ones" Aargh!
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 09:13 AM (nw+cE)
27
The war on drugs has morphed into the war on the American people.
This is insane. No teacher should ever search anyone. Make them call the police.
"911"
"We think we've got a student with ibuprofin. We want you to send an officer to strip search her."
I don't know about you, but I pay way too much in taxes already. I think we need to start firing public employees with too much time on their hands.
This is insane. No teacher should ever search anyone. Make them call the police.
"911"
"We think we've got a student with ibuprofin. We want you to send an officer to strip search her."
I don't know about you, but I pay way too much in taxes already. I think we need to start firing public employees with too much time on their hands.
Posted by: MarkD at January 17, 2009 09:14 AM (qZFLO)
28
Had it been my child that was searched I'd still be in jail for assault , at the very least.. Fuck that pussy lawsuit shit.
Posted by: aubrey at January 17, 2009 09:20 AM (wsxco)
29
I think Dana Perino s/b strip searched before she leaves the WH, for ibuprofin.
I'd like to offer my services.
(555) 555-5555
I'd like to offer my services.
(555) 555-5555
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 17, 2009 09:30 AM (iafWn)
30
And these are the idiots charged with teaching children. If this was my child, my lawyer would be on this like stink on rice.
Posted by: Hammer at January 17, 2009 09:31 AM (8nB5X)
31
Do schools have the right to guard their premises from drugs, and other disturbances? Yes.
Do they have the right to tell a 13 year old to get naked? No.
It seems that all the Supremes should do is say schools have rights to protect it's environment, but this example goes way beyond the line. Why couldn't that be a 9-0 decision, because it's such common sense. Oh, wait, I forgot....
Do they have the right to tell a 13 year old to get naked? No.
It seems that all the Supremes should do is say schools have rights to protect it's environment, but this example goes way beyond the line. Why couldn't that be a 9-0 decision, because it's such common sense. Oh, wait, I forgot....
Posted by: Lee at January 17, 2009 09:32 AM (Xb3DR)
32
I read the cert. petition, the response, and the other briefs. All are posted at scotusblog.com and you can link to them if you're interested. The school district's brief contains some interesting allegations that make them look somewhat less nazi-like. However, in my opinion, there is no justification whatsoever for subjecting a school child, male or female, elementary or high school, to a dehumanizing, humiliating strip search by strangers. The parents should have been called. These stupid zero-tolerance policies are typical socialist bullshit.
Posted by: ladylawyer at January 17, 2009 09:39 AM (lXdU5)
33
If the actions of the school are upheld, it will be the conservatives who uphold it. Strict drug enforcement is a conservative issue. I'm too libertarian to go along with this nonsense. When anyone suggests that marijuana laws be relaxed and even de-criminalized, it is usually libs who suggest it, and conservatives close ranks and just say no.
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 09:47 AM (nw+cE)
34
If the Supreme Court agrees that strip searching a minor over Ibuprofin--which is tantamount to sexual assault--is acceptable, parents around the country had better start raising hell, or home invasion by school authorities is next.
@nickless JoeTee: I went to that site, and it's just another conservative blog. Why the fucking comments?
@nickless JoeTee: I went to that site, and it's just another conservative blog. Why the fucking comments?
Posted by: sfcmac at January 17, 2009 09:48 AM (PpEFk)
35
These stupid zero-tolerance policies are typical socialist bullshit.
No, see my #24
No, see my #24
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 09:50 AM (nw+cE)
36
The reason these school admnstrators did not call the police is they would have been laughed at, and loudly, over the phone at such a request. So to avoid their own humiliation, they humiliated a student instead. Petty power corrupts absolutely.
I don't have children, but I agree with the many posters who stated they would be in jail for taking the matter up with school officials sans lawyer.
I don't have children, but I agree with the many posters who stated they would be in jail for taking the matter up with school officials sans lawyer.
Posted by: RickZ at January 17, 2009 09:51 AM (7yEV+)
Posted by: Lily at January 17, 2009 09:55 AM (gIQ7K)
38
This drug war started in guess who's asministraton? Nixon
Actually you could say the federal war on drugs started in 1906 with formation of the Food and Drug Adm from the food and drug act. Or at least, in 1914 when the Harrison Act was passed. They were the result of Congressional actions and they were clearly unconstitutional. But, one must remember that this was the time of the formation of the “Progressive” wave which eventually led to the socialist Democrat Party.
And you are correct in saying that Nixon was no conservative.
Actually you could say the federal war on drugs started in 1906 with formation of the Food and Drug Adm from the food and drug act. Or at least, in 1914 when the Harrison Act was passed. They were the result of Congressional actions and they were clearly unconstitutional. But, one must remember that this was the time of the formation of the “Progressive” wave which eventually led to the socialist Democrat Party.
And you are correct in saying that Nixon was no conservative.
Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2009 09:58 AM (f6os6)
39
@Pelayo:
I find it hard to believe that Reagan's intent was to carry his policies to that extreme.
I find it hard to believe that Reagan's intent was to carry his policies to that extreme.
Posted by: sfcmac at January 17, 2009 09:58 AM (PpEFk)
40
Pelayo: encouraging kids to "just say no" to drugs and strip searching a 13 year old are really two quite different things. Don't ya think?
Posted by: Lily at January 17, 2009 09:59 AM (gIQ7K)
41
RickZ, I never hated school when I was a kid, but when my kids started school, I despised every part of it. Sometimes oncold days my son would wearmy black topcoat to highschool, after theColumbine shootings, my son was under suspicion for a looong time. He never wore it again, and I had to buy him something not so "menacing.".
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 09:59 AM (nw+cE)
42
And yes Pelayo, zero tolerance policies are from liberals who run the school system. The DEA, even if you call Nixon a conservative (not), does not regulate ibuprofen.
Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2009 10:00 AM (f6os6)
43
Pelayo: encouraging kids to "just say no" to drugs and strip searching a 13 year old are really two quite different things. Don't ya think?
Posted by: Lily plus a reply to sfcmac,
Hell, yes I agree, but everyone must acknowledge that this insanity was started by "law and order" conservatives. I took my first mandatory drug testin 1987, during the Reagan administration.
Posted by: Lily plus a reply to sfcmac,
Hell, yes I agree, but everyone must acknowledge that this insanity was started by "law and order" conservatives. I took my first mandatory drug testin 1987, during the Reagan administration.
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 10:04 AM (nw+cE)
44
I don't see anything "conservative" about allowing public (or private,
too) school administration drones to strip-search underage kids on
suspicion of possession of aspirin.
No kidding. The strip search was declared a non-violation of the Fourth Amendment by the Ninth Circuit - the most moonbat-crazy-liberal Federal Court in the nation. Liberalism... loss of basic rights and freedoms... could there be a connection here?
too) school administration drones to strip-search underage kids on
suspicion of possession of aspirin.
No kidding. The strip search was declared a non-violation of the Fourth Amendment by the Ninth Circuit - the most moonbat-crazy-liberal Federal Court in the nation. Liberalism... loss of basic rights and freedoms... could there be a connection here?
Posted by: Reiver at January 17, 2009 10:08 AM (HFT94)
45
Vic, It was alledgedly prescription strength Ibuprofin. Giving someone else a prescribed drug is a violation of law, regardless of what it is. .
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 10:13 AM (nw+cE)
46
Pelayo,
Zero tolerance is indeed the problem here and is responsible for many nutty actions.
Zero tolerance was adopted by many school systems in the wake of Columbine at the recommendation of Teachers' Unions, so it is without doubt a liberal idea. Many administrators were looking for an answer to parents as to why "that couldn't happen here."
Once adopted, give up all hope of reason or judgment:
1) Students have been suspended for small charms on bracelets, crossed swords on caps made out of thread, or tiny plastic figurines with 1/8 inch plastic guns. There are hundreds of examples of this.
2) Students have been suspended for all types of language violations such as joking: "I'll get you for that" or even "Who's your moma now?"
3) One student was expelled for taking a knife away from another student hell bent on using it, and giving the knife to his principal. Another for having a box cutter in the bed of his truck after a move.
4) Many liberal school administrators love this policy because it relieves them of all consequences for failure of judgment: "I was just following the policy" to whatever level of insanity. This is one of those cases.
Time and time and time again school administrators take mindless action following the "zero" in zero tolerance.
Everyone believes in no weapons or violence in schools, but that does not mean that one has to accept this mindless policy to get there.
Zero tolerance is indeed the problem here and is responsible for many nutty actions.
Zero tolerance was adopted by many school systems in the wake of Columbine at the recommendation of Teachers' Unions, so it is without doubt a liberal idea. Many administrators were looking for an answer to parents as to why "that couldn't happen here."
Once adopted, give up all hope of reason or judgment:
1) Students have been suspended for small charms on bracelets, crossed swords on caps made out of thread, or tiny plastic figurines with 1/8 inch plastic guns. There are hundreds of examples of this.
2) Students have been suspended for all types of language violations such as joking: "I'll get you for that" or even "Who's your moma now?"
3) One student was expelled for taking a knife away from another student hell bent on using it, and giving the knife to his principal. Another for having a box cutter in the bed of his truck after a move.
4) Many liberal school administrators love this policy because it relieves them of all consequences for failure of judgment: "I was just following the policy" to whatever level of insanity. This is one of those cases.
Time and time and time again school administrators take mindless action following the "zero" in zero tolerance.
Everyone believes in no weapons or violence in schools, but that does not mean that one has to accept this mindless policy to get there.
Posted by: Robert at January 17, 2009 10:23 AM (VotgB)
47
Vic, It was alledgedly prescription strength Ibuprofin. Giving someone else a prescribed drug is a violation of law, regardless of what it is. .
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 10:13 AM
Agreed. That's why it was, and still is, a police matter, not a forced strip search by school officials without a parent or lawyer being present.
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 10:13 AM
Agreed. That's why it was, and still is, a police matter, not a forced strip search by school officials without a parent or lawyer being present.
Posted by: RickZ at January 17, 2009 10:27 AM (7yEV+)
48
The prescription IBuprofin angle is a joke. Anyone can buy a huge bottle of the stuff and take half of it. This is not any sort of war on drugs. Zero tolerance became popular under Clinton, by the way, not Reagan.
Posted by: Robert at January 17, 2009 10:28 AM (VotgB)
49
Vic, It was alledgedly prescription strength Ibuprofin. Giving someone else a prescribed drug is a violation of law, regardless of what it is. .
This is from the original news article:
Safford Middle School has a "zero tolerance" policy that prohibits possession of all drugs, including not just alcohol and illegal intoxicants but prescription medications and over-the-counter remedies, "except those for which permission to use in school has been granted." In October 2003, acting on a tip, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson found a few 400-milligram ibuprofen pills (each equivalent to two over-the-counter tablets) and one nonprescription naproxen tablet in the pockets of a student named Marissa, who claimed Savana was her source.
The school had absolutely no evidence that the girl who was strip searched was carrying prohibited drugs other than unsubstantiated allegations by another student who was caught with the drugs.
The Zero tolerance policy was devised by liberal school officials.
The strip search was conducted by liberal school officials.
Neither the DEA, nor local police were involved in this charade.
I rest my case.
This is from the original news article:
Safford Middle School has a "zero tolerance" policy that prohibits possession of all drugs, including not just alcohol and illegal intoxicants but prescription medications and over-the-counter remedies, "except those for which permission to use in school has been granted." In October 2003, acting on a tip, Vice Principal Kerry Wilson found a few 400-milligram ibuprofen pills (each equivalent to two over-the-counter tablets) and one nonprescription naproxen tablet in the pockets of a student named Marissa, who claimed Savana was her source.
The school had absolutely no evidence that the girl who was strip searched was carrying prohibited drugs other than unsubstantiated allegations by another student who was caught with the drugs.
The Zero tolerance policy was devised by liberal school officials.
The strip search was conducted by liberal school officials.
Neither the DEA, nor local police were involved in this charade.
I rest my case.
Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2009 10:31 AM (f6os6)
50
I confused about what exactly is at stake here. The original article in Reason says that the Supreme Court has okays a search if it's "justified at its inception" and "reasonably related in scope
to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first
place." Is the argument here about whether or not this particular case was justified in the first place, or whether it was conducted improperly (without parental/police notification)?
If it's the latter, it seems that the situation could have been resolved by simply firing the idiot vice principal who ordered it. I work in a high school, and I know that we would never strip search a student ourselves. If we were really that concerned that a student was hiding something illegal, we'd call the fucking police and let them decide how to deal with it.
to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first
place." Is the argument here about whether or not this particular case was justified in the first place, or whether it was conducted improperly (without parental/police notification)?
If it's the latter, it seems that the situation could have been resolved by simply firing the idiot vice principal who ordered it. I work in a high school, and I know that we would never strip search a student ourselves. If we were really that concerned that a student was hiding something illegal, we'd call the fucking police and let them decide how to deal with it.
Posted by: AndrewR at January 17, 2009 10:37 AM (Hx2mp)
51
Robert, this zero tolerance crap concerning drugs predates Columbine, at least in the state where I lived back then. Remember,the Morse vs Frederick case cited at the first of the A of S article was a case where conservatives upheld the schools right to restrict student speech when it was allegedly promoting drug use.
I wonder what would have happened if the Ibuprofen was notprescription strength but over the counter. Where I used to live, students were not allowedto even have asperin.
I wonder what would have happened if the Ibuprofen was notprescription strength but over the counter. Where I used to live, students were not allowedto even have asperin.
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 10:39 AM (nw+cE)
52
34 sfcmac: @nickless JoeTee: I went to that site, and it's just another conservative blog. Why the fucking comments?
You went there?!!!
Note that I clearly posted andindeed"did not read that 'Steve' is a sucker of cock, emeritus.".
I'm not going to check every MF site out: I was just piling onthatsucker of cocks' site for daring to mention it.
Noworry thatyou checked it out and saidits semi-cool: I was just trying to infuse the google space record of ace.mu.nu with the phraseology of cocksuckerism, you non obvious sucker of cock.
Payoff -Google this:
"ace.mu.nu sucker of cock"
You (and variants)will see that there is a contest going on for how manyinstances of cock suckerism we can inject into the word search space for this planet, holmes.
If youthought this blog wasn't for adults only,stay far away, but you are still potential suckers of cock!
It's all just a big, HUGE, joke ok?
Glad I could clear that up for you, SOC.
JoeT
You went there?!!!
Note that I clearly posted andindeed"did not read that 'Steve' is a sucker of cock, emeritus.".
I'm not going to check every MF site out: I was just piling onthatsucker of cocks' site for daring to mention it.
Noworry thatyou checked it out and saidits semi-cool: I was just trying to infuse the google space record of ace.mu.nu with the phraseology of cocksuckerism, you non obvious sucker of cock.
Payoff -Google this:
"ace.mu.nu sucker of cock"
You (and variants)will see that there is a contest going on for how manyinstances of cock suckerism we can inject into the word search space for this planet, holmes.
If youthought this blog wasn't for adults only,stay far away, but you are still potential suckers of cock!
It's all just a big, HUGE, joke ok?
Glad I could clear that up for you, SOC.
JoeT
Posted by: JoeTee at January 17, 2009 10:40 AM (prdCq)
53
It is frustrating to watch social conservatives battle it out over issues like this when there is a simple solution offered by us fiscal con / libertarians. I blame public education for many of the problems we face today and we should have never created publc schools in the first place.
Posted by: John Galt at January 17, 2009 10:43 AM (Ylv1H)
54
The strip search was conducted by liberal school officials.
All school officialsare liberal, every damn one of them? Are you sure?
All school officialsare liberal, every damn one of them? Are you sure?
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 10:44 AM (nw+cE)
55
Pelayo,
You are right that zero tolerance was developed before Columbine, but in a limited number of systems. Once the Teachers' Unions started suggesting it though, after Columbine, it swept the nation.
This was never part of the Reagan program.
You are right that zero tolerance was developed before Columbine, but in a limited number of systems. Once the Teachers' Unions started suggesting it though, after Columbine, it swept the nation.
This was never part of the Reagan program.
Posted by: Robert at January 17, 2009 10:45 AM (VotgB)
56
NTTIAWWT, AITYDo
JoeT
JoeT
Posted by: JoeTee at January 17, 2009 10:46 AM (prdCq)
57
You went there?!!!
Note that I clearly posted andindeed"did not read that 'Steve' is a sucker of cock, emeritus.".
I'm not going to check every MF site out: I was just piling onthatsucker of cocks' site for daring to mention it.
Noworry thatyou checked it out and saidits semi-cool: I was just trying to infuse the google space record of ace.mu.nu with the phraseology of cocksuckerism, you non obvious sucker of cock.
Payoff -Google this:
"ace.mu.nu sucker of cock"
You (and variants)will see that there is a contest going on for how manyinstances of cock suckerism we can inject into the word search space for this planet, holmes.
If youthought this blog wasn't for adults only,stay far away, but you are still potential suckers of cock!
It's all just a big, HUGE, joke ok?
Glad I could clear that up for you, SOC.
JoeT
Yep, I went there. With pleasure. As an adult, I love 'adult sites'; I just forgot about the anal retentive references to cock, which incidentally being a female, I don't mind sucking. At all.
Yours in cocksuckertude,
sfcmac
Note that I clearly posted andindeed"did not read that 'Steve' is a sucker of cock, emeritus.".
I'm not going to check every MF site out: I was just piling onthatsucker of cocks' site for daring to mention it.
Noworry thatyou checked it out and saidits semi-cool: I was just trying to infuse the google space record of ace.mu.nu with the phraseology of cocksuckerism, you non obvious sucker of cock.
Payoff -Google this:
"ace.mu.nu sucker of cock"
You (and variants)will see that there is a contest going on for how manyinstances of cock suckerism we can inject into the word search space for this planet, holmes.
If youthought this blog wasn't for adults only,stay far away, but you are still potential suckers of cock!
It's all just a big, HUGE, joke ok?
Glad I could clear that up for you, SOC.
JoeT
Yep, I went there. With pleasure. As an adult, I love 'adult sites'; I just forgot about the anal retentive references to cock, which incidentally being a female, I don't mind sucking. At all.
Yours in cocksuckertude,
sfcmac
Posted by: sfcmac at January 17, 2009 10:47 AM (PpEFk)
58
Robert, teacher unions might suggest zero tolerance, but you should know who has to enact it - the school board, it is supposed to be made up of people like youand me. How did we lose control? Have the unions infiltrated the school boards?
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 10:57 AM (nw+cE)
59
Pelayo, if these guys want to ignore the mandatory drug-testing instituted by Reagan, the reliable support of the drug war by conservatives, let them.
I'm fine with painting intrusive searches at schools as part of the socialist liberal agenda, if it will weaken support for that crap with the same group that has been consistently in favor of it.
I'm fine with painting intrusive searches at schools as part of the socialist liberal agenda, if it will weaken support for that crap with the same group that has been consistently in favor of it.
Posted by: dorkafork at January 17, 2009 10:59 AM (LIM+2)
60
All school officialsareliberal, every damn one of them? Are you sure?
There is a 99% probability with a 95% confidence factor.
There is a 99% probability with a 95% confidence factor.
Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2009 11:01 AM (f6os6)
61
"I blame public education for many of the problems we face today and we
should have never created publc schools in the first place."
John Galt: This is exactly the argument my husband (the libertarian) has made for years. I am more and more inclined to agree with him.
We have our child in private school. Many of our friends home school.
While I believe we all benefit from an educated populace, I think our public schools (with some exceptions) have done a terrible job in educating our kids. Lets end this nonsense.
should have never created publc schools in the first place."
John Galt: This is exactly the argument my husband (the libertarian) has made for years. I am more and more inclined to agree with him.
We have our child in private school. Many of our friends home school.
While I believe we all benefit from an educated populace, I think our public schools (with some exceptions) have done a terrible job in educating our kids. Lets end this nonsense.
Posted by: Lily at January 17, 2009 11:04 AM (gIQ7K)
62
Pelayo,
Right again, please help spread the word. After Columbine, everyone was terrified that their school, and their kid, was next, remember? I suppose that some degree of overreaction was to be expected.
But now we know the truth of this horrible policy, parents and school board members need to have enough information - and the will - to take on school administrators and entrenched policy. Perhaps this case will help there.
Right again, please help spread the word. After Columbine, everyone was terrified that their school, and their kid, was next, remember? I suppose that some degree of overreaction was to be expected.
But now we know the truth of this horrible policy, parents and school board members need to have enough information - and the will - to take on school administrators and entrenched policy. Perhaps this case will help there.
Posted by: Robert at January 17, 2009 11:08 AM (VotgB)
63
Ronald Reagan issued an executive order for drug testing of DOT regulated drivers. The only other drug testing order by federal law (not Reagan) is Nuclear Power Plant workers. There is NO FEDERAL LAW that requires strip search of 13 year old girls for Ibuprofen.
Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2009 11:09 AM (f6os6)
64
One of my problems is that I attended public school from 1952 to 1965, when there was sanity all around. In ninth grade (1961?) in American History, four of us got permission to put three tables in the back of the classroom with our fathers' WWII stuff. At todays collector prices we had about $10,000 worth of memorabelia spread out. Of all the stuff I brought, I will never forget being able to show two Japanese rifles with bayonets. These were not inactivated in any way; they were and still are fully functional.I have recently fired the 7.7, but at $4 each round, it ain't very often. Among the other stuff, one friendbrought a practice grenade and another kid had a harmless German "potato masher" grenade. It was fun. Nobody expressed any sort of concern.
Oh, for the good old days. These are the bad new days.
Oh, for the good old days. These are the bad new days.
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 11:29 AM (nw+cE)
65
I hope this will spread around the internet. I do not think I raised any money for anything. People on the internet did it. If I said that I did it was a mistake due in large part to bi-polar disorder. Please leave me alone.
Posted by: mike at January 17, 2009 11:37 AM (GNCy6)
66
May I offer the controversy on this thread as a textbook example of how, no matter what Lord Hussein O'Unicorn does to fuck us up, all misfortune will be blamed on Bush. Even in 2016, when you'll have to wait six months to get a government rationed MRI under Obamacare, and the Dow has climbed back up to 3500, it will be Bush's fault.
When an entrenched liberal institution like public education goes all nanny state, with the blessing of the lefty Ninth Circuit, and starts peeling pupils like bananas because some kid whispered "ibuprofen" just remember the proper response... Blame Reagan!
You guys really need some new material.
You have the patience of Job, Vic.
When an entrenched liberal institution like public education goes all nanny state, with the blessing of the lefty Ninth Circuit, and starts peeling pupils like bananas because some kid whispered "ibuprofen" just remember the proper response... Blame Reagan!
You guys really need some new material.
You have the patience of Job, Vic.
Posted by: George Orwell at January 17, 2009 11:37 AM (AZGON)
67
Zero Common Sense Policy.
My nephew was suspended from the local public HS for having a pantsing war with his friend after PE. Just so happened one day, the teacher was watching.
Everyone I tell this to just scratches their heads. Especially with how to boys are wearing their pants these days.
My nephew was suspended from the local public HS for having a pantsing war with his friend after PE. Just so happened one day, the teacher was watching.
Everyone I tell this to just scratches their heads. Especially with how to boys are wearing their pants these days.
Posted by: CUS at January 17, 2009 11:41 AM (zH0BK)
68
You have the patience of Job, Vic.
Thanks, but I thought we were here for healthy debate. As long as it doesn’t degenerate into flame wars and acrimony I am fine with debate. That is why I haven’t even read the Ann Coulter thread this morning. It is likely that it will degenerate back into a flame war between the supporters and the detractors of Ann.
Thanks, but I thought we were here for healthy debate. As long as it doesn’t degenerate into flame wars and acrimony I am fine with debate. That is why I haven’t even read the Ann Coulter thread this morning. It is likely that it will degenerate back into a flame war between the supporters and the detractors of Ann.
Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2009 11:44 AM (f6os6)
69
I am generally in favor of allowing schools a great deal of discretion and freedom of action, but that was batshit fucking insane.
If the school fears that a threat exists that is dangerous enough to warrant a strip search then the threat requires a call to the police. It is really pretty simple, very simple. If they sincerely believe that a student is smuggling some dangerous or illegal item they should let police handle the matter. Really, who the fuck do they think they are.
Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence.
I am generally in favor of allowing schools a great deal of discretion and freedom of action, but that was batshit fucking insane.
If the school fears that a threat exists that is dangerous enough to warrant a strip search then the threat requires a call to the police. It is really pretty simple, very simple. If they sincerely believe that a student is smuggling some dangerous or illegal item they should let police handle the matter. Really, who the fuck do they think they are.
Zero Tolerance = Zero Intelligence.
Posted by: Ronsonic at January 17, 2009 11:46 AM (ywSvi)
70
Pelayo:
Reagan signed into law executive order 12564 which stated:
Sec. 3. Drug Testing Programs.
(a) The head of each Executive agency shall establish a
program to test for the use of illegal drugs by employees in sensitive
positions. The extent to which such employees are tested and the
criteria for such testing shall be determined by the head of each
agency, based upon the nature of the agency's mission and its
employees' duties, the efficient use of agency resources, and the
danger to the public health and safety or national security that could
result from the failure of an employee adequately to discharge his or
her position.
(b) The head of each Executive agency shall establish a program for voluntary employee drug testing.
(c) In addition to the testing authorized in subsections (a)
and (b) of this section, the head of each Executive agency is
authorized to test an employee for illegal drug use under the following
circumstances:
(1) When there is a reasonable suspicion that any employee uses illegal drugs;
(2) In an examination authorized by the agency regarding an accident or unsafe practice; or
(3) As part of or as a follow-up to counselling or rehabilitation for illegal drug use through an Employee Assistance Program.
(d) The head of each Executive agency is authorized to test any applicant for illegal drug use.Mandatory drug testing really became common, however, after a 1987 Maryland train collision between Amtrak and Conrail trains. The crash killed 16 and injured many. The Conrail engineer had disabled his whistle with tape -- and just before moving his train onto the wrong track, smoked a big fatty.
In 1991, prompted in large part by the Chase Maryland crash, the U.S.
Congress took even broader action and authorized mandatory random
drug-testing for all employees in "safety-sensitive" jobs in all
industries regulated by the federal Department of Transportation.
Two points to remember:
1) In the 1991 Congress conservatives were in the minority.
2) Widespread mandatory drug testing was the result of a dumbass who was smoking dope at work and ended up killing a bunch of people.
Pelayo:
Reagan signed into law executive order 12564 which stated:
Sec. 3. Drug Testing Programs.
(a) The head of each Executive agency shall establish a
program to test for the use of illegal drugs by employees in sensitive
positions. The extent to which such employees are tested and the
criteria for such testing shall be determined by the head of each
agency, based upon the nature of the agency's mission and its
employees' duties, the efficient use of agency resources, and the
danger to the public health and safety or national security that could
result from the failure of an employee adequately to discharge his or
her position.
(b) The head of each Executive agency shall establish a program for voluntary employee drug testing.
(c) In addition to the testing authorized in subsections (a)
and (b) of this section, the head of each Executive agency is
authorized to test an employee for illegal drug use under the following
circumstances:
(1) When there is a reasonable suspicion that any employee uses illegal drugs;
(2) In an examination authorized by the agency regarding an accident or unsafe practice; or
(3) As part of or as a follow-up to counselling or rehabilitation for illegal drug use through an Employee Assistance Program.
(d) The head of each Executive agency is authorized to test any applicant for illegal drug use.Mandatory drug testing really became common, however, after a 1987 Maryland train collision between Amtrak and Conrail trains. The crash killed 16 and injured many. The Conrail engineer had disabled his whistle with tape -- and just before moving his train onto the wrong track, smoked a big fatty.
In 1991, prompted in large part by the Chase Maryland crash, the U.S.
Congress took even broader action and authorized mandatory random
drug-testing for all employees in "safety-sensitive" jobs in all
industries regulated by the federal Department of Transportation.
Two points to remember:
1) In the 1991 Congress conservatives were in the minority.
2) Widespread mandatory drug testing was the result of a dumbass who was smoking dope at work and ended up killing a bunch of people.
Posted by: Tinian at January 17, 2009 11:52 AM (Ohodx)
71
Well, that got mashed together so I'll repost the most important part:
Mandatory drug testing really became common, however, after a 1987
Maryland train collision between Amtrak and Conrail trains. The crash
killed 16 and injured many. The Conrail engineer had disabled his
whistle with tape -- and just before moving his train onto the wrong
track, smoked a big fatty.
In 1991, prompted in large part by the Chase Maryland crash, the U.S.
Congress took even broader action and authorized mandatory random
drug-testing for all employees in "safety-sensitive" jobs in all
industries regulated by the federal Department of Transportation.
Two points to remember:
1) In the 1991 Congress, conservatives were in the minority.
2) Widespread
mandatory drug testing was the result of a dumbass who was smoking dope
at work and ended up killing a bunch of people.
Well, that got mashed together so I'll repost the most important part:
Mandatory drug testing really became common, however, after a 1987
Maryland train collision between Amtrak and Conrail trains. The crash
killed 16 and injured many. The Conrail engineer had disabled his
whistle with tape -- and just before moving his train onto the wrong
track, smoked a big fatty.
In 1991, prompted in large part by the Chase Maryland crash, the U.S.
Congress took even broader action and authorized mandatory random
drug-testing for all employees in "safety-sensitive" jobs in all
industries regulated by the federal Department of Transportation.
Two points to remember:
1) In the 1991 Congress, conservatives were in the minority.
2) Widespread
mandatory drug testing was the result of a dumbass who was smoking dope
at work and ended up killing a bunch of people.
Posted by: Tinian at January 17, 2009 11:54 AM (Ohodx)
72
Tinian, at the agencywhere I worked they were testing file clerks and secretaries!!!!
(b) The head of each Executive agency shall establish a program for voluntary employee drug testing.
I remember the "voluntary' aspect of this BS. One either volunteered or looked for another job.
(b) The head of each Executive agency shall establish a program for voluntary employee drug testing.
I remember the "voluntary' aspect of this BS. One either volunteered or looked for another job.
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 11:59 AM (nw+cE)
73
I want these school administrators brought up on child molestation charges and registered as sex offenders.
Posted by: gm at January 17, 2009 12:01 PM (aXpYP)
74
Why would anyone actually doing drugs volunteer to be drug tested?
Why would testing someone for drugs that has no qualms about being so tested achieve anything positive?
Typical government gibberish...
Why would testing someone for drugs that has no qualms about being so tested achieve anything positive?
Typical government gibberish...
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 17, 2009 12:02 PM (iafWn)
75
I'm surprised no enterprising lawyer has ever challenged the "Zero Tolerance" approach of take no prisoners, let God sort out the innocent approach towards problem solving...
Due Process Clause, anyone?
Per Wikipedia,
Procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, and the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings...
In the United States, criminal prosecutions and civil cases are governed by explicit guarantees of procedural rights under the Bill of Rights, most of which have been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment to the States. Due process has also been construed to generally protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.
Well, a public school is a government entity, and can in no way claim any sort of "private association" nullification of due process requirements.
What due process was the strip searched girl given??? I for one consider the right to keep your clothes on pretty essential to "liberty."
Due Process Clause, anyone?
Per Wikipedia,
Procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, and the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings...
In the United States, criminal prosecutions and civil cases are governed by explicit guarantees of procedural rights under the Bill of Rights, most of which have been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment to the States. Due process has also been construed to generally protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of "life, liberty, or property" without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.
Well, a public school is a government entity, and can in no way claim any sort of "private association" nullification of due process requirements.
What due process was the strip searched girl given??? I for one consider the right to keep your clothes on pretty essential to "liberty."
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 17, 2009 12:09 PM (iafWn)
76
Typical government gibberish... Posted by: CoolCzech
In an Executive Order from a conservative icon. Liberals do not hold the patent on looniness
In an Executive Order from a conservative icon. Liberals do not hold the patent on looniness
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 12:09 PM (nw+cE)
77
76: I did say "government," not "liberal." Just because a government is headed up by a certain ideology doesn't mean it's suddenly an order of magnitude less or more nonsensical.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 17, 2009 12:10 PM (iafWn)
78
Let me clarify my posy #75: I'm surprised Zero Tolerance policies aren't challenged and thrown out on due process grounds.
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 17, 2009 12:12 PM (iafWn)
79
CoolCzech, the earlier direction of this discussion was blaming all this on liberals. I saw "government" and my inner voice said"liberal."
To reply to Dorkaforkt, I agree.
To reply to Dorkaforkt, I agree.
Posted by: Pelayo at January 17, 2009 12:15 PM (nw+cE)
80
The war on drugs predates Reagan by many, many decades. The Prohibition was part of it. Alcohol was popular enough to get a push back; the other stuff, not so much.
The war on drugs is one of the stupidest government policies ever. Yet you rarely find a mainstream politician (of any stripe) willing to say so. Bah humbug.
I agree that strip-searching a 13-year-old for ibuprofen is outrageous and ridiculous. If they thought she was carrying something that's actually illegal, they could call the cops.
The war on drugs is one of the stupidest government policies ever. Yet you rarely find a mainstream politician (of any stripe) willing to say so. Bah humbug.
I agree that strip-searching a 13-year-old for ibuprofen is outrageous and ridiculous. If they thought she was carrying something that's actually illegal, they could call the cops.
Posted by: qrstuv at January 17, 2009 12:16 PM (iLavX)
81
Who doesn't carry Nuprin's in their ass? That's the safest place for them. It's so the gnomes can't get them.
And we all know, gnomes love ibuprofin.
And we all know, gnomes love ibuprofin.
Posted by: Squatch at January 17, 2009 12:19 PM (COZb8)
82
Tinian, at the agencywhere I worked they were testing file clerks and secretaries!!!!
Then your agency head was a dick.
Reagan's executive order didn't require them to be drug tested.
I'm not saying that the requirements can go too far -- I had to pee in a cup in order to work for a subcontractor on a job that was totally privately funded but was coordinated under the Superfund Act -- therefore the drug testing. And all I did was hold a prism rod and pound and mark stakes.
I am glad, however, that people who fly planes and operate trains and ferrys aren't stoned.
Tinian, at the agencywhere I worked they were testing file clerks and secretaries!!!!
Then your agency head was a dick.
Reagan's executive order didn't require them to be drug tested.
I'm not saying that the requirements can go too far -- I had to pee in a cup in order to work for a subcontractor on a job that was totally privately funded but was coordinated under the Superfund Act -- therefore the drug testing. And all I did was hold a prism rod and pound and mark stakes.
I am glad, however, that people who fly planes and operate trains and ferrys aren't stoned.
Posted by: Tinian at January 17, 2009 12:27 PM (Ohodx)
83
OK, one more time. The federal government does NOT mandate drug testing for anything other than DOT and Nuclear Power Plant employees. DOT was first ordered by Reagan but expanded by Congress, as Tinian said. Drug testing for Nuclear Power Plant workers was ordered by the NRC based solely on “they wanted it”. I am familiar with that one since I was a nuclear employee and subject to random drug testing which is a lot more stringent than most programs.
The federal government probably does test its own employees as does EVERY MAJOR INDUSTRY IN THE U.S. It, however, is not mandatory. Most industries test employees as a minimum on hiring and after any significant accident involving the employee. The basis behind this testing is that experience has shown that6 drug users are more apt to have accidents and are more apt to be absent from work a great deal.
Private companies do this because the cost savings outweigh the costs of running the program.
The federal government probably does test its own employees as does EVERY MAJOR INDUSTRY IN THE U.S. It, however, is not mandatory. Most industries test employees as a minimum on hiring and after any significant accident involving the employee. The basis behind this testing is that experience has shown that6 drug users are more apt to have accidents and are more apt to be absent from work a great deal.
Private companies do this because the cost savings outweigh the costs of running the program.
Posted by: Vic at January 17, 2009 12:32 PM (f6os6)
84
The war on drugs is one of the stupidest government
policies ever. Yet you rarely find a mainstream politician (of any
stripe) willing to say so. Bah humbug.
Posted by: qrstuv at January 17, 2009 12:16 PM (iLavX)
Speaking of politicians and drug policy, I found this tidbit over at Wired Magazine's Threat Level blog:
If Obama believed in change his administration wouldn't have given a
glib one sentence negative answer to the highest voted question on
change.gov about legalizing marijuana.
...
P.S. And pretending like it wasn't the most voted on question by answering it like 3rd or 4th in the questions they answered.
Sounds like lots of people hoping for change are very disappointed right now.
The war on drugs is one of the stupidest government
policies ever. Yet you rarely find a mainstream politician (of any
stripe) willing to say so. Bah humbug.
Posted by: qrstuv at January 17, 2009 12:16 PM (iLavX)
Speaking of politicians and drug policy, I found this tidbit over at Wired Magazine's Threat Level blog:
If Obama believed in change his administration wouldn't have given a
glib one sentence negative answer to the highest voted question on
change.gov about legalizing marijuana.
...
P.S. And pretending like it wasn't the most voted on question by answering it like 3rd or 4th in the questions they answered.
Sounds like lots of people hoping for change are very disappointed right now.
Posted by: Tinian at January 17, 2009 12:35 PM (Ohodx)
85
I wonder... if the accuser in this case also pointed her finger at the principal, would his next act have been spreading his cheeks as the nurse aimed her flashbulb up his ass?
Somehow, I doubt it...
Somehow, I doubt it...
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 17, 2009 12:38 PM (iafWn)
86
Apparently, zero-tolerance for guns was mandated by a Federal Law passed in 1994 after a prior version was declared unconstitutional. In 1989, Safford school - site of the strip search - had a policy that allowed guns for students with valid carry permits.
All schools were required to adopt essentially a zero-tolerance policy about guns. This did nothing to stop Columbine of course.
But that was the origin of it. Since then and particularly after Columbine, zero-tolerance has been greatly expanded to include all weapons, violence, language and yes, drugs. Policies vary.
Students have been suspended under zero-tolerance for showing photo's of their fathers, in military service, holding a gun.
In my quick research I can find no origin of this traceable to Reagan or drug policy. The gun part was signed by Clinton, but in fairness this was supported by both Parties.
I can find no connection to the War on Drugs either. Also in fairness, Scalia authored a Supreme Court opinion in 1995 (I think) that pulled back some of the rights granted to students back in the '60's. This effected searches and testing, but I will leave that to the lawyers.
A fair way to put it might be that zero-tolerance for guns was bipartisan. After Columbine, a greatly expanded policy was pushed by the Teachers' Unions, but I don't remember hearing a lot of opposition to it by conservatives either.
However and whomever we got here, we need to undo it.
All schools were required to adopt essentially a zero-tolerance policy about guns. This did nothing to stop Columbine of course.
But that was the origin of it. Since then and particularly after Columbine, zero-tolerance has been greatly expanded to include all weapons, violence, language and yes, drugs. Policies vary.
Students have been suspended under zero-tolerance for showing photo's of their fathers, in military service, holding a gun.
In my quick research I can find no origin of this traceable to Reagan or drug policy. The gun part was signed by Clinton, but in fairness this was supported by both Parties.
I can find no connection to the War on Drugs either. Also in fairness, Scalia authored a Supreme Court opinion in 1995 (I think) that pulled back some of the rights granted to students back in the '60's. This effected searches and testing, but I will leave that to the lawyers.
A fair way to put it might be that zero-tolerance for guns was bipartisan. After Columbine, a greatly expanded policy was pushed by the Teachers' Unions, but I don't remember hearing a lot of opposition to it by conservatives either.
However and whomever we got here, we need to undo it.
Posted by: Robert at January 17, 2009 12:40 PM (VotgB)
87
No permissible but the school gets immunity?
Posted by: Mark at January 17, 2009 01:03 PM (LrnKi)
88
These stupid zero-tolerance policies are typical socialist bullshit.
I don't think that zero-tolerance policies are inherently bullshit. They were enacted for a good reason back in the day, and have been very effective in reducing crime. The "broken-windows" theory of policing promoted by James Wilson and adapted in NYC and elsewhere was an example of zero-tolerance policy in action.
Of course, it all depends on what you crack down on. In NYC they cracked down on squeege men and turnstyle jumpers. They did notgo around arresting people forspitting on the sidewalk.
Zero tolerance for crack in schools is a good idea, assuming that the police are involved in the process. Zero tolerence for ibuprofen is stupid. But the problem is not the concept, it's with the idiots applying it badly to the real world.
I don't think that zero-tolerance policies are inherently bullshit. They were enacted for a good reason back in the day, and have been very effective in reducing crime. The "broken-windows" theory of policing promoted by James Wilson and adapted in NYC and elsewhere was an example of zero-tolerance policy in action.
Of course, it all depends on what you crack down on. In NYC they cracked down on squeege men and turnstyle jumpers. They did notgo around arresting people forspitting on the sidewalk.
Zero tolerance for crack in schools is a good idea, assuming that the police are involved in the process. Zero tolerence for ibuprofen is stupid. But the problem is not the concept, it's with the idiots applying it badly to the real world.
Posted by: flenser at January 17, 2009 01:07 PM (rIqvf)
Posted by: Mark at January 17, 2009 01:08 PM (LrnKi)
90
Fuck it. Lord of the flies c'mon. Bring all your goddamn dope and guns and shit and set up a market in the cafeteria c'mon. Fuck it. We'll keep the adults off your ass. And then criticize the shit out of them cause you ain't learning jackshit. Fuck it.
Posted by: Preferred AoSHQ SCOTUS voice at January 17, 2009 01:13 PM (tlpWV)
91
It is frustrating to watch social conservatives battle it out over issues like this when there is a simple solution offered by us fiscal con / libertarians.
You're quite the comedian. The only people doing anything concrete about the school problem are the social cons. They're home-schooling their kids, which makes them a lot more libertarian than the the "libertarians".
You're quite the comedian. The only people doing anything concrete about the school problem are the social cons. They're home-schooling their kids, which makes them a lot more libertarian than the the "libertarians".
Posted by: flenser at January 17, 2009 01:18 PM (rIqvf)
92
I hate pubic schools. They, the teachers and administrators ALL think they are untouchable and are smarter than every person in the room. The Unions have eroded actual teaching in many, many instances. Just look at testing and grad rates. It isn't difficult to see the leftards fingerprints ALL OVER the national disgrace that is our education system. When we start treating teachers/principles like employees instead of exalted union workers then we can start FIRING underperforming slugs. In my job if I only succeeded 20% of the time, my ass would be finished. GET UNIONS OUT OF SCHOOLS!!! That is the STARTING point. These lefties that strip searched this girl deserve a good ass-whooping. If she was my daughter I'd be in cuffs for strip searching their heads.
Posted by: Tiderguy at January 17, 2009 01:20 PM (zbt9w)
93
the situation could have been resolved by simply firing the idiot vice principal who ordered it.
Of course that's the proper response here. Somebody misused their authority, displayed bad judgement,and should be punished for it.
Of course that's the proper response here. Somebody misused their authority, displayed bad judgement,and should be punished for it.
Posted by: flenser at January 17, 2009 01:22 PM (rIqvf)
94
Strict drug enforcement is a conservative issue. I'm too libertarian to
go along with this nonsense. When anyone suggests that marijuana laws
be relaxed and even de-criminalized, it is usually libs who suggest it,
and conservatives close ranks and just say no.
blatantly incorrect. just look at gonzales vs raich, the 3 justices that voted to restrict the federal governments extraconstitutional assertion of drug enforcement power were all 'conservatives' appointed by republicans
all the democrat "liberal" justices voted to wipe their asses with the constitution in the name of drug enforcement and unlimited federal power
go along with this nonsense. When anyone suggests that marijuana laws
be relaxed and even de-criminalized, it is usually libs who suggest it,
and conservatives close ranks and just say no.
blatantly incorrect. just look at gonzales vs raich, the 3 justices that voted to restrict the federal governments extraconstitutional assertion of drug enforcement power were all 'conservatives' appointed by republicans
all the democrat "liberal" justices voted to wipe their asses with the constitution in the name of drug enforcement and unlimited federal power
Posted by: errhead at January 17, 2009 01:32 PM (7b8cd)
95
check this out, liberal Slate magazien editor finally admits, that obama does not say much...
www.obamasgaffes.blogspot.com
perhaps the Times should count its blessings. As of late, when Obama does speak, as he did on Dec. 7 on Meet the Press, Dec. 28 on 60 Minutes, and Jan. 11 on This Week With George Stephanopoulos, he tends not to say much.
read the whole thing here:
www.obamasgaffes.blogspot.com
www.obamasgaffes.blogspot.com
perhaps the Times should count its blessings. As of late, when Obama does speak, as he did on Dec. 7 on Meet the Press, Dec. 28 on 60 Minutes, and Jan. 11 on This Week With George Stephanopoulos, he tends not to say much.
read the whole thing here:
www.obamasgaffes.blogspot.com
Posted by: frieda at January 17, 2009 01:34 PM (g1er5)
96
Ace first mentioned it in April when a panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled that the search was not a Fourth Amendment violation.
That means, of course, that it was a Fourth Amendment violation. The Ninth Circus Court is the most overturned court in the country. Although a court where one of the judges has his own porn site may not be that bad...
That means, of course, that it was a Fourth Amendment violation. The Ninth Circus Court is the most overturned court in the country. Although a court where one of the judges has his own porn site may not be that bad...
Posted by: RoadRunner at January 17, 2009 01:57 PM (4ONdx)
97
WTF is 'perscription strength ibuprofen'?
Is that a bottle of over-the-counter Motrin IB that says "Perscription Strength" on it?
Zero tolerance itself is plainly idiotic. I'd say if you can't have aspirin why allow caffeine even, but they're trying to ban soda machines too. There's not even a good definition of the word 'drug' other then "any chemical substance that may alter physiological functions" which could include H2O which is a chemical substance.
But even if they thought she had crack coccaine up her snootch, school fucking administrators can't strip search you any more then mall security can.
Call the fuckin cops and let them deal with it. School personel have no such fucking authority and they were totally out of line and should be sued into oblivion.
Is that a bottle of over-the-counter Motrin IB that says "Perscription Strength" on it?
Zero tolerance itself is plainly idiotic. I'd say if you can't have aspirin why allow caffeine even, but they're trying to ban soda machines too. There's not even a good definition of the word 'drug' other then "any chemical substance that may alter physiological functions" which could include H2O which is a chemical substance.
But even if they thought she had crack coccaine up her snootch, school fucking administrators can't strip search you any more then mall security can.
Call the fuckin cops and let them deal with it. School personel have no such fucking authority and they were totally out of line and should be sued into oblivion.
Posted by: Entropy at January 17, 2009 02:07 PM (cok/k)
98
Good God. If that had been my daughter, I would Still be in jail. That is the kind of crazy shit that can just ruin your entire life... actually the lives of several people.
Posted by: Terry at January 17, 2009 02:19 PM (GAQ/Q)
99
WTF is 'perscription strength ibuprofen'?
I think it is something over 200mg. This is silly because I have a huge bottle of the 200mg tabs for when my back gives me grief.
Zero tolerance itself is plainly idiotic.
Amen. Semantics aside, it is when educrats apply it. An earlier poster was worried about educrats in his home. Not to worry, they are already here, usurping parental authority and generally snooping in your family life.
Do your parents argue?
Does anyone in the house have a gun?
It just goes on and on. That a large nymber of Amereican have abdicated parental responsibilty and are glad to use the education system as daycare only makes matters worse. Many people cannot be bothered to attend School Board meetings, mainly because they are hideously boring. But this is where much of the damage is done. The miserable self serving assholes in the NEA and CTA continually want more for less. I don't know how to get rid of them under our current labor laws, and certainly not with Obie the Red in the Whitehouse.
I think it is something over 200mg. This is silly because I have a huge bottle of the 200mg tabs for when my back gives me grief.
Zero tolerance itself is plainly idiotic.
Amen. Semantics aside, it is when educrats apply it. An earlier poster was worried about educrats in his home. Not to worry, they are already here, usurping parental authority and generally snooping in your family life.
Do your parents argue?
Does anyone in the house have a gun?
It just goes on and on. That a large nymber of Amereican have abdicated parental responsibilty and are glad to use the education system as daycare only makes matters worse. Many people cannot be bothered to attend School Board meetings, mainly because they are hideously boring. But this is where much of the damage is done. The miserable self serving assholes in the NEA and CTA continually want more for less. I don't know how to get rid of them under our current labor laws, and certainly not with Obie the Red in the Whitehouse.
Posted by: Shaitan at January 17, 2009 03:26 PM (65WaW)
100
It doesn't matter who started the policy its what its morphed into (for people that don't know the difference between making policy and applying it). Its policy applied by idiotic morons with out one ounce of common sense in their bones and every one of them is either a liberal drone, pervert or brainless a$$(ole. They should be sued, fired and pillored in front of the whole community, or strip searched by Pelosi in front of all the Democrats on the floor of the Congress. It certainly wouldn't be any more obscene that what they take part in every day.
Posted by: C. Benson at January 17, 2009 03:35 PM (RZhpS)
101
Relax, guys... once president Tom Token gets his personal FEMA into the field, all strip searches will be performed by 'citizen volunteers' thus removing any hint of government abuse of power...
Posted by: richard mcenroe at January 17, 2009 05:24 PM (pEXyx)
102
I pick up the occasional 2600 digest and there are always letters in there from students who, from their perspective, found a security hole, informed the IT teacher.. and got suspended for showing how dumb the IT teacher is.
I am the IT guy for a school district and I can tell you that anything you read from a student gets you less then half the story. The typical scenario is that the IT guy noticed someone trying to hack their network. When they caught the kid, he claimed he was only investigating so that hecould ke them know their problems. It was a total bullshit story.
Just recently, I noticed a strange thing going on with our website. A quick investigation pinpointed the source of the attack and the software he was using. I found his phone number and called his mother to get him to stop. She put him on the phone and he tried to bullshit me with a story that didn't even make sense given the software he was using. I told him that I was turning everything over to his principal. I warned the principal that the kid would toss him a crap story. The kid tried it and it didn't work. He has since admitted that he found a website that pays for people to find vulnerabilities in websites andto pass that info to them so that they can exploit them.
I am the IT guy for a school district and I can tell you that anything you read from a student gets you less then half the story. The typical scenario is that the IT guy noticed someone trying to hack their network. When they caught the kid, he claimed he was only investigating so that hecould ke them know their problems. It was a total bullshit story.
Just recently, I noticed a strange thing going on with our website. A quick investigation pinpointed the source of the attack and the software he was using. I found his phone number and called his mother to get him to stop. She put him on the phone and he tried to bullshit me with a story that didn't even make sense given the software he was using. I told him that I was turning everything over to his principal. I warned the principal that the kid would toss him a crap story. The kid tried it and it didn't work. He has since admitted that he found a website that pays for people to find vulnerabilities in websites andto pass that info to them so that they can exploit them.
Posted by: Steve L. at January 17, 2009 07:43 PM (gRA/m)
103
@58: My dear sfcmac,
How could I have missed your enticing post? In response to self-described beloved hobbies, all I can offer by way of response is:
ZZZZZzzziiip!
How could I have missed your enticing post? In response to self-described beloved hobbies, all I can offer by way of response is:
ZZZZZzzziiip!
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 17, 2009 08:08 PM (iafWn)
104
100: Ibuprofen comes in huge horsepill sizes prescribed by doctors for things like pain relief after minor outpatient surgery,etc.
The absurdity of what was done to that is clear when you consider the school freaked put over an 800 mg. pill, but would have been just fine over a whole bottle full of 200 mg. pills!
The absurdity of what was done to that is clear when you consider the school freaked put over an 800 mg. pill, but would have been just fine over a whole bottle full of 200 mg. pills!
Posted by: CoolCzech at January 17, 2009 08:13 PM (iafWn)
105
Shit! The Nuprin I stowed in my ass has disolved somehow and my entire pelvic region is numb! I feel like I'm sitting on a cushiony-soft puff of cirrus cloud...
But at least the gnomes can't get them. Hah!
But at least the gnomes can't get them. Hah!
Posted by: Squatch at January 17, 2009 08:29 PM (COZb8)
106
lace wigs full lace wigs lace human hair wigs lace front wigs
Posted by: lace wigs at January 19, 2009 02:43 AM (lCppQ)
107
Normal
0
7.8 °õ
0
2
false
false
false
EN-US
ZH-CN
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:ÆÕͨ±í¸ñ;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.5pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;}
Tory burch shoes are very
populor now, you need have Toryburch
shoes . wearing Toryburch
shoes to everywhere.
Normal
0
7.8 °õ
0
2
false
false
false
EN-US
ZH-CN
X-NONE
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:ÆÕͨ±í¸ñ;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0cm 5.4pt 0cm 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0cm;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.5pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-font-kerning:1.0pt;}
Tory burch shoes are very
populor now, you need have Toryburch
shoes . wearing Toryburch
shoes to everywhere.
Posted by: everyday at November 12, 2010 10:28 PM (iMFT1)
Processing 0.02, elapsed 0.0243 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0083 seconds, 116 records returned.
Page size 92 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.
MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Real Clear Politics
Gallup
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Primary Document: The Audio
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Paul Anka Haiku Contest Announcement
Integrity SAT's: Entrance Exam for Paul Anka's Band
AllahPundit's Paul Anka 45's Collection
AnkaPundit: Paul Anka Takes Over the Site for a Weekend (Continues through to Monday's postings)
George Bush Slices Don Rumsfeld Like an F*ckin' Hammer
Top Top Tens
Democratic Forays into Erotica
New Shows On Gore's DNC/MTV Network
Nicknames for Potatoes, By People Who Really Hate Potatoes
Star Wars Euphemisms for Self-Abuse
Signs You're at an Iraqi "Wedding Party"
Signs Your Clown Has Gone Bad
Signs That You, Geroge Michael, Should Probably Just Give It Up
Signs of Hip-Hop Influence on John Kerry
NYT Headlines Spinning Bush's Jobs Boom
Things People Are More Likely to Say Than "Did You Hear What Al Franken Said Yesterday?"
Signs that Paul Krugman Has Lost His Frickin' Mind
All-Time Best NBA Players, According to Senator Robert Byrd
Other Bad Things About the Jews, According to the Koran
Signs That David Letterman Just Doesn't Care Anymore
Examples of Bob Kerrey's Insufferable Racial Jackassery
Signs Andy Rooney Is Going Senile
Other Judgments Dick Clarke Made About Condi Rice Based on Her Appearance
Collective Names for Groups of People
John Kerry's Other Vietnam Super-Pets
Cool Things About the XM8 Assault Rifle
Media-Approved Facts About the Democrat Spy
Changes to Make Christianity More "Inclusive"
Secret John Kerry Senatorial Accomplishments
John Edwards Campaign Excuses
John Kerry Pick-Up Lines
Changes Liberal Senator George Michell Will Make at Disney
Torments in Dog-Hell
Greatest Hitjobs
The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat