I feel for G's son. Taking a sophomore kid's business to Limbaugh or Carr to make political war is just plain over the line.
I have a lot of respect for G, but this is a mistake.
Why?
Why is making this a political war over the line? What was over the line was the political BS that caused this to happen.
You and pogo are simply against him hitting back politically because it is the side you agree with this time.
Because
it isn't a political issue, that's why.
Unless you can explain to the class wtf a school's operation, reasonable or unreasonable, has to do with Rump, or with any kind of "politics" at all.
Clearly the school's (over)reaction here is based on a concern about gun violence in schools. While this or that politician may choose to take a side
related to that, "gun violence in schools" is not itself a political issue but a social one. Politics and politicians have no authority or influence over social values. What is Donald Rump supposed to do, issue an executive order saying a kid can make a finger gun?
I might add, we had no indication from the OP if this suspension was entirely from the incident described, or if it comes from a cumulative history. That's all stuff we don't know, but that's not political either.
I don't know what OL stated but I advised that g5000 should not allow the talking heads to frame the issue as political. And I explained then, that they would do that in order to spike their ratings, because tribalist conflict is a boon for ratings --- but it also completely obscures what's going on and reduces it to yet another pawn in that bullshit tribal "everything is politics" song and dance. As long as that keeps happening, nothing gets addressed.
As Ray is about to do in exactly two posts...
Where do you think those policies come from? It comes from the political parties using these events as kick balls to advance their agenda. This new hyper sensitive bullshit is a political issue all over the nation. The fact that you do not want to acknowledge that is not really my problem pogo and I don't think that people should be quietly taking this crap without taking on the issue to its source.
No I don't accept that creation premise at all that social pressures and guidelines take their cues from politicians. Not even close. It's the exact opposite.
You have a wide-ranging social crisis, in this case school gun violence (or gun violence in general), but it could be any crisis. Consensus of opinion coalesces in the
general public regarding what to do about it. In the case of a cultural divide on that crisis we get multiple and conflicting consensuses --- competing or opposing "camps". ONLY once those camps are established will politicians declare themselves to be "in" this one or that one. Politicians absolutely DO NOT lead sociocultural changes --- they
follow them. According to whichever "camp" will serve their own ambitions.
I'll again point to my ready go-to example: smoking tobacco. If you're of a certain age you know it used to be a very common practice. Doctors smoked. Restaurants. Freaking
planes. There was no such thing as a no-smoking section. You either smoked, or you put up with it. Every movie actor and TV scenario... watch Mike Wallace at the intro here between 0:15 and 0:25. He even casually tosses his match on the floor.
Nothing remotely like that would happen today. Nor would you likely see a screen actor, even the villain, smoking. And of course smoking on a plane is right out. That's a cultural shift. Politicians didn't do that. What happened is that the general public
collectively decided it wasn't going to put up with smoking. And so you get (first) reserved no-smoking sections in restaurants and (eventually) no smoking at all in them. You may cherrypick a random politician jumping on the bandwagon passing a local ordinance about smoking in bars but again that's a
reaction to where the public is already leading them. The old adage "if the people lead eventually the leaders will follow" sometimes actually works.
Moreover the way that smoking got started in the first place and sustained itself and grew to such a degree, was via
advertising --- not politics. And that's far more influential. The bottom line to this analogy is not a lot of people smoke any more and politicians didn't do that --- WE did.
Or take the (false) association of religion with politics. In wayback-then, the same time all that smoking was going on, there was no imaginary "correlation" between what your religion was and what your politics were. They went together like fish and bicycles. Along comes the Jerry Falwell ilk (again, enter
advertising) and suddenly we've got "camps" with fake political party "associations" . Politicians didn't do that -- they
followed the Falwells. And only did so when they thought it would sell.
Back to the instant case, this school district, and others nationwide, cannot ignore the crisis of gun violence in schools and are literally the battlefield for it. So they necessarily come up with policies, which again will vary in cultural values between different parties, including in this case the OP and his son's school. Politicians didn't create that policy --- the school did. It has a direct and intimate investment in its own welfare which given the stark consequences of failing to do that can and does result in hypervigilance. What they come up with may be reasonable or extreme but it's THEIR environment and it's up to them to control it day-to-day. The fact that politician A over here may support that policy while politician B over there opposes it,
simply does not make them the originators of that policy. It makes them followers of what they think is the appropriate social
trend for them.
This is the same thing I've been preaching the entire time I've been on this site about gun violence in general, the hot issue when I joined USMB, that it's not a question of throwing laws at it but rather a question of cultural values. And I mention that because you personally, I recall, were one of the few who took the effort to understood what I was saying.
So that's why this is not a political issue. Politicians don't start these 'camps'. They may, and they surely do, jump into those camps and in so doing deepen the divide for no good purpose, but make no mistake, they didn't create those camps. WE did. So this idea that goes around that believes "we have a problem and therefore
politicians have to fix it" (which then means "my" politicians have to overcome "your" politicians to do so), just sounds like a giant cop-out. That's a giant dead end.