My comment on Open Salon to: Carry a big stick -- when I was ordered to paddle students

My comment on Open Salon to: http://open.salon.com/blog/jlw1/2011/03/30/carry_a_big_stick--when_i_was_ordered_to_paddle_students

The same principal who smashes away on kids for being late (not usually an animal) might feel unable to beat an adult the same way for breaking into school, breaking into lockers and spray painting cars in the parking lot all at the same time. Something goes missing when we are not beating social equals or something (we are talking dumb social instinct here).

If the principal's boss paddled him for the above mentioned crimes the principal would not hate him. If the principal's boss paddled him for being late the principal would hate him -- a violent assault over efficiency, mere office management.

Let principals contemplate these contradictions (and why some kids hate them forever).

There is a hole in the law against violent assault. There is provably no justification for the hole -- provably by the common policy in the worst hitting states (where 90% of the beating of girls and 75% of the beating of boys is for tardies) : it is often optional for the student -- take detention or suspension or a beating. If the school lets the student decide how can the school tell the courts that it is so necessary the court should allow a hole in the law against violent assault with a weapon?

Unfathomable social instinct can be at work on students here: if everyone else chose a beating over an hour's detention so would I. Instinctively must accept the same danger as the rest of the hunting pack? ??? Sometimes like in the famous YouTube video the student will miss a days work as with the boy or as with the class president girl miss the prom if they do not take a tardy bend over for a behind beating by the (male) principal. Sometimes a student fears even a tardy suspension may affect college admission. None constitutionally justifies a hole in the prohibition against violent assault -- especially on children.