Is this a bully?

The New Neo Posted on by

What do you think about this?:

On Wednesday, a Murry, Utah-based woman named Ally Olsen, 41, discovered that her fiancé’s 10-year-old daughter, Kaylee, was bullying a classmate. Kaylee’s teacher had emailed Olsen, explaining that the girl had been teasing a student for the past three weeks because of how she dressed. As a result, the victim no longer wanted to come to school.

What was the bully’s crime? This:

“When I received the email, I was confused because just a few weeks ago, Kaylee had received an award from her principal for stopping a bullying incident at school,” Olsen told Yahoo! Shine. “I confronted Kaylee who explained that she had called another girl ”˜sleazy’ for wearing Daisy Duke shorts and a tank top. We’ve taught Kaylee to dress conservatively but never expected her to be judgmental.”

But had the bullied girl in fact been wearing Daisy Dukes and a halter top to school for three weeks? And if so, why? I know dress codes have relaxed since my school days, but are there no codes at all any more?

And one of my pet peeves is this reluctance to “judge” anyone. We judge people all the time. And if we don’t, have we no opinions and no standards of behavior? Or was Kaylee’s crime to have told the girl she looked “sleazy,” which may have been nothing less than the absolute truth—and a relatively polite way to put it, at that, compared to some of the words she could have used instead.

What Kaylee did is not the same as teasing someone about an inherent trait that person cannot help—having a big nose, or red hair, or ears that stick out. This is about clothing (inappropriate clothing, I might add) that is worn voluntarily, clothing that can be changed quite easily, and clothing that is actually inappropriate. Perhaps Kaylee was merely trying to do the job the school had abdicated.

And another thing about that school—does it, by any chance, have a school counselor? Because having the school counselor talk to the two girls might be a nice start, rather than sending a vague letter home that doesn’t even really seem to describe the purported bullying incident or incidents in any way that could help the parents determine what really happened.

At any rate, Ally Olson came up with an interesting punishment for Kaylee. She took the girl to a store, noted clothes that the girl said she hated, and made Kaylee wear them to school despite her tears.

Oh, and one more thing. Note that Ms. Olson is described as being the fiancé of Kaylee’s father. So what was she doing laying down the law for Kaylee? And what on earth was Kaylee’s teacher doing emailing Olson, if in fact that’s what happened?

In general, it’s asking for trouble to have a stepparent do heavy-duty discipline like that (as opposed to everyday discipline), unless the offense is an act in progress that must be stopped immediately with no time to consult with the actual parent. But Olson is not even Kaylee’s stepparent, she’s in loco step-parentis, a “fiancé” (a word I’ve long ago learned that in these situations with children tends to mean a live-in girlfriend without a wedding actually being planned). So why is she in charge? Has the father abdicated his role, too? Has he designated discipline to her? Or did he approve of the method she came up with?

Quite a bunch of confused messages here for Kaylee, who seems to be voicing the requisite amount of contrition. Whether she’s telling the truth or not about feeling sorry is hard to know:

Although Kaylee cried, the next day she headed to school wearing one of the outfits under a coat that she had zipped up to her neck. “When she came home that afternoon, Kaylee said the kids laughed at her for wearing ”˜pajamas.’ She also felt so guilty that she pulled her classmate aside and apologized for her behavior the previous day.” To solidify the punishment, Olsen snapped a photo of Kaylee wearing the outfit (her face was blurred to protect her identity) and posted it on Facebook.

So let’s see. Because Kaylee expressed disapproval and judged as sleazy a classmate’s sleazy clothing, she’s called a bully and made to wear clothes that cause other kids to bully her by laughing at her. Should they be made to wear ugly clothing the next day and be laughed at in turn?

What actually happened, though, was that Kaylee was punished again, this time for defending herself—from being bullied!:

By then, Olsen decided that Kaylee had suffered enough””until she learned that she had gotten into another altercation with a second girl. “When Kaylee explained how she had spoken rudely to a friend who was picking on her clothes, I decided that she needed to wear another embarrassing outfit the following day,” said Olsen.

But Kaylee seems to have learned her lesson:

“What people don’t understand is that Kaylee genuinely learned from this experience. She actually thanked me for making her go through that,” said Olsen.

Ah, but what lesson did Kaylee learn? It just might be this one: don’t be honest about your feelings or opinions, don’t defend yourself, and say whatever you need to say to get your father’s girlfriend off your back.

Well, I guess…

The New Neo Posted on by

…Holder’s DOJ won’t be snooping into the phone records of good-little-progressive-soldier Daniel Klaidman of The Daily Beast.

[ADDENDUM: Ace points out that the New Yorker’s Ryan Lizza has uncovered evidence that Holder’s DOJ judge-shopped in order to get someone who would approve the warrant and keep its contents secret from Rosen:

The new documents show that two judges separately declared that the Justice Department was required to notify Rosen of the search warrant, even if the notification came after a delay. Otherwise: “The subscriber therefore will never know, by being provided a copy of the warrant, for example, that the government secured a warrant and searched the contents of her e-mail account,” Judge John M. Facciola wrote in an opinion rejecting the Obama Administration’s argument.

Machen appealed that decision, and in September, 2010, Royce C. Lamberth, the chief judge in the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia, granted Machen’s request to overturn the order of the two judges.

Judges matter, as I indicated here.

I also want to point out, as Ace does, that Ryan Lizza has been excellent lately on the scandals. I will add that Lizza has a prior advantage, if you’re familiar with his work. Back in 2008 he wrote an in-depth article on Obama’s Chicago past, and therefore probably has long held fewer illusions about Obama than most of the starry-eyed press (see this).]

This is what I’ve been dreading…

The New Neo Posted on by

Obama plans to get cracking on nominating some federal judges of the liberal persuasion. And he’s using one of his favorite tactics, forcing the Republicans to play whack-a-mole:

In trying to fill the three vacancies on the 11-member United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit at once, Mr. Obama will be adopting a more aggressive nomination strategy. He will effectively be daring Republicans to find specific ground to filibuster all the nominees…

Often called the second most important court in the country, the Washington court has overturned major parts of the president’s agenda in the last four years, on regulations covering Wall Street, the environment, tobacco, labor unions and workers’ rights.

With the confirmation last week of Sri Srinivasan, Mr. Obama’s first successful nominee to the court, it now has four Democratic appointees and four Republican appointees. But of the six additional “senior” judges, who previously served full time on the court and still regularly hear cases, five were appointed by a Republican president, giving the court a strongly conservative flavor.

“The court is critically important ”” the majority has made decisions that have frustrated the president’s agenda,” said Nan Aron, a liberal activist who has called for Mr. Obama to be more aggressive in nominating judges. “Our view is that balance must be restored on that court, and the empty seats must be filled.”

This is a critically important part of the agenda. It’s one of the many consequences of elections that people tend to put on the back burner when they’re voting, but it’s one that has very long-lasting and transformational effects.

“We faced the dragon. And we came out of it.”

The New Neo Posted on by

[BUMPED UP]

I saw a moving piece about the 40th reunion of the Vietnam prisoners of war, who were reunited last Thursday at the Nixon Library on the anniversary of their welcome home celebration at the White House. It was not long before Nixon himself had to leave the office, but to these guys he’s a hero who brought them home:

What a difference 40 years makes.

Here’s a beautiful video of one of the original reunions with family on the initial return, that of Capt. Guy D Gruters. I challenge you to watch it without a tear coming to your eye (he had apparently been reunited with his wife earlier. This features the rest of the family; I believe a brother is first in line.):

Gruters is still around, still married (father of eight kids), and after a civilian life as a successful businessman, is now engaged in giving inspirational speeches. He’s got a website, too, and on it is a video that tells the story of fellow fighter pilot and Air Force officer Lance Peter Sijan, who unfortunately didn’t survive captivity. I’d never heard of Sijan before, although he received a Medal of Honor, the nation’s highest award. Here’s his story from Gruters’ perspective:

For those who don’t feel like listening to the video, here’s the story of Sijan’s capture:

On the night of November 9, 1967, for his 52nd combat mission, Sijan and pilot Lt. Col. John Armstrong were tasked with a bombing mission over North Vietnam. As they rolled in on their target to release their ordnance, their F-4C was engulfed in a ball of fire, due to the bomb fuses malfunctioning and causing a premature detonation on their release. The Phantom then entered a banking climb before plunging into the jungle. Sijan managed to eject from the aircraft, and a search-and-rescue crew radioed him that they were attempting a rescue. After almost a whole day was spent locating his position and softening up air defences in the area, the SAR forces were finally able to get one of the big Jolly Green Giant helicopters roughly over Sijan’s position. During this operation over 20 aircraft were damaged by anti-aircraft fire and had to return to base. One aircraft was shot down, though its pilot was rescued by a helicopter on station. Sijan, refusing to put other airmen in danger, insisted on crawling into the jungle and having a penetrator lowered by the helicopter, instead of sending down the helicopter’s Para-Jumpers to carry him. However, the helicopter crew could not spot him in the jungle and after 33 minutes the rescue team, which faced enemy fire and the growing darkness, had to withdraw. Search efforts continued the next day, but they were called off when no further radio contact was made with Sijan. He was placed on MIA status.

Sijan had suffered a fractured skull, a mangled right hand, and a compound fracture of the left leg from his rough landing. He was without food, with very little water, and no survival kit; nevertheless, he evaded enemy forces for 46 days (all the time scooting on his back down the rocky limestone karst on which he landed, causing more injuries). He was finally captured by the North Vietnamese on Christmas Day, 1967. Emaciated and in poor health, he still managed to overpower his guard and escape, but was recaptured several hours later.

Sijan was transported to a holding compound in Vinh, North Vietnam, where he was placed in the care of two other POWs, Air Force Colonel Robert R. Craner and Air Force Captain Guy Gruters. In considerable pain from his wounds, he suffered beatings and extensive torture from his captors, but never gave any information other than what the Geneva Convention allowed. Suffering from exhaustion, malnutrition, and disease, he was sent to Hanoi. In his weakened state, he contracted pneumonia and died in Hoa Lo Prison (the notorious Hanoi Hilton) on January 22, 1968…

Because Sijan was the first graduate of the United States Air Force Academy to receive the Medal of Honor, a cadet dormitory, Sijan Hall, was named after him. The dormitory was dedicated on Memorial Day, 1976. As part of their training, all new cadets at the Air Force Academy are required to learn Lance Sijan’s story.

Not everyone came out of the dragon alive.

A hero of the highest degree.

Scandals? What scandals?

The New Neo Posted on by

Obama’s got work to do:

White House chief of staff Denis McDonough…wants to cap at 10 percent the amount of White House time that gets spent responding to the furors of the moment rather than advancing the president’s broader agenda.

Among other White House staff, solace is taken from a number of factors.

First, they believe that there is no direct link between the president and any of the misbehavior that is being probed.

Second, they contend that the only thing that could truly jeopardize him, or his top aides, is inappropriate meddling in future investigations or those currently underway.

Third, they say that maintaining a steady focus on the large issues of national importance will pay off in the long run.

Obama has bigger fish to fry. Full steam ahead.

And he believes—perhaps rightly—that he has kept his fingerprints off everything.

There is little question in my mind that Obama will not be impeached. To get Democrats to turn on him, it would take the uncovering of evidence so powerful, overwhelming, and terrible that I can’t quite imagine what it would be. So the real question is how much of the Obama agenda the current Republican House will be able to stop, and what will happen to the makeup of Congress in the 2014 election.

As for Holder, my predication is that, unless he is removed by impeachment or conviction of a crime, Obama will stand by him.

“Told ya so!” “Did not!”

The New Neo Posted on by

According to the NY Times, the Department of Justice says that in 2010 they informed News Corp., Fox’s parent company, of the Rosen subpoena (without mentioning Rosen by name at the time):

A law enforcement official said on Sunday that in the investigation that led to the indictment of Mr. Kim, “the government issued subpoenas for toll records for five phone numbers associated with the media.” This person, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, added, “Consistent with Department of Justice policies and procedures, the government provided notification of those subpoenas nearly three years ago by certified mail, facsimile and e-mail.”

Fox says it never got word. And what’s more, News Corp. says that it never received anything of the sort:

Lawrence A. Jacobs, who was News Corporation’s chief legal officer until he left in June 2011, said he never saw a notification about the phone records.

“I would have remembered getting a fax from the Justice Department,” Mr. Jacobs said in an interview Sunday. “These are not the kinds of things that happen every day.”

He added, “The first thing I would’ve done would be to call Roger Ailes.”

News Corporation said it had conducted a thorough search of its legal records, including, Mr. Jacobs said, a scan of his e-mails and other relevant materials, and has found nothing related to the investigation. “The inference that I sat on this and didn’t share it with Roger couldn’t be further from the truth,” Mr. Jacobs said.

That inference, of course, is exactly what the DOJ source meant to encourage.

But certified mail, fax, and email? Shouldn’t that be easy enough to verify?

Seriously strange

The New Neo Posted on by

[NOTE: I wrote this post last night and had it set up in such a way that it would automatically be published in the morning. I don’t do that often, but every now and then I do. It turns out that when a post is on a timer like that, any video in it automatically disappears, for some unknown reason. So, since this post consisted only of a video (and the title), it did indeed turn out to be seriously strange. And seriously blank.

That problem has now been remedied.]

ADDENDUM: Commenter “mezzrow” suggested this further offering by the same group, the Mnozil Brass. They can sing, too!:

A song for Memorial Day

The New Neo Posted on by

I’ve posted this song before, but I think it bears repeating, especially on Memorial Day weekend.

It’s Tim McGraw’s extraordinarily moving song “If You’re Reading This:”

If you’re readin’ this
My momma’s sittin’ there
Looks like I only got a one way ticket over here.
I sure wish I could give you one more kiss
War was just a game we played when we were kids
Well I’m layin’ down my gun
I’m hanging up my boots
I’m up here with God and we’re both watchin’ over you

So lay me down
In that open field out on the edge of town
And know my soul
Is where my momma always prayed that it would go.
If you’re readin’ this I’m already home.

If you’re readin’ this
Half way around the world
I won’t be there to see the birth of our little girl
I hope she looks like you
I hope she fights like me
And stands up for the innocent and the weak
I’m layin’ down my gun,
I’m hanging up my boots
Tell dad I don’t regret that I followed in his shoes

So lay me down
In that open field out on the edge of town
And know my soul
is where my momma always prayed that it would go
If you’re readin’ this, I’m already hoooommmmmeeee

If you’re readin’ this,
There’s gonna come a day
You move on and find someone else and that’s okay
Just remember this
I’m in a better place
Soldiers live in peace and angels sing amazing grace

So lay me down
In that open field out on the edge of town
And know my soul is where my momma always prayed that it would go
If you’re readin’ this
If you’re readin’ this
I’m already home

Cleaning Kleenex

The New Neo Posted on by

I always go through my pockets before I put my clothes in the washer. But it’s inevitable that every now and then I’ll miss something, and that something has traditionally been a Kleenex.

It used to be that, when that happened, I’d open the washer and the clothes would be covered with fine, shredded particles of white stuff, almost as small as lint. Everywhere. Sometimes the dryer would get a lot of it but not all, and usually that meant I had to wash the clothing all over again. Sometimes even that wasn’t enough.

But the last few times the dread Kleenex-in-the-wash has happened, I’ve noticed something new: the Kleenex doesn’t shred. The only sign that there was a Kleenex in there at all is that, after the clothes have been dried in the dryer, when I sort them out I discover a lovely, intact, completely clean Kleenex or two among them, looking for all the world as though it just came out of the box.

This is one of the most startling advances of modern technology ever, and as far as I know it has gone almost unremarked on by anyone till now.

[NOTE: Here are instructions on how to deal with Kleenex in the laundry if you have the old-fashioned type problem.]

This is the way it’s done: Noam Scheiber on the IRS scandal

The New Neo Posted on by

You know, I feel I need to thank the left for one thing. For much of my life, I’ve studied history but wondered how it was that certain things happened. How could people be so stupid, so gullible, so shortsighted, so (fill in the blanks) to believe in or support or make excuses for or ignore all the various forms of tyranny that have taken over in the 20th century?

How could they not see what was coming? How could they collude in the takeover, or at least not fight it with all their might? How, in particular, did so many of the leaders and the intelligentsia, who supposedly should have known better, and the man in the street who should have had more common sense, collude in their own downfall?

Well, I wonder no more. Whether or not our own left has actually gone the way of Nazis or the Gulag, whether they haven’t yet but give them time and they will, or whether they’ll never get that far but merely go the European socialism route, it’s no mystery how it happens.

It’s actually been evident for quite some time. But lately it’s become even more clear, as the left deals with the latest scandals in the most creative of ways, working all possible variations on the themes of illogic, distortion, obfuscation, projection, omission of important facts in order to make a point, and outright lies (I’m sure I’ve left out a few, but those will do). And then it’s brought home even more clearly by reading commenters on the left, and watching how they jump on board.

Case in point: Noam Scheiber’s article about the IRS scandal that just appeared in The New Republic. Noam’s theory, in a nutshell, is that the IRS overreach was the fault of the Republicans for cutting resources to government agencies, and the poor beleaguered IRS agents were just overwhelmed.

But Scheiber is not unique in coming up with that little act of jujitsu (which, by the way, reminds me of nothing so much as how my older brother used to tease me in time-honored fashion by grabbing my hand, jabbing it against my face, and asking, “What are you hitting yourself for?”). Other writers on left have said much the same. No, Scheiber’s most creative riff was that this was a form of purposeful entrapment on the part of the right:

And yet, when you take a step back from the IRS scandal, there does appear to be something slightly sinister going on. Except that the scheming is on the right and not the left. Since the Republican House takeover in 2010, conservatives have laid the groundwork for a cynical two-step: First, squeeze funding for government programs, making it harder for civil servants to do their jobs. Then, when the inevitable screw-up comes, use it as further justification for cuts. Against this backdrop, the IRS scandal looks like only the latest step in the conservative long-game.

Wow! Would that the conservatives even had a long-game.

Scheiber’s article should be laughable Onion-style stuff. Except that it’s not.

More evidence that the sun has not only set on the British empire,…

The New Neo Posted on by

…it has set on Britain as well:

If you’re thinking of getting steamed over [the Woolrich machete murder], don’t. Simon Jenkins, the former editor of the Times of London, cautioned against “mass hysteria” over “mundane acts of violence.”

That’s easy for him to say. Woolwich is an unfashionable part of town, and Sir Simon is unlikely to find himself there of an afternoon stroll. Drummer Rigby had less choice in the matter. Being jumped by barbarians with machetes is certainly “mundane” in Somalia and Sudan, but it’s the sort of thing that would once have been considered somewhat unusual on a sunny afternoon in south London…

That’s Mark Steyn writing, and he goes on to say a great deal that was already discussed here and elsewhere.

Jenkins’ use of the word “mundane” is positively stunning. We can assume that, as a former big shot editor, he is well aware of the meaning of words. But for the rest of us, let’s have a refresher on the meaning of “mundane”: “characterized by the practical, transitory, and ordinary : commonplace.”

Let’s hope Mr. Jenkins is not prescient, and that such acts never become either ordinary or commonplace in the West.

If you want to read Jenkins’ entire piece, see this, and make sure you read it to the end. It’s an interesting hybrid of things. For example, he’s certainly correct that part of the killers’ aim was to get lots of publicity, and if we somehow denied them publicity they wouldn’t be so inclined to do this sort of thing. But he ignores the fact that, when guys with cleavers hack apart a soldier on a London street in broad daylight, it’s already too late to keep it hush hush, or to moderate the response. If anything, the response was too mild, but Perkins would have us shrug and consider it a regular everyday murder, which it most assuredly was not.

What’s more, of course, he devotes quite a bit of space to ye olde terrorism explanation/excuse and the usual moral equivalence:

British and American operators indeed use drone missiles to kill Muslim soldiers, and inevitably civilians, on the streets of Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen. They deploy horrific airborne violence against communities, including in non-combatant countries. Retaliation for these killings may not be “justifiable” in our terms. But jihadists have no access to drones and must rely on car bombs, nail bombs, machetes and cleavers.

The result may appal Londoners, but there are no citizen journalists to witness the appalling impact of a drone attack on a Pashtun village. Can we be surprised when the other side (or its distant sympathisers) retaliates on London, where it gets so much more publicity than in Baghdad or Kabul? Of course, people should be able to walk peacefully down the street in London. They should also be able to walk peacefully in Kandahar, Yemen or Baluchistan.

This is the caliber of the kneejerk thinking among bigwigs in the MSM, there and here. Unfortunately, it has become quite “mundane” among the chattering classes.