The political gripe thread--from Strange Days

Actually the compelling reason is twofold:

1. Tradition.

2. Not buckling to Low Information Victim based bullshit. But you know that already, dont'cha? Dont want to make things complicated, like looking at motives and stuff. I get it.

 

Of course there is. Money. I'm not saying that makes it right, but they have a lot of time and money invested in the marketing of that brand.

 

Well, I think it's time to quit beating a horse that anyone with common sense knows is dead.

So let's look at another aspect of 'offensive' conduct:

Six year old boy labeled with sexual harassment for kissing classmate
I want to point out, first, that this is more 'Strange Days' than political. Unless you count the 'War on Boys' as purely political which it isn't. But is IS 'Political Correctness' carried to the edge of insane actions.
If you really want to know WHY this 'zero tolerance' crap keeps happening in schools all over the country, here's the backstory:

Free Hunter Yelton
Meet the littlest casualty in the war on men.

The money paragraphs:

Let's not forget that the first volley was fired years ago, in the over-prescription of Ritalin in the effort to 'civilize' elementary school boys.
And of course this is not helped by the lack of men (real men / OR men or women who understand men*) in primary education and administration. That's a whole different aspect.
Good 'Strange Days' read example on War against Men by woman psychologist:

* We're talking DARWIN here, you either believe what Darwin espoused or you dont. Quit waffling!

 

and

does not equal

The whole piece starts to fall apart with the above claim, but it disintegrates here:

First off, the original action taken by the school (and subsequently by the district) was wrong and needed to be brought to light and corrected. It has been. But I'm seeing almost as much disconnect between accusing the kid of sexual harassment for what he did as I am in citing this incident as an example of a "war against boys". Is it really any more complicated than someone (rather stupidly) misunderstood and misapplied the directive?

Just curious though, why say it's not political, then link a blog that states the opposite? And why relabel the link, "Six year old boy labeled with sexual harassment for kissing classmate" when that link goes to an article titled "'Sexual harassment' wording dropped from 6-year-old's school record"?

 

Well Matt, I disagree. There IS a war against boys. and even the boy himself knows it. And you know it too. If you think about it.

You saw no way a Dep Ed directive had a hand in that? Of COURSE it was not intended to apply in this case, but Taranto pinned down exactly WHY it might have been. OTOH, there's a chance -though unlikely- that the school admin knew nothing about it. But they HAVE known about politically correct like forever.

Let's start with Darwin and 'The good old days'. How was order kept in the classroom when students got rowdy or misbehaved?
corporal punishment. We know that was time honored and ancient just from literature. Who were the recipients?
So, when paddles in the school were done away with, how was the problem solved...
Ritalin. What % of girls v boys do you reckon got wrongly sedated?
Why is that... where Darwin comes in.
Boys are naturally unruly, girls have to learn to be mean girls. Back when I was in school that feminine facet was much more subtle than it is now, of course.
The whole thing is part of 'zero tolerance' politically correct narrative. Leaving no room for 'common sense' outcomes.

How many boys used to get in trouble for fighting on the playground for simply wrestling? Bet you remember that happening. Even happened to me, until the lady {old maid we used to call them} dragged us to the vice principal and we told him. One crack each and told to take it home next time. ehh... we still fought but usually someone was a lookout.

Do you remember the two nine yo boys expelled from school because their bus driver saw them playing with toy guns in their own back yard?
IOW for being natural boys.
Now in my opinion that is part and parcel of a war against boys. and it isnt part of any party platform. Just promoted by those who think you can make rules and laws to put more order in society. And use draconian enforcement to make it so, removing all options for those who dont want to lose fed funding.
MY opinion: that busybody bus driver should have been isolated and ridiculed until she left town. Why do I say 'SHE'? Seriously?!!!! Although it COULD have been a man who was raised by a concerned helicopter mother.
Lol

 

So, Don.... you're against 'False Victimization'? do you think that every time that's done {like Heather pointed out below] that it should be brought to light and the TRUTH out? Is that what you're saying? Yes or no?
I'd be glad to help. And use only pubs you should approve of.
***
Strange Days, indeed: "Son, stay away from drunk girls and always get a 'yes text' or a sext without pictures, first and afterwards'"
- and all my Mom said to me was "Don't date any girl you wouldn't marry."
***

By the way, please point out where the little girl was upset about it. I must have missed that
_________________________________________________

Well, I come from a time when that was no big deal.. except to the two who would have had tender asses for a day or two.
But that 'rest of the story' is good to know.
Naturally, I retract my rant about the bus driver. She did the right thing if other riders were shot at, cuz now it IS the school's business.
See! The system works. Sometimes.

____________________________________________________

And speaking of....

Lots of squawking on Con blogs on how Paul Ryan has sold out. Lol....
All the LIV myopia isnt on the Dem side, I guess. It's called POLITICS and how it's supposed to work.
http://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2013/12/12/mr-ryans-dilemma/?singlepage=true
I bet Bill Clinton gets it.
And I also bet if Mr Ryan could do it, he'd wave a wand and remove all the technical problems with the healthcare[dot]gov web site. I know I would.

 

It's all about spin isn't it? "False victimization" sounds so much better than what's really going on here.

 

First I'd like to point out that this thread IS a good example of {mostly}adult dialog on various 'political issues'. How many times have we been told that there needs to be a national dialog on 'X'?

Second: Don is absolutely right on the ORIGINAL link being one sided. But I'd like to point out that when something like this comes up, I go to local news source, FIRST for one very good reason. They are part of the community and most likely to fairly represent the issue. Heather did a good job of followup and now I've seen the other side of the Hunter Yelton story. And how am I to know that the local is one sided when there's no clear indicator they are owned by Sinclair, Clear Channel or Salem Communications.
One does have to keep one's eye on human nature as it applies to the big picture.
So, I'm gonna have to go back to my original premise. If these were the good old days, little Hunter would have had his ass warmed for doing that repeated aggravation. How many here are against that? Or do you think Ritalin's the answer?

And DO justify the sexual harassment charge. And how an Ed Dept memo had absolutely nothing to do with that, giving the Fed custom of applying Carrot and Stick approach to local organizations and governmental bodies. Let's go back again to days of yore... Little Hunter continuously sneaks up on little Susie and pulls her pigtails, and gives her a push and runs away laughing.
So is Hunter a sex harasser or a bully? Or just a little boy? Doesnt his action around OTHER kids determine your judgement of him? I seriously don't know what he is but seeing his interview and what he admitted himself I dont think so.

But obvioulsy just speculalting, for some it might all come down to whether or not his mother watches FoxNews or listens to Limbaugh. If she does, then bring down the roof on her or hers.

Certainly, the fact that I might, never mind I find Limbaugh redundant. See my sig.
Don, give it up, we know your politics.. I have a good memory. Anyone who yammers on about MY parroting Fox or Limbaugh when I dont link them. Anyone who has said 'I doubt Obama and Alinsky exchanged notes.' Assuming that the rest of us dont actually READ anything about candidates' backgrounds.
You can just let up on that Evil right winger bullshit if you dont want me linking every stupid remark on MSNBC.
Why is it any time I seem to threaten your life view I get that Fox/Limbaugh Bullshit? I find it interesting, though I cant prove it that I had more fun debating outright Marxists, like Red Bob on the old Offal, and Hammer Time on the old Crew site than I do you? They were civil, at least and didnt seem to take personal offense.
All I can do is point out when I'm wrong, I take the bullet. sorta like real dialog on issues should be.
I giggle when I obviously touch your hot button but I take your references seriously. I could go into a long soliloquy on what we as a society owe liberals for espousing and working for their views. I would think anyone with common sense would do that. See, I consider myself a political moderate and that is borne out whenever I take one of those "What are your politics' quizzes".
Somehow I dont think you would play nice if we were to compare and contrast. No one who has displayed your venom toward anything conservative could.

In My PERSONAL opinion, Anyone who encouraged a member to work to support Ron Paul {yuck!}... While I do admire involvement in the process, I would NOT have done that and I'm pretty sure if the member had said he was going to campaign for Huckabee, you would not either.
Again, though that's MY opinion.
Besides {here's some fun} Media Matters declared victory over FoxNews.
So it's all over.. Rupert's obviously gonna fold his tent.
Or not..

Never mind anyone who cares can easily search the old site archive and find my comments on Hannity-Putz

Quit gloating over us poor losers. Votes count and Rupert lost. I get it
Unless you want to point out what a great job the elected are currently doing... then 'Gloat ON!'

Lol... :banana-linedance:

 

I rather doubt the boy "knows" it. He's 6 and likely isn't able to reason yet, so unless he's been told repeatedly, it's unlikely he's aware of any "war on boys". And even then, if there was a tv on or something else of monumental importance, like a bug crawling on the floor, it likely went in one ear and out the other. As for me, I went ahead and read through the various links and I think you're chasing shadows.

As for the directive, no I don't. You and the blogger both mention withholding of federal funds, but the directive doesn't. In fact, it's just a revised document that replaces the previous one on sexual harassment. The intent of the directive is worded pretty clearly and there's nothing there to suggest a logical increase in the zealotry in it's application. Title IX cites the cases that set the legal standards that have to be met in order for a financial penalty to apply, but those were there before the directive and haven't changed. Therefore, the directive doesn't increase a school's exposure. Aside from a very poor attempt to link the Yelton incident to the policies of Obama, I'm dumbfounded as to why either of you chose to point this directive out. If you think the school over-reacted out of fear of sanction, then cite the cases specified in Title IX and point out where they are unreasonable. If you can. At least that would make sense.

I'm old enough to have had quite a few boards cracked on my ass. One time in jr high, my science teacher (also our soccer coach and one so poor we coached ourselves and actually called him bus driver in jest) took me in for "licks" and broke the paddle when he hit me. The broken end flew up and smashed the glass on the vice principal's framed degree. Did girls get the same treatment? Of course not. They got licks, but it was a joke. It was also a joke when a female teacher administered them to either gender. Do I consider that as a "war on boys"? Nope. Nor do I think you can take anything away from the fact that boys were punished more b/c as you said, we're generally more unruly when we're young. Same goes for the Ritalin issue which I view more as a byproduct of laziness than targeting any one gender over another. It seems to be less of an issue these days, but that perception could be my own.

I did a little reading up on this "war on boys" beyond what you pointed out and still don't see it. The gist seems to be that girls are out-performing boys as a result of a feminist agenda. We used to have a society where the expectation of females was to get married and be a housewife/mom. Policies and directives were changed to encourage girls to pursue subjects like math and science and to foster an interest in having a career. As a result, the performance numbers for girls went up over time. During that time, we've seen increases in divorces, absentee fathers and single mother households. Subsequently, the performance numbers for boys have declined, especially as compared to those of girls. I don't see that as a result of the changed policies toward girls (or other races for that matter) nor is it indicative of any agenda against boys. It just means the conditions have changed and perhaps we need to look at policies and directives to assist the young men who have been affected. I think the correlation I'm making is far more likely (and logical) than any agenda driven "war on boys".

Holy Hyperbole, Batman!!!

 

Really, Matt? You don't believe in the Social Sciences?
Boy Trouble
Family breakdown disproportionately harms young males—and they’re falling further behind.
Related:
What if I pointed out how destructive the Great Society Food Stamp program was on inner city neighborhoods and blamed it largely on traditional Conservatives like Sen Robert Taft who thought male headed households should not qualify? Why do you think it's called WIC?
Did those guys REALLY want to destroy black families? No.. they just didn't think about 'Slippery Slopes'.

 

I said:

Where's the confusion? The hyperbole remark was directed at the statement in bold about draconian enforcement.

Obviously, there are potential unintended consequences with most things we do. That doesn't mean you do nothing either, though. And just as you say they didn't want to destroy black families (a "war on blacks"?), those educational policies aren't a "war on boys".

 

So you separate intent from results... What the hell is the difference?
Boy dies after School confiscates inhaler.

Collateral Damage, Sure. But if it were me, I wouldnt just be trying to change policy, I'd be trying to drive those who made policy into bankruptcy. It's not as if this is the first time that problem with the 'no drug rule' has come up.

 

The second hardest job in the country must be fact-check director for the Washington Post:


The biggest Pinocchios of 2013

Bullshit! The BIGGEST Pinocchios should go to WaPo, itself. They're only trying to cover their own asses for not doing their jobs. Who was it uncovered Watergate? Back when the press DID do their jobs and protected us 'non-entities' outside the beltway.

I'm really looking forward to the inevitable logic contortions, come Feb 2017. They will, as Limbaugh put it, be 'blaming a tiger for being a tiger.' And 'surprised' that he was, to boot.

 

Way to go Don. Another example of 'Look.. Squirrel!"
Fair enough.. was Limbaugh right or not? And he said that WAY back, referring to the type of issue, and 'Press Surprise'.
And would you like to comment on the point I made or just gaze at the sunset.
Strange how you always make it about me and my politics.

 

Don't be absurd, I said no such thing. What I did say is that unintended consequences do not equate to a "war on fill-in-the-blank". Seems pretty logical as wars, by definition, are not unintended. But since you asked, yes, I distinguish between intent and results. So does our Justice system.

I can play that game too, you know. So are you accusing the school of first degree murder? Or maybe Canada is conducting a "war on asthmatics"? Perhaps you'd like to offer this as further evidence in your perceived "war on boys" since, you know, he was a boy.

Of course you would. Do you even know the full story that you linked? Did the parent(s) talk to the principal and explain the need for an exception or attempt to change where the school kept the inhalers? Did they take it to the school board? Did they look at alternative options for his education (another school, private school, home school options). Did they know the severity of his condition? Or did they just go, that's the rule? Uh, okay, guess we'll see what happens. Were they negligible? Per usual, you've supplied a link to a sensational headline that doesn't address any of the pertinent questions needed to make an informed opinion.