I read a brief summary of the account of Romney's "disturbing" bullying incident. It didn't sound like anything worth mentioning to me. So I heard people talking about how terrible it was, so I went back and read the more complete account, thinking I must've missed something.
Apparently, I didn't.
Look, Mitt Romney apparently did something pretty nasty. But he was a young man at a prep school in the 60s. That's not to say everyone would do what he did: I was bullied, and stood up to people who bullied me and others. I hated bullying and I still do. But I also recognize the truth that young men will act this way, and there's nothing we can do about it. It's the responsibility of the bullied to stand up to it and deal with it, and it's the responsibiity of the bullies to grow out of it, and it's the responsibility of the adults to help both of them.
When I was in sixth or seventh grade, I made a conscious choice to no longer give a damn about people who disliked me, for whatever reason. It was as if a massive weight was lifted off my shoulders. I no longer allowed my emotions and view of self to be controlled by what others thought. Granted, not everyone can do this, and it was doubly easier for me: not only do I have a personality that allows me to easily do this, but I was physically larger than most of the bullies, which meant that while maybe I was teased or even occasionally attacked, it was far less for me than it was with smaller kids who were bullied. But the principle still holds: you have bootstraps; use them.
I've occasionally thought about kids who have bullied me and my friends in the past, and with one exception -- one kid who bullied everyone all the time, pretty much, and I stood up to him and got a sucker-punch bloody nose for it -- I can't see how I could possibly hold it against them today in any way, even thinking that it says anything negative about them as grown men. They were boys. That's what boys do. It doesn't mean anything now. Even for the one exception, I like to think he grew out of it, but he was on a pretty bad trajectory for a long time.
At the end of the day, with the kid Romney apparently attacked, it's just hair. If I found out my son did this, I probably would have given him a really terrible haircut with patches missing and made him go to school every day for a week with it, along with apologizing to the other kid, and loss of certain privileges for awhile. And if I found out my son was attacked like this, I'd simultaneously help him deal with it gracefully, while encouraging the school and other parents to take action. These are all learning experiences that happen with boys, and they're pretty well universal.
The only story this story tells me is that Mitt Romney was a young man, which I had already guessed.
Must have missed the same breaking story on MaObama's admission in Dreams From My Father where he 'tried drugs enthusiastically'.
MSM: Yawn
Posted by: yaddacubed on May 14, 2012 08:40 AMSeems everyone is not on the same page on this.
Posted by: katomar on May 14, 2012 09:10 AMMe too; I slapped a guy in the main hall staircase BETWEEN classes.
Puh-lease.
This was the SIXTIES: Men were men, women were women and, as unPC as it may be NOW, homosexuals and perceived homosexuals were still oddities... especially to young men in the throes of hormones.
It's ever so convenient that the basis liberal use for their outrage is always out of context - this time out of context for the TIMES - as they did with Mark Twain and the era of which he wrote.
America needs a decoder ring to communicate with liberals - one that automatically appraises the momentary agenda of that liberal.
Good grief.
Pictorial editorials:
Good Grief! ...again!
And a great big 'HELL, YEAH!' to every one of them.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 14, 2012 10:25 AMAgain, all the little liberal girls (of both sexes) forget the ERA - we still had 'greasers' and preppies, we had athletes and... non-'athletes'.
Guess which 'picked on' whom... yep, the stronger over the perceived weaker.
Oh gee, did that horrible strong vs weak mentality perhaps come from daddy's who fought WWII? Uncles who fought in Korea? Grandpa's who survived WWI? The Cold War waging at the time?
Remember it was also just the cusp of the hippie culture and feminizing of America and her men.
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 14, 2012 10:51 AMFalse. First, there's no evidence "privilege" was any sort of a factor. Second, just because he did something you reasonably think was cruel doesn't mean Romney was a cruel person. Third, the fact that he did this doesn't mean it was a pattern.
So you're really making a lot of things up. Try to not do that, please. Also, you didn't address any of the points I was making. Please fix that for the future, too.
The complete irony lost on the liberals is that President Downgrade is a complete supporter of and supported by the OCCUPIERS who terrorized ports, restaurants, banks, women...
But of course, recent bullying, crime and terroizing is absolutely trumped by denounced bullying ... 50 years ago.
What a load of typical liberal hooey. Progressive, indeed.
When can we start talking about the "Shut up, Rev Wright" scandal and coverup? Oh wait - that's RECENT history... and oh so inconvenient [/snicker].
Posted by: RagnarDanneskold on May 14, 2012 11:30 AM1) He did this when he was a HS senior. That's borderline adult -- very different from, say, an elementary school bully.
2) While "it's just hair", pinning someone down and cutting their hair seems more vicious than, say, punching them (even though I realize a punch can cause serious injury whereas hair grows back).
3) Romney's reaction even now has not been particularly empathetic and many people don't think he's being honest (though there's no proof). He said "As to pranks that were played back then, I don't remember them all, but again, high school days, if I did stupid things, why, I'm afraid I've got to say sorry for it." It seems odd that the others involved remember the incident vividly, but Romney, the instigator, doesn't.
What people doubt is that the adult Romney understands that his actions as a teen bully deserved the kind of punishment that pudge says he would give his own son.
As for the claim that respect for homosexuals is a new issue, you are right ...THAT IS THE PROBLEM. When I was a high school senior, in 1959, Nigger, Fagg and Kike were normal terms.
I was even asked (because of my grades) to join an elite club. I knew the club excluded Faggs, Niggers, Wops, and Kikes, vut would have joined if my Dad had not explained to me that this club would not be so happy when it discovered I was a Kike.
Seems to me Mitt never had that discussion with his father.
Posted by: SeattleJew on May 14, 2012 01:39 PMThis isn't a point. He's a boy. Call him a young man if you like, but boys/young men in college often do dumber things than those in high school.
While "it's just hair", pinning someone down and cutting their hair seems more vicious than, say, punching them (even though I realize a punch can cause serious injury whereas hair grows back).
Meh. Boys.
Romney's reaction even now has not been particularly empathetic
Good. Recall I said that I hated bullying, and I was bullied. But I would not expect someone who tried to bully me to be empathetic about what they did to me, and if I had been a bully, I would not accept blame for someone else's problems 50 years after the fact. What's there to be empathetic about? Dude did something bad to another dude, but it wasn't very serious, and then they grew up and got old. It's nothing. Literally.
many people don't think he's being honest
Shrug. I know for a fact that Obama lies almost every day, and has been throughout his presidency, about things far more important (like when he says -- and he knows it is a lie -- that Republican policies gave us the recession).
Even if he is not being honest (and I see no reason to think so), it's completely unimportant compared to what Obama lies about every day.
He said "As to pranks that were played back then, I don't remember them all, but again, high school days, if I did stupid things, why, I'm afraid I've got to say sorry for it." It seems odd that the others involved remember the incident vividly, but Romney, the instigator, doesn't.
Shrug. I've been bullied, as I noted, and I barely remember most of the details. Some of us let things go when we have no reason to hold on to them. I'm glad Romney seems to be one of these people, who doesn't sit around and fret about unimportant things that happened 50 years ago that he can do nothing about anyway.
Jew: Pudge misses the point.
False.
What people doubt is that the adult Romney understands that his actions as a teen bully deserved the kind of punishment that pudge says he would give his own son.
It's not about "deserving" punishment. I would punish my son not because he "deserved" it but to teach him a lesson, not because it was terrible in and of itself, but so it doesn't become a pattern. And there's no reason to doubt that Romney now understands that doing such a thing is wrong. You have no reason whatsoever to doubt this, largely because there's no pattern.
Seems to me Mitt never had that discussion with his father.
That's not possible. It could not possibly seem like that to you because you don't have any significant information that would imply such a thing. You WANT to believe it, so you do, regardless of how irrational it is. It's pretty much that simple.
Your view of Romney isn't all that different from the 1959 view of "kikes" you rightly condemn.
Would that be like Obama's EPA persecuting an Idaho family for two years for removing logs from a "wetland"?
Would that be like Obama's ATF and Justice Department selling hundreds of guns to Mexican narco-terrorists for transport across the border into Mexico?
Posted by: Attila on May 14, 2012 06:34 PMThey are so desperate, and all of their distractions are back-firing. You have to wonder what distractions they have planned over the next 6 months.
Posted by: Poppa on May 14, 2012 09:08 PMActually the dude on the receiving end of this little prank didn't get old; he led a tough life and drank himself to death. Not saying Mitt's prank, or all the other societal disapproval directed at gays, was to blame, but....
Posted by: csc on May 14, 2012 09:22 PMI can't tell whether you are lying or just ignorant. He died in 2004, at the approximate age of 57.
he led a tough life and drank himself to death
That, however, I know is a lie. You do not know the source of his liver cancer, nor much of anything about his life. For you to claim otherwise is a lie.
Not saying Mitt's prank, or all the other societal disapproval directed at gays, was to blame, but....
There's no "but"s. Romney could not possibly have been responsible for anything he did to himself. That defies all reason. Even if Lauber was dismayed throughout his whole life at the incident ... that's on Lauber, not Romney. Each of us is solely responsible for how we respond to what happens to us ... and this is especially obvious when what happens is so unserious as someone cutting your hair.
As I said, I would punish my son if he did this, to teach him a lesson. But equally important is teaching the bull-ee a lesson about how to handle adversity. Don't be a victim, don't wallow, and don't pretend like anyone owes you anything (including courtesy or respect). If he chose to ignore those and lived a miserable life -- which doesn't appear to be the case, just as it is unclear whether any of this even happened at all -- then that is entirely on him.
It is interesting that Lauber got kicked out for smoking a cigarette (tobacco, not pot), but Romney's actions didn't even merit any discipline. Yeah, it is possible memories are faulty, and Romney didn't do it -- but Romney has not denied doing it either.
So I think it is relatively minor, and shouldn't really weigh for much of anything against Romney. But Romney was still an adult, and legally accountable ...
Posted by: Richard Pope on May 15, 2012 12:46 AM- Pull a prank 50 years ago, that today might seem wrong, and you are ineligible for anything, ever.
- Support killing a baby as it's born and you qualify for the Presidency
That's what passes for balance "morality" from the Left.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on May 15, 2012 07:32 AM"[A]n additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician to induce labor and perform an abortion. ... I think it's important to understand that this issue ultimately is about abortion and not live births."
So you see... if the baby survives the abortion, he still favors killing it.
1. Complete intolerance of someone who did not conform to his idea of what was acceptable.
2. Flagrant disregard for the boy's personal boundaries.
3 A cavalier attitude about the prank that comes from a sense of privilege and power probably derived from his personal wealth and attitudes prevalent at the wealthy school.
Posted by: Linda on May 17, 2012 12:52 AMNot "complete," but significant, yes. As we've already established: he was a young man.
Flagrant disregard for the boy's personal boundaries.
Right. As we've already established: he was a young man.
A cavalier attitude about the prank ...
What kind of attitude should someone have about something unimportant that (supposedly) happened 50 years ago?
... that comes from a sense of privilege and power probably derived from his personal wealth and attitudes prevalent at the wealthy school.
Now you're just making things up. I advise you to not do that.
