I am completely against bullying in schools, except in the case of sissy boys who dye their hair and wear nail polish and who totally deserve whatever they get.

But those boys are the superhuman vampires who’ll fuck your shit up!

Eesh. I’m staying in the boat for this one, because this kind of shit makes me violent.

THREAD!

Corporal Clegg had a wooden leg…

But those boys are the superhuman vampires who’ll fuck your shit up!

Sparkly!

As for insisting that an “expert consultant” decide which students are “deemed” to be in need of “training” with regard to appropriate attitudes on “sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation” — well, this gets pretty scary pretty fast.

Instead of getting out of the boat, I’m staying in and chortling over this.

My favorite part is the Fox response, wishing LL Cool J luck in his “fledgling acting career”. Fledgling, eh? The claws are comin’ out!

As I read it, his complaint was two-fold…I’ve had beer so I am immune to crocodiles and tigers…

1) The bullying amounted to name-calling

2) The Feds shouldn’t be wasting money policing city schools.

In rebuttal to item one:

The United States alleged that the harassment against J.L. escalated from derogatory name-calling to physical threats and violence.

So this wasn’t a bunch of eight year olds making fun of another little boy for wearing his sister’s hand-me-down hiphugger jeans, but an apparent teen getting beaten for wearing make up.

In regards to item two:

The United States further alleged that the Mohawk Central School District had knowledge of the harassment, that the school district was deliberately indifferent in its failure to take timely, corrective action, and that the deliberate indifference restricted J.L.’s ability to fully enjoy the educational opportunities and benefits of his school. The district denied these allegations.

In other words, the district SETTLED the case not by admitting fault, but by ALL BUT admitting fault.

Clegg’s a dreg.

Now, let me first say that schools should not allow students to bully and beat up other students for any reason, including being gay or perceived as being gay. But it is quite a leap from that to saying that the federal government should police local school districts in this regard,

Now let me first say that conservative magazines should not allow irate readers to show up at their offices and beat their writers to a bloody pulp, but it is quite a leap from that to saying that the federal government should police its citizens in this regard,

What Clegg dogwhistles:

As for insisting that an “expert consultant” decide which students are “deemed” to be in need of “training” with regard to appropriate attitudes on “sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation” — well, this gets pretty scary pretty fast.

What readers are meant to hear:

As for insisting that fag decide which students are manly enough to be in need of rough buttsecks with regard to appropriate attitudes on faggy, thinky things — well, this gets pretty scary pretty fast.

ARG I GOT OUT OF THE BOAT.

Dear Clegg: If you continue to conflate gender and sexuality, you dumb fucking asshole, I will kick you in your hetero balls.

I’m staying in the boat for this one, because this kind of shit makes me violent.

Likewise.

As for insisting that an “expert consultant” decide which students are “deemed” to be in need of “training” with regard to appropriate attitudes on “sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation” — well, this gets pretty scary pretty fast.

And the supply of scare quotes is dwindling pretty fast!

Oh, whoops – I’m still not getting out of the boat just because T&U did, tho.

Oh, whoops – I’m still not getting out of the boat just because T&U did, tho.

This is wise. I don’t know what I was thinking. Also, I’ll stop posting so goddamn much.

The fact is, this is another example of the Obama plot to mainstream gay idiology and make it a crime to put gay in a bad light.

The fact is, there is also the problem of Obama excellerating our march to Socialism. You is that hope and change working out for you, libbies?

You is that hope and change working out for you, libbies?

Got my healthcare and I’m opening a re-education holiday camp for conservatives.

Gary? Interested?

Not only is this a dubious priority for the federal government — wasting the taxpayers’ money and ignoring federalism’s comity

I return to the question of: Why is preventing students from being bullied a “dubious” activity for any level of government to engage in? Oh right, because anytime the strong are prevented from preying on the weak, conservative penises shrink a little bit.

WTF? One of the top stories today involves that girl who killed herself in MA after being bullied for months, and this ass wants to make anti-bullying efforts into a big “OMG, GAYS ARE INDOCTRINATING YOUR KIDS!!!” controversy? My two high-school friends who tried to kill themselves were both gay, thankfully neither succeeded. Enough of this shit already.

Is Gary for real or is he one of you emulating a moronic reactionary? He’s so moronic it’s really hard to believe it’s anything but the latter. “Excellerating”?

B^4-

No fair winning the thread in the first comment.

As far as substantial response, there really isn’t one to the post. I mean, right-wingers are on the side of bullies, was this ever in doubt. In what ways aren’t right-wingers like school bullies? They have to side with the school bullies, that’s who they were, that’s their main peeps*.

The great thing though is that society is starting to move forward enough that our response to school bullies isn’t “oh yes, they were the alpha males, no doubt” but rather “god, I hated those fuckers”.

Now you know why they cry all the time about how they’re “losing their country”.

*This is also the reason they end up rushing to the defense of wife beaters, hate crime perpetrators, and child molesters.

WTF? One of the top stories today involves that girl who killed herself in MA after being bullied for months,

Yep. Just down the road a bit from me. And a woman at work has a daughter in the school and said it has shaken her. The DA in the case? A Republican, who by all news accounts, is doing the right thing based on the behavior of the kids.

If children aren’t thrown into the harsh sink-or-swim environment of surviving bullying and physical violence as youngsters, then from where will we get our psychotically sociopathic population of neo-Khan political advisers and Wall Street bank-wreckers who are the better sorts which keep this nation going?

Oh, whoops – I’m still not getting out of the boat just because T&U did, tho.

This is wise. I don’t know what I was thinking.

You were probably listening to Rush.

Either one.

illegal harassment is defined to include name-calling in a high school when a male student dyes his hair and wears makeup and nail polish (in this case, the Justice Department “alleged that the harassment … escalated from derogatory name-calling to physical threats and violence”).

Well… yes, I guess that if harassment escalates from name-calling to physical threats and violence, it does technically include name-calling.

If you define “wasting company resources” as occasionally forgetting to print double-sided (and in my case, shopping online all day escalating to selling the server on E-Bay and revenge arson) then yes, I suppose I “waste company resources.”

In what ways aren’t right-wingers like school bullies? They have to side with the school bullies, that’s who they were, that’s their main peeps

In some cases, I’d agree. I’d guess a lot of them were victims, though, who had a really unfortunate Stockholm-syndromey response of admiring the dipshits who were beating them up.

And one of the worst of them all, Karl Rove, may well be the way he is because he was beat up by a girl.

the young zombie goes to an urban public school district, and there are admittedly difficulties, most of them stemming from lack of funding and the inequities with suburban, majority-white schools; however, I am happy that the district has always been very proactive in defusing bullying situations

When I am feeling all hopeful and shit, I like to imagine what kind of job they would do if they were ever adequately funded….

hell, they might even be able to make something of Gary.

I wanted to try out my new mango detector. Splish-splash.

And gosh, look what I found!

…schools should not allow students to bully and beat up other students for any reason, including being gay or perceived as being gay. But it is quite a leap from that to saying that the federal government should police local school districts in this regard, with further leaps out of the real world if illegal harassment is defined to include name-calling in a high school when a male student dyes his hair and wears makeup and nail polish…

So the shorter is literally, exactly correct. Structure the above: 1. bullying fags is bad. 2. the government should have no role in making sure fags don’t get bullied. Fags should be fair game for bullying.

It’s absolutely astounding.

I meant 3. Fags should be fair game etc. but of course fucked up an otherwise laser-like post.

I so want to believe Gary is real, but nobody could possibly be such a venal asshole as the imaginary ur-Gary is. Anyway, if there was a real Gary, he’s like the Dread Pirate Roberts, a series of impostors handing the torch down across generations. The original Gary died of loathing.

“wasting the taxpayers’ money and ignoring federalism’s comity — [blah, blah, blah, blah-de-blah] Title IX — one of the two laws relied on here — prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex, not sexual orientation.

…. and the Obama administration’s apparent position that, for example, high-school dress codes are unconstitutional if girls are allowed to wear makeup and boys aren’t is, well, silly.

So in other words, its a damn waste of money to stop the alpha-male-hetero-patriarchy culture to flex its muscle and gnash its teeth at the non compliants, because if we do, then our alphas will be sissy-pansies and my portfolio in private prisons, Raytheon, GE and nuclear war head development might fall as well.

And for good measure he throws in what I would assume is a blatent lie wrapped in a little tiny seed of truth. “Obama cares about sissy boys more than the Real Men.”

Watch for his next article, “Proof: Obama wears eye shadow and cries before hurt puppies.”

Inconceivable!

I’ve never seen Bunny “Dregs” Clegg but I would wager real money that he’s a bit on the prissy side his own self. The picture above is all I need to go on. Ten to one says he’s frequently mistaken for a flaming queen.

Always. Trust. The. Shorter.

Jebus, when will I learn that clicking through only makes my head explode?

I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

Nym change fail! Damn.

I probably linked to this in the past, but here’s SOME OTHER GUY NOT ME discussing latency in the Repugs. That email address no longer works, by the way. So I hear.

Fear of teh gay is so central to the wingnut mentality. Nothing screws up their static world view like the idea that gender presentation, outside of biology, is just social convention.

Babies can’t swim in the deep water alone, out there where decisions and choices abound.

The fact is, this is another example of the Obama plot to mainstream gay idiology and make it a crime to put gay in a bad light.

I love how you, Clegg, and the school bullies all make an immediate leap from “makeup and hair dye” to “OMG ghey phag0rt!” Freud would have a field day with that.

I’m going to a nice gai wedding next month. It’s twixt a couple of friends of mine that have been together for something catastrophic like 28 years. The strange part is they’re doing it in Connecticut because California won’t have ’em. My wife and I got married in New Hampshire for the same reason — FY California.

The point has nothing to do with that. Said f[ding]s have been through hell in their lives, over the years. It blows my cock mind that will all the misery heaped on any subset of humanity by the white male hetsupremacy, the victims can still put lives together.

Gay weddings are near miraculous.

“with all,” not “will all.” I need to get high, I think.

Worse than that, 212. The harrassment went on for over two years. The student was threatened with a knife, received various death threats, and was pushed down the stairs, subjected to daily continuous harassment–and the adults did nothing. Repeated complaints, recourse to the principal, superintendent, everybody. Continuous, obvious, intentional, flagrant failure to act. Sure, it would be a tough one for a school to manage…but not that tough. I am a teacher of long standing in various secondary situations, and I guarantee that I could stop that harrassment or at least reduce it very substantially within two weeks. A lot of kids would get suspended, believe me, but it is simply grotesque that a school would fail to do that.

Clegg makes it seem like the govt. bullied the district, but in fact the suit was likely to bankrupt the school district when they lost big, which they were going to do. The consultant gig was proposed by the school district, and the district gets to choose who the consultant is (with the ACLU getting a veto.)

God it pisses me that the Corner doesn’t allow comments. No accountability to their grotesqueries.

ice9

like the idea that gender presentation, outside of biology, is just social convention.

Oh come now, humans are not tabula rasa, and some of our behaviour stems from biology, but the trick is not to impart any moral value to those evolutionary tendencies. Even if some behaviour aspect is statistically abnormal for a person of whatever gender, the question is why conservatives can’t just deal with these exceptions? Yeah, most men like having sex with women, but some prefer men – so what?

hell, they might even be able to make something of Gary.

Mystery meat for a Thursday cafeteria lunch, perhaps.

Ah, bullying in schools. I remember it well. (Something often forgotten in these discussions: you don’t have to have an actual interest in PENIS to be gay-bashed in America; you just have to be a little different, that’s all.)

By the time I got to high school and saw a sizable number of goons still acting the same way they did in first grade, I remember thinking, “How are these guys ever going to function as adult men in the real world? I can’t picture them acting normal when they’re in, like, their 40s or 50s. What HAPPENS to people like this when they get old?”

Now that I’m 52, I see angry white Republicans on TV (less so in real life because I live in the socialist gay abortion paradise of San Francisco, thanks be to Allah) and realize, yes indeed, society has been kind enough to give these sorry-ass boys a niche in life. And they haven’t changed a bit, bless their shriveled black little hearts.

“Oh come now, humans are not tabula rasa, and some of our behaviour stems from biology, but the trick is not to impart any moral value to those evolutionary tendencies. Even if some behaviour aspect is statistically abnormal…”

Oh come now, but where does the normal stop and the abnormal begin? I have no problem with this discussion or its import, my point is that an entire social construct shouldn’t hang on it.

Patriarchy is a social construct and I’d posit a very destructive one that could use some serious deconstruction.

Did somebody mention sparkly boy superhuman vampires?

Corporal Clegg had a wooden leg…
He won it in the war. In 1944.

Oh come now, but where does the normal stop and the abnormal begin?

At the end of my driveway.

“I’m not mean. You’re just a sissy.”

Wonderful timing. Try this one (http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinion/story/dealing-with-aus-anti-sex-brigade/) – it’s a variation called “I’m not a rapist, you’re just a slut.”

The comment that blew everyone’s fuse was this one;

Let’s get this straight: any woman who heads to an EI party as an anonymous onlooker, drinks five cups of the jungle juice, and walks back to a boy’s room with him is indicating that she wants sex, OK?

After the dust settled down a little, Alex, rather than apologize, set off the following bomb;

You people are a bunch of Victorians. Who is the woman-hater? The guy who says that women have sexual power, or the person who says that women are porcelain dolls? The guy who says that women are tough enough to take some cat-calls, or the person who says that that constitutes “sexual harassment”? The guy who says that rape should not shatter a person’s life—or the person who says that it constitutes utter trauma? Give me a break.

Conservatism 101. Goes all the way back to Reagan saying “people going to bed hungry? they must be on a diet lulz!” Victim-baiting and bullying are their stock in trade, and when they get elected, it shines through in everything from who to bomb to who not to help.

Nothing screws up their static world view like the idea that gender presentation, outside of biology, is just social convention.

True, but the broader concept of social construction – any form of social construction – really creeps them out. The idea that they talk about Jebus because they were born here and would be talking ch’allah if they’d been born somewhere else makes their heads go splody. Or the idea that worshiping “the free market” equals “freedom” only in the U.S. because of our political history… Or the idea that Rush produced music…

Did somebody mention sparkly boy superhuman vampires?

Is anybody else having problems with their pants?

Even if some behaviour aspect is statistically abnormal for a person of whatever gender, the question is why conservatives can’t just deal with these exceptions? Yeah, most men like having sex with women, but some prefer men – so what?

Oh, nice try, LIEbruls, with your pretend empathy. But as Fraulein Missus Doctor Professor Insta-Wife and her high-powered team of commenters have definitively proven, liberals just don’t have the empathy bone that truly allows them to understand how another person might feel.

Re the article;

The Department’s civil-rights division announced yesterday the terms of its settlement with a New York school district that, in the division’s opinion, was insufficiently aggressive in protecting a young man from “harassment based on sex” by other students.

Good. I’m happy to hear the Civil Rights Division is finally focusing on protecting the civil rights of minorities rather than the evangelizing rights of conservative religious groups, as it did during the Bush years. And considering that the CRD was essentially under the religious right’s control for eight years (hello fox, meet henhouse), I’m quite ready to believe that the harassment of the gay community’s left quite a legacy for them to clean up.

Now, let me first say that schools should not allow students to bully and beat up other students for any reason, including being gay or perceived as being gay. But it is quite a leap from that to saying that the federal government should police local school districts in this regard […] Not only is this a dubious priority for the federal government — wasting the taxpayers’ money and ignoring federalism’s comity — but it is a legal overreach.

This looks like fun. Can I play too?

Now, look. I’m the first person to say that women shouldn’t have abortions, ever. But it’s quite a leap from saying that Junior is a human life from the moment he/she’s conceived, to saying that it’s the federal government’s place to police a woman’s body. Not only is this a dubious priority for the federal government – wasting the taxpayers’ money and ignoring federalism’s comity – but it is a legal overreach, especially since the Supreme Court’s explicitly ruled that it’s a woman’s right to have an abortion, and there isn’t a word in the Constitution saying that it’s the government’s job to prevent abortion.

The whole “just because it’s a right doesn’t mean the federal government should protect it” shit is ludicrous. And they don’t even believe it themselves, as you’ll find out if you ever mention on of their pet projects like abortion. They just don’t like fags very much and object to any use of taxpayer money to protect them (and if that taxpayer money was being funded at the state or local level, they’d be bitching just as loud).

Everything I know about gender analysis I learned from Milton Friedman and Salma Hayek.

Oh come now, but where does the normal stop and the abnormal begin? I have no problem with this discussion or its import, my point is that an entire social construct shouldn’t hang on it.

I wholly agree with that. BTW, my use of “abnormal” wasn’t intended in the usual derisive/judgmental way, just that someone who is in the 1% is “abnormal” by comparison to the 99%. That could be because they’re Michael Jordan or it could be because they’re a psychopath. My point is being “abnormal” isn’t bad unless the actual “what” of your condition is itself bad. Deviation from the norm itself shouldn’t be the issue, but I think it largely is for conservatives.

Patriarchy is a social construct and I’d posit a very destructive one that could use some serious deconstruction.

I’m a big fan of deconstructing illiberal institutions that enforce anti-meritorious hierarchy (like the patriarchy) but its near ubiquitousness among different cultures (think of the various caste and class systems) suggests it is partly the result of some natural forces present in the human animal. I don’t claim to know exactly how much is social construct and how much is biology, but I find that ignoring the biology aspect leads to unproductive approaches to actual solve the problems and create that more egalitarian world. If a given behaviour trend is partly biological, I think a solution approach that assumes it is purely constructed won’t work very well, and may be even counter productive.

I think we all understand this for things like say, human desire to eat sugar, salt and fat. Some people don’t like these things, but most do, and food scientists have exploited those trends to obvious socially destructive results in the obesity and diabetes rates. Solutions that only involve public education on the dangers of too much sugar/salt/fat are only of marginal value. America doesn’t eat too many bacon cheeseburgers (just) because Burger King and McDonald’s socially constructed a love of these foods via advertising.

I dated a Dutch soldier—a very heterosexual fireman near seven feet tall who looked great in green eye shadow. Dutch soldiers were allowed to wear eye make-up with their uniforms. That was in ’81. Why we have all these stupid obsessions escapes me.

Wonderful timing. Try this one (http://www.theeagleonline.com/opinion/story/dealing-with-aus-anti-sex-brigade/) – it’s a variation called “I’m not a rapist, you’re just a slut.”

Yup. Saw that the other day. Funny how I’m hearing at least once every couple of months about these frat boy assholes writing columns about rape that are just “jokes” and people who object to them are uptight prudes who think women can’t take care of themselves. Methinks these fratfucks doth protest too much–they’re probably rapists themselves and are just desperate to believe they aren’t.

Holy mother of god, that was some run-on sentencing. I blame wiley for distracting me with thoughts of tall Dutch soldiers in eyeshadow.

Dutch soldiers were allowed to wear eye make-up with their uniforms.

Please, please tell me he wore wooden shoes.

Oh, hey.

Just get done watching a heart-wrenching episode of “House, M.D.” involving a dying woman who looks very much like a friend I had a mad crush on back in college and I end up almost weeping over a fucking TV show, then I stop by and El DucheBague up there is defending – FUCKING DEFENDING – bullying and I’m having flashbacks to my time in junior high and high school running the fucking gauntlet every day… and Roger BLEEEEEEEEUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGHHH! says it’s just name-calling and people need to man up and not let the evil big gummint interfere in their lives and he should cry his thanks to Big Muffin what sit in the sky that no, I can’t punch him as hard as I can in his kidneys over the Internet, ’cause that’s what I’m feeling like at the moment.

So! How’s by you?

OT, for geeks only: Big Daddy Plush Toys!

Pere U –

First, as many have said upstream, these chunks of garbage defend bullying because their worldviews are fucked. It really is them and not us.

Second, never underestimate the power of drama and melodrama – even the cheap stuff – to remind us of our own lives in all sorts of uncomfortable ways.

Feel better, buddy.

Wooden shoes would be a terrible choice for a fireman. Paper hats would be bad also.

N_B –

thanks. 🙂

Wooden shoes would be a terrible choice for a fireman. Paper hats would be bad also.

So I’m guessing the creosote underwear’s a no-no, too.

Conservatives are pretty lazy — isn’t it a lot of work to have to remember to be petty and mean all the time?

Thanks for bringing this tasty mango back to our boat, sorry about your foot, we’ll work hard to stop what’s left of it from becoming gangrenous…

Now, let me first say that schools states should not allow students bigoted white men to bully and beat up and lynch other students men for any reason, including being gay Negroes or perceived as being gay uppity. But it is quite a leap from that to saying that the federal government should police local school districts violate states’ rights in this regard […] Not only is this a dubious priority for the federal government — wasting the taxpayers’ money and ignoring federalism’s comity — but it is a legal overreach.

Fluxed, with Marty McFly’s DeLorean.

No wonder rightie-tighty-whiteys are so goddamned whiny these days: over the last fifty-plus years, we libs have diligently succeeded in whittling down their list of victims, from “damned near everybody who isn’t them,” to “only the most weak and powerless amongst us.” Pretty soon, we’ll empower even teenage fags goths, and then who will our unrepentant bullies hurt?

“Conservatives are pretty lazy — isn’t it a lot of work to have to remember to be petty and mean all the time?”

Not if you have a Superior Conservative Gene (TM) that doesn’t let you be anything else, which, as PJM conclusively proved yesterday, all of them have.

Dutch soldiers were allowed to wear eye make-up with their uniforms. That was in ‘81.

Officer: Well what’s that black stuff around your eyes. Is that mascara?
Recruit: All right. I can see it’s no good lying to you. I confess. It is mascara. Only a little bit.
Officer: What on Earth for?
Recruit: It’s my mother sir.
Officer: Your mother?
Recruit: You see my mother was the first woman to fly the Atlantic in a [pause] Gaseo Glider.
Officer: What happened?
Recruit: She… she crashed. Spun down into the sea and was never seen again. They found only her false eyelashes, floating. And so, you see, ever since I have worn mascara in her sacred memory.

No wonder rightie-tighty-whiteys are so goddamned whiny these days: over the last fifty-plus years, we libs have diligently succeeded in whittling down their list of victims, from “damned near everybody who isn’t them,” to “only the most weak and powerless amongst us.” Pretty soon, we’ll empower even teenage fags goths, and then who will our unrepentant bullies hurt?

To do the reverse of what PJM was doing to us yesterday, I think that’s pretty much modern conservatism in a nutshell. Their world’s been taken away from them, a process that started in the Civil War and ended when the civil rights movement put the last nail in the coffin of “their” “America.”

It’s much too late to turn the clock back, and they know it. They know their America ain’t coming back, ever, so they simply lash out at all the weakest people they can find. In school, they’re the bullies; in college, they’re the frat boys having good clean drink-spiking fun; in adulthood, they’re the Plumber Joes complaining about tax money going to fund those fat and lazy homeless folks. Hate and bitterness drive conservatism as surely as they think sociopathy drives us.

The idea of the rule of law implying the strong not harming the weak is only 37 or so centuries old, so conservatives are not all going to be on board with that, what with the whole standing-athwart-history-yelling-duh thing.

This Clegg guy, I liked him better in Juluka.

“I don’t claim to know exactly how much is social construct and how much is biology, but I find that ignoring the biology aspect leads to unproductive approaches to actual solve the problems and create that more egalitarian world. If a given behaviour trend is partly biological, I think a solution approach that assumes it is purely constructed won’t work very well, and may be even counter productive.”

Tragically, I pretty much agree with you, I think we diverge on certain split hairs.

Frankly, the notion I have is stripping the dependency on rigid constructs because biology will come through regardless of human efforts to suppress it.

But changing role and identity constructs has the potential to completely turn a lot of destructive shit right on its head.

What HAPPENS to people like this when they get old?”

They get elected to public office.

As for insisting that an “expert consultant” decide which students are “deemed” to be in need of “training” with regard to appropriate attitudes on “sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation” — well, this gets pretty scary pretty fast.

Yes. Clearly such things should be left to traditional infrastructures capable of dealing with such weighty issues. If these boys had simply spent more time being educated by Catholic priests, I’m sure things would be very different.

Yeah, the bullies grow up to be Rethugs. They nearly killed me when I was a teenager, but I escaped into alcoholism and drug addiction. That showed them! Coming out was a reprieve from the worst of the self-abuse ( I found plenty of willing partners to help!), but eventually I bottomed out (one doesn’t circle the drain with versatility) and have put the pieces back together rather well. I’m one of the lucky ones. There was some lasting damage to linearity of thought, but I now have a look and attitude that puts the fear into bullies. They are never quite sure how dangerous this 6’2″, 210lb, pierced and tattooed, handsome queen might be. I love to unnerve them with some smoldering eye contact and a growled greeting.

I teach at a 6-12 school of 1000 students, of whom, many happen to be sissy vampires. They tend to be some of the most popular students in the whole bloody school. There are almost no cases of bullying in my school. Ever.

Um, yeah, it IS a performing arts school. Also. Wanna make somthin of it?

Bite me.

Pleez?

But to be fair, it sounded better in the original German.

What HAPPENS to people like this when they get old?”

They get elected to public office.

Well yes, that question was my teenage self first getting a clue as to how the world works.

Of course, they don’t all make it to public office. Some of them end up as the “Get A Brain, MORANS” guy or the boys who had a great time running around after 9/11 looking for people in turbans to beat up.

The douchebag who wrote this article is another matter. He’s more like the twerpy smaller ones in the gang who hung back smirking and jeering but not risking their own necks while the alpha bully did all the work.

What HAPPENS to people like this when they get old?”

well, last weekend they were all in that little town in Nevada…

Why in the hell you lurking back here, ZRM? We’re talking sex up top.

J Neo Marvin – fuckin’ a right.

When should the Federal government get involved in a local school’s policies?

The answer to this is actually quite straightforward:

If the school does not keep a student safe, the city or county should intervene.

If the local government will not keep a student safe, the state government should intervene.

If the state will not keep a student safe, it’s time to make a Federal case out of it.

See? Not so complicated.

If the state will not keep a student safe, it’s time to make a Federal case out of it.

The obvious question, then, is “Was the State of New York given a chance to make things right?” And the answer, as far as I can tell, is no. The kid went straight from the school district to the feds. So, unfortunately, Clegg’s bitching about the federalist chain of command is justified in this case. Also unfortunately, I’m having difficulty finding evidence that Clegg is a hypocrite on the issue of feddle overreach.

Swing and a miss, kids. Swing and a miss. Too bad, too, ’cause there’s plenty of actual stupid to go around, starting with the freaking headline. That word “jihad”… is that supposed to be a Sekrit Muslin dogwhistle, or is it just lazy and retarded (satire!)?

Butch Pansy said,
April 1, 2010 at 6:46

Marry me??

@Andrew N.P.

OHNOES going to the feds forced the school district to do something about the problem!

@davek,

Hey, I’m not the one bitching about it. I don’t expect the feds to follow the rules. I expect them to do what they think is right and make up an excuse for it later. Sometimes that’s good (yay, some kid’s not getting bullied any more!). Sometimes… not so much (yay, a million sand people have been gibbed!). Either way, there’s not much that can be done, aside from making sure the Chaotic Good guys are elected over the Chaotic Evil guys.

Well, I’m of the opinion that it doesn’t fucking matter who stops bullying, as long as it gets stopped. Kids shouldn’t have to patiently go through every pissant level of law, hoping someone finally gives a shit, as their childhoods are violently eroded.

What’s the alternative? Half the students grunting sociopathic retards and the other half dead?

And a bit of eyeshadow’s supposed to be worse??

Well…

Once there was “sex”, a classification based on the role one plays in the act that generates new human beings. (I don’t know why this is so difficult, but there you go.) Then there was “gender”, a classification based on various other attributes that tend to go with one or the other sex. This is where the confusion starts, as (1) social conventions (based on value judgments that can go one way or the other, including in matters of biology–“What does this extra hair on men’s bodies mean?”) are confused with Features Of The Universe, and (2) general tendencies are used to judge the appropriateness of individual outcomes, on both ends of the gender-ID spectrum. I think this is what all the hand-wringing is about, both in the conservative community and the gay community, with its preoccupation with seeming “square” so the actual squares won’t beat them (us?) up or something.

Funny thing is, Clegg’s quote can be read two ways. What if he got to appoint the “expert consultant”? What if he got to “decide which students are…in need of ‘training’”, or got to decide what the “appropriate attitudes” were? In fact, that’s how I read it at first. He’s only exercised about it because the decisions aren’t going his way.