I don't read the New York Times. I CAN'T really read lng articles in any newspaper (eyesight)--online or paper. But my younger daughter, who is a lawyer in a big New York City law firm, says that the New York Times had a rather amazing article about this ridiculous 50 year old "allegatin" that Mitt Romney "bullied" a boy in prep school in 1965. According to my daughter, The New York Times, actually went to the PARENTS of the DECEASED boy who was allegedly bullied.
What did the parents say? They evidently were UPSET that their son wsa being USED as a plitical pawn to make a PERSNAL SMER against Mitt Romney. You may have thought I did not mean it literally when I accused the Washington Post, CNN and the rest of being EVIL with regard to this story. Not so. I mean it literally: as much as I have ever meant anything in my life.
Why woould our media want t "debate' a single incident of 50 years ago as if it were relevant on who should be Presdient of tghe United States? In this circumstance, it INVADES TH EPRIVACY of a famiy wo evidenty did not want that privacy invaded. According to my daughter, the alleged "victim" could not even say what happened. He is DEAD. Pain. Mental angish. The media does not care what they inflict in their effort to "get Romney, no matter how od the SMEAR is. There is something supposedly not allowed in legal cases, although too many judges let lawyers evade the rules. There is something called a COLLATER ISSUE, which is either irrelevant to the real issues oin tothe case or of such minimal relevance that it is a total distraction and waste of everyone's time to try to "litigate' the collateral issue.
Let me give yu an example. Say a man is accused of murdering his wife, and is alleged to have had a broef affaor 5 years before. He disputes it. This is a COLLATERAL ISSUE. It MAY "prejudice" the jry, but it has basically nothing to do with whether the husband committed murder. Sure. CURRENT ADULTERY may have relevance. Not a 5 year old affair. If you disagree, go back ten years. The point is that it is INSANE to "litigate" this COLLATERAL ISSUE of whether the man accused of murder committed adultery YEARS AGO. The judge should NOT allow the lawyers to go into it, without a showing of REAl relevance (not jsut that the lawyers watn to prejudice the jury: the prosecutor in this hypothetical). Now you and I know that present TV peole might actually make a big pont out of this absurd collateral issue. That is because they are StUPID, EVIL peole.
Now realize that a ten year past adultery is MORE relevant than what is "alleged" against Mitt Romney. Yet, CNN had the absurd gall to call this 50 year past "prank" an "ugly incident". How does CNN know? They obvisuly DON'T. And it is ABSURD to try to find out fifty years after the fact. Even if it were an "ugly incident', and CNN shwoed NOTHING that proved that to be true, it is totally IRRELEVANT to who should NOW be Presdient of teh United States. and when I sa "irrelevant", I mean it should not be considered by ANY person. NOne. Zilch. Nada relevance. Zippo. The only 'relevance" here is how EVIL CNN , the Washington Post, and the rest are.
Doubt me? Never do that. It jsut makes you look foolish. I was in high school in 964. I was a "bookish nerd" in high school. That may still be a farily accurate deescription . Further, I did not ahve a SINGLE DATE in high schoool. I did nto even ASK a girl out. Then, as ow, I was TERRIFIED of the vicius creatures. I know my daughters are girls. I stand by the statemetn. I did not kiss a single girl in high school--much less have sex. You can see how any number of kids in high school might have considered me "ay", even though I have never had even a slight tendency in that directin. I think, however, you can consider me neurotic with regard to women--then and now. The pont is that I realy never remember myself as a "victim". I was not "popular" in high school, but you can see how that was hardly the "fault" of the other kids. I did not TRY to be popular, because I had no idea how. I was high xhool valedictorian, and I don't remember my high shcool years as unhappy. In fact, I considered them happy. I just would not consider them "normal" (whatever that is, which I stooped trying to figure ut when Hugh Grant cheated on Elizabeth Hurley with a HOOKER). I had my very few friends, my books and my brothers. I needed nothing else. Yep. There is at least one "bullying incident" that I remember. No. I would nto regard myself as "bullied" in high school. In fact, I never saw a "not-nomral" person being really BULLIED, although I saw things that coululd later by PORTRAYED tghat way. But I was ONCE a "victim" of "hazing" on the first day of school. Could I almsot make up any name who went to that high school at that time, and accuse tghat person of having done an UGLY thing to me (and maybe more ugly things to another boy "picked up" at the sam time? Sure. The incident scared me a little. It wasn't an official initiation, and I think I was just a freshman at my new school. At the tiem, and even notw, I cnnot see that any sane high school student would want to make an issue out of that. NOTHING HAPPENED TO ME, except I was a little scared. Similarly, I remember ONCE being "bullied" ("taunted", etc.). It was the only "fist fight" I ever had. (which is why I remember it). Some guy (again, I would hav no present clue as to his name) was "taunting" me. I "lashed out" wiht my fists at him. As best I can remember, NO blowas wer struck on either side. Was this an UGLY incident? Somone could ALLEGE so, these 50 years later. But I never eve thught abut officially complaining at the time, and would not do it now. People have to LEARN to deal with these things without thinking that some remote "governmetn" (ore even school authorities) will do it for you.
Now "hazing' was pretty much accepted in 1964 and 1965. Is it better that we discourage "serious" hazing now.? Yes and no. It is better that schools, clubs, etc. do not accept 'hazing" of the dangerous kind as "just playing around". It can be really dangerous, as evidenced by this florida A & M incident. It is good that it is not so prevaletn now. But have we become a antin of PRIGS and WHINERS? I am afraid so. Kids and parents are being told that school, and even the Federal Government, will "take careof" everyone so that there is NO "bullying". Give me a break. And gays, as much as anybody else, need to avoid the idea that they should never have to face a "taunt" or "name calling" in their life. I faced it. I know of any number of other peole who did. My really small (especailly in hihg shcool)younger brotehr faced it. There is a HUGE difference, which the media peole are trying to obscure, between DANGEROUS BULLYING and the kind of bulling that you just will never be able to stop. Creating a stupid "registry" for "bullies" will NOT stop bllying. It is absurd.
Whether you agree with me on "bullying' or not,you should get the pont. Thre were any number of people in 1965 and 1956 involved in "bullying" incidents. Did Obama ever act like a bully? Arrogant as he is, it is hard to believe he did ntot. But I don't know. I don't care. That is the same attitude that the media has toward OBAMA. But they do not have that same attitude toward Romney. That is because they are ALL PARTISAN HACKS.
Okay, if my younger daughter is describing the New York Times article correctly, the New York Times got it right. Not only does my daughter say that the NYT portrayed the EFVIL of invading a famiy's privacy over an incident way int hte past, but my daughter says the NYT went further. The article evidently bemoaned the DETERIRATION of political campaigns into PERSONAL SMEARS and ATTACKS that have nothing to do with whether a person should be Presdient. Woululd it make sense, 50 years later, for ME--or someone who "saw" the "fight", to talk about this boy taunting social misfit me those 50 years ago? Nope. No one's recollectin is even that good. I could not tell you the details with any accuracy. I don't even know wha t the "taunts" were abut. I remember some other gy,, in PE, who once told me n high school: "I bet I have more hair on my chest than you do around your genitals" (or words to that effect). That was actually a little hurtful, if true, which is why I (sort of) remember it. Did that statemetn DISQUALIFY that eperson from ever being Presdient of the Unnited Sates becasue he said sometning like that to a person WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN GAY? If you belive that, you shuld apply to work at CNN. You are the kind of EVIL person they want.
The New York Times, or whereever my younger daughter got her information, is right. It is an EVIL thing that the whole media AND candidate focus (especially on the left, but on the right as well is aimed at PRSONAL ATTACKS that have little or nothing to dso with whether a person should be President of the United States. I can't imainge "tattling" on anyone from high shcool or college. But I CAN imagine people with a POLITICAL or PERSONAL agenda bringing things up to try to destroy soeeone. I caN not only imagine it. It is happening. It is absurd and evil for it to be happenign. But my daughter's description of this article indicatest he article got it right This is DESTROYING political campaigns. You don't think Romney should be Presdient, as I do not? Okay. Fight him on the ISSUES. Th emedai needs to be DISCOURAGING the idea of decideing political campaigns based on overhyped personal attacks. Indded, the media SOMETIMES, criticizes "ngative ads" This ignores that the PRIMARY sourcde of negative ads in political campaigns is the MEDIA. no. I don't care if the canmdidates are "feeding" the "dirt" to the media. the media has RESPONSIBILITY for how they do their job, and they are doing it BADLY . The media should be DISCOURAING these personal attacks, and DEBUNKING their importance. Instead, especailly as to GOP candidatges, the media is ENCOURAGING peole to "come forward" with personal attacks (true or nto, and hwo can we ever tell?).
No. This "story" from 50 years ago about Romney's "prank" shows NOTHING abut Rmney. It, however, is concslusive about the EVIL of our modern media. No. Romney carrying a dog on top of his car does not tell us ANYTHING about Romney either. And Romney being a Mormon is not only irrelevant to whether he should be Presdient, but it is an EVIL in and of itself (makng THEOLOGY a campaign issue, as CNN is doing every single day, to the eternal shame of the BIGOTS on CNN).
If my daughter is right about the appraoch of the NYT article, tlhe article got this one right (what Rush Limbaugh calls a 'andom act of journalism"). More importantly to me, since my overall opinion of the NYT is not gong to change with one article, is that MY SAUGHTER realizes both tthat CNN, and tgher est of the mainstgream media, are PARTISAN HACKS, but udnerstaNds the EVIl of these IRRELEVANT personal attacks. Sinc you younger daughter intends to rule the entrie world some day, this could be very importatn. That is really why I keep gong with tis blog, when it does not seem nearly worth the time. This is the kind of thing that can only be stopped (the same as the EVIL of plls) one person at a time. If the internet starts filling up with articles like this (maybe better than this, but with the same point), the media will eventually realize that they are creating nothing but CONTEMPT for themselves, and dooing NOTHING but EVI to the American political process. I am dead serious here. I cannot think of ONE god thing that The American media is doing for our policitcal process. In fact, they ae doing their best to dESTROY it. I don't respect any off them. My younger daughter is coming around to that view. My brothers have that view. One person at a time.
Message to CNN: There is "one person at a time", and then there is "one person at a time". If my younger daughter EVER decides to come after you, assuming you have not long disappeared before she gets around to it, I feel sorry for you. I owuld not waant to be in yur shoes. And you women of CNN: I have really come down on Wolf Blitzer, John King and Anderson Cooper--alng with the hopeless Piers Morgan--but yu WOMEN of CNN are the worstr human beings I have EVER seen. Just wanted to let you kow. The daytime womeh of CNN really are the pits--even worse than the women of the unfair and unbalanced network. I keep adivsing my daughters to RAISE the intelligence level of cable TV by becoming one of those "info babes". Ture. My daughters are vicius creatures. They are, after all, women. And their thinking often leaves a lot to be desired. But there is no coparison between them and even the "lawery women" on cable TV. Maybe the medium turns their brains to mush, when they were not that dumb before. but my FEMINIST (the SHAME!!!!) daughters are head an shoulder s above ALL of these women.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight).