Skip

As Ann Marie pointed out, bullying has become quite the topic in schools today thanks to a new law that purports to be the "fin du fin" of the issue – top down control from Concord with a strictly controlled law that does not allow for absolutely minimal "local control" over what happens in the schools.

Look, I can agree with sentiment.  I was bullied in high school – I was one of the nerds.  And contrary to today’s politically correct, pacifist education world, I solved the problem myself in a most incorrect fashion.  No, I didn’t knock the snot out of my main protagonist; rather, a head lock was turned into a full Nelson and then I simply kept squeezing until he dropped. And cried.  And cried some more.  He never bothered me again.  His friends left me alone, too. A mark was left on him, but not a physical one – it was unnecessary.  The point was made, learned, and kept

Is that THE solution as well?  No, and I willingly admit to such.  It worked for me and in that situation.  And I didn’t have to run to the Government (the teachers or the Administrators) to solve my problem, either. And I didn’t have to resort to perverting some base principles in doing so. I realize that today is a different time and place – at least that’s what others keep telling me.  However, they seem to have this great problem in answering my question: sure and indeed – but do we have to have basic principles changed?

Funny think, principles.  Often, base principles never changed – or shouldn’t be changed.  So, in the context of the above, add this from this article in the Concord Monitor on this.  Tell me, what’s wrong here?  And what is the two principle that these seem to advocate for (one obvious and one not-so-obvious)?

‘If someone writes something mean about you on Facebook, your mom might tell you not to look at it or to just turn off your computer. But that doesn’t mean it won’t hurt you, because your friends can still look at it. And it might make it hard to go to school. So the mean person should get in trouble at school."…

…"A student should have the right to say what they want in a text message or e-mail, but not if it’s going to hurt someone’s reputation – like calling a person fat or stupid or saying that you hate them," a girl from a parochial school wrote. "I personally know someone who had that happen to her, and those comments never go away."

"The First Amendment gives us the right to say what we want in this country, but not if it affects our right to a safe environment," a local high school boy wrote. "I know a kid who doesn’t like to come to school out of fear."

Read more

Once again, we’re seeing the pronouncements, even in the background of Climategate and Al "I created the Internet" Gore’s (let’s see again, how big is his carbon footprint?) admission that his support for corn based ethanol was just pandering to farmers to bolster his run for President.  Once again, it is easy to see what the real agenda is.

After all, all of us little people just don’t seem to understand all these really smart people that have a much bigger problem to solve than our petty little ones.  And they are getting some uppity and upset that the vast majority of us just won’t listen to them.  But the gaffes keep coming out anyways – what’s beyond the smoke and curtains.

From The Scotsman:

Mexican president Felipe Calderon called on climate negotiators to put national interests aside and act on behalf of all humanity to fight global warming.

Opening a two-week conference in Cancun last night, Mr Calderon urged delegates to overcome the deep divide between rich and poor countries that has hampered efforts to negotiate a new climate treaty for three years.

"It would be a tragedy if our inability to see beyond our personal interests or national interests makes us fail," he said in a speech to delegates, businessmen and activists. "The atmosphere is indifferent to the sovereignty of states."

But the money transfers he wants are NOT indifferent to the sovereignty of national borders.  A poor excuse of an argument and ‘victimization’ – and like many, his self-interest is to see that transfer goes into his country.  Sorry, but my national self-interest comes into view here.  15,000 people?  And that carbon footprint is so small, right?  And frankly, any time I see anything like "indifferent to the sovereignty of states.", the fuzzy antenna go up and start wigging out.

Why?  There was this from his fellow countryman:

"Climate change is the most serious challenge our society has ever confronted," said Mario Molina, a Mexican chemist who won the Nobel Prize in 1995 for his studies on the ozone layer.

Really?  I would posit that…

Read more