Hijinx
I'm a few years younger than Romney, and I certainly don't remember everything I did in high school. It's quite possible he doesn't remember holding down a younger boy and forcibly cutting his hair to make him conform to Mitt's standards of manliness. It's really very possible.
But for that be true, it would have to mean that he had no emotional investment in it. That it was an ordinary day full of ordinary things.
Look, hijinx and pranks are one thing. But this was neither. This was cruelty. And for Romney not to remember it is disturbing, but of a piece with other things the many does and brags on doing. We all know the story of Seamus, but have we forgotten that it came out as a testimony to his toughness and no-nonsense way of doing things, from his supporters? His total inability to empathize with the people whose lives he ruined at Bain is another one.
So, yeah. I can believe he doesn't remember it. And that's worse than him lying about it.
6 Comments:
-
At 11:46 PM, May 10, 2012
Kathie had this to say...
-
-
At 9:46 AM, May 11, 2012
The Ridger, FCD had this to say...
-
-
At 2:21 PM, May 11, 2012
Kathie had this to say...
-
-
At 3:12 PM, May 11, 2012
The Ridger, FCD had this to say...
-
-
At 11:16 PM, May 11, 2012
Kathie had this to say...
-
-
At 8:59 AM, May 12, 2012
The Ridger, FCD had this to say...
-
-
<-- Older Post ^ Home Newer Post -->"Look, hijinx and pranks are one thing. But this was neither. This was cruelty."
WRONG. It's criminal assault (nowadays would also potentially be a hate crime). See, "U.S. says hate crime charges OK in beard-cutting case":
http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/local/neighborhoods-west/us-says-hate-crime-charges-ok-in-beard-cutting-case-632031
(Weingarten would savor that the lead defendant's surname is Mullet)
I'm reluctant to call this a hate crime. I certainly believe they exist, and hair-cutting can be one (your link, or shaving heads in France or Ireland of last century).
But I don't have enough information to know whether this action was meant to resonate with a larger group than the one unfortunate kid.
How was it any less offensive than if Mitt and his band of merry pranksters had instead held down and shorn an African-American schoolmate of his Afro?
I didn't say it wasn't offensive. In fact I did say it was cruel.
But my understanding of "hate crime" is that it is directed at a group via the individual. Burning a cross sends a message to every black person. Ditto gay-bashing.
This may well have been intended to send a message to every "effeminate" student with dyed hair, or even thinking about it.
I don't know. I don't anything about that school and its student demographics. That's why I'm reluctant to label it a hate crime instead of an act of cruelty.
If a violent action can reasonably be perceived as sending a threatening message not only to the immediate victim but also members of the victim's cohort, then I'd call it a hate crime (whether against a "gay" hairdo, or an Afro, or mutilation of some other feature). Also worth considering is that Mitt was already 18 (a legal adult) at the time, a large guy, and picking on a smaller, younger victim.
I didn't say it couldn't have been. I only said I don't know enough.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]