Tuesday Afternoon/Evening Open Thread

---

We need something more cheerful to finish the day. I’m looking forward to the season premiere of Law & Order Criminal Intent. I’ve got cold beer in the fridge and a pizza waiting to go in the oven (it’s only 3:30 here in Big Smoggy)

What are you doing this evening?

Via Historiann:

Bullied to Death

---

The Boston Herald:

Nine teens, three of them juveniles, have been charged in connection with the Jan. 14 suicide death of bullying victim Phoebe Prince, with counts ranging from harassment to statutory rape.

Today’s announcement from Northwestern District Attorney Elizabeth D. Scheibel was the culmination of a two-and-a-half month criminal probe.

Prince, 15, a recent immigrant from Ireland, was reportedly found hanged in her home after enduring weeks of torment from bullies on Facebook and in the halls of South Hadley High School.

“It appears that Phoebe’s death on Jan. 14 followed a torturous day for her, in which she was subjected to verbal harassment and threatened physical abuse,” said Scheibel.

The DA added South Hadley High School officials knew of the bullying of Prince. “It was common knowledge,” said Scheibel, adding the girl’s mother spoke to at least two school staff members.

Egalia at TGW adds:

The young girl’s tormentors called her an “Irish slut” and “a whore.”

Seven of the nine alleged bullies are female.

These kind of stories are always disturbing. Most bullying doesn’t result in death but it can leave permanent psychological scars.

The dumbest thing Chris Bowers ever said

---

Forget Chris Bowers’ discussions of the creative class, bubbas and squishy goo-goos. His most recent post “The progressive Internet space changed because Obama convinced it to change” takes the cake:

I spent much of 2008 exasperated by a progressive Internet space that had seemingly reversed itself overnight on things like the value of triangulation, bipartisanship, appearing Fox News, allowing Joe Lieberman to keep his seniority, sending more troops to Afghanistan, retroactive immunity for telecom companies, replacing local state party organizers with ones who answer directly to the DNC, and much more. It seemed as though numerous policies and strategies that had held near-consensus stature within the progressive online ecosystem had been either scrapped or reversed simply because Barack Obama said it was a good idea to scrap or reverse them.

Back then, the urge to call people who reversed their positions lobotomized “sheeple” was almost impossible to resist–and I frequently did not resist it.

However, that is not an impulse I feel anymore. This is because I realized Barack Obama persuaded progressive activists to change their minds not because those activists are sheeple or because activist organization leaders operate in “veal pens,” but rather because Obama developed new messaging that was more convincing than the likes used by myself, or BTD, or anyone else on the left who was making contrary arguments. He just beat those old arguments, plain and simple, and the progressive Internet space changed.

In the comments Chris gives us the Cliff Notes version of his thesis:

Winning the argument and winning the election are the same thing.

There is so much fail here, where should I start?

First of all, Obama lost the primary election. Yes, it’s true, he lost. Hillary got more votes despite spending less money and without the support of the media or the Democratic leadership.

Secondly, Obama hasn’t exactly won any arguments. He consistently says one thing and then does another. Where I come from that’s called “lying.”

But if “winning the argument and winning the election are the same thing” then does that mean Reagan and Bush were right? They won their elections (well, Reagan did anyway) so they must have won the arguments. So why did the progressives oppose them?

Oh, wait, what’s that you say? We’re only talking about Democrats? Well, didn’t Bill Clinton win (not one but) two elections? Why then did the proggers blame Hillary for his administration?

Did 20/20 hindsight prove the Big Dawg was wrong? If so, about what, the peace or the prosperity?

Assuming that the “judgment of history” is that WJC lost the argument, doesn’t that mean that Obama’s victory can be retroactively turned into a loss as well? Could Clinton’s “loss” then be turned back into a victory later on? I’m so confused!

But wait, there’s more!

Chris added this gem:

Yeah (4.00 / 5)
And Obama was always the President, always had millions of donors, and always had the whole party behind him.

In reality, he started 2007 with virtually no organization, at least compared to the one he has now. He built it up by convincing his supporters to supply the resources necessary.

He wasn’t always this powerful. He built it. And if anyone is going to supplant them, they have to do the same.
by: Chris Bowers @ Mon Mar 29, 2010 at 21:08

Uh, Chris? Where did Obama get the $99 million he raised in 2007? Who were his donors? They were Wall Street bankers, health insurance company executives, and other big money special interests. If you have been paying attention you would know that the Democratic leadership backed Obama early on, even though much of that support was clandestine.

How did he become the media favorite? Suddenly the corporate-owned media decided that a rookie senator with a tissue-thin resume was a contender. How did that happen?

Come on Chris, put down the Kool-aid and step away from the punchbowl.

---