Wrongly blaming boys for being hot for teacher

It is a disconcerting occurrence reported in the mainstream media on a seemingly weekly basis: female teacher sexual abuse of underage boys.  As a former inner city middle school teacher, I can speak with experience regarding the appropriate dynamics between students and teachers.  Indeed, I view the vocation of teaching of children as a sacred trust.  Even though I have no children of my own, I viewed my students as "my" kids in a quasi-parental way.  An effective teachers needs to reach his students by making a benevolent, but wholly platonic connection.  With the likelihood of both parents working long hours, many of them spent more time interacting with me in the classroom setting than with their own parents.  Therefore, I felt an additional responsibility to present myself in a cordial, but distant and professional way.  From a practical level, a teacher wears many hats: role model, advisor, authority figure, learning resource.  Teaching is more than just mastery of a given subject, the ability to break down a skill set into its component parts and communicate them clearly to others.  It is more akin to the supportive but objective doctor-patient relationship.  In both cases, the relationship is inherently and necessarily unequal with the benefit flowing one way to the lesser party.  Interaction causes the doctor to know the patient but only so far as to assist in his treatment.  Typically the patient knows almost nothing about the doctor's private life.  When this imbalance is exploited by the practitioner it is, at the very least, unethical.  However, when dealing with minors who correctly cannot give legal consent despite technical willingness, it is criminal.  Justifying the child's victimization because his gender makes him technically stronger than his partner, blaming his hormones or the impulsiveness and short-sighted nature of his youth is a smokescreen that in numerous cases protects the adult female predator.  Society should strive to protect the underage victim regardless of gender and likewise equally prosecute perpetrators on the same basis.  While it is true that sexually is inherently a potent issue for human beings, it should only be explored consensually by mature parties where no power imbalance exists.

Democrats promote victimization, disregard youths' success roadmap: MLK's "Dream"

This is the Democrats' favorite divisive, 'whack-a-mole' political game: always blame the innocent, biologically dissimilar “other guy” for your individual troubles.

Washington Post columnist Courtland Milloy makes his living tilting at this particular windmill with his thematically repetitive columns. Specifically he peddles the erroneous concept that a person, based solely upon superficial ethnicity, should blame society-at-large for a poor value system that informs worse individual behavior often leading to tragic results.  For example, in last week's 'For black youths, path to ruination, not success,' Mr. Milloy unfairly ignored the possibility of minority access to the American Dream through academic achievement. Specifically, last week's bogeyman was the fault not of poor individual choices, but the public school system which Mr. Courtland mischaracterized as simply a 'school-to-prison pipeline.' This assertion subtly infers that they are, in effect, the same thing: a societal holding cell victimizing the undesirable.  Worse still, Mr. Milloy's ideas imply the absurd standard of lower expectations predetermined by one's skin color.  

Certainly, the Ben Carsons of the world prove that effort, focus and character with a splash of good luck are enough to rise above poverty, humble beginnings or an ineffective public school system. This week, Mr. Milloy is at it again with black youths in the 'valley of the shadow of death.'  In both cases Mr. Milloy pigeonholes the same disadvantaged minority group as societal victims solely due to their pigmentation: the exact opposite of the intention of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s legacy and, in specific, his seminal “Dream” speech in which he proclaimed:

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” 

In this way, Dr. King desired to unify our culture as a color blind society in which to make an analogy one sees a human being as a Picasso masterpiece rather than the irrelevant frame that adorns him.  On the other hand, Mr. Milloy's picture is framed by his mention of the historically charged racial conflicts of Selma and his complaints of economic inequality as backdrops to blame this generation's epidemic of black-on-black homicide.  Therefore, unlike Dr. King--who no doubt would hold individuals of every stripe responsible for their actions--Mr. Milloy cryptically blames some vague overarching devil-made-me-do-it societal influence. To use his exact phrase the “morally disgraceful nation” is the truly responsible party.  
  

Well, who is that exactly?  Tying all elements of his narrative together suggests a subtle swipe at the dominant group (whites) that runs this country.  And assuming that Mr. Milloy is correct, does pointing it out in such a divisive manner promote the understanding and harmony that Dr. King wanted or is the net effect its opposite, the furtherance of discord and alienation?  Perhaps Mr. Milloy should take the context of Dr. King's words to heart before scribbling more of his own.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

Why Hillary can and will run (How Washington Times columnist Wesley Pruden has it wrong)

It's a rare occurrence for Wesley Pruden to read the tea leaves so wrongly, but in this case his wishful thinking is tantamount to hysterical blindness.  It is a pop culture axiom succinctly expressed by the Oracle character in the Matrix movie: 'What do powerful men [or women] want?'  The answer: 'more power.'  In the battle of dueling Washington Times columnists the women have it when Monica Crowley correctly points out in her brilliant "Hillary and Obama" piece of Thursday, January 15 that Mrs. Clinton would "walk over her grandmother" to succeed Mr. Obama as president.  In the case of the Clintons, their obsessive self-serving power-seeking rises to the level of an art form.  I have no doubt in their private moments to this day that the Clintons—who are legendary for holding grudges—still grouse about the fresh-faced political upstart that was the Barack Obama phenomenon of 2008 that stole "her" prize.  Unlucky for them, Mr. Obama was an attractive, articulate blank slate that the average person could, and did, literally tie his hopes to, and a better narrative: the first Afro-American president.  That trumps the first woman president narrative by a mile, and besides Hillary has enough political baggage to make Samsonite jealous.  In any case, thanks to Bubba's actions of a few years ago I knew the fix was in—that Mrs. Clinton was positioning herself for a 2016 run—back in 2012.  Indeed, given their longstanding political grudge why would Bill stump for the very person that prevented his spouse's ascension to the White House during the 2012 Democratic convention?  The answer lies, I suspect, in a political calculation; something at which the Clintons excel.  If Romney ran successfully against Obama's weak record and won, the likelihood of Republican control of the executive branch for eight years would likely end Hillary's window of opportunity.  (She will be 73 in 2020.)  Better to use Bill's "good-ole-boy" persona and honey-tongued charm to woo the voters and shore up Obama who would be out in four years.  Mark my words, Mr. Pruden: Hillary can and will run.  Her playbook will alternately play the gender card or the victim card of long-suffering wife as it suits her.  It will be a one-note Virginia Slims political campaign of "we've come a long way, baby" and phrases like "breaking the glass ceiling" will be used.  Republican detractors will be smeared as misogynists; an absurd fiction dutifully disseminated by a sycophantic liberal mass media.  Democrats know: say the lie loud enough, and loud enough, at it filters down as truth to the low-information voter.  The fact that Ms. Clinton public persona is shrew-like or that she lacks Bubba's political gifts or is a polarizing political force á la Obama is irrelevant when the press will cover for her at every turn.  As an example, Benghazi will be portrayed by Mrs. Clinton simply as "old news" and a non-issue; more road kill in the rearview mirror of the relentless Clinton political machine.  A multi-millionaire using phrases like "dead broke" may be an inartful lie, but Mrs. Clinton is exactly right when she states that it will "make no difference" as most Democrats exist in a consequence free zone of an adoring, biased press.

http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/15/wesley-pruden-why-hillary-clinton-wont-run-for-pre/

Beware Democratic leaders' moral relativism (Monica Crowley, Washington Times, January 14, 2015)

Like a prized Picasso, I'd like to frame Monica Crowley's "Obama, Hillary and the Dr. Phil foreign policy" commentary and display it prominently for posterity.  Her analysis is that insightful.  It is like she gave the two of them political couple's therapy; I doubt Dr. Phil could do so well.  For example, Ms. Crowley rightly pointed out Mr. Obama's longstanding behavioral pattern--from Cuba, to the Middle East to China and beyond--it seems our president has never met a totalitarian Leftist dictator he didn't bow to (think of his global apology tour early on in his administration) and deliver flexibility to (by turning a blind eye to the Iranian nuclear program and Russian aggression in Ukraine).  Similarly, Hillary's foreign policy blundering during her lackluster turn as secretary of state did nothing more than sow the seeds that have emboldened America's enemies around the world.  In Mr. Obama's case, history has borne out the critical flaw of inexperience as well as the abject failure of anti-American sentiment and anti-capitalistic policies based upon a one-size-fits-all mentality (think Obamacare) of government intrusion and control.  His and hers foreign policy are also a matching set indicating apologist pandering to geopolitical foes, change for short term personal political gain and the hopeful naïveté to see the burning world not as it is, but how one wants it to be.  Although Mrs. Clinton is technically more of a known quantity than Mr. Obama was when he assumed the presidency, her resume is equally skin deep: first lady is not an official job description and her track record as a carpet-bagging, do-nothing senator from New York does not bode well for her prospects to successfully lead the country.  After a tumultuous eight years, the last thing America needs is more weak-kneed moral relativism by a president wrongly focused upon capitulation to the enemy rather than understanding that the primary responsibility of the job is looking out for our interests; and protecting, preserving and defending the Constitution.

Twitter: @DavidHunterblog
http://www.americanthinker.com/author/david_l_hunter/
http://canadafreepress.com/members/74987/DavidLHunter/976

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/14/monica-crowley-obama-hillary-clinton-too-sympathet/?page=all