Bully Pulpit

Phoebe Prince immigrated to the United States from Ireland last year. As a new girl at South Hadley High School in Massachusetts, she briefly dated the star of the football team, which seems to have incurred the wrath of some of the school's Queen Bees. They subsequently taunted and bullied Phoebe mercilessly. On January 14 of this year, apparently deciding she could stand it no more, Phoebe Prince, age 15, hanged herself.

Now nine students who bullied Phoebe are facing criminal charges. There are calls for the principal of South Hadley and other school officials to resign. Phoebe's family is considering a civil suit against the school district.

Is bullying a crime? Are school officials obligated to police it? To what extent?

To the first question, the answer is, "No." None of the students who took part in Phoebe's torment is being charged with "bullying." They face charges including statutory rape, violation of civil rights with bodily injury, harrassment, stalking, and disturbing a school assembly. (Disturbing a school assembly?) The "statutory rape" is somewhat indisputable; of course, no one claims that Phoebe was anything other than a willing participant in her affair with the football player. The other crimes may or may not have happened and may or may not lead to convictions, but let's face it: If Phoebe hadn't killed herself, these charges would not have been filed. They are a prosecutor's attempts to punish someone for something that cries out for punishment, but for which there is no specific legal remedy.

Nor should there be.

What did these students do? They engaged in the merciless and pointless taunting of a scared young girl. They are jerks. They are heinous. They deserve social ostracism. But what did they do that rises to the level of criminality? On the day of her suicide, one of her tormentors apparently threw a can of Red Bull at Phoebe: That is assault and battery and could be prosecuted as such. Bullying remains a non-crime.

What about the school's responsibilities? From what we read in the newspaper, they were not insensitive to the problems of bullying. Before the incidents involving Phoebe, the school had brought in a consultant to help them deal with the problem of bullying. At least some teachers attempted to reach out to Phoebe. Did they do enough? In hindsight, obviously not. But speaking as a teacher, we are loath to pass quick judgment. If a teacher overheard one of the Queen Bees calling Phoebe a slut, should he have intervened? Probably. But what should he have done? If it were the Solipsist, we would have pulled the name-caller aside and told her to cut it out. But that would be about it. And what if the word hadn't been "slut"? What if it had been "Bitch"? Or "Dumbass"? "Jerk"?

If a teacher sees one student shove another, she can rightfully step in; the pusher could possibly even be suspended--again, it falls under the general category of assault and battery. But what if one student simply knocks the books out of another student's hands? Or slams a locker shut?

We are not trying to be glib. This is a tragedy for Phoebe's family, and we sympathize. We don't have much sympathy for bullies. But teachers and school administrators have more than enough on their plates without having to serve as ad hoc policemen enforcing proper societal behavior. Particularly when the behavior doesn't rise to the level of criminality.

Back when we were in school, the standard advice for dealing with bullies was to stand up to them. This was not just the "code of the schoolyard," either; this was scripture, advocated by everyone from parents to psychologists to after-school specials. Sure, the culture of bullying has grown more extreme (and occasionally weaponized) in the decades since our elementary years. But we still think that, ultimately, the best solution for dealing with those who would demean is to not allow them the pleasure of success.

Phoebe's tragedy arose not only from the meanness of the pack animals who surrounded her, nor solely from the supposed inaction of the school authorities, but also possibly from the lack of a guiding voice--one that woiuld tell her to stand up to her tormentors and not allow them the pleasure of bringing her down.

Well Begun and All Done: "Thursday Next: First Among Sequels"

For complete information on this topic, please see post of February 22, 2010.

The book: Thursday Next: First Among Sequels by Jasper Fforde.

Opening Line:

The dangerously high level of the stupidity surplus was once again the lead story in The Owl that morning.

Closing Line:

"It's Thursday," I panted, running to get clear of the airship before it hit the ground, "and I think we've got a situation. . . ."

How you respond to First Among Sequels, the fifth installment in Jasper Fforde's "Thursday Next" series, depends largely on how you respond to the following selection:

"'Item Three: The inexplicable departure of comedy from the Thomas Hardy novels is still a cause for great concern. . . . Hard to believe Jude the Obscure was once the most rip-roaringly funny novel in the English language, eh?.'. . .

"Even until as little as thirty years ago, the whole Thomas Hardy series was actually very funny--pointlessly frivolous, in fact. As things stood at the moment, if you wanted a happy ending to anything in Hardy, you'd be well advised to read it backward."

Some of you may be cackling hysterically, others may think you have just received some heretofore unsuspected (and, for what it's worth, incorrect) information. If you're like the Solipsist, you're smiling knowingly: You're amused, but not doubled over, gasping for breath, wiping tears from your eyes.

The Thursday Next novels are amusing, and nothing more. Not that there's anything wrong with amusement, but if you're looking for a profound literary experience, look elsewhere. These novels bring a smile to one's face, particularly if one is a lover of books. Much of the humor hinges on the reader's ability to laugh at things like a whimsical Thomas Hardy.

Thursday Next is a literary detective--officially retired at the start of this latest novel. In her world, people take their books very seriously. Far from being inviolate, though, great (and not-so-great) works of literature are constantly threatened by malevolent forces. In the first Thursday novel, The Eyre Affair, no less an iconic figure than Jane Eyre is kidnapped from her own novel, and it is up to Thursday to set things right. The novels are also chock full of time travel, werewolves, malevolent multinationals, dodos, cricket-playing neanderthals, cheese-smugglers, and official stalkers--readers will not suffer from a lack of stimulation.



The first line of First Among Sequels sets the tone. Due to the unremittingly good governance of Prime Minister Redmond van de Poste's Common Sense Party, politicians have gone so long without committing any acts of egregious stupidity that the situation is becoming dire: If something isn't done to restore balance--and soon--the inevitable stupidity explosion will be devastating. Indeed, a truly idiotic government scheme to drain the stupidity surplus will ultimately threaten the Bookworld, and it will fall to Thursday to thwart the plan.

What can we say about the last line, except that it indicates that Jasper Fforde will bring back Thursday for yet another adventure. Indeed, the last page of the novel features a list of proposed titles: Last Among Prequels, Apocalypse Next, Paragraph Lost, etc.

If you think you might enjoy a light-hearted quasi-thriller from an author who obviously loves books as much as you do, check out the Thursday Next series. If not, check out some of the classics referenced therein, instead.

One of Those Days

As reported the other day, the Solipsist has joined the "Amazon Associates" program. We half-jokingly declared our belief that this would lead quickly to wealth beyond our wildest dreams.

And what do you know? It HAS!!!

Now, don't get excited: Bear in mind that we expected to earn somewhere between nothing and zilch, so ANYTHING is beyond our wildest dreams. Still, we were pleasantly shocked (and, frankly, suspicious) to open our e-mail inbox and find that we were receiving a $100 Amazon gift card!

Sadly, this was not due to someone purchasing multiple copies of Catch-22 after reading our blog. In fact, it had nothing to do with our efforts at all. Apparently, Amazon is doing this promotion where, at the end of every month, they randomly select some number of "Associates" to receive prizes. They apparently hope the winning Associates will announce their good fortune in the blogosphere, thereby prompting others to sign up for the program. (Well, mission accomplished!) But we're not complaining: A $100 gift card is better than nothing! It's even better than a $99 gift card!

So, with this found money burning a hole in our inbox, we logged on to Amazon and started browsing. We found some books; we found some DVDs; we even found WOS this high-tech spatula she's been hinting about for months. We placed our order and went about our day. Of course, nothing can ever be simple.

A few hours later, we checked our e-mail and saw a confirmation letter from Amazon. We opened it. . . and saw that they had completely screwed up the order. We're not talking a tiny mistake, either: We're talking a complete and utter screwing of the proverbial pooch. Instead of a tidy shipment of books, DVDs, and kitchen utensil, we were apparently looking forward to a massive shipment from Swiss Colony.

If you're not familiar with the company, Swiss Colony sells gift baskets of meats and cheeses and candies and nuts. . . .Dad of Solipsist sends us a package from them every Christmas. The food itself is quite tasty. And, y'know, we like a good salted pork log as much as the next secular Jew, but this order was, as WOS might say, freakin' ridonkulous! It had to be well over $100 worth of merchandise: Scads of sausages! A chuck wagon of cheeses! A plethora of petits fours! Even if we WANTED all this stuff, there was no way we would have enough room in the shack's refrigerator to store it all!

We called customer service. After navigating the automated menu system for a good twenty minutes, we finally reached a human being. We explained our situation; we read him the confirmation number we received when we placed our initial order; we appealed to his sense of humanity. . . . Nothing!

"I'm sorry, Sir, but my computer shows the Swiss Colony order placed through Amazon.com."

"But we didn't ORDER that."

"Sir. . ."

"Look, look, we know you're just trying to do your job, but, come on! Isn't there something we can do?"

"There's nothing, Sir."

"But we ordered books!"

"I understand, but--"

"We didn't order twenty pounds of Wisconsin cheddar spreads!"

"Sir. . ."

"We didn't order 5 trays of Hearty Breakfast Meats!"

"I understand what you're saying, Sir, but. . ."

"30 POUNDS OF BALONEY?!?"

"Well,. . ."

"Come on, who in their right mind orders 30 pounds of baloney?!?!"

"Sir. . ."

"You have to admit, that is an insane amount of baloney!"

"I agree, Sir. It is a lot of baloney."

Just like this story we're telling you.

HAPPY APRIL FOOL'S DAY, EVERYONE!

The Secret

No, we're not referring to the best-selling pseudo-self-help book of the same name. And we're not even going to link to it on Amazon.com. We may be a shill, but we have our standards.

We are, however, referring to THE secret, the simple answer to many of society's problems. It can even fit on a t-shirt:

Stand right, walk left.

That's it! Simplicity, itself.

We are referring, of course, to proper escalator etiquette. As an inveterate New Yorker (though displaced Westward), we experienced firsthand the warm karmic glow when this rule was followed. As we strolled casually leftward up a mammoth escalator at Lexington Avenue and 53 Street, we could even spare a truly un-New Yorker-like grin for the considerate folks who had decided to relax and enjoy the ride on the right. Conversely, when this rule mwas flouted, when louts lounged on the left, willfully ignoring the baleful stares of frustrated climbers backing up behind them, a miasma of ill will enveloped us all. The day was not off to a good start.

Because the moving stairway is a microcosm of society, where people can choose either to coexist peacefully, to cooperate in the most fundamental way possible--by not impeding the fundamental desires of their fellow citizens--or to obstruct their fellow men and women through a meaningless display of dominance for its own sake.

Stand right, walk left, folks. It's the only secret you need to know.

(Image from commons.wikimedia.org)

Updates from Solipsist Central

Keen-eyed Sloppists will no doubt have noticed subtle but distinctive changes to our layout. We've been experimenting with some of the new layouts available from Blogger.com. We liked yesterdays layout--it was black, like our soul--but we received strongly worded criticism from some of our most ardent followers. The Research Department went so far as to impugn our very intellect! In an attempt to mollify the naysayers, we're proposing this current format ("Picture Window") by way of compromise. It's still a bit gloomy, but perhaps not as ovewhelming.

You may also have noticed on yesterday's post the link to Amazon.com. That's right, Nation: We are now an "Amazon Associate"! We've hit the big-time! "The Solipsist" was selected to participate in this prestigious program. OK, we like to think we were selected. Let us have our moment!

The program itself is pretty cool. See, now, if we talk about our favorite book, Catch-22,



or movies that we absolutely adore, like, "The Fisher King"



or "Miller's Crossing"



then we can instantly create a direct link to Amazon.com, where Sloppists can, if they are so inclined PURCHASE THE PRODUCT!

It gives us a warm and fuzzy feeling to know that we can play even a small role in helping Sloppists broaden their cultural horizons and that we can help facilitate the noble mission of Amazon to spread culture and learning across the globe.

And, y'know, if the Solipsist receives a small kickback--er, commission--from any product purchased after clicking through this link, well, who are we to complain?

(WOS: Now, take it easy. You don't want to go all commercial and materialistic.
Sol: I'm sorry, have we met?)

At any rate, we hope you will not begrudge us this small attempt at monetization. We don't really expect much to come of it. Of course, if you are in the market for a Platinum, radiant-cut, 3-stone diamond ring,



we do hope you'll shop through Sol-Mart!

(Honeypiehorse, Emi Ha, Research Department, don't any of you have anniversaries coming up soon? We're just sayin'!)

Format Kvetching--More to Come

OK, how about this one?

Another Musing

When you see a group of four people walking abreast down a sidewalk, do you instictively flash on "The Wizard of Oz," or is that just us?

Recess Appointments

Now he's done it! Not content to run roughshod over the will of the people by signing healthcare reform into law, President Obama has taken us one step closer to tyranny by making a number of recess appointments--15 to be exact--to various federal agencies, thus bypassing the Senate's "Advise and Consent" role. Republicans are predictably outraged, particularly by the appointment of Craig Becker, a union lawyer, to the National Labor Relations Board. They are worried that he will be too friendly to union members. (Shocking that a member of the National Labor Relations Board would be sympathetic to the concerns of, y'know, laborers, but let that go for the moment.)

In fairness, we understand and, to an extent, sympathize with those who argue that this exercise of presidential prerogative is a bit unseemly. Not to be hypocritical, we were outraged when former President Bush appointed John Bolton UN Ambassador in the same manner. But that's the point. Republicans who are crying foul must acknowledge that this is a fairly standard tactic. Indeed, we appreciate the comments of Senator Tom Coburn (R.-Okla.), who acknowledged the political rationale: "[President Obama] has some precedent. Others have done it, so I'm not critical of him doing it." He then goes on to say that his main problem was with the Becker nomination, not the other appointees.

We would say to Sen. Coburn and all like-minded Republicans, though, if you had no major problem with the other appointees, why weren't they confirmed? Again the desire to obstruct took precedence over the responsibility to govern. Is Craig Becker "too ideological"? Probably not for our tastes, but possibly for some other people's. But if Republicans are going to stand in the way of EVERY appointment, why should the President solicit their approval of ANY appointment? Why should the President seek advice if there is little likelihood of receiving consent?

Wasn't it John McCain, the de facto leader of the opposition party, who declared after the healthcare reform legislation passed that there would be no further cooperation between Republicans and Democrats for the remainder of the year? That pretty much closes off any avenue for negotiation.

In all honesty, we would like to see an end to end-runs. We would love to see Presidents go through the proper congressional channels when making appointments, And we would like to see congressional committees approve the appointments. And--OK, brace yourselves--we would like to see this regardless of whether a Democrat or a Republican is in the White House.

With the exception of the federal judiciary, whose members are appointed for life and whose rulings may have an outsize impact on the lives of the citizenry, we think Presidents should essentially be able to appoint whomever they want to federal agencies. Sure, we may end up with more Michael "Heckuva job, Brownie" Browns in charge of agencies like FEMA, but obviously the "Advise and Consent" restrictions didn't prevent that disaster anyway. If Presidents want to appoint the incompetent, the ideologically questionable, the crypto-Canadian, let 'em; and let 'em face the consequences of those appointments.

We won't always agree with these appointments, and we may be downright upset about them, but if someone has been elected President, he or she has the right to form a functioning government to the best of his abilities: Call it a perk of office.