Lori Drew

So we have the tragic story of Megan Meier, the 13 year old girl who committed suicide after a 47 year old woman, Lori Drew, created a fictitious boy on MySpace, tricked Megan into thinking this boy liked her and then turn on her, calling her names, turning Megan's friends against her all of which caused Megan to hang herself.

Read this article.

The Feds are prosecuting her under cyber laws. But I wonder if this is manslaughter? Involuntary manslaughter is generally considered "an unintentional killing that results from recklessness or criminal negligence." The key in this case is that Megan committed suicide, so Lori Drew did not directly kill Megan. But,

I wave an unloaded gun threatening people, one of which has a heart attack.

I put poison in a toothpaste tube, which someone uses and dies.

I yell, "Fire," in a crowded movie theater.

This is clearly getting onto new ground. Road rage, blog rage, people are simply less inclined to be civil if there is some distance or anonymity. Viciousness can have consequences...especially to children. It is time we establish some guidelines. I am completely AGAINST criminalizing insults, but this was not a simple insult: it was a deliberate attempt, over a period of time, to cause (at least) emotional harm. And to be clear, it ONLY stopped because Megan killed herself.

Lori Drew's life is done, she will suffer financially and emotionally. I am concerned about the next time.

Evolution

Yuval Levin has one of the best pieces describing an agenda for conservatives that I have read in a long time.

It used to be, maybe only in some fictitious place in my mind, that conservatives believed in limited government. The "Reagan Revolution" was defined by fiscal and judicial restraint with a healthy dose of patriotism thrown in. (Reagan was NOT a social conservative in the mold of President Bush.) But beyond the rhetoric were concrete actions - cutting taxes; appointing conservative judges; rebuilding our military - that propelled the United States into a more stable and secure world position.

There is, I believe, shared national consensus that the federal government will be providing certain services, but the manner and level of intrusiveness is open for debate. Levin's proposal puts those issues front and center in a manner that draws clear distinctions between the parties and can serve as a rallying point for the down ticket.

Then, let the people choose.

Country Roads

So I have been relatively silent on the political train wreck that is the Democratic primary. But the West Virginia primary has held up for all the world to see the completely dishonest treatment of race in the Democratic party.

The fact that Obama takes 90+% of the black vote is the "audacity of hope."

The fact that Hillary takes 60+% of the white vote is racism.

Read that again and think about it.

Tony Blankley makes a great point: it is time to have an honest conversation about race. But an honest conversation will be a rough one. I am afraid this Presidential race will set back race relations because of white resentment to the way they are being treated. They are being treated differently than blacks - call it electoral affirmative action - and are a bit perturbed.

Now, my comment is that "don't take the NYTimes personally." They have anointed their candidate and, rather than waste gray matter analyzing Obama's possible problems with West Virginians (or anyone else for that matter), just charge racism and move on. Simple.

But Americans do take their elections more seriously than the NYTimes. Leadership matters. Character matters. Obama's background, chosen associations, lack of legislative experience are all issues that resonate. To the extent that being black matters, it has come to the forefront that there is a subcultural of black racism and anti-Americanism that is deeply offensive.

Now, to be clear, I do not believe that the VAST majority of blacks really agree with Reverend Wright, but "go along to get along" is not an acceptable excuse.