BillLawrenceOnline

Leigh Anne Arthur Matter Not What It Seems By Chris Freind

Pop quiz: Your house is left unlocked, and an intruder enters. The trespasser rifles through your private belongings and steals compromising information, which he then uses to incriminate you. With ample evidence of his crimes, he is caught red-handed.

Should you expect:

A. The perpetrator to be immediately brought to justice, or

B. To be publicly scolded by the authorities for leaving your door unlocked; blamed for enabling the invader to enter your premises; get fired from your job; and face possible charges for your “indiscretion” – all as the perp goes unpunished.

No, it’s not an April Fool’s Day question. Instead, it’s an analogy to a situation playing out right now in a Union County, S.C., public school district.

The only problem? It’s just not true.

On Feb. 18, teacher Leigh Anne Arthur stepped out of her classroom for a few minutes to monitor students in the hallway. She left her unlocked cell phone on her desk.

In her absence, a 16-year old student accessed Arthur’s phone without permission and, after navigating through several apps, opened the picture gallery. There he found a semi-nude photo of Arthur (who said it was a Valentine’s Day present for her husband. and widely distributed it.

Arthur, told she would be subject to disciplinary proceedings, resigned. Ever since, she has been blasting the administration, and Superintendent Dr. David Eubanks in particular, for ignoring the invasion of her privacy, claiming she was punished despite being the victim.

The problem for Ms. Arthur, as is so often the case, is that she seems to be ignoring those pesky little things called “facts.”

Sunshine is the best antiseptic, so let’s shed some light on what happened:

1. First and foremost, Arthur was not fired, nor was she “forced” to resign, as was widely reported. She resigned of her own free will. Period. And it wasn’t like she was put on the spot “resign now or you’re fired,” but had ample time to mull her decision. Most damning for Arthur is that, under South Carolina law, she had the right to appeal to the school board whatever action was taken against her, as that body is the final arbiter. And why wouldn’t she? After all, if she were truly the victim, one would think that she would welcome her “day in court.”

But instead of fighting the superintendent, she chose to resign. That bears repeating: She chose to leave. Case closed.

2. It is fascinating to note that, despite all the claims of victimization, Arthur apparently never actually reported the incident. Arthur apparently never said a word to the administration. In fact, it was Dr. Eubanks who immediately launched an investigation (including contacting law enforcement. as soon as he was made aware of the incident – which was brought to his attention by staff and students four days after it occurred.

Bottom line: It’s kind of hard for Arthur to make the case that she was wronged when A. she voluntarily left, and B. she never even reported what had occurred.

3. “The whole premise of my privacy being invaded is being ignored, and that’s what’s wrong,” Arthur stated.

While Arthur may think it sounds good to frame this as privacy-rights-gone-astray issue, it’s nothing of the sort.

For the record, there is no bigger privacy advocate in the media than this columnist; if this case were actually about that, “Freindly Fire” would have jumped to Arthur’s defense. But it’s not.

The invasion of Arthurs’s privacy most certainly is not being ignored, as the student is being held accountable by both the school and law enforcement. He faces an expulsion hearing on March 14. More ominously for him, he has been arrested and charged with computer crimes and aggravated voyeurism. And according to reports, he is being detained at the state’s Department of Juvenile Justice.

If Arthur would care to explain how that’s “ignoring” the alleged privacy violation, the country is all ears.

4. Let’s cut to the chase. Arthur would have faced disciplinary action because she violated school procedures, according to Dr. Eubanks, and clearly exercised very bad judgment.

Teachers monitoring hallways are instructed to do so from their doorways so they can keep an eye on both the corridor and the classroom. But numerous witnesses state she was in a completely different room. So clearly, had she followed the established monitoring protocols, the incident likely would have never taken place.

Arthur apparently routinely allowed students to access to her phone, both for calling and Internet purposes. In the age of technology, that’s not a very prudent decision, however well-meaning it may have been. Should 16-year olds understand the difference between using her phone with, and without, permission, and know right from wrong while on the phone? Sure, in theory. But in the real world, you simply cannot assume that will be the case. Teachers in particular can never lose sight of the temptations that come with students holding more computer power in their hands than the Apollo spacecraft.

But for God’s sake, if you are going to allow students to use your phone, you cannot, under any circumstances, have wildly inappropriate material that could be accessed with a few clicks. It’s not a backwards-Southern-evangelical mindset, as many have been so quick to say. Instead, it’s simple common sense – a belief that a teacher’s nude selfie is out of bounds to have on an unlocked phone that students use.

5. Once again, much of the media has shown its true colors: Laziness, aversion to doing its homework, and above all, chasing the most sensational headlines, truth be damned.

Calling on journalists and editors to become more responsible is another column (which this writer has pointed out numerous times.. But indisputably, the more they speed recklessly down the path of hype over substance, of shoddy work over diligent reporting, the more that people will tune out, as declining ratings and readership levels clearly demonstrate. The future of the Fourth Estate is at stake.

Union County, S.C., is a slice of Americana: A small, quaint place that adheres to the values that made America great — accountability, responsibility, courage. The last thing its people, and Superintendent Eubanks in particular, would have wanted is to be the epicenter of a national firestorm. But despite coming under withering attack from the uninformed, they have stood their ground and taught the rest of the country the most valuable lesson of all: The truth shall set you free.

Leigh Anne Arthur Matter Not What It Seems

Romney Makes GOP A Joke

By Chris Freind

Only one of two things is true:

A. Mitt Romney and the Republican establishment found their true calling in the comedic arts, or

B. They are, without a doubt, the dumbest people in America. And in a culture that values all things Kardashian, that’s saying something.

But given how serious Romney was Thursday – playing the role of elder Republican statesman in trashing Donald Trump – it is painfully obvious that stupidity “trumps” comedy in the GOP.

Too bad they didn’t do this before the Oscars. If they had, there would have been a plethora of movie remakes for this melodrama: “Dumb and Dumber,” “The Phantom Menace,” “Failure To Launch,” “Revenge Of The Nerds,” “The Jerk,” “Quantum Of Solace,” “Fury Road,” or even “Divine Secrets Of The Ya Ya Republican Sisterhood.”

But truth be told, even Hollywood couldn’t script this farce.

Trumpeting his own horn during the “big announcement” speech, Romney referred to Trump supporters as “suckers” in a desperate attempt to derail Trump and deny him the nomination. In doing so, Romney and the GOP hierarchy personified another movie: “Psycho.”

Let’s take a look at the how this epic blunder will completely backfire:

1. Granted, the list of credible Republican statesmen is short (a fault of the party’s own making because, ever since Ronald Reagan, it has focused solely on coronating candidates “whose turn it is” rather than developing charismatic leaders), but the single worst person to deliver such a message was Romney – especially since he sought, and received, Trump’s endorsement and money during his presidential runs.

Surprised? Don’t be. After all, Romney was the worst candidate that GOP elites could have chosen to take on President Obama in an election that should have been a slamdunk for the Republicans. Yet that’s exactly what they did.

The proof was in the pudding. Despite spending millions after his unsuccessful attempt in 2008 to secure the GOP nomination, Romney was still routinely losing seven of 10 Republicans in the 2012 primaries, even after he had all but locked up the nomination – and that was with a weak field. In other words, despite competing against a rag-tag cadre of opponents who had virtually no money or organizations, and who mathematically couldn’t win the nomination, he was faring worse than four years prior.

But did paternalistic party leaders listen? Nope. They, not the rank-and-file, knew “best,” and the coronation proceeded.

After staggering to the nomination, Romney ran an abysmal campaign. Despite Obama presiding over the worst economy since the Great Depression, voters – including Republicans – still rejected Romney, as three million fewer voted for Romney than for John McCain. And the exit polls showed what common sense had already told us: A majority of voters believed 1. America was on the wrong track, and 2. government was too large. Yet more pulled for Obama. Why?

Because Romney ran to win an election, not the argument. He was incapable of relating to the middle class, and thus never sealed the deal. The “Anyone But Obama” strategy backfired, because it’s never enough to run against something. The Romney/Paul Ryan ticket was wholly unable to articulate what it stood for, resulting in, ironically, an “Anyone But Romney” backlash.

Throw in his numerous flip-flops, monumental gaffes (the $10,000 bet; talking about how many NASCAR team owners he knew; telling the unemployed he knows what it’s like despite a $300 million net worth; stating that companies are people, too; criticizing the “47 percent”), late release of his tax return, pandering to minorities, and an unprecedented aloofness, and his landslide defeat was easily predictable.

And yet, what did Romney and party leaders (including GOP “experts” Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, George Will and especially Dick Morris) do after that crushing defeat? They blamed Chris Christie, because he worked with the president in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. You simply can’t make this up.

Oh, and they came up with ways to “reinvent” the party and “win elections.” So it’s not without a bit of irony that the very same people who not only championed the abysmal 2012 campaign but guaranteed a Romney “landslide” were writing the playbook for how to win in 2016 – and who are now telling voters whom not to vote for.

Is it any wonder that the party that championed insomnia-curing candidates Bob Dole, McCain, Romney, and Jeb Bush is now being ignored by a majority of Republicans? The establishment’s credibility gap had never been wider than before Romney’s speech. But after his debacle, it has expanded into an almost unbridgeable chasm. Brilliant, Mitt.

2. Forgetting everything else, Romney looks like a jealous malcontent. First, his money, while substantial, is dwarfed by Trump’s fortune, and in that world, size matters. Second, Mitt is green with envy at the reception lavished on Trump – fervent crowds, standing-room-only arenas, passionate supporters. Romney never came close to inspiring Americans the way Trump has. But rather than looking inward, he instead feels compelled to criticize Trump for the success he never garnered. As the Iron Lady Margaret Thatcher said, “The spirit of envy can destroy; it can never build.”

3. Romney’s speech may have been a trial balloon to gauge whether he should enter the race, especially if Marco Rubio loses his home state of Florida. While the filing deadline has passed in most states, Romney could still get on the ballot in several states, including moderate-leaning California (the biggest prize of all) and New Jersey. According to the strategy, Romney might be able to siphon enough delegates to deny Trump the magic number for victory, leading to a brokered convention, where all bets are off.

If that were to occur, it would, without exaggeration, be the end of the Republican Party. There would be a massive civil war, millions would permanently leave the GOP, and an inevitable third party candidate would assure a Democratic victory.

If Mitt Romney’s goal is to become the most reviled man in modern American history, jumping into the race would be his path forward.

3. Sound crazy? Sure, but since when has that ever factored into the establishment thinking of both parties? It has been a long-held rule, especially in big city machines, that it’s better to lose an election than lose control. That mindset, while warped, is nonetheless becoming the de facto policy of a Republican National Committee hellbent on stopping Trump at any cost – President Hillary notwithstanding. 4. Romney’s pomposity will backfire, as such theatrics always do. It will cause Trump’s base to dig in, motivating them even more to crush the establishment they feel has betrayed them so often. And it will cause many undecideds to break Donald’s way – not necessarily because they wholeheartedly support him, but that they despise arrogant leaders giving marching orders.

Donald Trump has substantial baggage, from his business practices to outlandish insults. Maybe a Trump candidacy assures a Clinton victory, and maybe The Donald as GOP standard-bearer leads to big Republican losses in Congress. But with a wildly unpredictable electorate, and Hillary Clinton being the ultimate insider at a time when anti-Washington feelings are at a fever pitch, it would be a mistake to write off Trump.

The smartest course for the GOP would be to let the chips fall where they may, stop playing God, and take a hard look in the mirror. If it doesn’t, the “elephant” in the room may be on the verge of extinction.

Romney Makes GOP A Joke