[guest post by Dana]

A little fun at Hillary’s expense:

NEW YORK—Having grossly miscalculated the resources required for an 18-month presidential bid, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton announced Tuesday she had ended her race for the White House after blowing through $2 billion of campaign funds in a single month. “Admittedly, my staff and I haven’t kept a close enough eye on our financials over the past few weeks, and certain of our expenditures, such as the 800,000-square-foot Hillary For America headquarters we broke ground on in Des Moines and those seven backup campaign buses, appear to have been poor decisions,” said Clinton, who faulted several crucial missteps, including the licensing of every song in the Fleetwood Mac catalogue for her campaign appearances and sending two pounds of direct-mail solicitations each day to every man, woman, and child in the nation. “While it seemed a winning strategy at first, buying up all the primetime commercial blocks on every network affiliate in all 50 states was probably ill-advised, as was hiring our 3,000-member campaign team in Puerto Rico, which does not have any electoral votes.” The former secretary of state went on to say she was confident the lessons she had learned from her mistakes this time around would only make her a stronger candidate in 2020.

This is not from The Onion, but surprisingly it’s from the New York Times:

“Mrs. Clinton and the news media have changed. She seems less a presidential candidate than a historical figure, returning to claim what is rightfully hers.And the press corps, both blessed and cursed with live streaming, tweeting and Snapchatting technologies, is armed with questions devised to win the moment. The result is a carnival atmosphere. It is not clear what Mrs. Clinton gains politically from playing the freak.”

Today I heard a political adviser state the obvious: that from the start, Clinton’s strategy with the media has been very simple: ignore them, thereby ignore the scandals. While it may be working at the moment, it’s not sustainable because sooner rather than later, she is going to need them. And in spite of a building resentment from media members, they will be there for her when she’s ready. Maybe then, the press and Clinton will begin to forge that brand new relationship she talked about, right?

“It’s maddening,” an anonymous print journalist complained to the Daily Mail. “We can’t do our job if the Clinton campaign freezes us out and tells us there aren’t any more events for the day—and then they race to Waterloo for an event. Don’t they understand that they need us as much as we need them?”

A cable television news correspondent, likewise anonymous, sarcastically told the London-based outlet: “Maybe by this point next year Hillary’s people will be clamoring for us to interview her as Elizabeth Warren and Martin O’Malley make mincemeat out of her”—a reference to former Maryland governor O’Malley (who is expected to enter the race soon) and Massachusetts Senator Warren (who insists she will not).

This TV journalist added: “But for now dodging the press just comes off as arrogant and imperial. Which is not the model she ought to be trying to emulate. I mean, really: If you hold a campaign party and there are 100 of us flying in to Iowa to cover you, the least you can do is tell us the event exists. We don’t expect you to feed us or mix us martinis. Just don’t make this presidential campaign marathon any harder or more idiotic than it needs to be.”

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

The folks over at Reason are clucking about the police investigating a stranger who lifted a little boy over a schoolyard fence to retrieve a runaway ball. At no time did the stranger try to take the child, but appeared to simply be helping him. The Reason folks believe this might be a new low:

In a world gone crazy with mandemonium (pandemonium sparked by seeing a man near a child), this all points bulletin may be a new low.

…

What are they going to charge him with? Attempted kindness?

From the police report:

Police Investigate Incident at Lyles-Crouch Elementary School

For Immediate release: May 20, 2015

The Alexandria Police Department is investigating an incident that occurred earlier today involving a six-year-old student at Lyles-Crouch Elementary, 530 S. Saint Asaph Street.

At approximately 10:15 a.m., a male student went to the edge of a fenced playground to retrieve a ball on the other side. The student was approached by an unknown man who lifted him over the fence to retrieve the ball. A teacher saw the child being picked up and challenged the stranger, at which point the man escorted the student to a fence opening to re-enter the playground. The unknown man then left the area. At no time did the unknown man attempt to leave the area with the child.

The man is described as a black male in his 60’s, 6’0” tall, wearing a beige and green shirt and khakis.

The Criminal Investigations Section is continuing to investigate this incident. Anyone with any information is asked to call Detective Alma Zepeda…

I want to know why the man lifted the child over the fence rather than just picking up the ball and tossing it back to him?

Further, if there was a fence opening, why didn’t the man direct the child to it in the first place so he could retrieve the ball, or better yet, pick up the ball and toss it to the child through the opening?

And, as one responsible for her students’ welfare, was the teacher unreasonable in contacting the authorities?

Anyway, the Free Range Kids group is also up in arms about it. I guess the thinking is, if nothing happened other than a man helping a child, what’s the big deal? But if something had happened, then what? Would the original behavior they currently approve of (a strange man lifting a child up over a schoolyard fence), then become something unacceptable because something bad happened as a result?

What if were your child being lifted over the fence?

–Dana

[guest post by Dana]

In a continuing effort to make law enforcement officers more “user-friendly” to certain communities and help ease tensions, President Obama has announced several impending changes as part of an executive order:

The Obama administration on Monday moved to prohibit federal agencies from providing local cops with certain kinds of military equipment such as grenade launchers, high-caliber weapons and bayonets, in the wake of controversy over a “militarized” police response to unrest last summer in Ferguson, Missouri.

…

“We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like there’s an occupying force as opposed to a force that’s part of the community that’s protecting them and serving them,” Obama said in Camden Monday. “It can alienate and intimidate local residents and send the wrong message.”

The list of prohibited equipment includes: tank-like armored vehicles that move on tracks, certain types of camouflage uniforms, bayonets, firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or higher, grenade launchers, and weaponized aircraft.

However, there will be some leeway as local police will still be able to buy the equipment from private sellers.

Along with the ban on various equipment, the president also wants to “soften” the look of police officers on the street.

According to Fox News reporter Brian Kilmeade:

…Obama also thinks that police officers should have “softer looking” uniforms.

Kilmeade explained that Obama thinks that police officers are “making things worse” when they show up to inner city communities wearing military-style equipment and riot gear.

“They’re concerned about the helmet. They’re concerned about the shield. It’s sending the wrong message,” Kilmeade stated. “I used to think from the civilian point of view that that would be a reason not to riot, because the police were ready and ready to act.”

Better that citizens not be offended by the sight of police officers wearing gear specifically designed to protect them and potentially save their lives – from the very people who might be offended by it. Message received.

–Dana