The occasionally coherent ramblings of an ex-cop and former broadcast journalist turned crime novelist.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Why Sarah Palin Makes My Teeth Itch
If Sarah Palin were a man, she'd be one of those old-style, suspenders-wearing and cigar smoking politicians (usually of indeterminate party affilliation)who were a mainstay of movies through the forties and fifties.
You know who I mean. The minor characters who talked out of the corner of their mouths, patted little boys on the head, muttered under their breath about people of other races, and gave speeches that honored the flag, conservative values, middle-America, and apple pie.
In other words, she's superficial as hell.
She tosses off sound bites with the shameless fervor of a movie critic cuddling up to the studio bosses, pushing all the right buttons to make the Republican Faithful grin and nod and give her a frightening thumbs up. Thing is, though, I think her knowledge of the important issues facing America today could be measured with a teaspoon.
But, let's try a little experiment.
I took American Government during the summer between my junior and senior year of high school. My teacher was a guy named Bill Dinges. I remember him because he taught by the Socratic method and had only one rule. We had to speak in facts, not opinions. Slogans and one-liners weren't allowed. We could take any positions we liked but we had to justify them with well-founded research. And he cross-examined everyone about everything.
I'd like Sarah Palin to submit to questioning by a guy like Bill Dinges. Not a law or political science professor or Sam Donaldson-type. Just a quick-minded high school teacher who understands the issues, asks thought-provoking questions and would require Palin, his "student," to rigorously defend her answers.
Let's put the two of them across a table from each other on national TV for an hour or so. No moderator. No researchers or flacks. Just Sarah and the teacher.
A simple enough assignment for someone who wants to be President, don't you think?
Unfortunately, the results would terrify us. And, because of that, the Republicans will never allow such a Q and A to take place.
Better she be left to pat us on the head with one hand while waving an American flag in the other, all the while serving up messages that are the political equivalent of cotton candy.
Labels:
American government,
civics lessons,
Sarah Palin
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Random Thoughts on a Rainy Tuesday Night
My old friend John has cancer of the esophagus and stomach. He found out last Friday. They also noted "spots" on his liver so, today, he had a PET scan.
Why does he have to wait until Friday to find out the results? What sort of heartless bureaucrats are these people in the medical community that they make a man who is gravely ill wait three days to hear if the cancer is spreading throughout his body?
In cases like his, someone should be reading the results to him as they show up. We're the most technologically advanced nation on earth. Figure it out, people!
Elsewhere...
A reporter friend asked me today if the New York Post's action in printing a picture of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews that was taken illegally is, in and of itself, illegal.
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? You'd like to think that our Constitutional guarantees to right of privacy would protect a naked woman in her own hotel room from having some Cheese Whiz of a lowlife huckster snap secret pics of her.
Paparazzi photographers and the celebrity-hunting press, which obviously includes the Post, have pushed the envelope so far in the recent past, however, I'm not sure a judge would rule in her favor.
It will be interesting to see if her attorneys file a lawsuit against the paper and if they don't, why not?
Personally, I think whoever shot the pictures is a heartless and sexually immature excuse for a cretinous human being who women have always laughed at for having such a tiny penis.
Why does he have to wait until Friday to find out the results? What sort of heartless bureaucrats are these people in the medical community that they make a man who is gravely ill wait three days to hear if the cancer is spreading throughout his body?
In cases like his, someone should be reading the results to him as they show up. We're the most technologically advanced nation on earth. Figure it out, people!
Elsewhere...
A reporter friend asked me today if the New York Post's action in printing a picture of ESPN reporter Erin Andrews that was taken illegally is, in and of itself, illegal.
You'd like to think so, wouldn't you? You'd like to think that our Constitutional guarantees to right of privacy would protect a naked woman in her own hotel room from having some Cheese Whiz of a lowlife huckster snap secret pics of her.
Paparazzi photographers and the celebrity-hunting press, which obviously includes the Post, have pushed the envelope so far in the recent past, however, I'm not sure a judge would rule in her favor.
It will be interesting to see if her attorneys file a lawsuit against the paper and if they don't, why not?
Personally, I think whoever shot the pictures is a heartless and sexually immature excuse for a cretinous human being who women have always laughed at for having such a tiny penis.
Labels:
cancer,
Erin Andrews,
ESPN,
PET scans and waiting,
privacy laws
Friday, July 17, 2009
RIP Uncle Walter. You Were The Best.
I got into journalism because of Walter Cronkite. I left when I realized the industry no longer seemed to value the ideals and ethics on which he based his career.
In Cronkite's day, journalism was straight and narrow. It was the business of bringing the news to the people as facts. We rushed to the scene. We checked our information. We double checked it. We tried to verify everything before we put it on the air and we didn't add our opinions. I was taught to, "Get there first, get the story fast, get it right and get it out!"
The true professionals of the business still embrace that philosophy. But, more and more frequently, cost, offhand ethics and basic laziness dictate how stories are covered. Some local stations don't send reporters to an event at all, arguing that a phone call will suffice and is far cheaper than having personnel on the ground. Sometimes the reason for not going to the scene is more dubious. News bosses know if they miss a story, they can always snatch a fact or two from newspaper websites or even from the competition. One of my former bosses called that "reporting with smoke and mirrors." I call it dishonesty. But I would guess it's condoned in every news market in the country every single day.
Here's a fact you may not know. TV stations in Chicago (except Channel 7), Washington D.C., Atlanta and other cities now pool their coverage of "routine" and even some breaking news. It's not used for every story every day but it works like this: stations supply crews to the pool. One crew shoots a news event and shares the video, presumably the facts as well, with all of the stations in the pool. There's no longer a race to be first to the scene of a burning building or a crime story because, hey, no competition! If the crew doesn't make it until the fire is out, so what? Many editors believe pictures of hoses being rolled up tell the story just as well as flames shooting out windows and rescues being made. For them, the necessity of seeing news happening rates a big shrug. After all, it's more cost effective to use aftermath footage. Unfortunately, if the pool crew gets the story wrong, everyone using that version of the story gets it wrong. If the pool crew doesn't interview eyewitnesses and relies only on official sources, only the official spin gets aired. Great for the officials. Maybe not so good for for the truth.
What is pool coverage but a slightly more respectable form of smoke and mirrors? Does it give us the coverage we expect? Do the stations even admit each time they use pooled video? Watch awhile and answer those questions for yourselves. And then ask another: what happened to "get there first, get the story fast, get it right, and get it out?"
Broadcast news no longer advises: it homogenizes. That's a tragedy.
Cronkite was appalled by it.
If we really want to honor his memory, we should be, too.
In Cronkite's day, journalism was straight and narrow. It was the business of bringing the news to the people as facts. We rushed to the scene. We checked our information. We double checked it. We tried to verify everything before we put it on the air and we didn't add our opinions. I was taught to, "Get there first, get the story fast, get it right and get it out!"
The true professionals of the business still embrace that philosophy. But, more and more frequently, cost, offhand ethics and basic laziness dictate how stories are covered. Some local stations don't send reporters to an event at all, arguing that a phone call will suffice and is far cheaper than having personnel on the ground. Sometimes the reason for not going to the scene is more dubious. News bosses know if they miss a story, they can always snatch a fact or two from newspaper websites or even from the competition. One of my former bosses called that "reporting with smoke and mirrors." I call it dishonesty. But I would guess it's condoned in every news market in the country every single day.
Here's a fact you may not know. TV stations in Chicago (except Channel 7), Washington D.C., Atlanta and other cities now pool their coverage of "routine" and even some breaking news. It's not used for every story every day but it works like this: stations supply crews to the pool. One crew shoots a news event and shares the video, presumably the facts as well, with all of the stations in the pool. There's no longer a race to be first to the scene of a burning building or a crime story because, hey, no competition! If the crew doesn't make it until the fire is out, so what? Many editors believe pictures of hoses being rolled up tell the story just as well as flames shooting out windows and rescues being made. For them, the necessity of seeing news happening rates a big shrug. After all, it's more cost effective to use aftermath footage. Unfortunately, if the pool crew gets the story wrong, everyone using that version of the story gets it wrong. If the pool crew doesn't interview eyewitnesses and relies only on official sources, only the official spin gets aired. Great for the officials. Maybe not so good for for the truth.
What is pool coverage but a slightly more respectable form of smoke and mirrors? Does it give us the coverage we expect? Do the stations even admit each time they use pooled video? Watch awhile and answer those questions for yourselves. And then ask another: what happened to "get there first, get the story fast, get it right, and get it out?"
Broadcast news no longer advises: it homogenizes. That's a tragedy.
Cronkite was appalled by it.
If we really want to honor his memory, we should be, too.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
A Real American Hero
My friend Jim Goldman, retired Chief of Police at Great Lakes Naval Training Center, forwarded this to me.
I thought it was worth including here.
From: Steve Morgan
> Subject: FW: Band of Brothers Hero
> Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:22:48 -0500
>
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:47:02 -0400
> Subject: Band of Brothers Hero
> From: kbkuklok@gmail.com
> To: kbkuklok@gmail.com
>
>We're hearing a lot these days about big splashy memorial services.
>
> I want a nationwide memorial service for Darrell "Shifty" Powers.
>
>Shifty volunteered for the airborne in WWII and served with Easy Company of the 506th Parachute Infantry Regiment, part of the 101st Airborne Infantry. If you've seen Band of Brothers on HBO or the History Channel, you know Shifty. His character appears in all 10 episodes, and Shifty himself is interviewed in
several of them.
>
> I met Shifty in the Philadelphia airport several years ago. I didn't know who
he was at the time. I just saw an elderly gentleman having trouble reading his
ticket. I offered to help, assured him that he was at the right gate, and
noticed the "Screaming Eagle", the symbol of the 101st Airborne, on his hat.
>
> Making conversation, I asked him if he'd been in the 101st Airborne or if his
son was serving. He said quietly that he had been in the 101st. I thanked him
for his service, then asked him when he served, and how many jumps he made.
>
> Quietly and humbly, he said "Well, I guess I signed up in 1941 or so, and was
in until sometime in 1945 .. . . " at which point my heart skipped.
>
> At that point, again, very humbly, he said "I made the 5 training jumps at
Toccoa, and then jumped into Normandy . . . . do you know where Normandy is?" At
this point my heart stopped.
>
> I told him yes, I know exactly where Normandy was, and I know what D-Day was.
At that point he said "I also made a second jump into Holland, into Arnhem." I
was standing with a genuine war hero . . . . and then I realized that it was
June, just after the anniversary of D-Day.
>
> I asked Shifty if he was on his way back from France, and he said "Yes. And
it's real sad because these days so few of the guys are left, and those that
are, lots of them can't make the trip." My heart was in my throat and I didn't
know what to say.
>
> I helped Shifty get onto the plane and then realized he was back in Coach,
while I was in First Class. I sent the flight attendant back to get him and said
that I wanted to switch seats. When Shifty came forward, I got up out of the
seat and told him I wanted him to have it, that I'd take his in coach.
>
> He said "No, son, you enjoy that seat. Just knowing that there are still some
who remember what we did and still care is enough to make an old man very
happy." His eyes were filling up as he said it. And mine are brimming up now as
I write this.
>
> Shifty died on June 17 after fighting cancer.
>
> There was no parade.
>
> No big event in Staples Center.
>
> No wall to wall back to back 24x7 news coverage.
>
> No weeping fans on television.
>
> And that's not right.
>
> Let's give Shifty his own Memorial Service, online, in our own quiet way.
Please forward this email to everyone you know. Especially to the veterans.
>
> Rest in peace, Shifty.
Labels:
american heroes,
band of brothers,
D-Day,
shifty
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Check Out That Booty!
I'm not reprinting it because you've all seen it...the widely circulated and argued over picture of President Obama at the G-8 Summit supposedly checking out the bum of a teenage delegate.
First of all, I've looked at the video a dozen times. I frankly don't see it as a case of Obama Ogling. To me, he's watching the steps, waiting for the woman behind him to come down so he can take her hand and assist her. If you want to see it the other way, that's up to you. I haven't taken the video apart frame by frame or had it analyzed in a video lab. I do think all the guff about it is pretty silly.
What isn't silly at all is the debate over gays in the military and Don't Ask Don't Tell.
It makes no sense to me to send home perfectly good warriors because of their sexual orientation. And that's exactly what we've done. Numbers of troops equal to three brigades, or 35 thousand individuals, have been given their walking papers.
To what end? So other soldiers, sailors and marines don't have to worry about being propositioned? Good grief.
Personally, I don't care if someone has two heads, green skin color and a sexual orientation toward thorny roses. If they can, as Representative Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, puts it "handle an M-4 rifle and kick down doors" they should be allowed to serve.
Come on people. If we allow Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military, I suppose we should apply it for police and fire departments too. Particularly fire departments because, holy moley, their members bunk together! How about EMT's? If we're going to take it there, how about physicians? Nurses?
Frankly if someone is trying to save my life, it doesn't make a whit of difference to me who they live with, partner with or party with.
If they're risking their lives for our country, God Bless them whoever they are.
First of all, I've looked at the video a dozen times. I frankly don't see it as a case of Obama Ogling. To me, he's watching the steps, waiting for the woman behind him to come down so he can take her hand and assist her. If you want to see it the other way, that's up to you. I haven't taken the video apart frame by frame or had it analyzed in a video lab. I do think all the guff about it is pretty silly.
What isn't silly at all is the debate over gays in the military and Don't Ask Don't Tell.
It makes no sense to me to send home perfectly good warriors because of their sexual orientation. And that's exactly what we've done. Numbers of troops equal to three brigades, or 35 thousand individuals, have been given their walking papers.
To what end? So other soldiers, sailors and marines don't have to worry about being propositioned? Good grief.
Personally, I don't care if someone has two heads, green skin color and a sexual orientation toward thorny roses. If they can, as Representative Patrick Murphy of Pennsylvania, puts it "handle an M-4 rifle and kick down doors" they should be allowed to serve.
Come on people. If we allow Don't Ask Don't Tell in the military, I suppose we should apply it for police and fire departments too. Particularly fire departments because, holy moley, their members bunk together! How about EMT's? If we're going to take it there, how about physicians? Nurses?
Frankly if someone is trying to save my life, it doesn't make a whit of difference to me who they live with, partner with or party with.
If they're risking their lives for our country, God Bless them whoever they are.
Labels:
DADT,
Don't Ask Don't Tell,
gays in the military
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Is Anybody Listening?
The Naperville Sun reports this week that the cities of Aurora and Naperville are in the process of buying new two-way radio systems for their police and fire departments. The communications gear used now is ten to fifteen years out of date, they say, and besides, in the post 9-1-1 era, they need better "interoperability."
That's the new buzz word. Interoperability. What it means in simple terms is...in a disaster, all emergency responders want to be able to talk to each other. Wonderful concept.
Except the new system Aurora and Naperville officials are buying, at a publicly stated cost of $20 million, is designed to do just the opposite. Yes, it appears to allow Aurora and Naperville agencies to talk to one another to their hearts' content. But mutual aid responders? Not so much. Outside departments summoned to assist with emergencies won't have any better "interoperability" with Aurora and Naperville than they do now and, mostly, it will be worse. In fact, other agencies won't even be able to hear the new communications system without purchasing or borrowing extremely expensive new gear and from a sole source provider at that. Who pays? I'd venture to guess the individual departments will, not Aurora and Naperville. A good example of hidden costs. Of course the plan may be to loan radios to units coming in from other jurisdictions but that's a laughable concept to anyone familiar with police and fire bureaucracies. They won't have the radios when they really need them. The radios that are loaned won't work or just won't be charged. There won't be enough of them. And the outside responders won't be trained in system protocols...ie: they won't know how to run 'em, police radios nowadays being just about as confusing to the average non-gearhead copper as a high-end cell phone, iPod or TV satellite receiver.
What Aurora and Naperville really want to do is make their police and fire communications "more secure." Police agencies have been trying to do that for as long as medical researchers have been trying to cure the common cold. Translated, it means they don't want you and me (and the three master criminals who are scanner savvy) and especially the scary, scary news media listening to them on easily purchased scanners.
The thinking is not new. I started in the news business in the 1970's. Cops regularly warned me that, by responding to police and fire incidents after hearing them on my ten-channel scanner, I was endangering emergency personnel and would therefore be subject to arrest! Yawn.
Here's my take on the Aurora/Naperville plan.
First, any publicly funded agency that feels it has to hide its daily routine from the people it serves doesn't understand its mission statement. It goes without saying that police departments should encrypt their sensitive communications. But "sensitive" would be things like homicide/gang crime/drug investigations and SWAT responses not barking dog calls, domestic fights, traffic accidents and house fires.
Second, if administrators put away their "who's listening to us?" paranoia, especially as regards the news media, and really concentrate on designing a system that is interoperable, they would find better and cheaper technology that doesn't rely on a single provider for service.
Third, the Chicago Police and Fire Departments are still working with a radio system that was state of the art in the 1960's. Forty years ago! I'm sure many Chicago coppers don't like the idea of crooks listening to them or having scanner buffs and the media showing up at their crime scenes but they manage to work around the annoyances just fine. Chicago, too, is planning to upgrade their equipment but with truly interoperable radios other agencies can easily buy if they choose to do so.
So what are Aurora and Naperville doing that's worth spending $20 million to hide?
That's the new buzz word. Interoperability. What it means in simple terms is...in a disaster, all emergency responders want to be able to talk to each other. Wonderful concept.
Except the new system Aurora and Naperville officials are buying, at a publicly stated cost of $20 million, is designed to do just the opposite. Yes, it appears to allow Aurora and Naperville agencies to talk to one another to their hearts' content. But mutual aid responders? Not so much. Outside departments summoned to assist with emergencies won't have any better "interoperability" with Aurora and Naperville than they do now and, mostly, it will be worse. In fact, other agencies won't even be able to hear the new communications system without purchasing or borrowing extremely expensive new gear and from a sole source provider at that. Who pays? I'd venture to guess the individual departments will, not Aurora and Naperville. A good example of hidden costs. Of course the plan may be to loan radios to units coming in from other jurisdictions but that's a laughable concept to anyone familiar with police and fire bureaucracies. They won't have the radios when they really need them. The radios that are loaned won't work or just won't be charged. There won't be enough of them. And the outside responders won't be trained in system protocols...ie: they won't know how to run 'em, police radios nowadays being just about as confusing to the average non-gearhead copper as a high-end cell phone, iPod or TV satellite receiver.
What Aurora and Naperville really want to do is make their police and fire communications "more secure." Police agencies have been trying to do that for as long as medical researchers have been trying to cure the common cold. Translated, it means they don't want you and me (and the three master criminals who are scanner savvy) and especially the scary, scary news media listening to them on easily purchased scanners.
The thinking is not new. I started in the news business in the 1970's. Cops regularly warned me that, by responding to police and fire incidents after hearing them on my ten-channel scanner, I was endangering emergency personnel and would therefore be subject to arrest! Yawn.
Here's my take on the Aurora/Naperville plan.
First, any publicly funded agency that feels it has to hide its daily routine from the people it serves doesn't understand its mission statement. It goes without saying that police departments should encrypt their sensitive communications. But "sensitive" would be things like homicide/gang crime/drug investigations and SWAT responses not barking dog calls, domestic fights, traffic accidents and house fires.
Second, if administrators put away their "who's listening to us?" paranoia, especially as regards the news media, and really concentrate on designing a system that is interoperable, they would find better and cheaper technology that doesn't rely on a single provider for service.
Third, the Chicago Police and Fire Departments are still working with a radio system that was state of the art in the 1960's. Forty years ago! I'm sure many Chicago coppers don't like the idea of crooks listening to them or having scanner buffs and the media showing up at their crime scenes but they manage to work around the annoyances just fine. Chicago, too, is planning to upgrade their equipment but with truly interoperable radios other agencies can easily buy if they choose to do so.
So what are Aurora and Naperville doing that's worth spending $20 million to hide?
Labels:
interoperability,
media,
mutual aid response,
scanners,
two-way radios
Friday, July 3, 2009
On Not Being Bullied.
Kids in school loved what happened when they punched me. I would wail, "Stop it, that HURTS!" and cower in a corner. After years of taking the abuse, however, I started hitting back. And kept doing so until I neutralized the threat.
I'm not a parent but from the perspective of a former victim and ex-cop, here are some thoughts about dealing with bullies.
1. Don't just tell your kids to fight back, teach them how. Yes, the Bible encourages us to turn the other cheek, but it also tells the story of Elisha who cursed his bullies in the name of the Lord and saw them mauled by bears. If you don't know how to fight, find someone who does. Metropolitan areas have martial arts schools on every corner. In smaller towns, ask law enforcement who trained them. Go online. Competency in any sport helps build a child's confidence. Call your park district. Check into boxing or wrestling clubs.
2. Kids shouldn't have to fight alone. My parents were halfhearted at best in their protests to the school and, frankly, schools are only part of the equation and will often deny responsibility. Telling a child who has been bullied "suck it up" because that's what your dad ordered you to do isn't good enough. Neither is moving them from campus to campus. Become your child's advocate. Listen to what they say. More importantly, watch for signs of what they aren't telling you, specifically anxiety about going to school or a group event, depression, self abuse (cutting themselves, for example) or talk of suicide. Encourage them to be frank and open about the problem; don't punish or ignore them when they speak up. Take the time to be sympathetic. Trust them.
3. Use the information they give you to alert their school to the problem. And keep alerting, every time bullying occurs. Document injuries. Talk to school counselors first, administrators next. If the school refuses to react, take the problem to the school board or the superintendent of schools for your district. Talk to an attorney, the police or even the local media. Speak up and make a case for your child. Just as bullies are cowards and fear exposure, schools are like any bureaucracy: they're afraid of lawsuits and bad publicity.
4. Don't blame your child for the problem. You may not approve of their tastes in music or clothes or even their lifestyle, but do they deserve black eyes and bruises from their peers for their alternative beliefs? A child who is victimized for wearing dark clothing or just being "weird" at school may also be a victim at home...and not necessarily of direct abuse. How's your drinking, Mom? How much time do you spend at the office, Dad? Look at your relationship with your kids. If they bring you a problem do you try to help them? Do you work with them on it, solve it for them, or brush them off? Do you drop them at the mall or the game arcade so you can enjoy an evening out or do you find appropriate activities for them? Do you pay attention to, and enjoy, your children or do you ignore them? I'm not talking about love, here. Do you like your kids? Do you have fun and get a kick out of spending time with them? Do you support them? Do they know it?
5. Read all you can about the problem of bullying. If you don't know where to start, here is a Chicago Tribune article that may open your eyes to the problem:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bullying-01-jul01,0,3476.story
Bullying is not one of those, "Oh Bobby will grow out of it" issues.
As the Tribune article illustrates, your bullied child may not live long enough to have that luxury.
---------
Here are some websites with helpful information:
http://www.theprotectors.org/Protectors_Lesson_Sample.pdf
http://kidshealth.org/parent/emotions/behavior/bullies.html#
http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/kids/
http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/HHS_PSA/pdfs/SBN_Tip_7.pdf
I'm not a parent but from the perspective of a former victim and ex-cop, here are some thoughts about dealing with bullies.
1. Don't just tell your kids to fight back, teach them how. Yes, the Bible encourages us to turn the other cheek, but it also tells the story of Elisha who cursed his bullies in the name of the Lord and saw them mauled by bears. If you don't know how to fight, find someone who does. Metropolitan areas have martial arts schools on every corner. In smaller towns, ask law enforcement who trained them. Go online. Competency in any sport helps build a child's confidence. Call your park district. Check into boxing or wrestling clubs.
2. Kids shouldn't have to fight alone. My parents were halfhearted at best in their protests to the school and, frankly, schools are only part of the equation and will often deny responsibility. Telling a child who has been bullied "suck it up" because that's what your dad ordered you to do isn't good enough. Neither is moving them from campus to campus. Become your child's advocate. Listen to what they say. More importantly, watch for signs of what they aren't telling you, specifically anxiety about going to school or a group event, depression, self abuse (cutting themselves, for example) or talk of suicide. Encourage them to be frank and open about the problem; don't punish or ignore them when they speak up. Take the time to be sympathetic. Trust them.
3. Use the information they give you to alert their school to the problem. And keep alerting, every time bullying occurs. Document injuries. Talk to school counselors first, administrators next. If the school refuses to react, take the problem to the school board or the superintendent of schools for your district. Talk to an attorney, the police or even the local media. Speak up and make a case for your child. Just as bullies are cowards and fear exposure, schools are like any bureaucracy: they're afraid of lawsuits and bad publicity.
4. Don't blame your child for the problem. You may not approve of their tastes in music or clothes or even their lifestyle, but do they deserve black eyes and bruises from their peers for their alternative beliefs? A child who is victimized for wearing dark clothing or just being "weird" at school may also be a victim at home...and not necessarily of direct abuse. How's your drinking, Mom? How much time do you spend at the office, Dad? Look at your relationship with your kids. If they bring you a problem do you try to help them? Do you work with them on it, solve it for them, or brush them off? Do you drop them at the mall or the game arcade so you can enjoy an evening out or do you find appropriate activities for them? Do you pay attention to, and enjoy, your children or do you ignore them? I'm not talking about love, here. Do you like your kids? Do you have fun and get a kick out of spending time with them? Do you support them? Do they know it?
5. Read all you can about the problem of bullying. If you don't know where to start, here is a Chicago Tribune article that may open your eyes to the problem:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-bullying-01-jul01,0,3476.story
Bullying is not one of those, "Oh Bobby will grow out of it" issues.
As the Tribune article illustrates, your bullied child may not live long enough to have that luxury.
---------
Here are some websites with helpful information:
http://www.theprotectors.org/Protectors_Lesson_Sample.pdf
http://kidshealth.org/parent/emotions/behavior/bullies.html#
http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/kids/
http://www.stopbullyingnow.hrsa.gov/HHS_PSA/pdfs/SBN_Tip_7.pdf
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Bullied, Battered and Bloody
A Chicago Tribune article yesterday got me thinking.
From about age six to age eleven, I was a victim.
Bullies beat me up on my way to school. They pushed me into chairs and lockers between classes. They lay in wait for me afterward, too. Even a girl I had an enormous crush on helped them with a neat trick called "tripped by the dog." She dropped to her knees behind me so a couple of my tormentors could shove me backward over her.
Fed up with my bruises, my headaches, my fears of walking or riding my bike to and from school and elsewhere, my parents sent me away to summer camp. Unfortunately, they didn't consider who some of the other campers might be. Those two summers were hell.
It wasn't until boarding school that I brought the bullying to a halt.
A kid shoved me down a flight of stairs one day, hurting me so badly I had to go to the hospital. Actually I faked most of the injury because I thought I could get a ride in an ambulance (which I did) and out of doing homework (which I didn't). The next day he shouldered me into a wall. I remember the searing white anger that propelled me to punch him twice, trip him, and then smash his head into the floor. I did such a good job that a teacher came up to me later, shook my hand and asked me how it felt not to be a crybaby any longer.
It felt pretty good. So good I started reacting the same way each time I was attacked. I added screaming as an additional weapon. Not the thin little pitiful whines of before but the sort of sounds I imagined Sergeant Rock from my favorite comics would make. I took a brick to one kid and a dumbbell from my brothers' weight set to another. And that's where it stopped.
They thought I was nuts. I went looking for fights. So the bullies made friends with me instead.
And no, becoming a whack-job is not the moral of this story or what I'd suggest to kids of today who face the same kind of turmoil I did. But it sure helps.
More on fighting back tomorrow.
From about age six to age eleven, I was a victim.
Bullies beat me up on my way to school. They pushed me into chairs and lockers between classes. They lay in wait for me afterward, too. Even a girl I had an enormous crush on helped them with a neat trick called "tripped by the dog." She dropped to her knees behind me so a couple of my tormentors could shove me backward over her.
Fed up with my bruises, my headaches, my fears of walking or riding my bike to and from school and elsewhere, my parents sent me away to summer camp. Unfortunately, they didn't consider who some of the other campers might be. Those two summers were hell.
It wasn't until boarding school that I brought the bullying to a halt.
A kid shoved me down a flight of stairs one day, hurting me so badly I had to go to the hospital. Actually I faked most of the injury because I thought I could get a ride in an ambulance (which I did) and out of doing homework (which I didn't). The next day he shouldered me into a wall. I remember the searing white anger that propelled me to punch him twice, trip him, and then smash his head into the floor. I did such a good job that a teacher came up to me later, shook my hand and asked me how it felt not to be a crybaby any longer.
It felt pretty good. So good I started reacting the same way each time I was attacked. I added screaming as an additional weapon. Not the thin little pitiful whines of before but the sort of sounds I imagined Sergeant Rock from my favorite comics would make. I took a brick to one kid and a dumbbell from my brothers' weight set to another. And that's where it stopped.
They thought I was nuts. I went looking for fights. So the bullies made friends with me instead.
And no, becoming a whack-job is not the moral of this story or what I'd suggest to kids of today who face the same kind of turmoil I did. But it sure helps.
More on fighting back tomorrow.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)