Adult bullying and the common good.

 I am addressing some issues/concerns that an official of a non-profit organization had when I approached her for help with a national anti adult bullying campaign.  I am concerned with the arbitrary use of power which results in hurting, intimidating or tyrannizing another or others.  Why call that bullying?  Bullying is the best-fitting label that I have so far found in Webster's dictionary.  Perhaps I should call it "ballying".  Whatever one calls it, the problem has been around since Cain murdered Abel.  There is something about this problem that has been changing during my lifetime.  There is an intensification and growing commonality in the arbitrary use of power by adults that results in hurting, intimidating, and/or tyrannizing another or others in this alledged land of the free.  Perhaps the commonality is not so much a case of increased frequency as it is the increased number of people negatively affected by bullying.

     I base my belief that the trend of bullying is becoming more common and more intense on an intuitive feeling that has been percolating for the past thirteen years.  Ever had the feeling that some negative change is occurring but you can't quite identify it?  The change over the past 50 years has been rather subtle at least up to the beginning of the last Bush presidency.  Even though it's not based on science, it is nonetheless real. When I was a child, there was no Monsanto trying to control the world-wide production of food.  Perhaps there were Bernie Madoffs, but none as successful or ruthless as him.  There was no housing melt-downs contributing to major recessions.  There was no cyber-bullying and I did not hear about students being killed or seriously injured by hazing incidents every few months.  Nor did we hear about students killing themselves or each other as a reaction to bullying as often as we do these days.  Nor did small groups of politicians shut down the government in pursuit of their own personal agenda.  The arbitrary use of power is intensyfying and hurting, intimidating and tyrannizing more people in this country more effectively than 50 years ago.  Perhaps I should write a book about the problem that would explain why people who care about certain related causes are indifferent to the general trend.

     I now realize it would be politically unwise for non-profit organizations that rely on corporate funding to draw attention to this trend in American society.  If Monsanto wanted to give a grant to an organization to educate people about pesticides or GMOs it would probably think twice about giving money to an organization that exposed Monsanto as one of the world's biggest corporate bullies.

   This blog and the suggested national bullying awareness campaign are directed toward adults rather than children.  Children can tell that the arbitrary use of power that results in hurting, intimidating and tyrannizing another or others is widespread in the adult world.  Children tend to imitate adults.  As long as adult bullying continues to be so pervasive, i.e., common, school bullying will continue to be a problem for its victims.  Children know instintively that the only difference between a schoolyard bully and an adult bully is size. 

    What is so important about opposing adult bullying, apart from my claim that it perpetuates child bullying?  What is at stake is the quality of the common good in this country.  People who are concerned only about what this country can do for them, are willing to let bullies win.  But even bullies benefit from the common good that their actions lessen.  Victims of bullying naturally devote more energy to protecting themselves and their families than they do to promoting and preserving the common good. 

    What is the alternative to the triumph of bullies?  For all Americans to be able to live in a world where people use their power to promote the common good as opposed to using that power arbitrarily to hurt, intimidate or tyrannize another or others.  If this results in fewer millionaires and billionaires, higher taxes for the upper !%, higher minimum wages, and lower prices for the necessities of life, then so be it.

    So what's the end game?  What is the goal of an adult bullying awareness campaign?  That would be to get as many people as possible mobilized to stand against bullying for the sake of the common good.  Some ideas for how that would be achieved are contained in the previous post.

 

 

[Quoted text hidden]

SYNOPSIS

I have simplified the definition of bullying and am looking for an organization that can handle a national campaign to draw attention to the problem of adult bullying.  If you are reading this latest blog post I would like any suggestions for accomplishing this goal.  The following is the campaign proposal:

A.      The Problem

Bullying is commonly thought of as a childhood problem.   If, however, bullying is defined as the arbitrary use of power that results in hurting, intimidating and/or tyrannizing another or others, it becomes evident that bullying affects people of both genders, and of all ages, classes, races, ethnic backgrounds, and sexual orientations.   Power that can be used to abuse takes different forms.  These include authoritative power, economic power, emotional power, fire power (gun possession), peer pressure, persuasive power, physical size and/or strength, political power, social status, withholding the truth.

        Q.  What do abuse, arson, breaking and entering, coercion, discrimination, espionage, false accusations, harassment, hazing, hostile take-overs, insider trading, kidnapping, murder, price fixing, police brutality, reckless driving, road rage, robbery, slavery, unlawful imprisonment, vandalism and violence have in common?

        A.  They are all arbitrary uses of power resulting in harm, intimidation or tyrannizing, i.e. bullying.

        Fortunately, many of the above examples of bullying are punishable under law.  But that is not true of all forms of bullying.  For example, corporate officials operating on the theory that their primary duty is to increase profit for the stockholders or owner of their company tend to make arbitrary decisions that hurt other people.  When businesses market products and/or services that they know are harmful to the public good and/or to the environment, it is bullying.  When government officials with political motives make arbitrary decisions that result in the public good being threatened, it is bullying.  In fact, some decisions of politicians and judges have supported the bullying actions of corporations.  Bullying that is not against the law happens daily.  Nor do all law-breaking bullies get caught and punished.

B.      The Solution

Must we allow bullying to persist in this country?  Do we want corporate bullies to eventually control the entire political/economic system in order to maximize the financial gains of the richest Americans?  Edmund Burke said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing”.  Based on the principle that “All men are created equal”, bullying is an evil injustice.

Instead of accepting bullying as inevitable, why not mount an anti-bullying campaign that would give people the opportunity to take an anti-bullying pledge?  The pledge could read as follows:

“I stand against bullying no matter what form it takes.  I will not use my power to practice, to promote, nor to support bullying.  Furthermore, I refuse to support those who bully.”  This pledge could be posted on library bulletin boards all over the country with instructions on how to sign the pledge on-line.  An alternative would be to get a copy of the pledge at the circulation desk, sign and mail it in.

I would be more than willing to create a beginning draft of an informational pamphlet or booklet on adult bullying and to help edit such a document.

Another aspect of an adult anti-bullying campaign could be lists of the worst ten bullies of 2013.  One list could be American bullies.   The other list, published at a different time, could be of bullies in the rest of the world.   Nominations could be accepted from interested parties.  This would help to increase awareness of the various manifestations of bullying.

The goal of the campaign would be to make bullying more recognizable in ourselves and others, regardless of the form it takes and to make bullying in any form socially unacceptable in all situations and circumstances.

Pledge

I suppose this idea of circulating an anti-bully pledge was partly inspired by the nefarious Koch brothers' pledge to prevent global warming mitigation legislation from being enacted in the national and state governments of the United States.  So thanks Koch.  Note : the Koches did not make billions of dollars by forsaking bullying.  So if you want to be that rich don't even think about committing to the following anti-bullying pledge:

I stand against bullying* no matter what form it takes and I will not use my power to practice, to promote, nor to support bullying.
     *the illegitimate use of one's superior power to harm or intimidate another or others.

If you want to be decent, fair, courageous, committed to something bigger than yourself, concerned about the greater good, this pledge is for you.

Syria

What should the United States or any country, do, about Syria, i.e. the war on civilians who cannot or choose not to flea the war zone?  If expense was not a concern, perhaps the U.N. could send in troops to enforce a temporary cease fire until all civilians who wish to relocate to safer places could do so with the U.N.'s help.  Then the U.N. could pull out and let the combatants, i.e. those who are the primary bullies supporting Assad, and those who wish they could bully the primary bullies, kill each other.  That's probably not going to happen.  The next best thing and the principled thing to do is to completely withdraw support for the primary bullies and to withhold any sort of support for those who support the primary bullies.   Russia, for example.  Boycotting the Olympic games has been suggested and rejected by President Obama.  The purpose of that boycott would be to somehow punish Russia for giving asylum to Snowden.  It seems more punitive to the American athletes who would be prevented from participating.  A worldwide boycott of the Games based on Russia's support of Syria would be something I might favor, however.
        In addition to withholding support from any country that supports the bully Assad, the Syrian air power should be completely decimated by the international community.  The U.N. should also establish a total land, sea, and air blockade of Syria.  The only thing allowed to enter the country should be humanitarian supplies for civilians, and maybe not even that if the Assad forces would seize those supplies.  If and when Assad is defeated, if a military or religious dictator takes his place, the blockade should continue indefinitely.
       As we have seen in Egypt, there are countless religious bullies in Arab countries who want to use political power to force their religious agenda on the whole population.  This is not in the best interest of these countries' populations nor is it in the best interest of the world in general.

There is now talk of a debate in Congress as to whether or not the U.S. armed forces should be used to punish the Assad regime and make it incapable of using its chemical weapons.  In writing that, I am suddenly aware of how impractical that sounds.  If Assad has a truck available and delayed timer explosives, boom!  On the other hand to let him get away with using chemical weapons without consequences, does not seem any wiser than Churchill allowing Hitler to get away with his aggression prior to World War II.  Bullies who do not suffer negative consequences tend to become more aggressive.
       Russia's plan to arrange for Assad to give his chemical weapons to the United Nations would perhaps prevent future chemical attacks, but not necessarily.  Assad could acquire more chemical weapons subsequently.  Since there were no consequences this time, why not use the new weapons as well?  There needs to be consequences for the chemical attacks, military or otherwise.  The indifference of some Americans using the excuse of being "war weary" for wanting to allow Assad to go unpunished, undeterred, supported, I would ask what has happened to the idea of having principles?  What Assad did is wrong and needs to be addressed by the world community.  I support President Obama's desire to do something about it.
      

Part 9 Children need protection

 Children need protection from bullying in any form.  I feel especially strong that they need protection from adult sexual predators.  When I note the recent abduction of the 8-year old boy in Philadelphia by a sexual predator that raped him and the ten-year old abductions of three teenage girls in Cleveland by three brothers, who just escaped May 6 and the recent abduction and rape of a Philadelphia five-year old girl by a grown woman posing as her mother, I wonder about how well protected children are in this society.  We give lip service to how much we value children.  but we can't agree that background checks of gun purchases at gun shows and over the Internet are worthwhile.  Why not do away with background checks all together then?  There's a good way to show we care about the ability of anyone to do a mass shooting in schools and on public playgrounds.  People opposed to gun control don't care about protecting children. No, you really don't!  Why don't you be honest with yourselves for a change?  The safety of children from crazy people with guns is less important to you than the personal security you get from being surrounded by guns.
       Gun lovers are not alone in their indifference to the well-being of children in our society.  There is an underlying callous disregard for children in America.  It may not be as widespread as when I was growing up fifty years ago.  But it's still there.  Rich kids have never been as negatively affected by it as children from poorer families.  The recent news events from Philly and Cleveland indicate that if there were more sexual predators of children, there would simply be more victims,  What is more precious, more sacrosanct, more blameless that the fleeting innocence of children.  To expose children first hand to the evil potential of human beings is to deprive them of that which they will never possess again.  Do we care?  We don't allow rabid dogs to freely roam the streets.  Why would we allow known sexual predators of children to freely roam those same streets?  Unless we simply don't care unless and until it is our son or daughter that gets snatched?
       Personally, I think the genocide of sexual predators of children would be the most effective solution to this problem.  Too bad it's not legal to create a fund to financially reward anyone who castrates adult child rapists.  That shows my desire to out bully the bullies.
       Getting more real, why shouldn't adult rapists of children be deprived of their sexual drive as a way of protecting children?  If that is not scientifically effective in decreasing the rate of recidivism, then we should create communities for sexual abusers of children (separate for convicted male and female offenders) surrounded by electrified fence buried down to bedrock.  No children allowed.  They should have to live out the rest of their lives in there producing their own food, electricity ,etc.  Cruel and unusual?  What is cruel and unusual is society allowing these people access to innocent children.
        Yes.  Children these days, as in all past ages, are self-centered, spoiled, irritating.  But they still need to receive unconditional positive regard and society's attitude that "bad things inevitably happen
and there is nothing that could have been done to stop it" does not result in children's thriving.

Part 8 Post boston marathon

Congreesman Rubio from New York stated on Sunday, April 14, that a national conversation about violence is needed.  On Monday, I believe the truth of that statement was demonstrated by the bombing at the Boston Marathon.  If it proves to be an act of revenge by a foriegner, it will seem more understandable to me than if it is shown to be an act of domestic terrorism.  If one was a disgruntled taxpayer, why not bomb the IRS rather than the Boston Marathon?
         Regardless of who is responsible, it was an act of cowardice as the President noted.  It was also bullying.   Are such acts inevitable?  Is violent bullying in this country the natural result of a nation that was concieved by opposing the bullying British Empire and later expanded by bullying of native Americans and African slaves?  Is today's violence related to each wave of foriegn immigrants being bullied by their predecessors, and in turn, bullying the next wave of immigrants?
       We give lip service in this country to the principle of freedom.  One who is being bullied in any way, shape or form, cannot and is not free.  As long as bullying is tolerated in this country, violence will continue and the freedom of many individuals will be threatened.
       It is now April 22, Earth Day.  Before I celebrate the day by picking up litter from the park, I want to add to my reaction to the Boston Marathon bombing.  History or time or news people may disagree with my explanation of the "why".  Repeatedly I hear the expression "senseless act".  Maybe, maybe not.  Drive-by shootings of strangers on the streets make less sense to me than the Bosyon bombing.  Two young Moslem men having lived in this country for a number of years, trying to fit in and being somewhat successful at that, suddenly realize that they had not been remaining true to their religion.  Blaming American culture for having been lured away from a closer walk with Allah would not be a mature, insightful reaction.  On the other hand, how many young people in this society react sensibly, maturally,insightfully when encountering serious problems in their lives?  Planting bombs and shooting innocent people is probably the exact opposite of accountable or responsible behavior.  But senseless?  Many, if not most, Americans fail to comprehend the zealotry of  true believers.  There is a reason why some Moslems rail against Western culture, especially American culture.  Christians like to think the United States is a Christian country.  It isn't.  American culture is secular.  Most so called "Christians" don't follow the gospel teachings of Jesus.  They may talk the talk and go to Church on Sundays and raise their families in nice clean houses, etc.  The word Christian literally refers to one who follows Christ, that is, one who lives according to his teachings.  If even the minority of the human population who profess to be Christian actually lived as Christians, we would have a much healthier world.  That would require zealous behavior on the part of Christians.
         To be religiously zealous in a secular materialistic society which worships Mammon has got to be a challenge if one is a Moslem, a Jew, or a Christian.  And for young people with their desire to "fit in", it's got to be even harder.  To suddenly realize that you have allowed yourself to be separated from a closer relationship with your Creator due to the influence of the culture in  which you live may or may not be a big deal.  I suggest it seemed a big deal to the Boston bombers and that their terror spree may have been a sort of religious jihad effort to punish the secular American culture.  Immature.  Yes.  Irresponsible.  Certainly.  Probably mostly counterproductive since not a lot of Americans can understand that extreme degree of religious conviction, if that is what it was.  Was the bombing wrong?  Yes.  But senseless?  Incomprehensible?  Not at all.

Homicidal Bullying Part 7

>It occurs to me that if this post is the first thing you see while accessing this blog, you may think this is the whole thing.  In fact there are seven other parts which were written before this update.  They can be accessed (in reverse order) by clicking on the date (2012) in the margin on the right.  If you don't have time to read the whole blog but are confused as to why the following incidents are listed in a blog about bullying, you may consult Webster's definition of bullying.  After doing that, realize that that definition does not include nor exclude any specific method of bullying.  For example, the dictionary does not say "except incidents involving mentally ill persons with semi-automatic rifles".  Nor does it say "except in the cases of sexual abuse and/or rape".  Nor does the definition put age limits on the bully nor his/her victim.  The goal of this blog is not to redefine bullying.  The purpose is to expand our interpretation of the existing definition in the hopes of making all forms of bullying socially unacceptable.
I inadvertently created the term "homicidal bullying" in December of last year while forming a petition on the White House web site. The petition failed to gather 150 signatures which would have earned it a place on the main site where it may have acquired the balance of 25,000 signatures that would have brought it to the attention of the White House. Had that happened, the White House may have decided to sponsor a national discussion on bullying. That discussion would have had the potential to help more people look at bullying differently and hopefully would have lead to all forms of bullying being considered socially unacceptable. If my readers have any ideas as to how to achieve that goal by other means, please let me know. This post is about homicidal bullying. Bullying is the effort to intimidate, dominate, exercise illegitimate power over another or others. The form bullying takes varies with circumstances, personalities, etc. Different forms of bullying vary in terms of intensity. Least to greatest intensity, they are: 1. Attitude. 2. Verbal/written taunting/teasing including gossip/lies/yelling. 3. Threatening. 4. Unwelcome body to body contact. 5. Violent physical attack without weapons. 6. Violent attack using weapons. 7. Lethal attack - with intent to kill. Bullying at its greatest intensity can result in murder. Thus the term "homicidal bullying". When a woman is raped and killed, that is homicidal bullying. When black people were lynched in the South, that was homicidal bullying. When a spouse kills his/her partner in a jealous rage, that is homicidal bullying. Every mass murder in the last 70 years in the U.S. was homicidal bullying. A drive-by shooting is an example of homicidal bullying. Killing is the ultimate way of controlling another person. Ironically, it also ends the possibility of further control of that person. But killing also has a psychological effect on the killer. Killing can make a killer even more of a bully than he/she was before becoming a killer. How should society deal with homicidal bullies? If they had not been supported in their previous bullying behavior, they may never have become homicidal bullies. But once they have murdered, the best thing society can do with homicidal bullies is to keep them separated from others. Whether that takes the form of capital punishment or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole is up to the courts. The legal system fails to protect society if it hands out any lesser punishments for homicidal bullies.

                                              ARE VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES A GOOD IDEA?
          The answer is, it depends. Do we want to allow our young children to be indoctrinated with the idea that power to destroy life is more valuable than life itself? If so, allow them to play violent video games as much as they can. It will help prepare them to be better professional soldiers, body guards, secret service agents. That is, if, in the meantime, they can (1)avoid being arrested for a violent crime, (2)keep from being killed, and (3) refrain from committing suicide . Professional soldiers in combat situations need to disregard the belief that life is intrinsically valuable. At times they must even be willing to put their own lives at risk for the sake of accomplishing the mission. The mature warrior can shift his value system in non-combat situations and realize life is important. When immature or mentally unstable warriors are allowed to intermingle with civilians in non-combat situations, there is always the possibility of violence erupting. Do we want immature young people living in our midst who have the mind set that power to destroy/dominate/control others is more important than life itself? This is the mind set of a bully. Our willingness to tolerate the playing of violent video games by children under 18 begs the question posed by this blog-do we really want bullying to stop?
                                                WHY DOES THE NRA BUG ME?
       I confess to never being fond of the National Rifle Association and other private organizations allegedly designed to protect our "right to bear arms". I thought that it is the function of the Supreme Court to make sure our constitutional rights are preserved. Some people evidently fear the Court is not up to the task. I have no problem with people who feel more secure with a handgun handy to protect the home as long as it is locked up and the ammunition locked up separately from the gun. Personally, I think a lifeline button would make me feel more secure. Nor do I have a problem with people who responsibly own and handle hunting rifles. But let's face the truth. There is a certain percentage of the seemingly normal, law-abiding American population which is psychologically prepared to go hunting in the event of a national disturbance such as widespread race riots. This percentage of the population I suspect would consist mostly of white adult males. They would not be hunting rabid animals, however. Their targets would be members of minorities such as Blacks, Mexicans, Jews, transsexual and homosexual citizens, illegal immigrants, etc.
        There is also a certain percentage of the population which owns semiautomatic guns, automatic guns, and large capacity ammunition clips. Not all of the above population would hunt and kill human prey if they had the chance. However, there is bound to be some overlap between the people who are potential homicidal murderers and those who own military style weapons and large ammunition clips. This is something with which I definitely have a problem. Since the NRA and similar organizations support the right of potential homicidal bullies to own and use military style weapons and large ammo clips, I have a problem with them as well.
       I also have a bit of compassion for people addicted to all sorts of things. I can sympathize with the thrill seeker who gets a charge from firing military style weapons without having to repeatedly reload. Why can't we limit that activity to licensed firing ranges? The weapons could be checked out  like a pair of shoes in the bowling alley. Return the weapon when finished. That way thrill seekers could still fire the weapons but the weapons could also be banned from distribution to and ownership by the public in general. There would have to be regulations on how the weapons would be stored by the firing range owner, etc. That is a task for the bureaucrats.

THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS



 

Article 2, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution gives the President authority over the State militias, which are distinguished from the national Army and Navy.  So why does the second amendment to the Constitution read "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  The term "free State" seems to refer to individual states since the Constitution proper never refers to the nation as a 'State".  The original purpose of the right to keep and bear arms seems to be contingent on the existence of state militias consisting of citizens using their own muskets, knives, etc. rather than relying on state supplied weapons.  The present day equivalent of a militia would be each state's National Gaurd which uses government-supplied weapons.  I suspect that the writers of this amendment did not envision individual state militias being dependent on the federal government for their weapons.  I have no idea why the President of the country was given authority over the state militias unless it would be the reluctance of one state's militia to come to the aid of other states under attack from foreign powers.
Whatever the reason, the Second Amendment was added later.  Why was it felt that individual free states needed a well regulated armed Militia in order to be "secure"?  Or was the actual emphasis supposed to be remaining "free" states?  Since the President was given authority over the state militias, would that not mean he could order them to be disarmed or disbanded?  If that happened, would the Federal government not be able to more freely interfere with the rights retained by the states?  I don't know that that was the reasoning behind the second amendment.  But if it was, the arguments that people need guns for self defense and/or for hunting don't seem very relevant to the defense of the second amendment.  In fact, the more people with assault weapons and high capacity clips who would be willing to oppose totalitarian rule by government, the more secure our political freedom may be.  The problem is, I, perhaps naively, trust that government poses less of a threat to me than bullies with automatic weapons and large capacity ammunition clips.

The country's founders did not want a totalitarian federal government. 

                                                        THE SENATE VOTE

The U.S. Senate last week voted against a bill that would have expanded background checks to gun show and Internet purchases of firearms.  It begs the question, "What are those senators afraid of?"  Is it the gun lobby, the NRA, or the federal government itself?  It is easy to assume that they are worried about getting reelected.  But since 90% of the American public favored this bill, perhaps that assumption is in error.  If there is a contingency plan for the American populace or some portion thereof, to overthrow the federal government, any legal controls on weapons, especially assault type weapons with large ammunition capacity, would be a threat to the efficacy of implementing that plan.  I believe the U.S. Constitution, in fact, calls for such action if the federal government ever becomes totalitarian.  With each administration it seems that our personal rights are getting increasingly eroded.  I suspect that has more to do with the increasing complexity of our culture and of the world in general than with the emergence of Big Brother.
        But who can say if certain U.S. senators are privy to and supportive of a contingency plan to overthrow the government?
       There are any number of anti-government militia groups all over this country already.  The Senate vote against background check, intentionally or not, supports these groups.  Unfortunately, these militia groups are led by and made up of bullies, bullies with dangerous firearms.  Bullies are not interested in freeing anyone from oppression.  The only freedom bullies value is the freedom to dominate the non-bullies of this world! 
       If you are against bullying, please vote against those senators that voted against background checks.