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.
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Thursday, January 17, 2013
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.
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.
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.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
UPDATE
UPDATE
Less my readers think this blog is having a positive effect, let me review some incidents I've heard about on the news:2012
Oct. 9 A 15-year old girl in Pakistan was shot in the neck on her school bus allegedly by Taliban thugs that had stopped the bus. This was in retaliation for her and her father being outspoken advocates for formal schooling for girls in Pakistan. As of the 13th she was said to finally be in stable condition. The Taliban has vowed to kill her and her father.
Oct. 9 Jerry Sandusky sentenced to thirty years in prison for sexual abuse of boys. No word as to the fate of the other grown men with whom he allegedly shared boys. Sandusky evidently won't help to stop these other men as he is maintaining his innocence.
Oct. 10 A 50 some year old man in downtown Pittsburgh was sucker punched by one of several teens. He is expected to be able to return to work in a few days.
Oct. 10 An adult father, William Bailey, and son imitate the limping walk of a five-year old girl with Cerebral Palsy at a neighborhood school bus stop.
Oct. 12 Hundreds of trees were cut down in Los Angeles to accommodate the passage of the space shuttle through the streets. No explanation as to why they could not have left it at the airport and had the Space Museum be in charge of displaying it there for an admission price nor why any of thousands of engineers in this country could not figure out how to place the shuttle on a higher base so that the wings would clear the tops of the trees.
Oct. 16(?) Dr. Phil covered the subject of human trafficking in this country. It involves thousands of teenage runaways being forced into prostitution.
Oct. 18 Man arrested for attempting to set off a bomb in New York City.
Oct 19 It was revealed today that the Boy Scouts of America have kept records since the 1920s about sexual abuse and abusers in leadership position within the organization. The 1247 cases of alleged abuse that took place during the last twenty years happened in 49 states. Very few cases were reported to the proper authorities.
Oct.23 A well-known member of the BBC, now deceased, is believed to have been an active pedophile for years. The truth is only now being exposed.
Nov. 6 Barrack Obama is president for four more years. Bad news for bullies. Good news for victims of bullying.
Nov.25 There was a report of the increasing frequency of hit and run accidents involving bicyclists.
Nov. 28 I heard on the news about two young women in India I believe. They were arrested for expressing an unpopular opinion on Twitter about a local leader who had died. Crowds of angry people protested the expression of the girls' opinion. At least the story had a happy ending in that higher authorities arrested those officials responsible for the girls' arrest. This incident shows how superior, intolerant social attitudes are related to bullying.
I realize that not everyone is going to agree with my approach to bullying. However, we really need to discuss the differences of opinion in regard to definition and solution if things are to change. As you can see from this update, nothing seems to be getting better in regard to bullying.
Dec.14 Lots of bullying incidents around the world have been occurring since my last entry. There's today's mass shooting in a Conn. elementary school. 28 dead. What do you think? Should that be one more point for the NRA or 28?
Then there's the ongoing and escalating efforts to bully the Syrian people by their leader Assad He reminds me of an infant having a temper tantrum. He is now firing Scud missiles at Aleppo. Thank goodness there are enough people willing to stand up physically/militarily to this bully.
In northern Mauritania, a country of West Africa, where extremist Islamists are in control, a woman was beaten and jailed for giving a drink of water to a thirsty man. Is it fear that makes people want to put the letter of the law ahead of the commandment to love thy neighbor and do good to one's enemies?
In local news a man takes his own life with a gun after killing his girlfriend. Lots of killings around the country. Did you know there are 15,000 people killed with guns annually in this country? That's like over 44 people per day. I wonder how that compares to the number of gunfight fatalities in the old west? Of course, in a gun fight one sometimes had a fighting chance. Today's bullies with guns don't like to give anyone a fighting chance.
Dec. 15 I am heartened by the reaction to the Newtown, Conn. massacre. So many people finally speaking out about the need for gun control. Would it not be significant if 20 first graders had to give their lives before our politicians found enough back bone to ban automatic assault weapons and close the gap in the law that allows guns to be bought at gun shows without a background check?
Guns alone are not the problem and therefore not the sole solution to preventing further tragedies of this type. Machetes, knives, etc. are also lethal weapons. The difference is one needs to get much closer to the victim than with a gun. This gives the potential victim or victims more of an opportunity to defend themselves. If a homicidal bully can't get his hands on a gun, he does have other lethal alternatives. Perhaps schools should make as much effort teaching self-defense skills to children as they do to teach volleyball or basketball. If we fail, as a society, to stop supporting and encouraging bullying in all its forms, the tragedy in Conn. is bound to repeat itself.
Dec. 16 The Southern Poverty Law Center's Teaching Tolerance program engaged almost 3,000 schools nation-wide in their Mix It Up At Lunch Day which encourages students to have lunch with someone new in the cafeteria. An excellent way to discourage bullying in schools. The American Family Association, a group of anti-gay religious zealots, tried to harass schools into not participating. This is evidence that religious bullying is ongoing in this country.
The Newtown, Conn. tragedy continues to be in the news. Perhaps that's because people continue to try to understand why it happened. I'm willing to try to explain one possible scenario. Let's say there is a first grader who is extremely timid and socially withdrawn. Some bullying incident happens to him in first grade of which no adult is aware. The first grade boy is so ashamed of what was done to him that he never tells any one about it. Let's suppose there follow more incidents of bullying, some of which his teachers allow to occur, including his mother who is a substitute teacher in the school. The boy, feeling helpless, never retaliates. But he never forgives the bullies nor does he ever forget. Flash forward 20 years. The boy is now a man with a mental illness and access to guns and body armour. He is finally in a place where he feels strong enough to exact revenge on the first grade students and teachers who humiliated him. A sane person might take into consideration that 20 years had passed and that the same students and teachers are no longer in that school. But this scenario involves a mentally ill person.
I saw an interview with a former caretaker of the Conn. shooter on TV who claimed he was not bullied since there were adults around him all the time he was in elementary school. First of all, unless he personally was with the child constantly, he is vouching for something he did not personally witness. Also, one must wonder if there would not be even a few minutes occasionally when there would not be an adult present in the classroom. And what about the restroom? I'm not buying this claim that he could not have been bullied in school.
I would be surprised if school children are not still being bullied by other children speaking in low tones/whispering nasty, negative things to them. No one else hears it. And even if the victim tells an adult, it's his/her word against that of the bully. This happens in the classroom, in the halls, in gym class, in the restrooms, at recess.
Dec. 17 This happened last month I guess but is just making it onto the news. I believe it occurred in Fayette County of western Pennsylvania. A rancher was arrested and charged with interfering with pipeline employees after confronting the employees of the company which he believes had discharged acid mine drainage onto his property as well as tearing down fencing. This is an example of corporate bullying. Why does the local government support it?
Dec. 18 India. It was reported that a young woman was viciously gang raped on a tour bus before being thrown off of the moving bus.
\\\
Dec.22 India. Thousands of citizens are protesting in favor of the death penalty for the gang rapists referred to above. Government authorities are tear gassing the protesters. This would seem to show that bullies tend to support other bullies in India.
Dec 23 It did not take long for another mass shooting to occur. This time it involved four fireman on a call. Two are dead, the other two wounded. The shooter shot himself.
2013
Jan. 3 Since the previous date a local woman shot her boyfriend because he took her beer. An example of the bully being bullied.
Sad to report that the Indian woman gang raped on the bus, has died.
The Pentagon says there were 3200 sexual assaults reported by military personnel last year.
Why do some men think they have the need/right to sexually assault women? This seems to be a virtually universal problem in every country. Except for Buddhism, most of the world's major religions have historically viewed women as inferior to men. That means Moslems, Christians and Jews. I don't know enough about Hinduism to make an observation about their attitude toward women. Nor am I blaming the bullying of women by men on religion. I am suggesting that if women had been the founders, leaders, priestesses of these religions, perhaps women in today's world would enjoy more respect from men in general
There are underlying psychological factors that result in men's condescending attitude toward women. Some men feel inferior to women, though they would never admit this, even to themselves.
There is also a fear factor. Some men fear whatever they don't understand. Combine either of those factors with an inability or impatience to win a woman's heart and a bullying attitude toward people in general and the social/religious belief in the lesser status of women, you have someone who is likely to sexually assault a woman whom he desires but who rejects him.
Jan.4 Back in December I posted a petition to the White House website (http://wh.gov/RLVW) to get
the white house to host a national discussion on bullying in light of the Newport, Ct. school shootings. I asked as many of my "enlightened" friends as I had addresses for to add their names to my petition. It is discouraging that in the last two weeks only one person, more of an acquaintance, has done so. If it weren't for him, I would think I may have gotten the web address wrong. This lack of response adds to meaning to the title of this blog, "Bullying-Do we really want nit to stop?".
I heard on the radio yesterday that the Taliban bullies in northern Mali are cutting off people's hands and feet in public for alleged offenses.
On a brighter note, the 15 year old girl shot by Taliban bullies in Pakistan back in October is already released from the hospital. Doctors say she will eventually have to have several more operations. In India the government announced that more women will be hired as police officers in an effort to protect women in that country.
Friday, August 17, 2012
Addendum to Bullying - do we really want it to stop?
ADDENDUM
Creating a monopoly is another form of bullying. One of the most threatening organized monopolizing efforts on a global scale is being conducted by a company named Monsanto. They brought us the defoliant Agent Orange which is associated with cancer. Since that innovation they have developed genetically engineered seeds for corn, soybeans, etc. designed to be resistant to specific forms of pesticides sold by Monsanto. Most of the Genetically modified seeds for crops worldwide are sold by Monsanto along with the accompanying designer pesticides.
Marie Monique Robin's book The World According to Monsanto, exposes this company's efforts to control the world's foood supply. There is a documentary film by the same name that can be viewed at (www.topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/).
Monday, August 6, 2012
Bullying-Pt.6- WHAT TO DO-Do We Really Want It To Stop?
WHAT TO DO
Bullying is not a problem limited to primary and secondary schools and college fraternal organizations. It has existed throughout history in a variety of forms and persists in numerous venues in this society, including sports at all levels, the financial sector, government, criminals, care giving, home life, and religion. Bullying in a number of those venues is carried out and approved by apparently responsible rational members of society. Children are not stupid but if they are confused, is it any wonder? Adults tell them they should not bully others, but they see instances where adult bullying seems to benefit and win approval for the bullies. The problem of bullying in schools will not be resolved until there is a successful effort to eradicate it from American society and culture generally. Perhaps we need a Bullies Anonymous organization modeled on AA. That would be helpful to bullies who wish to change their attitudes and behavior, such as myself. I consider myself a bully in recovery.
Just as there are alcoholics who don't care to change, there are bullies who prefer the way things are. One of my favorite quotes is applicable here.
"With the reasonable I will reason. With the humane I will plead. But with tyrants I will yield no ground, waste no argument." William Loyd Garrison
Replace "tyrants" with "bullies" and we have a method for dealing with active adult bullies set in their ways, whether its the premier of China or the child molester next door. If your children see that their parents are boycotting products made in China because the Chinese government is bullying Tibet, they are less likely to bully their siblings and peers. Bullies need support. Support reinforces the bullying. If you want to be part of the solution, stop supporting active bulllies.
Don't buy any product and/or service from which active bullies directly profit. Don't vote for them. Don't browse their websites. Don't purchase their literature. Don't attend their churches nor speeches. Don't contribute to their causes.
Contribute to legitimate organizations which are working to stop specific forms of bullying such as SPLC (www.splcenter.org), AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL (www.amnesty.usa.org). We can talk to children endlessly about the evils of bullying and urge them to stand up to bullies. Another method of learning that lesson occurs when children see that their parents , teachers and other responsible adults are serious about stopping bullying in our society and in our world.
Friday, August 3, 2012
Bullying-Pts 4 & 5-World Politics and Religious - Do We Really Want it to Stop? Pts 4&5
Before I start Part 4 I need to comment on the Chick-Fil-A controversy. There are those in favor of boycotting this business run by a person who has spoken out against equal rights for homosexuals. He even called homosexuals "arrogant". That's like the pot calling the kettle black coming from a person who self-righteously speaks as if he is the Voice of God. Critics of the boycott are trying to spin this controversy as a free speech issue. That is so senseless. I have not heard anyone say the head of Chick-Fil-A should not have the right to express his disapproval of homosexuality. Personally, I'm glad he did. I like knowing I'm not buying chicken from at least one company whose CEO has a bullying attitude toward homosexuals. I heard someone quoted as saying I should not take "political action" against someone whose opinion differs from my own. Isn't that what the political process is all about in this country? As far as I know the head of Chick-Fil-A is not running for any political office anyway. So what's political about people expressing disapproval of his bullying attitude toward homosexuals? I have as much right to express my opinion as any CEO does. I should have the right not to work for a bully, not to hire bullies, not to let my money add to bullies' profits. If you want to know why you should boycott Chick-Fil-A, read the entire "Bullying-Do We Really Want it to Stop?" blog. If you would prefer your offspring to be bullies, don't bother.
The United States armed forces acting as the official bullying power of their country invaded Iraq, changing the political leadership of that country. Then members of that same bullying force got caught humiliating enemy POWs at Abu-Ghraib. Why is it that the bullying of POWs was made to seem more offensive than bullying all of Iraq? Perhaps it depends on how one spins the story. The invasion of Iraq was supposedly prompted by some one's information that the dictator Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in his arsenal and by his refusal to destroy said weapons. We realize in hindsight that there were no weapons for him to destroy. Even if there had been, would that have justified an invasion? Imagine invading every country run by a despot who might possess weapons of mass destruction. Would that be justified or just senseless and offensive?
R. Geiger
PART 4
BULLYING AND WORLD POLITICS
The United States armed forces acting as the official bullying power of their country invaded Iraq, changing the political leadership of that country. Then members of that same bullying force got caught humiliating enemy POWs at Abu-Ghraib. Why is it that the bullying of POWs was made to seem more offensive than bullying all of Iraq? Perhaps it depends on how one spins the story. The invasion of Iraq was supposedly prompted by some one's information that the dictator Sadam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction in his arsenal and by his refusal to destroy said weapons. We realize in hindsight that there were no weapons for him to destroy. Even if there had been, would that have justified an invasion? Imagine invading every country run by a despot who might possess weapons of mass destruction. Would that be justified or just senseless and offensive?
Consider the following scenario:
America elects a president who is quite popular but develops clear and obvious signs of mental instability. The Congress refuses to depose him/her from power. There is no question that this president has power over enough weapons of mass destruction to wipe out the civilized world. The United Nations tries negotiating. When that fails sanctions are imposed against the U.S. The popular president refuses to give up the office nor the weapons. Russia and/or China grow impatient demanding immediate disarmament and destruction of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in the American arsenal. They feel the only acceptable alternative is to destroy the weapons themselves. If the invasion of Iraq was justified, how much more just would the invasion of America in this scenario be?
Until the United Nations outlaws all weapons of mass destruction everywhere on and above this earth, every country should have the right to possess such weapons as long as the weapons are not used against a non-aggressive country and as long as they do not have destructive effects on the rest of the world. If the world community were to agree that all weapons of mass destruction should be forever banned, then any country, group, or individual would have no right to possess such weapons. In that case the confiscation of such weapons by legitimate international law enforcement would not be bullying. In a world without weapons of mass destruction, no country would need such weapons.
Another form of bullying related to the world stage is genocide, the organized attempt to destroy a whole nation or ethnic group. Sometimes genocide is physical as the Nazis trying to eradicate all European Jews. Genocide can also be aimed at a culture as the U.S. government's attempt to integrate native Americans into white society and culture and the present Chinese attempt to destroy the culture of the Tibetan people. Whenever organized attempts at physical or cultural genocide exist, there is a bully behind it and bullies doing the killing, raping, property destruction, etc.
In a separate section of this blog, I mentioned that I would like the power to bully all active bullies into stopping. It occurred to me how similar that seems to this month's (Nov. 2012) Middle East conflict between Israel and Hammas of the West Bank. Israel has more power. Hammas would like to wipe Israel off the map. Hammas perceives Israel as the Big Bully and the fact that they dare to taunt the Big Bully with mortars and missiles, indicates their desire to overcome or out bully the bully.
In a separate section of this blog, I mentioned that I would like the power to bully all active bullies into stopping. It occurred to me how similar that seems to this month's (Nov. 2012) Middle East conflict between Israel and Hammas of the West Bank. Israel has more power. Hammas would like to wipe Israel off the map. Hammas perceives Israel as the Big Bully and the fact that they dare to taunt the Big Bully with mortars and missiles, indicates their desire to overcome or out bully the bully.
PART 5
RELIGIOUS BULLYING
There is probably no religion in this world that has not experienced bullying in the form of discrimination and/or persecution. It is difficult to understand why religious denominations, once they reach a stage where they possess any power and influence in a society, sometimes take their turn frightening and tyrannizing non-believers. The early Christians were persecuted by the Romans. The Christian church survived and eventually ended up dominating the Holy Roman Empire. Christians are remembered for killing witches and torturing native Americans in the process of "converting" them. In the United States the doctrine of separation of church and state was instituted to protect religious freedom of all citizens and to prevent the government from being taken over by any specific group that would use their power to force their religious beliefs and practices on all Americans. There are people of the religious Christian right who would force all Americans to live according to their beliefs and values through legislation if they had that power. I believe they are actively trying to attain that power. There is little difference in mindset between the "Christian" religious fanatics in this country and those in the Middle East who believe whole countries should be run according to Islamic law and customs. They are bullies with similar agendas. Just as infidels top the black list of fanatic Islamists, atheists and certain types of unrepentant sinners top the black list of fanatic Christians. The goal of each fanatical group is to control people's behavior. This is bullying.
The "Christians" who bomb abortion clinics and attempt to kill doctors who perform abortions are the same type of bullies as the "Islamists" who planned and carried out the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11. Christians is in parentheses because the word literally means a follower of Christ. Remember him? Stripped, beaten, whipped, nailed to a cross? DEFINITELY NOT A BULLY! In fact, perhaps the most famous victim of bullying in human history. How is it that people who purport to believe in him, can have such bullying attitudes?
Wednesday, August 1, 2012
Bullying- Historically Speaking - Do we Really Want it to Stop? Pt. 3
A "disclaimer": I'm not a professional social psychologist nor an historian. I possess a little knowledge about a wide range of subjects. So without further ado, I will start writing about bullying from an historical viewpoint.
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING
I suppose the first bully was Cain who slew Abel. That was just the beginning. History is full of famous, or rather infamous, bullies. Caesar, Genghis Khan, Francisco Pizarro, Cortez, George III of England, Geronimo, Napoleon, Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Tito, Hiro Hito, Joseph Stalin, Joseph McCarthy, J. Edgar Hoover, George Wallace, Pol Pot, Sadam Hussein and Bin Laden are just a few of many well-known bullies throughout the breadth of human history. These bullies did not bully in isolation. They were men of power because they had the support of large numbers of people or at least the support of others in power.
A number of these bullies led their countries to invade non-aggressive countries to occupy and/or to depose the legitimate leadership of the non-aggressive countries. Such invasions are examples of organized bullying on a grand scale. In the first half of the twentieth century, Germany tried twice to bully the rest of Europe; Japan invaded China and Manchuria; Russia took possession of much of eastern Europe; and China invaded and took possession of Tibet.
Bullying has been and continues to be widespread throughout our world. It is hard to imagine what life on earth would look like without the influence of the bullies that have shaped and continue to shape human history. I believe that, without bullying, more human energy would have gone into positive creativity that could have eliminated poverty, diseases, and unnecessary pollution; preserved natural wilderness; and beautified cities.
Children are not taught in school what might have been if it had not been for the infamous bullies and massive organized bullying that they study in history class. They are aware, on some level, that infamous bullies, while not being well-known scientists, nor great diplomats, nor notable inventors, nevertheless have shaped human history to varying degrees and have made their names memorable in the process.
Some American students may even be smart enough to realize that if it weren't for bullying in this country's past, their families would not be enjoying their current socio-economic status. Where would the many families in this country be if their ancestors had not been bullies? Perhaps Spain or France could have afforded to pay fair market value for the American real estate they claimed as their own. Instead of paying the Native Americans for what the land was worth, they just took it by force of occupation. The newly formed government of the United States which had yet to impose an income tax on its citizens could not afford to pay a fair price to the natives whose land was being occupied by its citizens. Instead of paying the tribes for their land, the U.S. government beat them into submission through violence, starvation, disease, and broken promises. Having confined the survivors to reservations, the government attempted cultural genocide by integrating native Americans, particularly children, many of whom were forcibly separated from their parents, into white society.
The nineteenth century doctrine of Manifest Destiny claiming that continued expansion of the Republic was its obvious destiny, was a thinly veiled rationalized justification for bullying the Indian tribes west of the Mississippi River as well as aboriginal peoples of some Pacific and Caribbean Islands.
Would the greatest nation on Earth still be so great if it weren't for bullying? How many American fortunes were made through the Slavery, Tobacco, and Firearms trade? The institution of slavery was a form of bullying from which some of the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, profited financially. The slave owners of the South were dependent on slaves for their socio-economic status and this was a factor in their decision to secede from the Union rather than give up slavery.
Even after Emancipation former slaves and their descendants were still treated like second-class citizens thanks to Jim Crow laws. As late as the 1970s "undesirable" poor black men and women in states like California and Arkansas were sterilized without their permission. This was certainly a form of tyranny. One could argue that this practice resulted in smaller welfare rolls which benefits all taxpayers.
There are intelligent human beings who believe that bullying is a manifestation of the natural law of survival of the fittest. Wasn't that Hitler's solution-to create a master race by weeding out the weakest? One could also argue that children bullying one another is a way of establishing a pecking order, similar to animals in which the strongest gets the most to eat. As long as adults give any validity to these notions, bullying by children is inevitable.
HISTORICALLY SPEAKING
A number of these bullies led their countries to invade non-aggressive countries to occupy and/or to depose the legitimate leadership of the non-aggressive countries. Such invasions are examples of organized bullying on a grand scale. In the first half of the twentieth century, Germany tried twice to bully the rest of Europe; Japan invaded China and Manchuria; Russia took possession of much of eastern Europe; and China invaded and took possession of Tibet.
Bullying has been and continues to be widespread throughout our world. It is hard to imagine what life on earth would look like without the influence of the bullies that have shaped and continue to shape human history. I believe that, without bullying, more human energy would have gone into positive creativity that could have eliminated poverty, diseases, and unnecessary pollution; preserved natural wilderness; and beautified cities.
Children are not taught in school what might have been if it had not been for the infamous bullies and massive organized bullying that they study in history class. They are aware, on some level, that infamous bullies, while not being well-known scientists, nor great diplomats, nor notable inventors, nevertheless have shaped human history to varying degrees and have made their names memorable in the process.
Some American students may even be smart enough to realize that if it weren't for bullying in this country's past, their families would not be enjoying their current socio-economic status. Where would the many families in this country be if their ancestors had not been bullies? Perhaps Spain or France could have afforded to pay fair market value for the American real estate they claimed as their own. Instead of paying the Native Americans for what the land was worth, they just took it by force of occupation. The newly formed government of the United States which had yet to impose an income tax on its citizens could not afford to pay a fair price to the natives whose land was being occupied by its citizens. Instead of paying the tribes for their land, the U.S. government beat them into submission through violence, starvation, disease, and broken promises. Having confined the survivors to reservations, the government attempted cultural genocide by integrating native Americans, particularly children, many of whom were forcibly separated from their parents, into white society.
The nineteenth century doctrine of Manifest Destiny claiming that continued expansion of the Republic was its obvious destiny, was a thinly veiled rationalized justification for bullying the Indian tribes west of the Mississippi River as well as aboriginal peoples of some Pacific and Caribbean Islands.
Would the greatest nation on Earth still be so great if it weren't for bullying? How many American fortunes were made through the Slavery, Tobacco, and Firearms trade? The institution of slavery was a form of bullying from which some of the founding fathers, including Thomas Jefferson, profited financially. The slave owners of the South were dependent on slaves for their socio-economic status and this was a factor in their decision to secede from the Union rather than give up slavery.
Even after Emancipation former slaves and their descendants were still treated like second-class citizens thanks to Jim Crow laws. As late as the 1970s "undesirable" poor black men and women in states like California and Arkansas were sterilized without their permission. This was certainly a form of tyranny. One could argue that this practice resulted in smaller welfare rolls which benefits all taxpayers.
There are intelligent human beings who believe that bullying is a manifestation of the natural law of survival of the fittest. Wasn't that Hitler's solution-to create a master race by weeding out the weakest? One could also argue that children bullying one another is a way of establishing a pecking order, similar to animals in which the strongest gets the most to eat. As long as adults give any validity to these notions, bullying by children is inevitable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)