I have never been one to reject a task simply because it wasn't my job. In fact, I have sometimes gotten myself into trouble because I put my two cents worth where it didn't belong. After all, that propensity for overstepping my bounds is the reason for the title of this blog.
I am taking this a step farther now though, because I am sick and tired, tired and sick, of people who won't do their own jobs, let alone tackle one that cries out for an owner.
I will be hard-pressed to provide an example without revealing the object of my ire, so I will tackjle this a bit differently. I know people who will refrain from responding to an email because their delay will force another to co-opt the task. Knock it off, I say. The email was sent to you because you are the one, or one of the ones, who can further a process, approve a decision, or stop a mistake from happening. Do your job!
Directly related to this is the person who deliberately does only half of his job, thereby shielding himself from full responsibility. Again, providing specific instances promises to create more problems than its worth, so generalities will have to do. And to be honest, specifics aren't really necessary. The delay-ers and half-hearted dally-ers now who they are, and so do you.
Nothing is worse than being the next person in the information chain, knowing that the adjacent link is dawdling, waiting for someone to snatch responsibility away. I suppose that is an offshoot of the other point of complaint, the CYA colleague. You know the guy, his first and primary concern is making certain that he didn't make the mistake. These poeple see the potential for blame in every action they take, and some are rendered catatonic by the prospect of being held accountable for --- anything.
I know this has been generic and probably somewhat bland, but I am relying on the idea that the reader knows plenty of specific examples, and he has already plugged in the specifics on the fly.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Saturday, November 6, 2010
Sometimes, Things Just Slide out of One's Control
About eight years ago, I realized that I am a control freak. I think, however, that my disease is a bit different from typical manifestations of the disorder. Most control freaks I have met need to assert control over the physical elements of their lives. They have a system for organizing the desks, sorting the mail and personal papers, storing their clothes, managing their daily calendar - that sort of thing.
My disorder is limited - and I apply the term somewhat facetiously - to control over my psychological environment. The desk may be messy and usually is. The laundry will get sorted at some point, and I do have a system for doing so, but I feel no sense of urgency toward completing that task. Ok, I do when I am running out of appropriate clothing for work or the gym, but generally, those types of tasks don't upset my emotional applecart.
I need to feel in control of the situations and the people around me. This malady is extremely troublesome because I am well aware of the fact that I am not in control of the situations or the people around me. I think sometimes I could go insane with only a gentle push.
Cases in point: I am all out of sorts today for a couple of reasons, and though I have been counseling myself on an intellectual level, my own words of wisdom are falling rather flat.
Yesterday at work, I was involved in a conflict where I was apparently failing to adequately take charge of an expected duty. I was caught off guard because I thought I was doing the expected thing. I won't go into details because they aren't germane to this discussion. I messed up; I was held responsible; I am internally pouting. Twenty-four hours later, despite great efforts to convince myself that, because I thought I was handling the situation as asked, there was nothing I could have done to avoid it. I must put it behind me, make certain not to repeat the error, and try my best to avoid similar mistakes in the future. I had no control over the change in psychological status, and I still feel emotionally as if I have placed my forehead on a baseball bat, spun around twenty times, then tried to run a forty yard dash.
Complicating the coping/recovery process is an accident that occured in my front yard at 3:30 am. A young man fell asleep at the wheel on his way home from college. He left the roadway in front of my house, came over a bank between the road and my driveway, ran into the car I am currently driving (though fortunately I wasn't doing so at the time), did a vehicular one and a half with at least a full twist, and landed upright in his car in a position that made it look as if he had parked behind my car.
In the process of doing this, he propelled my car, a small SUV about ten feet diagonally, so that it was sitting in my front yard, its rear end smashed into a young maple tree. The passenger side of both vehicles are about mid engine. Both cars are total losses.
I probably should have told you the driver is OK before now. He is fine. Maybe because he was asleep, and also because he had his seatbelt on and his aribags deployed, he came through a 60 mph collision with an SUV about twice the weight of his car with a few cuts. He probably received the cuts when he scrambled out of the car, came to my front door, and rang my ancient crank handle door bell, rousing the dog, my wife, and I in the wee hours.
He said, and I quote, "I fell asleep at the wheel. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I totaled my car, and the damage to your car is significant too."
How's that? The damage to my car is signficant!
What's significant is that he rang my doorbell after a crash like that.
But back to my malady. The car he totaled actually belongs to my daughter. We switched vehicles when she left for college so that she could drive the one with better gas mileage. The car once belonged to my daughter's friend's father, a loveable, opinionated guy with whom my family and I had a good relationship when the kids were little. We came into ownership of the car when he died - too young - after essentially drinking himself to death.
Of course, I know that I have/had no control over any of those things: the accident, the alcoholism, the intimely death. Yet this situaiton is adding to my distress, no matter how hard I work to provide self-therapy. I liked Pippy, whose name was George but whom I called Tom (all true), and every once in awhile I felt a little connection to him when I remembered that I was driving his truck. Nevertheless, I am out of control of my sense of well being. I am feeling loss with the destruction of a vehicle that had no special redeeeming features. It was a twelve year old SUV. I liked driving it, but it really wasn't a special thing, except that it reminded me of my friend once in a while.
Late this evening, I am sitting here typing this, hoping that by doing so I will regain my artificial equilibrium. I am not confident or optimistic - and that is really the source of the problem. I know that I haven't ever had control over things, but I work pretty hard to maintain the delusions that I do. I am therefore all befuddled because reality has swept in and unceremoniously stripped me of my fabrications, and now that same reality is standing in my living room laughing at me.
I tried to nap, but I didn't even have control over that. Tonight we must turn back the clocks, so that starting Monday I will go to work in the dark, and come home in the dark. The time of year weighs on me too.
Being a control freak isn't easy.
My disorder is limited - and I apply the term somewhat facetiously - to control over my psychological environment. The desk may be messy and usually is. The laundry will get sorted at some point, and I do have a system for doing so, but I feel no sense of urgency toward completing that task. Ok, I do when I am running out of appropriate clothing for work or the gym, but generally, those types of tasks don't upset my emotional applecart.
I need to feel in control of the situations and the people around me. This malady is extremely troublesome because I am well aware of the fact that I am not in control of the situations or the people around me. I think sometimes I could go insane with only a gentle push.
Cases in point: I am all out of sorts today for a couple of reasons, and though I have been counseling myself on an intellectual level, my own words of wisdom are falling rather flat.
Yesterday at work, I was involved in a conflict where I was apparently failing to adequately take charge of an expected duty. I was caught off guard because I thought I was doing the expected thing. I won't go into details because they aren't germane to this discussion. I messed up; I was held responsible; I am internally pouting. Twenty-four hours later, despite great efforts to convince myself that, because I thought I was handling the situation as asked, there was nothing I could have done to avoid it. I must put it behind me, make certain not to repeat the error, and try my best to avoid similar mistakes in the future. I had no control over the change in psychological status, and I still feel emotionally as if I have placed my forehead on a baseball bat, spun around twenty times, then tried to run a forty yard dash.
Complicating the coping/recovery process is an accident that occured in my front yard at 3:30 am. A young man fell asleep at the wheel on his way home from college. He left the roadway in front of my house, came over a bank between the road and my driveway, ran into the car I am currently driving (though fortunately I wasn't doing so at the time), did a vehicular one and a half with at least a full twist, and landed upright in his car in a position that made it look as if he had parked behind my car.
In the process of doing this, he propelled my car, a small SUV about ten feet diagonally, so that it was sitting in my front yard, its rear end smashed into a young maple tree. The passenger side of both vehicles are about mid engine. Both cars are total losses.
I probably should have told you the driver is OK before now. He is fine. Maybe because he was asleep, and also because he had his seatbelt on and his aribags deployed, he came through a 60 mph collision with an SUV about twice the weight of his car with a few cuts. He probably received the cuts when he scrambled out of the car, came to my front door, and rang my ancient crank handle door bell, rousing the dog, my wife, and I in the wee hours.
He said, and I quote, "I fell asleep at the wheel. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I totaled my car, and the damage to your car is significant too."
How's that? The damage to my car is signficant!
What's significant is that he rang my doorbell after a crash like that.
But back to my malady. The car he totaled actually belongs to my daughter. We switched vehicles when she left for college so that she could drive the one with better gas mileage. The car once belonged to my daughter's friend's father, a loveable, opinionated guy with whom my family and I had a good relationship when the kids were little. We came into ownership of the car when he died - too young - after essentially drinking himself to death.
Of course, I know that I have/had no control over any of those things: the accident, the alcoholism, the intimely death. Yet this situaiton is adding to my distress, no matter how hard I work to provide self-therapy. I liked Pippy, whose name was George but whom I called Tom (all true), and every once in awhile I felt a little connection to him when I remembered that I was driving his truck. Nevertheless, I am out of control of my sense of well being. I am feeling loss with the destruction of a vehicle that had no special redeeeming features. It was a twelve year old SUV. I liked driving it, but it really wasn't a special thing, except that it reminded me of my friend once in a while.
Late this evening, I am sitting here typing this, hoping that by doing so I will regain my artificial equilibrium. I am not confident or optimistic - and that is really the source of the problem. I know that I haven't ever had control over things, but I work pretty hard to maintain the delusions that I do. I am therefore all befuddled because reality has swept in and unceremoniously stripped me of my fabrications, and now that same reality is standing in my living room laughing at me.
I tried to nap, but I didn't even have control over that. Tonight we must turn back the clocks, so that starting Monday I will go to work in the dark, and come home in the dark. The time of year weighs on me too.
Being a control freak isn't easy.
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
So, Really, What's Wrong With Being a Democrat?
Though I feel no strong animus toward the people on the left side of the aisle, I do often experience incredulity. As an idealist, I understand the 'progressives' (not liberal's) desire to believe that the collective power of humanity, driven by noble intentions and good will, CAN direct a government to take almost parental care of its citizens.
I also happen to be a cynic. That side takes precedence in matters political, so that I can not bring myself to subscribe to the delusion that any group of people, given power over others, will not succumb to the temptation to take care of themselves at the expense of others.
Consequently, I am a moderate Republican. I can't make it to far right because these people are really just the opposite incarnation of the far left. Both fringes are ruled by emotion. The forces in the middle of both dispositions are the only ones whom we can trust to govern, but the most powerful means of persuasion in the world is emotion. Therefore, the platform for each side must make peace with the extremists: they win the most arguments and so garner the most votes.
I tend to defend the Constitution, perhaps because it has proven to be a remarkably flexible and reasonable approach to governance. The framers argued long and hard and tried to inoculate the Great Experiment against the virus that is human frailty. Translation: the Constitution delineates limits in many cases so that the federal government cannot neglect its duty to provide fundamental services for its people. However, the document also avoids delineation in some cases so that leaders can not exercise powers they ought not have.
For instance? The Constitution provides no place for the federal government to dictate the creation of a national health care program. It does not because to do so will abridge the freedom of the individual. Yet it does not prohibit a state from creating a healthcare vehicle that is formulated by the state. Most states currently have no provision for creating just such an agency, but they could pass provisions through the amendment of their state constitution.
I don't want a state or federal health care plan. I want the situaiton to grow so unwieldy that states are persuaded to make regulations that protect the citizens and guard against abuses. Whether at the state or federal level, I object to the idea of prescribed health care because the cynic in me knows that an agency with the power to control so much money is destined to become a way for a few greedy individuals to make money at the expense of others. The idealist in me wants to believe that carefully crafted regulations can prevent such abuse, and that ingenuity and noble intentions will drive people to create fair, effective mechanisms by which people can access healthcare.
I think most Democrats are hopeful idealists. Like them, I would love to have a government that is benevolent and which ensures rights, privileges, and protections for its people. But the cynic in me doesn't trust people, especially in powerful groups, to be able to maintain that benevolence. So I want a mandated limitation of the exercise of power.
Of course, this rumination has been provoked by the shift in power that is expected to be the result of these 2010 elections. If the House does shift to the right, I am not going to be happy though. I think the shift is emotional and somewhat driven by pettiness. As an earlier commentary noted, people will be voting against a current state of affairs, not in favor of a 'better' way to do things. Remember the cynic in me isn't very hopeful or trustworthy.
What I would like is for the citizenry to think everything through. Voting the Democratic way can be a statement that says one has faith and hope in people and the instituations they create. Voting Republican can be a statement that says indivisual people and their organizations can provide the benevolent services that a society needs to thrive.
I am sorry to believe that most voters vote not with their consciences, since doing so requires rational thought and careful examination. Instead, the rights and the lefts will primarily vote with their emotional selves at the forefront - reacting to fear of one kind or another.
I also happen to be a cynic. That side takes precedence in matters political, so that I can not bring myself to subscribe to the delusion that any group of people, given power over others, will not succumb to the temptation to take care of themselves at the expense of others.
Consequently, I am a moderate Republican. I can't make it to far right because these people are really just the opposite incarnation of the far left. Both fringes are ruled by emotion. The forces in the middle of both dispositions are the only ones whom we can trust to govern, but the most powerful means of persuasion in the world is emotion. Therefore, the platform for each side must make peace with the extremists: they win the most arguments and so garner the most votes.
I tend to defend the Constitution, perhaps because it has proven to be a remarkably flexible and reasonable approach to governance. The framers argued long and hard and tried to inoculate the Great Experiment against the virus that is human frailty. Translation: the Constitution delineates limits in many cases so that the federal government cannot neglect its duty to provide fundamental services for its people. However, the document also avoids delineation in some cases so that leaders can not exercise powers they ought not have.
For instance? The Constitution provides no place for the federal government to dictate the creation of a national health care program. It does not because to do so will abridge the freedom of the individual. Yet it does not prohibit a state from creating a healthcare vehicle that is formulated by the state. Most states currently have no provision for creating just such an agency, but they could pass provisions through the amendment of their state constitution.
I don't want a state or federal health care plan. I want the situaiton to grow so unwieldy that states are persuaded to make regulations that protect the citizens and guard against abuses. Whether at the state or federal level, I object to the idea of prescribed health care because the cynic in me knows that an agency with the power to control so much money is destined to become a way for a few greedy individuals to make money at the expense of others. The idealist in me wants to believe that carefully crafted regulations can prevent such abuse, and that ingenuity and noble intentions will drive people to create fair, effective mechanisms by which people can access healthcare.
I think most Democrats are hopeful idealists. Like them, I would love to have a government that is benevolent and which ensures rights, privileges, and protections for its people. But the cynic in me doesn't trust people, especially in powerful groups, to be able to maintain that benevolence. So I want a mandated limitation of the exercise of power.
Of course, this rumination has been provoked by the shift in power that is expected to be the result of these 2010 elections. If the House does shift to the right, I am not going to be happy though. I think the shift is emotional and somewhat driven by pettiness. As an earlier commentary noted, people will be voting against a current state of affairs, not in favor of a 'better' way to do things. Remember the cynic in me isn't very hopeful or trustworthy.
What I would like is for the citizenry to think everything through. Voting the Democratic way can be a statement that says one has faith and hope in people and the instituations they create. Voting Republican can be a statement that says indivisual people and their organizations can provide the benevolent services that a society needs to thrive.
I am sorry to believe that most voters vote not with their consciences, since doing so requires rational thought and careful examination. Instead, the rights and the lefts will primarily vote with their emotional selves at the forefront - reacting to fear of one kind or another.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Bully for Everyone
Three responses to the last two entries asked about the role that parents can play in transforming the bullying culture that prevails. Some comments at the end of the previous post addressed this briefly, but perhaps a more pointed response will provide some food for thought.
To combat some of the nameless, faceless, and overwhelming cyberbullying that takes place, parents should control and limit access. I am tired of hearing the excuse that students need personal cell phones to access the resources they need throughout daily life. Crap! If your son or daughter is at practice or an activity of one kind or another, his coach or advisor has access to a telephone. If your son or daughter is out in public, phones are ubiquitous - payphones, land lines in businesses, available adults with cell phones abound.
If your young son or daughter is somewhere that a phone is not accessible, you as the parent should be standing next to him or her. People younger than 16 do not need cellphones.
The fact of the matter is that our young people have access to phones, computers, blacberries and other electronic communications tools because having such access is easier on parents. Parenting, part of which involves monitoring your child's activities and whereabouts, is demanding. I maintain that parents can't protect their children from anything when they provide the youth with unsupervised access to all these toys.
Parents can also counteract the prevailing culture by having intelligent conversations with their children as young as age five or six. All interactions with people should subscribe to the patterns that comprise the rules or courtesy, civility, and propriety. This may sound more difficult than it is, since all such rules may be reduced to the Golden Rule. If you don't want someone doing it to you, don't do it to someone else.
I also endorse one other controversial point of view. I taught my children the following rules of engagement when confronted by aggressive behavior. 1. Tell the other person to stop. 2. Run away, even if it makes you look bad. 3. If running away doesn't work, run to an adult that you can trust - teacher, parent, neighbor. Kids my tease, but you will be safe enough to devise the next plan. 4. If you cannot find an adult you trust, find any adult and ask for help.
The fifth rule is a big one, and I will endorse it, though I know many people will reject it. 5. If you are backed into a corner, or you think you are in danger that you cannot run from or avoid, hit the bully as hard and as often as you can, for as long as it takes to provide an avenue for escape.
In the 8th grade, my son was suspended for driving a pencil into the arm of his attacker. The bully had him pinned in a student desk, and after a full minute of telling the bully to get off of him, to no effect, he lashed out with the only weapon he had. I supported the suspension, but demanded to know why the teacher was not near enough to provide assistance. I forget the reason why, so it must have been a rare, but unfortunate case of divided attention brought on by another incident.
The bully never interacted with my son again.
At 10, my daughter kicked a neighbor boy in the groin to thwart an attack. She tried to get help from the neighbor boy's father, whom she said closed the curtains of the upstairs bedroom when he heard her cries for help. (He said he didn't hear her.)
Last year, that same daughter was trapped in a dormitory bathroom by a drunken visitor to the college. She didn't scream for help, though I don't know why. Instead, she told him he wasn't going to get her, and dashed through a small opening in the doorway that he must have thought he had completely blocked. She ran back to her room, locked the door, and phoned for help. He followed her to her room and tried to get in.
These incidents validate my belief that I have provided sadly appropriate advice.
To combat some of the nameless, faceless, and overwhelming cyberbullying that takes place, parents should control and limit access. I am tired of hearing the excuse that students need personal cell phones to access the resources they need throughout daily life. Crap! If your son or daughter is at practice or an activity of one kind or another, his coach or advisor has access to a telephone. If your son or daughter is out in public, phones are ubiquitous - payphones, land lines in businesses, available adults with cell phones abound.
If your young son or daughter is somewhere that a phone is not accessible, you as the parent should be standing next to him or her. People younger than 16 do not need cellphones.
The fact of the matter is that our young people have access to phones, computers, blacberries and other electronic communications tools because having such access is easier on parents. Parenting, part of which involves monitoring your child's activities and whereabouts, is demanding. I maintain that parents can't protect their children from anything when they provide the youth with unsupervised access to all these toys.
Parents can also counteract the prevailing culture by having intelligent conversations with their children as young as age five or six. All interactions with people should subscribe to the patterns that comprise the rules or courtesy, civility, and propriety. This may sound more difficult than it is, since all such rules may be reduced to the Golden Rule. If you don't want someone doing it to you, don't do it to someone else.
I also endorse one other controversial point of view. I taught my children the following rules of engagement when confronted by aggressive behavior. 1. Tell the other person to stop. 2. Run away, even if it makes you look bad. 3. If running away doesn't work, run to an adult that you can trust - teacher, parent, neighbor. Kids my tease, but you will be safe enough to devise the next plan. 4. If you cannot find an adult you trust, find any adult and ask for help.
The fifth rule is a big one, and I will endorse it, though I know many people will reject it. 5. If you are backed into a corner, or you think you are in danger that you cannot run from or avoid, hit the bully as hard and as often as you can, for as long as it takes to provide an avenue for escape.
In the 8th grade, my son was suspended for driving a pencil into the arm of his attacker. The bully had him pinned in a student desk, and after a full minute of telling the bully to get off of him, to no effect, he lashed out with the only weapon he had. I supported the suspension, but demanded to know why the teacher was not near enough to provide assistance. I forget the reason why, so it must have been a rare, but unfortunate case of divided attention brought on by another incident.
The bully never interacted with my son again.
At 10, my daughter kicked a neighbor boy in the groin to thwart an attack. She tried to get help from the neighbor boy's father, whom she said closed the curtains of the upstairs bedroom when he heard her cries for help. (He said he didn't hear her.)
Last year, that same daughter was trapped in a dormitory bathroom by a drunken visitor to the college. She didn't scream for help, though I don't know why. Instead, she told him he wasn't going to get her, and dashed through a small opening in the doorway that he must have thought he had completely blocked. She ran back to her room, locked the door, and phoned for help. He followed her to her room and tried to get in.
These incidents validate my belief that I have provided sadly appropriate advice.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Bully for Me
A long tenure in public schools provides me with the experience to make the following pronouncements and observations.
Bullying and harassment among school children has grown worse over the years for a number of reasons. One person's opinion on the why's will be forthcoming. As a special prize, that same person will propose solutions to the problem that no one will like.
First, the causes: bullying has escalated and become more vicious because our culture has lost its way, and because technology has enabled people to act hatefully and to solicit mob assistance with the click of a button.
Last year, I was party to an incident where one young girl was angry at another for failing to invite her to a party. The 'uninvited' girl sent a text message to everyone in her address book, asking them to attack the party hostess. On a whim, most of the recruits complied, sending hateful texts over the next 24 hours, though they were oblivious to the cause of the rift between the two girls. The hostess received more than 100 texts, at least two of which concluded by telling the jilted girl that she should die.
The girl's parents changed her phone number and placed her in a private school within a few days. The parents could not conceive of a response to the blitz bullying that would allow the girl to return to the environment that had given birth to such a devestating personal attack.
More than a few of the students were foolish enough to send texts from their phones with their names and numbers attached. In case after case, the students seemed genuinely surprised that their words had done so much damage. One of those who told the victim that she should die was sure the recipient would have to know that she was joking.
We live in a world where face-to-face accountability is not a constant expectation, nor even a regular feature of existence. We create profiles and character sketches that may or may not be true - and we interact with people whose identities and motives are just as dubious. As a result, we are paradoxically more and less available and accountable for our actions. Think about that. We believe ourselves to be shielded from retaliation for our remarks by geography - the other person is far away. However, the same technology that allows us to send the faceless vitriol can link that message to our phones, blackberries, and computers.
The solutions that no one will like are fairly simple. No child younger than 16 should carry a personal cell phone. When phone contact is necessary, young people should have a pre-paid phone with limited applications.
Likewise, no student younger than 16 should have unsupervised access to the internet or other communications technology. They can have monitored access to the internet for informational purposes, and parental controls should enable parents to block access to social networking sites. Your children don't need friends in Zimbabwe: tell them to get off their butts and find friends in the neighborhood.
Furthermore, parents and schools should begin training students in civility, courtesy, and propriety as early as kindergarten. The curriculum should be determined on the following basis - what is acceptable in regard to personal conduct with others must adhere to the golden rule. Of course, the areas of examination could fill three of four years' worth of instructional material, but we could spread it out over twelve of thirteen, so the children have more time to learn how to read and spell entire words.
Bullying and harassment among school children has grown worse over the years for a number of reasons. One person's opinion on the why's will be forthcoming. As a special prize, that same person will propose solutions to the problem that no one will like.
First, the causes: bullying has escalated and become more vicious because our culture has lost its way, and because technology has enabled people to act hatefully and to solicit mob assistance with the click of a button.
Last year, I was party to an incident where one young girl was angry at another for failing to invite her to a party. The 'uninvited' girl sent a text message to everyone in her address book, asking them to attack the party hostess. On a whim, most of the recruits complied, sending hateful texts over the next 24 hours, though they were oblivious to the cause of the rift between the two girls. The hostess received more than 100 texts, at least two of which concluded by telling the jilted girl that she should die.
The girl's parents changed her phone number and placed her in a private school within a few days. The parents could not conceive of a response to the blitz bullying that would allow the girl to return to the environment that had given birth to such a devestating personal attack.
More than a few of the students were foolish enough to send texts from their phones with their names and numbers attached. In case after case, the students seemed genuinely surprised that their words had done so much damage. One of those who told the victim that she should die was sure the recipient would have to know that she was joking.
We live in a world where face-to-face accountability is not a constant expectation, nor even a regular feature of existence. We create profiles and character sketches that may or may not be true - and we interact with people whose identities and motives are just as dubious. As a result, we are paradoxically more and less available and accountable for our actions. Think about that. We believe ourselves to be shielded from retaliation for our remarks by geography - the other person is far away. However, the same technology that allows us to send the faceless vitriol can link that message to our phones, blackberries, and computers.
The solutions that no one will like are fairly simple. No child younger than 16 should carry a personal cell phone. When phone contact is necessary, young people should have a pre-paid phone with limited applications.
Likewise, no student younger than 16 should have unsupervised access to the internet or other communications technology. They can have monitored access to the internet for informational purposes, and parental controls should enable parents to block access to social networking sites. Your children don't need friends in Zimbabwe: tell them to get off their butts and find friends in the neighborhood.
Furthermore, parents and schools should begin training students in civility, courtesy, and propriety as early as kindergarten. The curriculum should be determined on the following basis - what is acceptable in regard to personal conduct with others must adhere to the golden rule. Of course, the areas of examination could fill three of four years' worth of instructional material, but we could spread it out over twelve of thirteen, so the children have more time to learn how to read and spell entire words.
Bully For You
I suspect that I really have two completely separate commentaries to deliver, but they are intricatley related to one another, so I have opted to post them one after the other.
I am furious with the local newspaper, which has decided to cover a recent teen suicide in as irresponsible a manner as one can imagine. Grieving parents in the school district in which I reside have lost a beautiful young son, 17. He left no note when he took his life, so the parents -understandably - are searching despertely for an answer that will explain the cause of such a tragic decision. The parents are suspicious that bullying, on-line and in school, drove their son to make the gut-wrenching choice to take his own life.
I feel so bad for the parents. Why, the mother asked in print, did she have to lose her little boy? She doesn't know. I don't know. The newspaper doesn't know. Absent a note, or an insight from one of the boy's friends, or a school official - teacher, administrator, counselor - we may never have an answer to that question.
So the cause of my fury is the newspaper's decision to run with the story and to hypothesize that bullying could have been the cause. No one seems to have any evidence that harassment has been taking place, but the country has had some high profile cases the past few years, and bullying was a primary cause in those cases. An investigation being conducted by the police, and I'm sure a similar inspection by school officials, will try to draw some conclusions, but two stories have already run. The theme of each story has been that bullying can drive young people to desperate measures. Of course it can. We already knew that. Did it do so in this case?
When the stories were run, no one involved with the terrible loss of life was ready to attribute the tragedy to bullying. Nevertheless, readers have now been led by the reporter's speculation to reach a conclusion that doesn't exist.
If harassment is determined to be the culprit, then everyone in the community needs to answer a huge number of questions. Why wasn't the problem reported? If it was reported, why didn't the school intervene? If they did intervene, why weren't the efforts to stop the harrrassment effective?
Here's my major beef: what if bullying or harrassment had nothing to do with the boy's belief that the only remedy for his despair was his own death? What if the investigation by police and school district yields evidence of a different catalyst? Unfortunately, young people commit suicide for a large number of reasons, including bullying. If the cause was something else, the community has been wasting time. Already, a local organization is taking the district to task for what they have prematurely decided is an attempt to 'sweep the situation under the rug.' The angle of the story leads community members to mistrust the people who run the schools, undermining its efforts to make sure that students are safe.
My guess is that students, at least some of them, are more afraid than they would otherwise be. Teachers, support staff, and administrators are likewise more highly stressed. What good then will the decision to run the story, with a bullying angle, have been?
I realize that I run a risk here by deflecting attention away from the tragic events and the overwhelming pain that the family and friends are experiencing. I am not callous or unfeeling, but I am perplexed and incensed at the senselessness of the local paper. For crying out loud, find out if the bullying angle has any weight. If it does, trumpet your disappointment and indignation as stridently as you wish. But realize the damage you are doing when you imply two schools - the home school and the tech school - have been blind, deaf, dumb, and duplicitous.
I am furious with the local newspaper, which has decided to cover a recent teen suicide in as irresponsible a manner as one can imagine. Grieving parents in the school district in which I reside have lost a beautiful young son, 17. He left no note when he took his life, so the parents -understandably - are searching despertely for an answer that will explain the cause of such a tragic decision. The parents are suspicious that bullying, on-line and in school, drove their son to make the gut-wrenching choice to take his own life.
I feel so bad for the parents. Why, the mother asked in print, did she have to lose her little boy? She doesn't know. I don't know. The newspaper doesn't know. Absent a note, or an insight from one of the boy's friends, or a school official - teacher, administrator, counselor - we may never have an answer to that question.
So the cause of my fury is the newspaper's decision to run with the story and to hypothesize that bullying could have been the cause. No one seems to have any evidence that harassment has been taking place, but the country has had some high profile cases the past few years, and bullying was a primary cause in those cases. An investigation being conducted by the police, and I'm sure a similar inspection by school officials, will try to draw some conclusions, but two stories have already run. The theme of each story has been that bullying can drive young people to desperate measures. Of course it can. We already knew that. Did it do so in this case?
When the stories were run, no one involved with the terrible loss of life was ready to attribute the tragedy to bullying. Nevertheless, readers have now been led by the reporter's speculation to reach a conclusion that doesn't exist.
If harassment is determined to be the culprit, then everyone in the community needs to answer a huge number of questions. Why wasn't the problem reported? If it was reported, why didn't the school intervene? If they did intervene, why weren't the efforts to stop the harrrassment effective?
Here's my major beef: what if bullying or harrassment had nothing to do with the boy's belief that the only remedy for his despair was his own death? What if the investigation by police and school district yields evidence of a different catalyst? Unfortunately, young people commit suicide for a large number of reasons, including bullying. If the cause was something else, the community has been wasting time. Already, a local organization is taking the district to task for what they have prematurely decided is an attempt to 'sweep the situation under the rug.' The angle of the story leads community members to mistrust the people who run the schools, undermining its efforts to make sure that students are safe.
My guess is that students, at least some of them, are more afraid than they would otherwise be. Teachers, support staff, and administrators are likewise more highly stressed. What good then will the decision to run the story, with a bullying angle, have been?
I realize that I run a risk here by deflecting attention away from the tragic events and the overwhelming pain that the family and friends are experiencing. I am not callous or unfeeling, but I am perplexed and incensed at the senselessness of the local paper. For crying out loud, find out if the bullying angle has any weight. If it does, trumpet your disappointment and indignation as stridently as you wish. But realize the damage you are doing when you imply two schools - the home school and the tech school - have been blind, deaf, dumb, and duplicitous.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
On the Precipe of Election Day...
Next Tuesday, many Americans will dash off, at one point of the day or another, and they will in many cases proudly exercise their right to vote. They will mistakenly and sadly believe adhere to the delusion that their individual votes count and matter.
Sad the situation is, but not because the votes don't matter, but because the individual vote cannot subvert the inevitable outcome. Trends are not random nor inconsequential: the upcoming elections will collectively validate the conventional opinion that the current regime, in light of the current state of affairs, is failing. So Republicans will win significanlty more seats than Democrats. They will win because the party in power will always lose seats when the country is experiencing the troubles that this country is plagued by right now.
I have been a lifelong Republican, and I could explain in detail why I subscribe to the right side. I won't though. The reason is that I will derive no satisfaction from the imminent shift to the 'right' side. The vote will designate not a shift to the right, but a shift away from the current dominant position. Few of the voters who swing to the other side will do so because they have made an ideological shift. Instead, they will vacillate because of a petty, superficial hope that different equals better.
I recognize that I have written here in generalites, but the point is that generalities rule the day. I believe this country needs a scare that will force the electorate to think deeply and strongly about the 'proper' way to encourage our citizenry to make long term ideological choices about the ideals that should be at the heart of our government.
We have all heard the rallying cry that exhorts people to vote their consciences. The troublesome thing is that they don't and they won't. In truth, they do not consult their consciences when determinng for whom they should vote. Rather, they vote against whichever side is currently in power.
Sure, I will make time to vote on Tuesday, but I will cast my vote with grave concern that few people will have done enough to identify thecandidates whose views morror theirs. They will choose their candidates for all the wrong reasons.
Sad the situation is, but not because the votes don't matter, but because the individual vote cannot subvert the inevitable outcome. Trends are not random nor inconsequential: the upcoming elections will collectively validate the conventional opinion that the current regime, in light of the current state of affairs, is failing. So Republicans will win significanlty more seats than Democrats. They will win because the party in power will always lose seats when the country is experiencing the troubles that this country is plagued by right now.
I have been a lifelong Republican, and I could explain in detail why I subscribe to the right side. I won't though. The reason is that I will derive no satisfaction from the imminent shift to the 'right' side. The vote will designate not a shift to the right, but a shift away from the current dominant position. Few of the voters who swing to the other side will do so because they have made an ideological shift. Instead, they will vacillate because of a petty, superficial hope that different equals better.
I recognize that I have written here in generalites, but the point is that generalities rule the day. I believe this country needs a scare that will force the electorate to think deeply and strongly about the 'proper' way to encourage our citizenry to make long term ideological choices about the ideals that should be at the heart of our government.
We have all heard the rallying cry that exhorts people to vote their consciences. The troublesome thing is that they don't and they won't. In truth, they do not consult their consciences when determinng for whom they should vote. Rather, they vote against whichever side is currently in power.
Sure, I will make time to vote on Tuesday, but I will cast my vote with grave concern that few people will have done enough to identify thecandidates whose views morror theirs. They will choose their candidates for all the wrong reasons.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)