When I first watched it, because her quote was so outrageous, I held out hope that the snippet was taken out of context.  Today, she wrote a response to the public outcry, which she blames on the right.  She goes on to explain in depth what she actually meant.  From what I gather, she says she was going for more of an “it takes a village” message than a “let’s take away your kids and raise them in a collective.”

My first-blush reaction to this is that , while I’m staunchly opposed to the idea of “the children belong to the community,” I have to admit that I yearn for the bygone days when our society actually did have more of a village mentality.

What do you think?

How does a bully become a bully?

It’s a simple question with a tragically complicated array of answers, and I don’t pretend to know them all. But I have some ideas.

Most of us, in our formative years (and, if you’re like me, long after), struggle with selfishness and bossiness and self-control. However, I think relatively few of us instinctively humiliate or scare or hurt others in order to bring ourselves power. Behavior like that is either learned, or represents some sort of immature conclusion. This brings us to the shadow-ridden, ugly truth about the ways in which a bully is created.

When we (or our children) are faced with a bully, we don’t see his hurt – but on some level we perceive it. What would drive a child to harm or scare or shame another for their own gain?

Misguided revenge. Anger. Fear. Sadness. Loneliness. Rock-bottom self-esteem.

Over what? Maybe a horrible home life, or a high level of sensitivity, or perhaps it’s the result of having been bullied him or herself. Sadly, there are countless reasons. But the truth is that all of us, when backed into a corner physically or emotionally, we fight for our very lives. Our very self. Even if it means fighting the wrong person.

When we’re bullied, we are victims. But I would assert that bullies are victims, too – they’re just not our victims.

We don’t see the hurt. We see the meanness and the desire to inflict pain, and that’s hard to see past. But what if we did? What if we found it within ourselves to, for a moment, set aside our protective instincts and took a deeper look and asked some hard questions. Why is this person in such unimaginable pain that he or she would lash out at others? What if we knew the dark answer. Would that change things in any meaningful way?

Let me ask you this: if nothing changes for a bully, will that bully ever change? What if this bully received grace and understanding in favor of ridicule and exile?  I don’t have to be a trained psychologist to tell you with the utmost certainty that, without grace, that bully will (at best) never change and (at worst) grow increasingly worse. And the very fact that a bully is a bully tells me he’s not getting enough grace and understanding from…anywhere.

Now we’re getting to the hardest stuff. As parents (or as bullying victims ourselves), our instincts tell us to protect our children (or ourselves) above all else. It’s normal and natural and desirable to want to protect ourselves and our loved ones. It’s the natural order of things and our first responsibility. No question.

But does that have to be the end of it? Once we’ve gotten to the bottom of things, once we know the Who and the How and the When, once we’re aware and involved and our children are safe, can we not also reach out? Can we not also dig deep within ourselves and extend grace to the hurting, the injured, the lonely? Because that’s what these bully-kids are.

Injured.

Out of self-preservation, abused dogs snap – yet we rescue them. We give them love and time to heal, and many of them do. What more, then, could we do for children?

So the real question is not how is a bully made? It is: how does a bully recover?

Oh, really?

I suppose the first thing we should do is take a look-see and compare the definition of bullying to the definition of immaturity.  From Reference.com:

bul·ly noun a blustering, quarrelsome, overbearing person who habitually badgers and intimidates smaller or weaker people.

im·ma·ture adjective not mature, ripe, developed, perfected, etc.; 2.emotionally undeveloped; juvenile; childish.

“Bullying” means the same thing today as it did twenty years ago, so I think that pretty well clears up any gray area.  And I don’t think I need to find a source to argue that bullying is a major issue in this country (but I will if you insist).  And really, considering the magnitude of the crisis, wouldn’t it be prudent to err on the side of caution if you sense something is amiss with your child?  Because here’s the thing.  What could possibly be more painful to a child than for him to summon the courage to approach his parent or other trusted adult and admit to being bullied, only to be dismisssed – because it’s “just kids being kids”?  That child is up the proverbial creek.

I was bullied in junior high by a group of pretty, peppy popular girls.  One girl insulted my outfit (which was admittedly rather unsightly), and I stood up to her.  The rest of them flocked to her aid and mocked me until I backed down.  I was a strong kid, and I knew I could defend myself if it came to it, but it never did.  Instead, I endured a month’s worth of taunts in decreasing levels of intensity until they finally lost interest and it ended.  Except that it doesn’t end, and what remains can carve out a piece of you.  That’s how the bullies win. They have power over us –  real or imagined – and unless we break the cycle we believe we have nowhere to run.  It doesn’t matter if the bully is five or seventeen or fifty.

There was a bona-fide bully in my own son’s kindergarten class.  Hair pulling, punching, name calling, lunch stealing, humiliating (it’s a rudimentary understanding, but it appears kindergarteners do have a handle on humiliation).  He zeroed in on a handful of kids and made their lives very difficult until the teacher got a clue.

Kindergarten bullies.  It shocked and saddened me to learn it, but they exist.  I’ve seen it.  There may be less of them in kinder than in high school, but they can still wreak havoc.

Now, will there be times when we, as parents, overreact (like I may or may not have done in this post)?  Yes.  But I’d much rather investigate a complaint and learn there’s truly no concern, than disregard a brave and desperate plea for help and have my child suffer the fallout.

***

All that said, this discussion got me thinking about bullies.  Specifically, how they came to be bullies.  But that’s for next week’s post.

Thanks for reading.

I remember hearing last summer that the folks running New York City were toying with the idea of a beverage ban in order to help combat obesity and related health issues.   I remember thinking, “There are so many things wrong with that idea, it will never see the light of day.”

Boy, was I ever wrong.

NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s beverage ban will take effect tomorrow, and then the government-regulated fun begins.  According to the New York Post, if you’re out and about and drinking soda, you’re not getting more than 16 oz.  If you want more than that, you’ll have to buy another one.  No big deal – except that your price-per-ounce just nearly doubled.  Oh, and that it’s nobody’s business whether you drink soda and in what quantity.  There’s that, too.

I also wonder how much time and money went into developing and administering this law.  But then, NYC gets $200 a pop (get it?) each time someone breaks it.  So perhaps it’ll all work out.

The biggest issue with this for-the-good-of-the-people ban is that it flies in the face of the fundamental truth that each person is accountable for him or herself.  For all the research compiled for this ban, for all the good intentions, peel away all the rhetoric and the details and what remains is simply one group of “enlightened” who believe they know what is best for another group.

I’m sure the folks involved in promoting and approving this ban are pleased with themselves, and there’s probably another camp of individuals that thinks, “Yes! This will finally help all those poor soda-indulgers who can’t help themselves.”

I just can’t help but wonder, are there any soda-drinkers out there actually saying to themselves, “Whew, I am so glad the government stepped in on my behalf.  I mean, how else could I possibly monitor my soda intake?”

What do you think?  Is this ban a good thing or a bad thing – and why?  What are the implications of this manner of attempting to influence the way New Yorkers drink soda?

Drones attacking U.S. citizens (without a trial) on American soil.  Highly unlikely?  Absolutely.  But then, I’m rather glad our Founding Fathers didn’t shrug and say, “Human equality?  Nah, we don’t  need to write that down.  That’s implied.  Moving on…”

Hopefully, this is the start of a larger truth-seeking trend:  Obama’s drone attack power meets resistance.

I’ve been pondering this all weekend.  I grew up less than 10 miles from Detroit; I now live about 30 miles from the city, and I was born the year the charter was approved to create the city council.  I love our once-great city, and I worry that I’m a little too close to the issue be objective.  That, and I’m the farthest thing from a political expert, so I’m hoping some of you might offer some insight.  Here’s my somewhat garbled thought process thus far: 

Something obviously went wrong somewhere.  Ever since the riots, things have headed south.  As of 2012, Detroit’s the most dangerous city in America, and I can tell you from first-hand experience that, if you’re going to enter its borders, then you’d better know what you’re doing and where you’re going.  This is no town for side-trips.  Detroit has reportedly known plenty of corruption and financial mismanagement over the years and, given the current state of affairs, I don’t think anyone would argue that something has to change. 

The Atlantic article goes on to assert that the takeover move, “has racial and political overtones.”  This is tough.  Personally, I don’t believe it’s a race issue; I believe it’s a negligence issue.  But, after working years for a Fortune 500 company’s public relations team, I know that it will be nearly impossible to separate race from the equation.  Detroit’s population is 80% African American, and the city council is 100% African American – and they’re the ones slated to lose power.   

And here’s the part I’m really struggling with:  The Atlantic article says, “Detroit will be the largest city in the country to lose the ability to govern itself.”  This statement upsets my stomach, liberty-wise.  Does it violate the rights of Detroit residents to pull the proverbial rug out from under the city government?  I did a little homework.  

I came across Dillon’s Rule, which I learned about in high school but have long since forgotten.  According to Dillon’s Rule (established by Judge John Forest Dillon in 1872), state governments can restrict local governments as they see fit, so long as they don’t contradict the state’s constitution.  However, The Cooley Doctrine (which was initiated in Michigan) implies that local municipalities have an inherent right to self-govern (a.k.a. Home Rule), and that the state Constitution should be viewed from this perspective inasmuch as this is possible.  From what I’ve found, Michigan allows for both Dillon’s Rule and home rule, though we appear to lean toward home rule.  So, it will likely come down to Constitutional interpretation and a big, expensive legislative mess.    

The whole thing is just so ugly.  I guess, if I may don my rose-colored glasses for a moment, I would love to see the existing city government succeed.  To see them to step up and make the hard choices, to right wrongs, and hoist the Motor City out of desolation.  But it looks like they’ve taken too long.  It’s too bad.  While I’m not naïve enough to discount the years-old rumors of city corruption, I want to believe the best in people.

And obviously, how this simple Midwestern girl views the situation makes nary a difference; this is happening.  The issue is so complex, I couldn’t possibly cover it – let alone comprehend it.  Still, I think the big question is, constitutionally, do Detroiters have the inherent right to self-govern – even if that self-governing has resulted in a city’s devastation? 

I would love to hear any and all perspectives on this.

Okay, I admit I went a bit overboard on the title.  But please stay with me.  I have a point.

I found the loveliest new book in our little local library:  Reporting the Revolutionary War; Before it was History, it was News, by Todd Andrlik.  I judged it by its gorgeous cover, but when I opened it, I became transfixed.  Mr. Andrlik is “among America’s leading Revolutionary War newspaper archivists.”  He collaborated with his archivist buddies – and the Library of Congress – and compiled a breathtaking collection of primary sources (read: original copies) of 18^th century newspapers.  Like a giant jigsaw puzzle, he and his co-contributors configured the collection, and the result is a wholly unique retelling of our country’s birth.           

The book emphasizes the pivotal role newspapers played in igniting the revolution by showing (vs. the much-less-effective telling) us what it might have been like to live through it; “Reporting the Revolutionary War brings you into the homes of Americans and lets you see through their eyes the tinderbox of war as it explodes.”

Most of what I know of history I learned from textbooks.  The Stamp Act, The Townshend Act, The Boston Massacre…all events marching along a timeline, maybe a dead-eyed patriot watching me as I read.  Instead, Reporting immerses you in times of yore.  In each chapter, a well-read narrator orients you, then offers up the original newspapers for you to explore for yourself.  We read the actual words of a John Dickinson.  In his letters “from a farmer,” he is one of the first to articulate an objection to British authority, what so many colonists resented in silence.  He inspired (or provoked) action, and we feel the tension when Bostonian’s riot against the Stamp Act, scaring the daylights out of stamp distributor Andrew Oliver as they ransack, then burn his home.  The conflict escalates and we feel England’s quiet irritation when they realize they’ve been bested by a bunch of colonists, and must repeal the Stamp Act – which they follow up with the Townshend Act and a declaration that they are in charge and can do whatever the heck they want.  By the time the British warships roll into Boston harbor to occupy the city, the conflict feels electric – a sensation that intensifies until March 5, 1770, when British soldiers fire into an unarmed crowd of colonists.  The Boston Massacre.  We hear first-hand accounts of the tragedy from both sides.  As is always the case, we find the truth lies somewhere in between.

British Ships of War Landing Their Troops

We know how the story ends, of course, but I’ve never seen such an engaging retelling.  The glossy pages draw you in, and the authors strategically complement events by reprinting alongside them iconic works of art.  The reaction to British Ships of War Landing Their Troops goes from, “hmm. That’s a lot of ships,” to, “holy crap!  Those people must have been freaked out!”  Everyone needs to see this one-of-a-kind comprehensive collection.  Look for it at your local library.So, my point.

These men and women were superheroes.  They fought for our freedom with little more than will, muskets and newspaper.  These newspapers, no more than slapped-together eyewitness accounts and intercepted letters delivered on horseback or read aloud in the town square, provided enough information and motivation to wrench our land from the hands of a king. 

My question is, if we are all wirelessly, hopelessly connected to one another, what’s our excuse?  I’m not in any way suggesting a revolution.  I’m saying that we have all manner of concerns and complaints about the state of affairs in our country.  We have all the tools we need.  Some of us speak out, but not enough.  For the rest of us, we just keep living our lives.  I wonder what our lives would be like if our forefathers had done the same.