Disclaimer: I am describing the following argument I had with my wife over something recently in the news NOT because I agree with the "bad guys" in the news story, and NOT because I have any ill feelings against my wife. I haven't even read the news story, and am basing this entry solely on my wife's interpretation of the story, and my response.  My wife, a good woman with a firey disposition, tends to lean a little toward the common on a lot of subjects, and the following is quite useful in exposing some of the logic that society has fallen into which NEEDS TO BE RE-EVALUATED:

Recently in Spanaway (WA), a mother came forward to express outrage that her daughter piper was the target of a cruel internet cartoon some friends had made of her. The cartoon was titled something like "thirteen ways to kill piper" or something like that.  The mother had contacted the school & they wouldn't do anything about it, so she contacted the police and filed a report, as well as sent a certified letter to the police. When she contacted the police to see what the status of the case was, the detective said he was "familiar with the case, but haven't seen the video".  The girls eventually apologized to Piper, but the mother (i'm assuming this mean's Piper's mom?) said "they are sorry they got caught, not sorry for harrassing her."

My wife is furious that the Spanaway school board wouldn't do something about this.

My understanding of 'these things' is that there really isn't anything the school board could do or should do unless the cartoon was created/uploaded with school computers.  The school is merely a meeting place for the victim and victimizers, and may not even be the only meeting place for them. Do they attend church together? Sue the church! Do they eat at the same McDonalds? Sue McDonalds! Do they use the same ISP or social networking applications?  I think you can see the fallacy in attacking the vehicle. School doesn't hurt kids, kids hurt kids.  Church doesn't hurt people, people hurt people.  Myspace doesn't hurt people, people hurt people. YouTube doesn't hurt people, people hurt people ... 

It may be appropriate to be angry at the Spanaway police for "not doing anything" because their job is to serve and protect, but we don't know that they're NOT doing anything! We've only heard from the angry mother that they aren't doing anything ... and her description, in her anger, is very likely to be less-than-accurate.  Another possibility is that the "internet harrassment laws' or "bully laws' aren't very clear, or aren't very developed yet, and maybe the police don't want the public to have to pay a lot of money toward fighting a losing battle.  I wouldn't personally agree with them if this is the point, because that's one of the reasons "civil rights" laws take so long to make a change, but it is a common human decision made when faced with choosing between a lot of effort for "nothing" and no effort.

Yesterday the parents of a neighbor girl came over and showed us a note written by a child that said, "(their daughter's name) i hate you! you're a b---!".  They were wondering if our son had left it.  Fortunately he hadn't ... he doesn't write well enough to spell things without help, it wasn't his handwriting, and he doesn't know (as far as we are aware) that word.  In the light of this subject, however, I am left wondering: based on the logic used in the Spanaway case, shouldn't the neighbor go after the school?   

Why do people choose to attack "organizations", then?  Why would the mother be angry at the school? Why would my wife be angry at the school?

Terrible Traits of Society

There are two terrible traits of modern society which set up the trend.  The first is "Lack of personal Accountability", or "Blame".  It is likely the parents of the "bad girls" don't want to accept responsibility for their children's behavior, and really, depending on their age, probably shouldn't (at least not full responsibility).  The girls most likely made those choices on their own.  The mother of the victim, Piper, may not want to admit that she hadn't been paying attention to her daughter enough to know she was being bullied.  Everyone wants to point a finger, and its easiest to point a finger at a group or organization rather than individuals, because the guilt of ripping someone apart is lessened when they are a stereotype or a big building or foreign country.  Thats whay genocides happen. thats why civilians of nations enthusiastically support war. That's why you hate "big oil" and "starbucks", "china" and "microsoft". On a larger scale - but still the same thing - it's why you hate "organized religion", but not specifically "Mormons" or "catholics" or "Jews".
The persecuted and the guilty use the same anonominity to push for acceptance.  It's easier to sell "diversity" than it is to sell "homosexuality', "illegal immigrants", or "feminism".  Not saying that is all 'diversity' means, but using individual terms would be a harder sell for some people than the PC blanket term.

The second terrible trait of society is greed.  While Piper and her mother are likely NOT greedy, the lawyers offering their services have learned to navigate our greedy society, and they know the right targets.  They know that most people can accept hatred when it is directed at a faceless group ("the school board"), but that some persons are a little more under a conscience when individual faces (the girls and their mothers) are the opposition.  They know that a school district will probably have more access to money than a handful of unruly girls and their parents.  Regardless of how innocent Piper's mother may be, most lawyers are probably urging her to attack the 'easy" targets instead of the actual criminals.  It's possible, too, that well-intentioned friends and family urged her anger to be directed at the school.  Society has been using this corrupt path long enough that it is almost second nature to immediately blame the big corporation, public department or private organization for the crime ... for "allowing it to breed", for "letting it go unchecked", and to "teach it a lesson so this won't happen again." 

Habitual corruption lessens our sense of right and wrong, and bypasses the analytical brain.  Catch phrases and sound bytes are the tools by which the mind is further dulled and the soul is brought into submission ...
If you step back, you'll see this everywhere.  "Guns cause crime!", "Gay Marriage Is About Love", "Organized Religion is for People Who Can't Think For Themselves!" ... ideas which sound great on the surface, but which hide some important realities (Gun control increases crime, legally protecting gay marriage endangers or diminishes real marriage and the right of the churches to prohibit actions contrary to their beliefs, and most adherants of religious practices do think for themselves, which is why they are so devout in the first place).  The immediate urge to blame the group, to speak out against the corporation, or to decry the institution is every bit the reflexive ignorance of these examples.

So what should we do about bullying? 

It is unfortunate that in modern times we're faced with school shootings and youth suicides which seem to be the result of bullying.  While studies have been done in an attempt to find the causes of these behaviors, the hysteria surrounding them is evident to all.  Six-year old children are being suspended from school for pointing fingers at each other and reciting "bang, bang - you're dead!".  Common fights between children are resulting in lawsuits.  Parents are jumping in at the defense of their children and assaulting other children themselves.

I believe that most of the punishments dealt to these children are too harsh.  It is, after all, a natural aspect of the male gender to play 'battle' and 'hunting' games, just as it is for the female gender to care for 'baby' dolls and groom themselves.  No amount of man-made, uninspired socially "correct" gender-blending is going to change that.  Unfortunately, in prohibiting boys from being boys, and demanding that girls become boys, violence and intimidation within young girls is going to escalate, as is violence in older men who were prohibited their safe outlet for gun-play, but who now have access to those items. 

Bullying is never right, but it has existed for quite some time!  In the past, those picked on were urged to fight back or ignore.  Now, "fighting back" is discouraged - even criminalized - and children and adults are encouraged to "speak out" or "raise awareness". 

The only remaining answer, i suppose, is to require permanent suspension from the school at which the offense occured, and to break up groups of bullies.  The state should not have to pay for the transportation to the new school, nor should the school district, as it is and has been the parent's responsibility - not the community's - to educate their children in proper social etiquette and civic living.  If the incidents don't occur at school, there should be specific laws that fine the parents (if under working-age) or the children (if of working-age) and require community service for the offenses.  Again, it is the parents' responsibility to teach their children to behave, or to restrict their internet access if they do not.  

Parents who assault or harrass children should be jailed or fined for abuse, or for any other legal determination afforded when the victim is also an adult - as well as heavier penalties determined by the victim's age.

I guess the point i am trying to make is that laws and legal action should always determined by the course of action that will best correct the behavior.  Fining a school because a handful of children's parents didn't raise their children right is not going to benefit society ... it's going to take money from an institution that needs it, and let the actual cause of the problem (the parents) and the problem itself (the girls) get away with their behavior. 

My wife is reading Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" right now, and noting the shocking similarities to the society portrayed in the book and the society we live in.

I was flipping through the channels, and decided to watch "Democracy Now!" to see what kind of propaganda and social unrest they're peddling today.
Professor Andrew Hacker, with various alternating titles beneath his name, was being interviewed by some rigid-jawed mumbling host about some interesting theories he has.  he didn't, of course, call them 'theories' ... instead, they were 'facts' (lacking any sort of references, sources, evidence, etc).  This aged white man, Prof. Hacker, was telling us about all the ways 'blacks' are discouraged from voting.  Hacker claims that black people move more than white people, so they miss out on opportunities to register to vote.  He claims that in St. Louis, "over 50 percent of blacks don't have driver's licenses", and somehow tried to tie that in with voting. (i would think that liquor, tobacco and lottery sales haven't gone down, so these alleged 'unlicensed' persons either don't realise they can use their state-issued ID to vote, or Hacker neglected to tell us that over 50% of blacks in St.Louis aren't old enough to vote ... IF that "over 50%" number even exists in the first place).  Hacker also wants us to know that blacks are required to provide their social security numbers when registering, and when those numbers are checked, they 'suffer the same problem as immigrant workers, and their names don't match up, or there's no record of them". 

It bothers me that they can have this fake little 'news' shows, interview some random old guy, and launch their conspiracy theories.  Here are a few facts of my own:

In most big cities, there are a LOT of people who don't have driver's licenses.  This was strange to me, coming from a small town where even the poorest of the poor owned some sort of transportation, and everyone of age had a license, except those who'd lost them in a meth bust or DUI.  Despite there being few drivers licenses, there are an abundance of state-issued ID cards.  those are one of the only ways you can cash checks, buy liquor, tobacco, pornography, gamble, register for school, go to clubs, rent bowling shoes, etc.  I may be wrong, but i'm pretty certain state-issued ID is sufficient to register to vote.  (I know it is here, because i'm registering as we speak).  Usually you'll need some secondary proof of residence (a utility bill in your name, for example) ... and it is this point that is likely an issue.  It's nice & PC to keep hush-hush about what i'm about to say, but to those of us familiar first-hand with big-city welfare, it's pretty obvious.  Like illegal immigrant workers, a lot of folks 'on welfare' are not on the books.  They live off their girlfriends, their 'cousins', their moms.  These people don't have a utility bill in their name because they're not supposed to be living in the subsidized housing in the first place! They're also not supposed to be using grandma's handicapped placard to get 'good parking' at the mall or downtown. they're not supposed to be using their baby's mommy's food stamps. they're freeloading off the system, so on paper, they 'don't exist', which is why they can't vote!  They can't satisfy the requirements to act as a citizen of the United states, even though they're sucking blood out of the system. 
Before you start screaming 'racist!', let me point out another big flaw in what Hacker is saying.  He wants you to think that this 'voting issue' is all aimed at 'blacks'.  He wants YOU to be racist in 'identifying the problem' ... he wants you to change this into a race issue instead of a social issue.  These things are not race issues! They are culture issues, they might even be economic issues, but they are not exclusive to one skin color!  To buy into that is to continue on the long distracted mis-route of social reform ... it's never going to get any better as long as people keep trying to tie it to race!  Poor lazy whites are as much to blame as poor lazy blacks!  Illegal 'immigrants' are as much the problem as drug-dealing gangsta posers.  The issue is the paranoia, the laziness, the freeloading, and the demonizing of police and government that is drilled into these kids' heads.  Yeah, there are people who are really disabled. There are single mom's through no fault of their own. There are those who need the system, but they constitute a very, very small percentage of those who are riding it.  

Want to know why 'blacks' don't vote, Hacker?  because people like you trick them into thinking their vote doesn't count, that the government is out to get them and suppress them ... so they don't make an effort to pay taxes, abide by the laws, or fill out that little form that sets up their voice in the proper arena.  If instead of blaming this and that and theorizing this and that and wasting your time on some stupid leftist 'whitey' television show, you went out into the world and spread the word about how the government is still by the people/of the people/for the people - it's still everyone's friend, regardless of race, economic status, religion, gender, or disability - and you built up trust in the government and then educated people how easy it is to register to vote ... or to get a job, or to have a utility bill in their name, or to get a driver's license, or to get married, or to go to school ... you might make a REAL change! 

Hacker isn;'t the only one spreading these "you're oppressed, and nothing short of violent revolt will change that" messages. Nagin, of New Orleans, is just as guilty of this doom and gloom preaching.  Think of the lives lost because of his naysaying, his distrust of government!  People who needed help were shooting at the aid helicopters during Katrina!  people set out to navigate deadly waters because they believed his brand of lies ... that the government "abandoned them".   

If democrats (or anyone, for that matter!) really want to change the world, the key isn't in handing out more money, or providing free meals/food/transportation/parking/college ... the key is re-educating people of their position and duties as citizens of the United States, and stopping the cultural paranoiac propaganda that has been passed down for generations. 

I was shocked to see these protesters arrested protesting at the DNC!  They don't look at all like conservative/republicans!



when i read the story [here: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/sep/17/dnc-protesters-lining-fight-city-charges/ ] , i learned they were anti-war protesters, and had been throwing rocks & being unruly in various other illegal ways.  i found the particular passage to be kind of funny:
---
Frank Anello, of Denver, said police grabbed him near the Auraria campus Aug. 24, the day before the convention began.
Anello, his pregnant wife and 3-year-old child were downtown to protest the war in Iraq.
He said the protest was already over, and Anello's wife was using a porta-potty when a Humvee full of police in riot gear arrived. He said he was arrested after refusing to give his name or let officers search his backpack.
Anello said his face was covered at the time. He had covered it during the protest because he didn't want police to identify him.
But, he said, police also had their faces covered.
---
uh ... but police also have their names visible, will not refuse to identify themselves, and really, if you think about it, have no need to identify their personal name to a masked law-breaker. 
i'm a little concerned this guy who obviously planned far enough ahead to wear a mask so "police couldn't identify him" brought his pregnant wife and three year old with him to a protest he was hoping would become violent. I don't know if he was planning on using them as a shield or as legal leverage (if the police had to 'tear gas' them), but either way, when you read between the lines, the wife and 3 year old were not harassed or arrested. (we can assume neither happened, because if it had, even in the smallest amount, it would have been the first paragraph in this article, due solely to its sensationalist potential).  anyway ... if i brought my wife (pregnant or not) and kids to a protest where i was expecting a 'clash' between police and my grunting-ape friends, i would hope i'd be captured and locked up for a long, long time.  that kind of stuff is irresponsible, and dangerous.

as to the parts of the story where we hear the sad stories of people "just going to get pizza, and then got arrested" or "but i wasn't throwing rocks" ... i've been present when protesters have been arrested,tear gassed, ticketed, etc. i've seen it in two of the biggest cities in the Pacific Northwest, i've seen it in a podunk town in the rocky mountains.  i've seen it on television in other places ... and the consistent thing that i've seen is that police only arrest those who were disobeying.  little old ladies who 'accidentally' wandered into the 'stay out!' zone are not arrested (though a few might get a whiff of the tear gas fired at violent mobs).  Kids with dreads are not automatically arrested when they're on their lunch break from work & going to get a sandwich.  Police don't have the time to arrest everyone they see ... that's why they post barricades and use bull-horns to advise people of places that are 'off limits'. that's why they warn protesters numerous times of 'the rules'.  That's why they fire tear gas or turn on the fire hose. They don't want to arrest you, but after you've continually ignored them & pressed on, determined to break the law to its fullest extent, yeah ...they'll arrest you or ticket you. 

as for refusing to let them search your backpack ... you do have some rights, but when you're breaking the law, or when there is a situation that warrants it (a presidential nominee, former presidents and their families, or other important elected officials nearby, for example), some of these rights function a little differently.  it might seem complicated to try to keep track of all of these minor shifts (especially if your short term memory is burned out from weed, dude), but i like to think of it this way:  if i am guilty of no crime, i have nothing to hide ... so "sure, search my backpack. here's my driver's license. that's my car over there. here's my concealed weapons permit, and yes, here's my gun. no, officer, i'm actually picking up a pizza, and there wasn't any other way around." ...

i'm going to wrap this up by being judgmental ... by deciding, based on appearances, who i think is 'not guilty' in the above picture (for the fun of it, not because this should have any weight):

based on the picture, i'd say the only person i think may not be guilty of being a smart-*** protester is the guy, last on the right, middle row, wearing the orange shirt.  he looks a little scared, and it's being defiant. he looks like he's been crying, like he wasn't looking for trouble.  honestly, with the exception of him, the dude on the top row, furthest left, and the girl in the bottom row with the giant earrings, everyone else just kind of looks like they'd be in a protest (though only a couple look like they'd really be 'into it' for life, rather than as some passing way to be 'cool').