FEATURED STORIES Archives - World Free News

Perpetrators must take full ownership of their bullying ways

CITIZEN'S JOURNAL, FEATURED STORIES, U.S. NEWS No Responses »

Jun 182012

In mid-April, Kenneth Weishuhn, Jr., 14, of Primghar, Iowa, killed himself after being bullied. Oftentimes, the parents of these victims do not realize the full extent of the abuse until they have lost their children. That was the case with Weishuhn’s untimely death. His mother, Jeannie Chambers, said to the Sioux City Journal, “When I talked to him, he blew it off like it wasn’t a big deal.”

Now, it is too late for Chambers to have an open conversation with her son about overcoming his bullies.

Weishuhn is just one of many young teens who have committed suicide to escape the emotional humiliation and pain of being a victim of bullying. These stories continue to be noted by journalists across the country, which raises a question: bullying is receiving more attention, but why is that the case? After all, hasn’t bullying been an issue for decades, even centuries? (Just consider the recent story, which has caused quite a stir, about GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney’s admission that he was a bully in high school).

Since Romney’s time in high school, however, the way in which people bully has dramatically changed. In fact, bullies have more access to their victims, thanks to social media. Because it is out of control — due to the Internet and other forms of technology (for instance, cell phones and texting) — bullying affects one’s personal and intimate spaces in ways that are more far reaching than before. Furthermore, it is far easier to bully, as it merely takes a few seconds to hit the “return’ key and send nasty, abusive comments about individuals ripping across social media sites and the World Wide Web. These remarks can be read by thousands, if not millions, of viewers in a matter of seconds. For young people, who are already facing great challenges as they navigate school and maturing, the emotional impact is devastating.

In a way, it seems that the idea that a child has a right to attend school or any other venue without being attacked by vicious people has been lost on all of us. But thanks to an increased awareness about human rights, and how it relates to the issue of bullying, we as a society are now prone to calling people out and insisting that they be act responsibly and respectfully towards others. When it comes to bullying, the voices of the anti-bullying movement are calling for the protection of all people who feel threatened, unsafe, or distressed by someone who feels they have the freedom to hurt others. In raising awareness, there is an important point being made among those in the anti-bullying movement: it is not your right to attack others. In addition, the idea that bullying is somehow a rite of passage is as anachronistic as the notion that it is appropriate to hit a child for punishment. Most of us now recognize that hitting children is abusive. The same sentiment should be expressed when we discuss bullying.

Indeed, bullying is a socially unacceptable behavior. However, not everyone realizes the dangers of this malicious form of behavior. That is why the anti-bullying movement is so important — it is helping victims of bullying understand that they are not alone, while shining a light on a crisis and discussing it openly. That is one of the problems with such forms of abuse; the victims often remain silent, suffering alone, while being overwhelmed by their predators. Like Weishuhn, those who wish to help don’t ever have that chance, as the victim winds up dead.

But many victims, and even those who bully, have begun to discover a space to talk about the bullying crisis. The anti-bullying movement continues to grow. There are now several movies including Rats and Bullies, andThe Bully that have documented the issue, and they are being screened at theaters, community events and in schools across the country. In addition, a number of books have been published on the subject, and talk show hosts and journalists — both on television and in print — are addressing it as well. At the local level, and in communities all over the nation, rallies are being held to denounce bullying.

And yet, we are still losing young people like Weishuhn. His suicide, and others who have recently taken their lives, are a testament to the fact that we still have a long way to go. In a word, my work continues. But I am confident that one day soon those who bully, whether they be children or grown adults, will find themselves ostracized for their behavior. It would be a blessing if this were to be the case now. We know the reality — we’re not there yet.

How can we begin to change things? The home. We need to support our young people immediately, and in safe spaces. We also need to teach them how to conduct themselves with others, so they do not fall into a pattern of becoming a bully themselves. In addition, we need to be open about what to do if they suddenly find themselves a target — a victim — of a bully. The home isn’t the only place I think this type of education can be achieved. I propose that parents and caregivers be required to take training classes, through our education system, before their child even enters our public schools. This training will emphasize a zero tolerance policy for bullying. That is why I am calling for the Department of Education to require all parents to be trained by our local schools in the same way they train teachers to instruct pupils. This training would be a prerequisite for the child’s diploma.

It is our social responsibility to provide safe learning environments that serve to nurture children, build their confidence, and help them gain knowledge. This requires training and cooperation among parents, teachers, and administrators. Even more importantly, the children must also play an important role in putting an end to bullying. Through cooperative learning, compassion, and openness, bullying will be made obsolete. While we might not be able to entirely eradicate this type of behavior from our society, we can least ensure that the victims no longer pay the heavy price. Instead, those who are the perpetrators will have to take full ownership of their bullying ways.

Hispanic Students leave Alabama Public Schools in Mass Exodus

FEATURED STORIES, U.S. NEWS No Responses »

Oct 052011

Alabama – Recently, the Alabama Legislator passed a Bill, H.B 56, which will require all public schools to require proof of citizenship for all new students enrolling in the schools. The Bill will not require the schools to expel or deny any students an education, and is claimed to only be in place to gather data to calculate the cost illegal immigration has on the public school system and the tax payers of Alabama.

As a result yesterday, a record numbers of Hispanic students were absent from Alabama schools, and many Hispanics in the community are claiming it is for fear of being reported to authorities and/or being harassed based on status. Many students withdrew from the schools and some families even plan to move out of state.

Alabama House Bill 56 has more than likely even affected some Hispanic students that are considered citizens based on birth – anchor babies – for fear that illegal parents will be arrested.

Some school districts were reporting numbers of 200 or more students absent Monday. This writer even read one report of a teacher having last words with a student’s mother – which she had come to know – as she walked out of the school with tears in her eyes after withdrawing her child. The teacher claimed that this mother had expressed fear that she and her family may have to move to a state with less restrictive laws.

Because this law has created such a stir in the Hispanic community and caused so much uncertainty for young Hispanic students one superintendent in Huntsville went on a Spanish-language television show last Thursday to try to calm anxieties.

Casey Wardynski is quoted as saying, “In the case of this law, our students do not have anything to fear, police will not be getting involved in the schools.” He urged families to send students to class and explained that the state is only trying to compile statistics.

Because the law is very controversial and borders on abridging Federal Law, it is expect that we will see more of this in the Federal Courts soon. President Obama’s administration has already moved to file suit against this controversial new law.

An Ode to Flappers and the Jazz Age

FEATURED STORIES, MUSIC 5 Responses »

Apr 072011

As I made the journey down Bank St. in Ottawa, tunes filled my ears almost distracting me from winter’s cold. Still I was more preoccupied by other more random thoughts than by the music. This was a shame since contained on my trusty Mp3 musical device were some true gems. Yet in a world where music can be carried literally in the palm of each individual’s hands, I take for granted periods when there were no Mp3 players, no Sony Walkman or Discman—carried in the smallest of palms—and no ghetto blasters carried on shoulders, carted around to amuse distracted minds. Ours is an age of music made portable and personal, but that has not always been the case.

A product of the modern age, mass popular music has become entrenched in our social world—soundtracks for life going back beyond frisky break-dancers parading streets, adeptly and skillfully footing it on urban and suburban sidewalks, ghetto blasters making shoulders robust.

I was drawn deeper into my reverie by a Janice Ian tune reminding me of time when the world was younger than today. Still, I am thinking farther back into history—before Ian’s time—back into the jazz age when the radical action of that era’s youth unsettled norms that their parents had thought were firmly etched and confirmed.

The youth of the jazz age grew up during the decade that followed the First World War, a time when the modern world would lose its innocence. The dreadfulness of that war settled like ashes at the feet of that generation and it was amidst the knowledge of those horrors that they displayed an unsettled existence. In all their actions they seemed intent to understand and recapture some of the essence of what had been lost on battlefields in foreign lands.

In the time between 1918 and 1930 the United States of America experienced tremendous changes in the social dynamic of society, influenced by an economic confidence that permeated culture as never before. Some called them the spawning of a social hysteria. Those transformations were so significant that they are credited for having defined the era—a revolution of sorts.

In the midst of change were the youth, led by the pied pipers of culture with names including Charlie Chaplin, Ernest Hemingway, Claude Mckay, Langston Hughes, Duke Ellington, and F. Scott Fitzgerald.

There was also a man named Louis Armstrong and he associated himself with another—lesser known today but significant all the same—named Joseph ‘King’ Oliver who came with his Creole Jazz Band. They brought jazz to the American north and ultimately to the world, spreading it thick over society like peanut butter on the novelty of hot, chunky slices of American bread. Jazz music was a rich, relevant, rebellious mantra for the day.

In their quest for understanding the young generation sought new truths on which they could rely as they unlearned the ones their parents had laid out. Fittingly, jazz music became the anthem for this time, or the first mass popularization of music as a vehicle in social change. Jazz was said to be the music of the outcast and for a society whose youth shirked tradition, outcast was a most appropriate term and Jazz music a most appropriate anthem.

Jazz has a long tradition as a freedom fighter’s rhythm, hailing back in American history to Louisiana and New Orleans. During the period following the American Civil War (1861-1865), Jim Crow laws penetrated Louisiana, the final frontier of free blacks in American society, and nearly half a million “Freedmen of Colour” in and around New Orleans saw their Fourteenth Amendment Rights taken away.

Finally—all equal rights and liberties were washed away as though with the deluge of blood that had flowed from the wounded and the dead of that war, and a once free people found themselves with nowhere to turn and nothing on which to rely for self-expression. However, that did not last for long.

They still had music, and so those that could, bought the musical instruments of the defeated army. Many of these once free people came from a tradition of self taught learning, and had a great deal of practice with teaching their young ones. So they combined the music they and their children had absorbed in better times during their travels abroad capturing music from countries like France, and Italy, ballads from England and Scotland, work songs from riverfronts around the world, and most importantly, Negro spirituals drawn from African lyricism. Jazz music was born, every strand echoing rhythms from here, there, and every place. It was a fusion of the world’s music and it became the means of protest against the injustices that were born out of the American Civil War.

It was not music of the defeated though, nor was it a swan song to lost freedoms; instead, Jazz music became an avenue of free, self-expression. In its origin, it was characterized by a free, loose, wildness, ignoring written composition and opting instead for improvisation. It did not balk at written traditions it merely added a new element to musicality itself. As though it was the intent of the creators, it stimulated a physical freedom that was sometimes characterized by free and untamed movements in dance.

Out of this historical tradition of free self expression, Jazz music became the anthem of the Flapper age, and cities all over America became little countries in which they flew their flags of freedom. When the Flapper persona made her debut she not only defined the era in every way, she redefined it for all time, ushering in a new age in social relations not just for young men but for young women also. They began to view certain traditions as constraining. For instance, females cut their traditional long hair into a bob that was boyish and saucily finger waved it to make it modern. Layers of clothing were removed in favor of lighter, looser attire. For the first time since it was introduced the corset was eliminated from the female wardrobe—solidifying a terrific shift in convention.

They began to wear dresses that were often sleeveless and if they chose they would opt to raise the hemline above their knees. The Flappers’ beau also changed his convention and came in all sorts: there was the so-called Joe College, sweater swank-ily tied about his shoulder; and there were young men who wore belted jackets, new Van Heusen soft collars, and trousers with wide flapping legs. These men shared the Flapper’s good times and in a rapidly changing America were like loyal subjects of their own new land.

Make no mistake, conservative America did not die, it was just forced to co-exist with new liberal norms that youth did not care to hide and were in the midst of embracing, fully. They were called the lost generation; and they were search of something; and in their display they appeared to want it all.

They thought themselves blameless for craving openly what their parents did not even allow themselves to imagine. The war was to blame. Their parents caused the war, so why should they accept any responsibility for any repercussions that their parents did not foresee and were now desperately trying to avoid? How could they be expected to balance the traditional values from times past within an era that was rapidly changing?

For example, under challenge were social events. In that not so distant past many of these had been based around the church as an arbiter of social norms and a facilitator of social gatherings. However, in this emerging age youth courtships and outings once restricted and chaperoned by the so-called responsible adult met with defiance. Little pecks on the cheeks, on the front porch, illuminated by the lantern under the watchful glare of overly protective guardians were no longer the only option. To be sure, these norms did not die. However, a new norm came to be as lovers’ lane joined the list of possibilities for curious, frisky, frivolities.

The Flapper had access to birth control by 1923, the year that Holland Rantos invented the rubber diaphragm, though this she kept between her and her beau. The act in itself was revolutionary enough. She attracted a modern sort of male, drawn to her flamboyance and modern appeal. They were the generation that was introduced to cars and at first a fortunate few could be seen in Howard Marmon’s more expensive luxury Marmon V-model vehicles. However, Henry Ford aided the masses by raising his minimum wage and making the car universally affordable offering up his rattletrap Ford Model T Tin Lizzie Flivver—produced between 1908 and 1927. New moral values and a new piece of equipment collided with old morals as young lovers cast off the conservative notions of physical exploration held in high esteem in their parents’ time and before long found themselves in back seat of the car. Lovers’ Lanes sprang up all over America as these adventurous youths parked their cars in the shadow of cities and country roads, sat back and enjoyed the pleasures of their flesh with new precautions against repercussions.

It was a new start in American popular culture characterized by a physical movement and a dance that by 1924 found itself a name; the Charleston. On and on they went, these young men and young women, arms extended, heads bent forward, females wearing risqué drop-waisted-skirts, and males with loosened shirts, stepping in a frenzied mania one step an attempt to outdo the last. Recall Daisy Buchanan and her bunch making merry until dawn on Jay Gatsby’s front lawn in author F. Scott Fitzgerald`s novel for that time The Great Gatsby.

There was an intellectual movement in change as young thinkers put a new spin on literature and movies that coincided with the new progress in music and dance. For instance authors such as Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald chronicled changes even as they were occurring and at times even defined though changes. Hemingway wrote about a trend where the ultra privileged or the superbly lucky traveled across the Atlantic, soaking up a sort of European culture that seemed to be influenced only by Americans. Meanwhile as he took in the scene Fitzgerald fittingly summed up the times describing it as the Jazz Age.

They drew influence from the movies, copying trends, and were the first to see the talkies, offered to them by cultural revolutionaries such as Charlie Chaplin or Cecil B. De Mill, acted in by the likes of Rudolph Valentino, Clara Bow, Joan Crawford, and Betty Blythe, names now obscure. However, it is these names that made way for those we know today, names like Al Pacino, Kate Winslet, Jack Nicholson, Tom Hanks, Elvis Presley, Aretha Franklin, Dave Mathews, Bruce Springstein, Eric Clapton, Neil Young, Ron Sexsmith and so many others that today are more familiar.

When the youth of the jazz age embraced jazz music conservative America suffered a blow that did not end with the music. Lines of race and social distinctions were crossed as bands led by young white musician the likes of Leon “Bix” Beiderbecke joined existing groups of black musicians and helped alter the ever transformable music of jazz, forming a brotherhood of sorts.

The youth of the Jazz age defied traditions—that had almost seemed etched into the social fibre for all time—by doing what we today call clubbing. They danced the nights away—venturing into roadhouses, places that were classified as the wrong side of the track. Before that time if good, respectable boys and girls were to enjoy the pleasures of the dance hall, they did so discretely, without the knowledge of parents and more conservative friends. Before this time such activities were forbidden and were only restrictively offered up to those who were daring enough to risk gaining a certain unsavory reputation. But then things changed. With jazz music the Flappers made a most indelible mark, by crossing the track, and tampering with previously drawn lines in the sand.

To imagine such social limitations today is difficult. Think of the freedom of going to a music festival on a summer’s evening, from Vancouver to Montreal and all points between and beyond. Imagine having to take in the meaty sounds of bands like Billy Dixon’s Soul Train Express, or the sultry lyricism of Diana Krall under the suspicious scrutiny of a chaperone. Worse yet, imagine being told that this kind of music was forbidden. I once sat on a grassy bank on Vancouver’s Granville Island and watched a group of young women, no chaperones in sight, dance with hula hoops to the sounds of a Dixie band called the Johnny Doheny Project, and I observed that they whirled with a joy that was pure and sweet. It is difficult to imagine a time when such a thing would have been faux pas.

As I walk down another street, this time in Vancouver, I am drawn from another reverie by the last strains of Nick Drake’s Pink Moon. Lost in thought I had missed a favorite song, but I resisted the urge to hit the replay button on my Mp3 device. With each song competing for attention I instead embraced an instrumental sound from Vancouver’s Laila Biali, soothed by the sweet musicality and lulled into anticipating the next. I knew it would be a tune by the British Katie Melua, a phenomenal lyrical and instrumental masterpiece mixing sounds of the Orient, an accompaniment to her song Nine Million Bicycles in Beijing.

If you influenced the Jazzers the world has already bid you a fond farewell. If you were a Jazzer, we are in the process of saying good-bye, and even if you are a child of a Jazzer, you will soon be gone from us, to one and all, this is an Ode to you from the stages of festivals everywhere.

No Related Posts

VIDEO: Yellow Journalism; the declining state of American Media

EDITORIAL, FEATURED STORIES, U.S. NEWS 3 Responses »

Mar 282011

A term coined by William Randolph Hearst in the late 1890’s, Yellow Journalism, also known as the Yellow Press, was the practice of sensationalizing “news” for the sake of increasing market share (selling more papers). The Yellow Press would employ tactics such as scandal mongering, exaggeration, misleading headlines, faked interviews, “gotcha” reporting(entrapment of interviewee) and falsified facts from so called experts.

Does this sound familiar to you? It should, it is the driving force behind most American Media today. At any minute of any day, you can see it in printed tabloids like the National Inquirer or, better yet, tune in to Fox News, CNN and the like. You will be lucky to extract 10 minutes of quality news per hour from the seemingly endless stream of opinion, conjecture, sensationalism, commentary and commercials.

As a nation we had seemed to escape Yellow Journalism, at least for a time. In the 60’s and 70’s I remember the nation would come to a halt to listen to Walter Cronkite and as a listener you knew you could depend on anything he said. He was factual and concise, a true Journalist. Peter Jennings, Tom Brokaw, David Brinkley all reported in like fashion.

What made them great was knowing that when you tuned in to the news, news is what you were going to get; factual, impartial news. For a time, even Wolf Blitzer could churn out a great story.

But the times have changed. CNN Headline News was once a favorite; imagine a 24/7 news channel that gave you headlines almost as they happened, every 30 minutes without fail. Headlines, not opinion, not paid experts, not conjecture, not talking heads, just headlines.

On March 25, 2011, I made the mistake of tuning in to an interview by Wolf Blitzer of General Carter F. Ham, Commander, U.S. Africa Command. Take a look and tell me if you think this is Journalism:

I don’t claim to know what has happened to Wolf Blitzer’s reporting over the years but, that particular piece on General Ham is a clear example of sensationalism and “gotcha” reporting, so much so that he reminds me of the news channel abomination known as Nancy Grace. For all intent and purpose, it was Nancy Grace reporting only with a beard and a less annoying personality.

Wolf and CNN are merely following suit. Fox News is infamous for reporting in this manner. The battle between the moguls is old news but, the country swallows it nightly, mostly as the evening’s entertainment. However, it’s not just Wolf Blitzer and Nancy Grace; how about Glenn Beck, Greta Van Susteren, Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly? The list of American Media reporters who have helped reduce the news to a badly produced sitcom is seemingly endless.

U.S. Secretary of State Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, while testifying before the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee on March 2, 2011 stated that “Viewership of Al Jazeera is going up in the United States because it’s real news,” Clinton said. “You may not agree with it, but you feel like you’re getting real news around the clock instead of a million commercials and, you know, arguments between talking heads and the kind of stuff that we do on our news which, you know, is not particularly informative to us, let alone foreigners.”

American Media has come full circle and is now engaged in the same heated battle for supremacy that Hearst once engaged in. Corporate profit is king and market share will be taken at any cost; ethics be damned.

In Pakistan, Yellow Journalism has also come to mean corruption in media, where a news-worthy story has no chance of being published without bribing an editor as Malik Ayub Sumbal so well reported for journalism.co.uk. How much different is that from throwing journalistic ethics aside for the sake of market share? The distinction is grey at best.

As a nation whose core functionality depends on a well informed populous, we should be enraged at this state of affairs and yet, we let it continue, as apathetic to it as we are to the wars we are engaged in and the erosion of our constitutional rights. We simply don’t care as long as we can play golf and shop and have dinner when we want. We live in confusion of fact, exactly where the country’s power brokers want us.

The voices of those who are sick of this nonsense are being heard however. They are tuning to media that gives a realistic perspective on news. Jon Stewart’s satirical reporting on “The Daily Show” is becoming the most trusted news in America. People are turning to alternative sources that promote Independent Journalism practices and even the U.S. Secretary of State gets her news from abroad.

Before long, the American Media moguls will have to battle for leftover scraps of market share unless they begin to recognize what’s coming and take action to once again provide the American public with real news value. Ironically enough, Joseph Pulitzer, the posthumous father of the famed Pulitzer Prize used the very same Yellow Journalism techniques to win the newspaper battle for the New York World against Hearst’s New York Journal in the late 1800’s.

Plugged In, Internet Junkie

FEATURED STORIES, LIVING, SCI/TECH 2 Responses »

Mar 042011

I grew up in the age where black and white TV was the rage, 45 and 33 rpm records ruled, and high school typing class was, well, on a typewriter. What has happened to me over the last 40 years? I’ll tell you what has happened…I am a plugged-in, cyber surfing, tweeting, online shopping, Facebook Status making, Internet Junkie. And none of this includes what I do for a living as a Network Administrator and avid amateur web designer.

I have my smart phone with me at all times with apps for just about anything you could possibly imagine: apps to tell me where I am and how far to get where I am going, game apps to play while I am traveling there, apps to send live voice messages, dining apps to tell me what to tip, sport apps, social networking apps, hobby apps of all kinds….there is even an app to keep track of your apps. Just in case my phone dies, my iPad is in my small carryon bag I call a purse, available to take me to the next level in my quest of “to the cloud” living.

I wake up each day, check my phone for messages I could have missed, although I am not quite sure how this could really happen. I grab a cup of coffee to enjoy while skimming through MSN headlines, checking my three email accounts, and Facebook stalking my friends. I tear myself away long enough to get ready for work then off I go.

Plugged in continuously at work, I live through my desktop. Ninety percent of all communication is done through email, texting, or commenting online. Software support calls are done through a chat service and remote desktop connections. Human interface has become digital in the 21st Century. Has the process of maintaining relationships evolved into words on a screen, with the ability to delete what we don’t like or want to ‘hear’?

Are we less engaged with one another, less empathetic, less in touch with our emotions? Has our ability to look someone in the eye and speak to them from the heart become more difficult? Are we trading human interaction on a face to face level for a keyboard or touch screen relationship?

Last night my husband and I were watching TV and I received a text from a friend asking about weekend plans. I began to text back the itinerary for the weekend when my husband asked “Wouldn’t it be easier just to call and work out the weekend details?” I hesitated as I thought through my answer. “Well, it might be quicker, but if they wanted to talk to me, wouldn’t they have called in the first place?” He just shook his head. Cyber-logic is hard to argue against. It is a lifestyle I have unwittingly embraced over the last 40 years. There is no turning back for me.

Maybe sometime in the future, I will try to turn it all off for a weekend, just to see if I still am able to make it on ‘my own’. Then again, addicts are always telling themselves they can do without their vice and walk away from it ‘anytime’. Yes, I feel a digital-free, cleansing weekend coming soon; just to see if I can do it. OMG! Did I just say that? ROFLOL!

No Related Posts

Six Tips to Beat Jet Lag

Revoking Your Freedom of Thought!

FEATURED STORIES, RUMINATIONS No Responses »

Feb 242011

I abhor persons who are too “lazy” to think for themselves. When reading news articles online, I often skim the comments made by other readers and end up perplexed by the stupidity that runs rampant in society. I hate that I say this, but more so, I hate that so many agree with some of these comments without actually thinking about the subtle or intended message. I think that stupidity is like a wildfire burning through the social fabric of an intrinsically reasonable existence.

For example, I read an article about the murder of a principal in my area. The article didn’t say who killed the man or even alluded to who was responsible for the murder, all we were told was that he was found dead in his home and his SUV was missing. It was said that he was a good principal with a few recognitions in the community; that’s all. Yet reader’s comments and speculation ranged from “fatherless black kids” to “[homo] sexual activity”; huh??? Here is one of the comments that stuck out while I read.

“This is a sad ending, but is not a surprising one. Teachers face a multitude of behavioral problems everyday [sic], brought to them by children who were never taught the disciplines of respect, thoughtfulness, and hard work by parents and reinforced by media driven narcissism. Instant gratification and self indulgence have replaced moral character. An occasional trip to the wood shed and the word “No” is a start.”

This comment was praised by so many other readers for the “insight” and there was wide agreement. Why? This is what I got from his comment:

“All kids now days are evil bastards that only think of themselves and it’s all the fault of the parents for not beating them and that’s why this man is dead”.

He was just a little more subtle with his message, but to me it was quite clear what he was saying.

That may sound absurd, but read the message again with that in mind. He began his message with “…this is not a surprise ending…” As if when this man became a principal of a school he should have expected to die at the hands of his students? Why else would it not be surprising? The message began with a predicated result, leads us to believe that all of our children have no “moral character”, and then ended with a [violent] solution.

There are over a 100 million children in this country, yet only a handful actually commits such [perceived] atrocities as this crime. However, this commenter would have you believe that this nation is facing an epidemic of proportions we’ve never seen?

His message was no different than every generation before his on the next generation and, as the norm, everyone piled on thinking he had the answer, like crime and bad behavior is something new to our society and it’s the fault of this generation’s parenting techniques.

Sure, he talked about how teachers face behavioral problems in kids; I don’t disagree, but murderers? That aside, is beating kids really a solution? How many violent offenders do you think are created from violence?

Furthermore, he blames the media; “…reinforced by media driven narcissism…”

How cliché, the media is responsible as well? I wonder if the radio was ever blamed for violence. I don’t recall my generation launching cars over river banks? I saw it a lot on TV, but I never recall the urge to try it…I do know that John Wayne liked to slap women around in his movies, but that wasn’t my generation, so I don’t know how kids handled seeing that. All the while, crime was still happening in this country; even back then.

So, how many of you read that message and agreed with him upon a cursorily read? How many would have given it a second thought? Do you think that now you should? You may not; maybe you do think that our generation’s children are endemically void of all morals. Or that this man should have expected this unforeseen death. I can’t tell you what to think, but if you’re not going to try to think, expect me to point out that you’re not.

It goes much further than comments on media articles; there is the never ending slough of forwarded e-mails such as ones that claim “Muslims are vastly taking over the world by having more kids than Christians” or “President Obama has cancelled the National Day of Prayer and replaced it with Muslim recognition day”. All of them ending with, “if you love [your] country/god then forward to everyone you know, if not just delete this message.” Nine out of ten of these messages are complete lies, but how many of you actually check? How many forward them to everyone in your address book?

Then there are our new social media outlets like Facebook. Now we have a whole new way to spread ignorance at a glance – the status line!

—– “Illegal immigrants are replacing all of our Bibles with the Quran and replacing our guns with social welfare! If you hate homosexuals and love Jerry Falwell, you’ll cut and paste this into your status line for 24 hours; if you love illegal immigrants and the Muslims you won’t and instead have a status line that actually took some thought….Communist PINKO!” ——

Do people ever think before they act anymore? Have we become a nation so lazy that we let others do our thinking for us? For you people that do this, I give you Communist Russia. Why? Because that’s exactly how things were done then. The Department of Propaganda created statistics and research results. They then released the propaganda as fact to the public and it was then treated as truth. No need to actually do the research, just tell them what ever best fits the communist agenda. We’re letting others do the same to us when we resign our ability to reason for the quick fix of propaganda.

People so hastily believe everything they read or whatever people tell them and this is accelerated if someone throws in a few statistics here and there. Accepted with very little regard for why that person is providing the info, where they got it from, and if it is accurate. Don’t just assume that these people are doing the research for you, that’s what they want you to think.

Others just want to believe information based on personal bias; this is a dangerous path to take in life, because your personal bias may be harmful to you or others. Why dangerous? How many ignorant people are revered in our history books? How many ignorant people do we deplore in our history books? The ones we deplore are the ones who were most dangerous.

It comes down to personal responsibility. If you are going to convey a message for others to read or hear, whether the message originated with you or it’s one you received, once you communicate this message to your peers it becomes your message. You have now accepted ownership of that message. So if it is a message with subtle innuendoes of hate and intolerance– then you become a bigot. If the message is blatantly incorrect, then you’ve become a liar. If it is utterly stupid, well then you are utterly stupid. It’s your choice to think or not. But if not, it’s you who has revoked your freedom of thought; don’t blame me when everything falls to pieces.

From the Editor: