kimmy

This is not a peer-reviewed journal of social science. This is a message board. I've supported my views more than adequately. I think you're the one with the bias. Your mind is made up on the subject, and unable to argue against my position itself, all you can come up with is to complain about the way I've presented it. You're the one claiming I'm wrong, the onus is on you to demonstrate why. My use of your lesbians to support my position is entirely reasonable and completely fair. If you feel I've overlooked data that counters my opinion, feel free to bring it to the discussion. I've already put forth my argument. I'm just pointing out that you have not done the same. The original topic of the discussion was strictly along racial lines, and the claim of racial bias is reasonable when the discussion is restricted to those lines. When factors other than race were introduced, expanding my argument to account for the additional information is fair. I do think there is. I've provided a reasonable case to support that view. That you aren't convinced is of little importance to me. I don't consider it my mission to convince everyone I'm right. While you may not be convinced I am right, I have to point out that you have done absolutely nothing to demonstrate that I am wrong. And unless you wish to address my argument, I'll just leave it at that. -k

There are movies where you just know that some executive was thinking "You know, Beyonce (or Megan Fox or Katherine Heigl...) is totally hot right now. Let's get her in a movie before it wears off and we can make a load of cash." But the premise that in 2009 somebody cooked up a movie as a shameless attempt to cash in on the star power of ... Ed Asner? It's laugh out loud funny. He provides a terrific voice for the character, and I'm sure he's a sentimental favorite for people old enough to remember him as Lou Grant... but he has not been a "bankable" name for a very long time. -k

I agree with Oleg (and I feel very strange saying that.) One can't identify an "alpha male" by looking at cars in the parking lot or bank statements. One can identify an alpha male by watching a group of men in a social setting. (yes, I once again offer an opinion based on observations from my years of waitressing.) In any group of men larger than about 2 or 3, you can observe an "alpha male" dynamic. You can start guessing just from where the men locate themselves: one will position himself in an accessible and relaxed location, and the others will locate themselves in relation to him. He is not necessarily the most successful man in the group, nor is he necessarily the biggest or fittest or oldest or most talkative... there's not necessarily any quantifyable factor that distinguishes this man from the others, except perhaps for his confidence. The other men in the group instinctively seek this man's approval... not necessarily in an obvious and obsequious way, but if they have a good story to tell or some hilarious zingers to dish out, they make sure he's hearing it. I think this is the sort of Wild Kingdom definition that people usually associate with the phrase Alpha Male. It's not about money, it's largely a function of confidence and personal magnetism. Other men instinctively sense that this man is the leader of the pack. Women sense it too. Is Tiger Woods that guy? From what I've seen of him during interviews, I wouldn't bet on it. He just doesn't come across as a guy who has the sort of innate social confidence that to me makes an "alpha male". Guys with "alpha male" confidence tend to be successful in life. It serves people well in almost any field of endeavor. Almost everything human beings do benefits from that social power. But purely intellectual and purely athletic activities are exceptions. People who are the center of their social circles tend not to like putting in many hours of study or spending 10 hours a day practicing their golf stroke. Leaving aside the question of what an "alpha male" really is... I recall hearing (in a movie? tv show? book? editorial? I don't recall) someone say that the real test of someone's character is to give them the power to do anything they want, then see what they do with it (there's probably a famous quote on the subject, and I'm just too full of cough-syrup to remember.) And a lot of professional athletes are in this realm: they have fame and financial resources to get anything they want to have, do anything they want to do. Some handle it well. Some of them make terribly poor choices. Some have even walked away from everything to join the army or sail around the world. But given the world offered them on a platter, I think that most people would indulge. Most people aren't that good at resisting temptation. Pro athletes have a lot more temptation to deal with than most people. Women, drugs, and any kind of excess money can buy. Pro athletes have the same opportunity to screw up their lives as rock stars and movie stars, the only difference is that pro athletes are expected to maintain an appearance of propriety. As Kay's article mentions, adultery among men who have access to anything they want is hardly a secret or a mystery. If Tiger Woods has only had 1 mistress, he has conducted himself better than most. -k

I've offered a hypothesis, and one that appears to account for all the information that's been presented. If you don't agree, why don't you present information that my hypothesis can't explain? I've presented lots of examples, I've shown you the media trying to create a hate crime news story with no information other than the races of the attacker and victim, I've offered media self-analysis of the issue, I've provided expert opinions. You, on the other hand... you've thrown stuff at the wall and hoped something sticks, then moaned and complained when I've pointed out that no, it didn't stick. Which was entirely fair, when the scope of the discussion expanded. If you wanted to keep the discussion strictly about race, you shouldn't have introduced Jews and homosexuals. -k

Really, August... you're now critiquing movies that you haven't even seen based on your assumptions of what they're about? Sometimes I wonder "could August be any more pompous?" and the answer has always turned out to be "yes, he could." If I'd seen Madagascar when it came out, I'd have probably stopped watching animated movies too. I've seen about 5 minutes total of Madagascar and turned the channel. I watched some of Madagascar 2 on the seat-back DVD of a neighboring passenger and it kind of made me want to jump out of the plane. In discussing this movie, that premise is badly flawed: the star is Ed Asner. Most of the target audience has no idea who Ed Asner even is. "Up" grossed $300 million in domestic box office. To propose that Ed Asner's star power could bring in $300 million, whether in 2009 or even at the height of his popularity, whatever that might have been, is hilarious. If anything, "Up" (and some of Pixar's other recent features, like Wall-E and The Incredibles) demonstrate that Pixar no longer needs big name actors to voice their characters (if they ever did.) It's fair to speculate that Toy Story wouldn't have been as popular without Tom Hanks and Tim Allen behind it (although I think the ground-breaking animation was probably the real draw.) But it is pretty ridiculous to speculate that The Incredibles wouldn't have been a smash hit without "Craig T Nelson," even though it's now impossible to imagine the character with any other voice. The key to the renewed popularity of animated movies (starting with Toy Story, I think) is not putting famous people behind microphones. The key has been providing amazing visual experiences, fantastic premises that would be difficult (or incredibly expensive) to do justice in a live-action format, and generally speaking very good stories to go along with it. Good acting is a part of it, but probably less so for animated movies than for a live action movie. There are plenty of live action movies where one can assume that there's no reason for the movie to even exist other than as a starring vehicle for a big name actor or star-of-the-moment. I don't think the same can be said of any animated movies. It's much harder to cash in on a big name actor's popularity when you've hidden them behind a microphone. In other words... if they couldn't get Eddie Murphy to provide a voice for Donkey, they would have hired Rob Schneider or Pauly Shore or some other jackass. I think Pixar's brand in itself is almost a guarantee of box office, in the same way that Disney animation used to be. I've seen Shrek. You should see Up. It's not Madagascar. -k

I obviously haven't done enough research to write a thesis on the subject. I've offered a hypothesis that agrees with all data that's been presented so far, including the examples you've offered. I'm not a criminal lawyer trying to get a conviction in a court of law, I don't need to prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt" to have put forth a reasonable argument. You, on the other hand, seem to have the attitude of a defense attorney, apparently believing that if I can't "prove" there's a bias, then you "win". You don't "win". I can't "prove" there's a bias, but I've done a much better job of arguing that there is than you've done of disputing it. I've stated my case in 2 different threads, and it's largely summed up here and here ...and most of the stuff I wrote there has not been addressed at all. For purposes of the discussion, "anti-white" was adequate to the scope of the discussion (which was strictly to do with race, as you'll recall, you were there.) When the scope of the topic was broadened, I refined the premise to include all of the additional information I've been provided with. And it does. I've gone from this... Hate crimes against white victims are less newsy than hate crimes with non-white victims. To this... Hate crimes against white victims are less newsy than hate crimes with non-white victims (unless the media can find another identity-politics angle to play, such as gay or Jewish.) And you've not challenged that in the least; rather you're busy finding excuses to not challenge it. As I've amended my position to include an identity politics factor, yes, this is rather central. Yes, the scale of news coverage (ie, the immense national news coverage afforded Duke lacrosse or James Byrd vs the hate incidents in Portland or Buffalo remaining strictly local) is also rather central. You can't ignore that aspect of it just because it's inconvenient for you. And since I've already corrected you once on "non-identity", you apparently really are "playing dumb" by repeating it a second time. You've offered nothing to dispute my premise other than a similarly small number of examples. I haven't ignored them, I've adjusted my position to account for them. -k

I'm not aware of a 2nd Portland case, Michael. Here is the case that has been referenced here: http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=121355387311981300 My 2 sentences: To briefly restate the case, a group of black teenagers face charges that include "hate crimes" charges after they beat and robbed a white woman while yelling racial epithets at her. To briefly state why it supports my argument, I assert that it is another example showing that a "hate crime" with a white victim does not receive the same attention as a "hate crime" with an "identity-politics" victim, contrary to the claim made by media apologists that it was the "blatant hate motive" and not the identity of the victim that made similar stories newsworthy. -k {now let's hear charter-rights' 2 sentences. This should be hilarious.}

You obviously haven't been reading very closely, because the fact that a hate crime with a white victim went ignored by national press doesn't defeat my argument, it completely supports my argument. That you can't even comprehend that much speaks volumes. -k

Your opinion is of almost no value to anybody, c.r, and it gets even cheaper each time you offer it. -k

For you to characterize the emotional responses this topic provokes as "whining" just confirms to me that you really don't have any real appreciation of it. It's just an abstract philosophical concept to you, a theoretical or hypothetical discussion, isn't it. You seem to see no moral difference between bullying and fighting back against bullying. "They had it coming" is irrelevant, it's all just violence. Fighting back encourages a "gang mentality". If people started fighting back, soon you'd have Columbine happening all over again. Standing up to bullies just leads to more violence. It's the terrorist thing to do. Let's educate them! Let's battle the low self-esteem that must be behind this sort of behavior! Indeed, let's educate them by teaching them that the school can't actually do anything to stop them. Let's boost their self-esteem by letting them to do as they wish! Let's empower bullies by teaching them that the worst consequences they will face is having to sit through milk-and-cookies with the school counsellor. And if you don't like that the school can't do anything to change what's going on? Be vocal! And if you still don't like that they can't do anything? Be LOUD! -k

I've argued my position repeatedly. And right now, I'm disputing your counterargument. You haven't accomplished what you claim you have, despite making a big show of patting yourself on the back. How did you possibly get that out of what I wrote? Are you playing dumb to keep getting out of addressing the question? I did not say the Duke lacrosse players are "non-identity". I said you need to provide me a counterexample to the Duke case with a non-identity-politics victim. It's obvious that without a black "victim", the Duke lacrosse case wouldn't have been news. The "hate crime" allegation is what made it a national news item and attracted the sensationalist coverage it received. If you disagree with my claim that "identity politics" and not "hate" is the real factor in the sensationalism, provide me with a counterexample. You've provided me with lesbians, and you've provided me with a hate crime with a white victim that received no notice outside of the community where it happened. Both examples make my argument, not yours. And what's your theory on what that dimension is? Their description "highly publicized" is completely without qualification. It might have been "highly publicized" in Portland Oregon local news. It might just mean there were 4 articles written about it. Your lesbians incident would qualify as "highly publicized" too. However, I did a quick search and found nothing to indicate it received news coverage outside of Portland. There was certainly none of the sensationalism that "identity-politics crimes" have generated. The fact is, neither of us would have ever heard of this if you weren't desperately Googling to try and find me a "hate crime" with black attackers and a white victim. Well, congrats, you found one, but really just helped prove my point that it's not big news if the identity-politics aren't right. If there's no bias, why can't you provide me a counterexample? -k

I'm sorry, I completely misunderstood. -k

That comment about the self-righteousness quota was directed largely at me, yes? -k

You've yet to provide an example of a "hate crime" news story that doesn't more accurately fit the "identity-politics crime" descriptor I coined earlier. Find me a story with a heterosexual, non-Jewish white victim that received excessive news coverage because of a hate crime angle. You can't dispute the claim of bias without providing me such an example. You need a non-identity-politics victim counterexample to Duke lacrosse to make your case, and you can't provide one. Even in these cases where misogyny is an undeniable aspect of the crime, has anybody actually reported on it as a hate crime? I have yet to see an example. That case doesn't support the argument you're trying to make, so it's not really a counterexample. It's a better example for my argument than for yours, because it illustrates the extent to which the right identity-politics optics can turn an event that's just not newsworthy into a news story. Nice attempt at using big words to dodge the obvious fact: this story just wouldn't be news without the homosexual victims calling for hate crime charges. And you haven't provided the counterexample to Duke lacrosse. You can't dispute the claim of bias without one. -k

Only certain hate crimes are newsworthy, as I keep pointing out. If you've got examples of routine crimes (say, assault) with female victims becoming big news because of a claim of "extreme misogyny", let's hear 'em. It's been 20 years since Ecole Polytechnique. The only ones playing this angle are angry feminists making speeches at "take back the night" marches, and that's just not "big news". -the articles you've provided make clear that the hate crime claim came from the lesbians themselves, not from a lawyer. -the police comment on the demand for hate crime charges is that the incident does not meet the criteria of Sections 318 and 319. -people don't generally go to a lawyer when they've been victims of a crime, they go to the police. Or in this case the media as well. What I'm claiming is that the "hate crime" claim wouldn't make such a case big news. That's conjecture on my part. You claim to the opposite is conjecture too. My conjecture is supported by the complete absence of counterexamples, and by the fact that even cases where discussion of hate crime would have been warranted have not been covered in such a way. Your conjecture is supported by your hope that it might be true because it would help your argument. Someone getting punched doesn't makes the news. Not even here in the mid-sized community I live in, certainly not in the Greater Toronto Area. All of us know that this sort of a story gets almost no ink at all, much less the number of articles this case has apparently generated. Hmm. Maybe a Puerto-Rican man with a white wife just aren't sufficiently sympathetic victims. However, the claim was bias, not universality. You've handed me another black on white hate-crime that remained local news? I suppose I should say thank you for helping prove the point. -k

You can't provide any examples of routine battery becoming built up as a "hate crime" news story. For you to propose that the media would react that way if the victims just alleged it to be a hate crime is just a hypothesis. And a poorly thought out one. It's laughable to me that you're apparently quite serious about this line of argument. When the suspect himself declares out loud and in his manifesto that he's motivated by hate, the media had no choice but to cover that aspect of the story. The test of bias isn't in what someone does when the choices are made for them, it's in what they do when they have the power to make decisions for themselves. It's not a question of an editor here or there ignoring one story or hyping another far out of proportion. When stories like Brian Milligan or Channon Christian or the Wichita massacre remain unknown outside of the local news, it's because dozens and dozens of editors coast to coast all made the same decision. When stories like James Byrd and Matthew Sheppard and Duke lacrosse all get huge national coverage, it's likewise because a lot of editors came to the same decision. -k

I'm through with any effort to explain or rationalize or justify my anger at this issue to you or to Morris. As I said before: we have a message board where people are outraged over events on the other side of the world, have passionate feelings about people they've never met, intense views about issues that will never affect them personally... and yet we have people chiding others for being angry or self-righteous over something that has personally touched them and their families. There's obviously no point saying anything further. If you don't get it, you don't get it, and nothing I could possibly say is ever going to change that. However, this other stuff... this is still worth a look. These groups are not martian to me. I was a standout athlete throughout my school career and did gain entry into the right (or sometimes wrong) cliques and circles. (Especially at schools where I had to stick up for myself when I first arrived, because it's amazing how "proving" yourself in such a way makes people want to be your friend.) And I know that the popular kids and the beautiful people have stresses and problems of their own. Everybody has problems. But there's this popular belief that bullying is a cry for help, lashing out because of a deeply troubled home life or an abusive parent, and so on. And that might be for the occasional one, but I don't believe it's true in general at all. I believe that the typical bully is no more a victim of pressure and stress and abuse than any other person between the ages of 5 and 105. Same can be said for smoking. People don't look at smoking as a cry for help or assume it's a result of a broken home. People don't look at mailbox baseball as a cry for a help or a result of a broken home. People do all kids of things to be accepted or to look cool, and generally it's not because they have serious emotional problems, it's just because they're normal human beings. I think this widespread assumption that in the case of bullying it's somehow different is just folklore. When I lashed out violently, it was because nothing that could have happened would have been worse than allowing what was happening to my brother to continue. I believed, and still believe, that he would have killed himself if the situation had not changed. When someone you love is so afraid of each day that you hear them vomiting their breakfast in the bathroom each morning, the philosophical implications become irrelevant to you. Anti-bullying "education" is about as effective as anti-smoking "education". The one surefire way to make kids want to do something is to tell them it's bad and wrong and not to do it. What really makes somebody understand why smoking is bad? Seeing a loved one dieing of lung cancer. What makes somebody understand that bullying isn't fun? Seeing the situation turn into something ugly. It's really unfortunate. My parents went to the school again and again with no results. I beat one kid's face in, and got immediate results. It's unfortunate, but the lesson here is obvious. I met a woman today whose daughter is a teacher; the woman told me horror stories about parents her daughter has do deal with. She can't even give out detentions; if that woman in the SUV in the parking lot has to wait 5 minutes extra for her little angel, she's on her cell-phone calling the school superintendent's office. I imagine that in such an environment, attempting to deal with discipline problems at school would be an impossible headache for the principal. There's probably a good reason why the schools seem completely ineffective in dealing with situations, and probably parents with an absurd sense of entitlement is a big part of it. So how do you get through to people? -k

What. Your argument is that the Montreal Massacre was newsy because it was "extreme misogyny" rather than because it was one of the largest mass-murders in Canadian history? I'm sorry, I think this discussion has jumped the shark. -k

If we are talking "hate crimes", then a hate motive should be what is relevant. But it's obvious that what we're really talking about here would be more appropriately called "identity politics crimes". That's pretty inane. If the media reported incidents of chick-battery as "hate crimes", even if the victim claimed "extreme misogyny!", nobody would take it seriously. And now you're just being ridiculous. What's your point with this absurd tangent? That a crime with white victims can still get in the news? It was one of the most shocking acts of violence during peace-time in Canadian history. It was big news regardless of identity politics. The news media isn't going to ignore huge stories like that one. It's contrary to their mission of selling papers. On the other hand, they'll certainly turn small news stories into big ones if they think they can do so. Michael and I discussed a list of criteria that make small-time crime "newsy" a while back. The list I suggested was something a long the lines of this: -they have video -lurid details, sexual angle -shocking, grisly details -famous people involved -particularly sympathetic victim -extraordinary plot twist And, of course, -"hate crime" angle. And it's this last one where the bias exists, where the identity politics takes over. -k

That is a very nice story. I think that while some professional athletes get (and deserve) bad reputations for their ridiculous conduct, there are a lot of good people in professional sports as well... guys whose off-field conduct does not attract the attention. A lot of them devote a lot of time and effort to charities. It sounds like this young man just wanted to honor a friend who meant a lot to him. It's an unfortunate fact that the media is more interested in the athlete who gets caught driving around in his Lexus with a joint the size of a submarine sandwich in his ashtray and an unregistered handgun in the glove compartment and 3 strippers in the back seat than they are to report on the guy who spends his off day going around the childrens' ward at the hospital visiting kids and signing autographs. -k

First off, a guy getting beat up by people telling him "your kind doesn't belong in this neighborhood" and "stay away from our women" has always been *the* classic example of a "hate crime" in the colloquial usage. So I think that anybody who disagrees that the incident in Buffalo wasn't a "hate crime" (in the colloquial sense) ought to just concede straight up that their concept of a hate crime excludes the idea of a white victim. Yes, I have already pointed out that the Buffalo media covered the gang-beating of Brian Milligan Jr and reported on the racial aspect of the story. The police have no solid evidence on that aspect and can't speculate on it. That's not unusual. What is remarkable is that the story doesn't even exist outside of Buffalo. Local media (in Knoxville, Tennessee) also reported on the Channon Christian/Chris Newsom murders and asked police about a potential hate crime aspect to it. The indignities performed upon Christian and Newsom seemed difficult to fathom without some kind of hate motive; the assailants were black and the victims white. The police had no solid evidence on that aspect and couldn't speculate on it. And, as with the Brian Milligan case, the story went virtually unreported outside of the local media. Concurrent with the Christian/Newsom murders, the Duke lacrosse case was headline news all over the United States. And although the Christian/Newsom murder was ignored by national news outlets, bloggers picked up on it. They asked "why are we hearing so much about Duke lacrosse, and nothing at all about this heinous crime in Tennessee?" and drew the obvious conclusion. MSNBC did an article on the issue-- not about the murders themselves, but about the criticism of the media by bloggers. After all the handwringing about the unfairness of internet scrutiny, the article gets to the point and asks two experts: the University of Tennessee law professor who operates Instapundit, who said that while he can't say it's a hate crime, he absolutely believes the press would have made a bigger deal about it if the races had been reversed. The contrary opinion comes from Ted Gest, the president of Criminal Justice Journalists, who says "no no no, it's not the race of the victims, it's just that it's not really big news without this blatant racial motive!" Which is an interesting for 2 reasons. First off, if the Duke lacrosse rape case was big national news because there was a blatant racial motive, it more or less illustrates that all you need to have a "blatant racial motive" is white attackers and a non-white victim. And secondly, 2 years later we've got this incident in Buffalo where there really was a blatant racial motive, and the incident is still invisible outside of the local news. It makes Mr Gest's explanation ring hollow, unless one factors in the requirement that a "blatant racial motive" requires white attackers and a non-white victim. So you've been able to dredge up some incidents that were considered newsy because of some other factors (gay victims, or maybe some Jewish victims.) Big deal. It really just further illustrates the point that these cases were newsy because of the victims' identity. If Matthew Sheppard was straight, his murder (as horrid as it was) would not have made it out of the local news. If Mr Scott had punched a couple of straight women, it would have at most merited about 2 lines in the Police Blotter column on the back page of the City section. -k

All of this seems predicated on the basic assumption that bullies have deep-rooted personal problems that must be resolved to change their behavior. That might be true for some of them, but I highly doubt it is true for most. Observable evidence seems to indicate that for the most part the groups of bullies are comprised of happy and popular kids, not angry outcasts. Looking over many of the "kick a ginger" incidents for example, and you find groups of 8, 12, even 20 kids involved. It stretches the imagination to think that these were just big group-therapy sessions for kids who secretly have personal problems. You've mentioned Columbine... if I recall correctly Harris and Kliebold claimed that their tormentors were the jocks and cheerleaders and the most popular kids at their school. Obviously the manifesto of lunatics is not a trustworthy source as to what really happened at that school, but it again sounds more like the bullying problem, if there was one, came from the popular crowd and not from some isolated angry kids. I think the far more plausible explanation is that they're doing it for the same reason kids play "mailbox golf" or some other reckless illegal prank. They know it's wrong, but they do it anyway because: -they think it's fun or funny -they think it makes them look cool, tough, bad-ass, or otherwise boosts their prestige among their peers -their friends are doing it -they don't believe they'll get caught or don't fear the punishment if they do -they don't understand that what they're doing is serious. -they don't understand that what they're doing can lead to serious consequences. Every story like this of which I've been personally involved in and every one that I'm aware of always has some sort of explanation like "...we were just playing around, we didn't think it was a big deal until (until Jimmy committed suicide... until Jimmy brought a knife to school... until Jimmy's brother and 6 friends showed up and put Joey in the hospital...)" These aren't psychologically damaged monsters. These are regular kids whose problem is ignorance. They feel terrible about their role in what happened once the story gets to the "until" part. When things get to the "until" part, they are rudely awakened and have no further wish to be part of anything like that again. The problem is, until the "until" part of the story, they simply won't take it seriously. And unfortunately, it takes the "until" part of the story to get the school and their parents to take it seriously as well, or in many cases, for them to even find out about what's actually going on. -k

We have a message board where people argue passionately about events on the other side of the world and issues that will never affect them personally. If there are people here who genuinely don't understand that people have intense feelings about things that have actually affected them and their families, I guess I have nothing at all to say to those people. *** AW mentions Columbine as an example of people going "too far" in lashing out at their tormentors. Well, of course. Nobody deserved to die and things should have never got that far. But Columbine was really kind of a watershed for peoples' understanding that there's an actual issue. It's terrible that it took something so horrible to wake people up, but it did. And this is something Wild Bill references: it just doesn't register with people until they see it for themselves. People lack empathy. They lack understanding. The parents of the bullies and the school officials might think they understand the issue, but they don't. Not unless they've seen their own kid trying to fake illness each morning because he's afraid of what's going to happen to him if he goes to school that day, not unless they've seen their own kid come home from school each day and lock himself in his room and cry for hours. When the principal wants to know "why didn't you tell me things had gotten to this level?" what he really means is "why didn't I listen to you when you told me things had gotten to this level?" When a bully's parents say "This wasn't a big issue until that little monster brutalized my son," what they really mean is "I didn't think this was a big issue until that little monster brutalized my son." How, other than experiencing it for themselves, can these people understand that it *is* a big issue? When it affects their own kid, suddenly it takes on some urgency for the other parents. When he's got police in his office, suddenly it takes on some urgency for the principal. It's unfortunate that things had to escalate to create some urgency to solve the problem, but it did, and the problem was solved. What I know is this: weeks of meetings with the school, weeks of assurances that "we're talking to the students involved" and "we're talking to their parents" and "we're doing our best" accomplished absolutely nothing. But I turn one kid's face into bolognese sauce, and it's like magic. Suddenly my little brother doesn't get beat up anymore, suddenly he's not afraid to go to school, suddenly he doesn't come home crying, suddenly he can have friends and have a normal school experience. If meetings with parents and counsellors and mediation and all of this is such an effective means of dealing with bullies, how come it accomplished nothing in weeks... while just one good old fashioned curb-stomping solved the problem in just one day? I think Wild Bill is right about consequences too. Whatever the consequences of bullying are, they're obviously not much of a deterrent. Why's he doing it? Probably so his friends will think he's a bad-ass. I think they're more or less a joke to the kids involved. "Oh yeah, and there was this role playing session with the counsellor and it was so lame..." Something he can brag about to his friends to make himself seem like even more of a bad-ass. On the other hand, there's absolutely nothing *less* bad-ass than getting your face pounded by a wimpy nerd's sister in front of half the school. The real consequence that made a difference: pain, obviously... but equally important, loss of face. Take part in anti-bullying activities? Mentor a bully? The lesson people seem to want to provide bullies is that if you hurt people, you'll have to sit through some really boring lectures. I can't abide that. I doubt there's any "anti-bullying program" I could be involved with that would provide the lessons I feel ought to be provided, which are the age old ones: treat people as you'd be treated... live by the sword and you'll die by the sword... push people far enough and they'll push back... and no matter how tough you are there's always somebody tougher. The only mentoring a bully really needs is first-had knowledge of what it's like to be on the receiving end, and it's just not appropriate for me to provide that. The only anti-bullying activities I will be involved in is this: the kimlets-- if godforbid I should at some point reproduce, god help us all-- I'll start teaching the kimlets judo when they're about 5. I'll probably hold off on teaching them boxing until they're 9 or 10. That'll be my way of reducing bullying in my community. One day last winter I was at a bus terminal and a couple of kids had taken a smaller kids' cap and were playing keep-away and taunting him and it was obvious that the smaller kid was not at all part of the "fun". When one of the keep-away kids came within reach I snatched his backpack and slung it over my own shoulder. "Heeeey, give it back!" he demanded. "Make me," I replied. It was almost as if a little light went on somewhere inside his little head. Negotiations ensued... the kid got his backpack back, in exchange for returning the other kid's hat and saying sorry. That was probably terrrribly inappropriate of me, but I think it was a learning experience. -k

I *AM* serious... and stop calling me Shirley. -k