Terrorists can look no further than Patriots owner Bob Kraft when they're looking for a way to rationalize the low value of human life.
Football fans will remember that the Patriots drafted that wonderful example of human goodness and gridiron role modeling Christian Peter back in 1996 and only dumped him when Mrs. Kraft objected to his majesty's presence. Now they've done it again by picking up Donte Stallworth.
My very first post of November 7, 2010 described the behavior of Donte Stallworth and the fact that he got away with killing someone without serving any prison time for it. Of course, he killed an old, blue collar worker and as every good Republican knows; their lives aren't worth anything anyway.
Terrorists, particularly the domestic kind can take comfort by following a two step rationalization process:
1) First they can envision a large, violent member of the gridiron elite brutalizing one of their offspring.
2) Then they can envision vast hordes of football fans cheering wildly when his majesty runs onto the playing field.
Anyone who truly believes that Americans are not this morally depraved can leave a comment.
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Chicken Soup with George Orwell...
In his novel "1984" author George Orwell introduced readers to the term "doublethink." Doublethink is the ability to simultaneously embrace two mutually exclusive beliefs.
It is common for Americans to believe that adolescents can be harrassed, beaten, threatened, spit upon, robbed, slammed into walls, kicked, and generally brutalized throughout their formative years with little or no effect upon their willingness to value things like human life. Simultaneously those same Americans feign bewilderment when a victim of such treatment becomes a serial killer or school shooter.
It is also common to hear Americans criticizing those who complain about bullying and attaching labels like "emotional marshmallow" to them. These Americans will remind plaintiffs that the real world is a jungle where you need to stand up for yourself and fight your own battles. Not surprisingly these are the same Americans who complain bitterly when those emotional marshmallows behave as if they really do live in a jungle as they were raised to believe.
A community that is civilized enough to have earned the privilege of complaining about terrorism does not behave this way. If you know of such a community feel free to enlighten me.
Hey Izzy...you out there?
It is common for Americans to believe that adolescents can be harrassed, beaten, threatened, spit upon, robbed, slammed into walls, kicked, and generally brutalized throughout their formative years with little or no effect upon their willingness to value things like human life. Simultaneously those same Americans feign bewilderment when a victim of such treatment becomes a serial killer or school shooter.
It is also common to hear Americans criticizing those who complain about bullying and attaching labels like "emotional marshmallow" to them. These Americans will remind plaintiffs that the real world is a jungle where you need to stand up for yourself and fight your own battles. Not surprisingly these are the same Americans who complain bitterly when those emotional marshmallows behave as if they really do live in a jungle as they were raised to believe.
A community that is civilized enough to have earned the privilege of complaining about terrorism does not behave this way. If you know of such a community feel free to enlighten me.
Hey Izzy...you out there?
Friday, March 16, 2012
Chicken Soup with Chris Brown's fan base...
Terrorists can avoid feeling guilty about what they do by realizing how callous most of their victims really are.
Chris Brown may not be a professional athlete, but he certainly behaves like one. For those of you who've been living in a closet, Chris Brown reminded Rihanna who wears the pants by beating her into submission a few years ago. In a civilized society he would have been locked in a cage for many years. In America he didn't serve a day and continues to make money selling crappy music to the sort of people who have no problem with men beating up their girlfriends. He even has people who shamelessly defend him.
Terrorists know that no decent American, certainly not anyone who is civilized enough to have earned the right to complain about terrorism would be caught dead enriching a violent sociopath like Chris Brown.
Chris Brown may not be a professional athlete, but he certainly behaves like one. For those of you who've been living in a closet, Chris Brown reminded Rihanna who wears the pants by beating her into submission a few years ago. In a civilized society he would have been locked in a cage for many years. In America he didn't serve a day and continues to make money selling crappy music to the sort of people who have no problem with men beating up their girlfriends. He even has people who shamelessly defend him.
Terrorists know that no decent American, certainly not anyone who is civilized enough to have earned the right to complain about terrorism would be caught dead enriching a violent sociopath like Chris Brown.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Chicken Soup with the wonderful, child loving community of Vancouver, Washington...
Once again...
Terrorists can rationalize what they do by observing the behavior of their prospective victims. Another teenaged girl hung herself after what is described as "years of bullying at school and online." If this sounds familiar, you may be thinking of that human cesspool at the other end of the country, South Hadley, Massachusetts.
I'm going to make a reasonable prediction here, reasonable because history supports it. The adults in authority will make bland assurances that everything possible is being done to prevent another tragedy. The bullies will get away with minimal punishment in the tradition of South Hadley. Other victims of bullying will receive a clear message to keep their mouths shut if they know what's good for them. The criminally incompetent parents who raised the bullies will of course, not hear a word of criticism.
If terrorists need to know anything more about the American public just leave a comment.
Terrorists can rationalize what they do by observing the behavior of their prospective victims. Another teenaged girl hung herself after what is described as "years of bullying at school and online." If this sounds familiar, you may be thinking of that human cesspool at the other end of the country, South Hadley, Massachusetts.
I'm going to make a reasonable prediction here, reasonable because history supports it. The adults in authority will make bland assurances that everything possible is being done to prevent another tragedy. The bullies will get away with minimal punishment in the tradition of South Hadley. Other victims of bullying will receive a clear message to keep their mouths shut if they know what's good for them. The criminally incompetent parents who raised the bullies will of course, not hear a word of criticism.
If terrorists need to know anything more about the American public just leave a comment.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Chicken Soup wonders about Izzy Kalman.
I posted an e-mail chain a couple of posts back about my attempt to maintain a dialog with Izzy Kalman. Kalman accused me of inciting hatred and possibly violence against him and then offered to debate with me only if I paid him for his time. If he's genuinely concerned that one of my twelve (Woo! Hoo! Twelve!!) readers might decide to murder him or his family then why would he consciously appear to be even easier to hate by presenting the appearance of a paycheck seeking snob? I don't have the feeling that he's particularly worried about his safety, especially when he did not ask me to delete whatever text he found threatening.
I assumed he was through with me when he stated that his time was too valuable to debate with me without being compensated for it. Then I noticed a visitor from Staten Island yesterday. So here's why I wonder about Izzy Kalman:
Is he reconsidering a debate, searching for any excuse to pursue some sort of legal action against me, or is it something else? During our e-mail exchange he clearly stated his belief that victims of bullying were extremely dangerous and capable of committing serious crimes. If he truly believes that and he also places value on human life, imposing legal problems on a complete stranger presents a contradiction. Either he doesn't believe either I or any of my readers are dangerous or he simply doesn't care if his behavior results in the death of some innocent person.
I wonder about Izzy Kalman and I wish he'd clearly state what he really believes.
I assumed he was through with me when he stated that his time was too valuable to debate with me without being compensated for it. Then I noticed a visitor from Staten Island yesterday. So here's why I wonder about Izzy Kalman:
Is he reconsidering a debate, searching for any excuse to pursue some sort of legal action against me, or is it something else? During our e-mail exchange he clearly stated his belief that victims of bullying were extremely dangerous and capable of committing serious crimes. If he truly believes that and he also places value on human life, imposing legal problems on a complete stranger presents a contradiction. Either he doesn't believe either I or any of my readers are dangerous or he simply doesn't care if his behavior results in the death of some innocent person.
I wonder about Izzy Kalman and I wish he'd clearly state what he really believes.
Monday, March 12, 2012
Chicken Soup with Alexander Song and the University of Maryland...
Terrorists, particularly domestic terrorists rationalize what they do by watching the behavior of their target (the public) and making a value judgement about their lives. Here's another story about an allegedly homicidal college student at the University of Maryland. The question in the minds of potential terrorists is simple. Will the community make a thorough, good faith effort to research the source of Alexander Song's hatred or will the usual level of indifference and denial prevail.
A while back I wrote about a 19 year old student named Daniel Murray who also attended the University of Maryland.
University of Maryland student Alexander Song, age 19 posted threats of a massacre on the internet. If he had just gone out and killed some people I would tend to believe that he just wanted to kill some people. The fact that he posted a threat suggests that he wanted to broadcast his anger about the way he's been treated in the hope of being treated with ordinary civility and respect, a mode of behavior that many of America's gridiron heroes are pathologically incapable of granting to smaller, weaker, or lower status males. I suspect information will trickle in as time goes by.
In the meantime...you can prevent this sort of thing by treating bullies as the dangerous sociopaths that they are. Cheering wildly as they run onto the playing field or offering yourself up as a soulless sperm dumpster only makes it easier for people like Daniel Murray and Alexander Song to hate you. And of course...my complements to the law enforcement community for responding so quickly. If only the same could have been true for the pedophile enablers of Penn. State.
A while back I wrote about a 19 year old student named Daniel Murray who also attended the University of Maryland.
University of Maryland student Alexander Song, age 19 posted threats of a massacre on the internet. If he had just gone out and killed some people I would tend to believe that he just wanted to kill some people. The fact that he posted a threat suggests that he wanted to broadcast his anger about the way he's been treated in the hope of being treated with ordinary civility and respect, a mode of behavior that many of America's gridiron heroes are pathologically incapable of granting to smaller, weaker, or lower status males. I suspect information will trickle in as time goes by.
In the meantime...you can prevent this sort of thing by treating bullies as the dangerous sociopaths that they are. Cheering wildly as they run onto the playing field or offering yourself up as a soulless sperm dumpster only makes it easier for people like Daniel Murray and Alexander Song to hate you. And of course...my complements to the law enforcement community for responding so quickly. If only the same could have been true for the pedophile enablers of Penn. State.
Sunday, March 11, 2012
Chicken Soup maintains a short dialog with Izzy Kalman.
The following post is a series of e-mails between me and Izzy Kalman. They were previously spread out over several posts which had the effect of making them confusing to anyone who wasn't following our delightful banter from the beginning. I initially invited Izzy Kalman to debate the problem of bullying on this weblog. After a series of exchanges, Kalman concluded his involvement by inviting me to pay him for his time if I really want him to participate in a dialog. For those who don't know who Izzy Kalman is you can read four previous posts about him here, here, here, and here.
On March 2, 2012 I invited Izzy Kalman to debate the problem of bullying with me:
"I posted an offer to debate the problem of bullying on my weblog. Would you consider participating?
Kim L. Short"
Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised by his positive response"
"Kim:
I would consider participating, but would first like to know what your blog
is?
Thanks, Izzy"
I had no way of knowing how much of my blog he'd actually read so I sent the following response"
"Mr. Kalman,
Thank you for your consideration.
If you've read through some of the posts not specifically directed at you and still don't understand what I'm doing, it's certainly possible that I haven't done a good job. If you haven't read them, please do so. My explanation will be much clearer.
Thank you,
Kim L. Short"
That was on March 3, 2012. Either he has no intention of participating in any meaningful dialog, or he's too busy to read a few of my posts which means he's too busy to debate, or he's making some sort of evaluation of me based on what I've written. Perhaps I'm wrong on all three possibilities.
I sent Kalman another e-mail because I hadn't heard back from him:
"Mr. Kalman,
Are you still serious about a dialog?
Thanks,
Kim L. Short"
He responded very quickly:
"Kim:
I don’t really know what I mean by “still serious.” You are the one who turned to me. You initially said you have a blog. Now it seems you don’t. Can you please explain to me who you are?
Best Wishes,
Izzy Kalman"
Apparently he wasn't aware of this weblog:
"Mr. Kalman,
I apologize for my previous omissions. It seems that I mistakenly assumed you knew about my blog.
http://chickensoupfortheterroristsoul.blogspot.com/2011/02/chicken-soup-with-izzy-kalman.html
The anti-bullying arguments I've managed to find in weblogs and other publications employ two basic strategies. They either attempt to educate the public about the harm imposed upon bullying victims or they attempt to embarrass bullies by exposing their behavior to the public. Neither strategy works. Bullies and their enablers enjoy hurting people whom they perceive as inferior to them and they're not the least bit embarrassed about what they do. I'm trying a different strategy.
I've never found the behavior of men like Timothy McVeigh, The Columbine Killers, George Sodini, or all of those serial killers our society generates particularly baffling or inexplicable. In my weblog I attempt to explain why they are able to rationalize what they do and still sleep at night. I argue that tolerating, rewarding, or otherwise enabling those who are cruel and violent is an important component in transforming an otherwise healthy adolescent into someone like McVeigh. If you have any interest in participating in a dialog please read through a few of my early posts before writing back to me. And remember to take your own advice to victims of bullying by turning the other cheek after reading posts that focus on you. I look forward to maintaining a dialog that will be educational and productive for both of us.
Thank you,
Kim L. Short"
His response was less than inspiring:
"Kim:
Wow! What you have done is amazing!
I’m sure that you think that what you are doing to me is bullying me to show me that I can’t follow my own advice. But it is meaningless think of this as bullying. The term is overused and has come to apply to all negative behavior. You are not a child playing a practical joke. You are an adult who is inciting hatred towards me and possibly even violence. Incitement of violence is not protected by freedom of speech. It is a true crime. I am not sure if you have crossed the line into incitement of violence but it is possible.
But you are not doing it because you are bullying me. You are doing it because you feel victimized by me. You don’t like my ideas and you think I am hurting the society you live in. So you are trying to hurt me.
Everyone thinks that the most dangerous people are bullies. But they are victims. Victims are angry, hateful and want revenge. People think that terrorists are bullies. But they’re not. They are victims. They are trying to get back at those that they feel are oppressing them.
I don’t know if you will be happy if some wacko who reads your blog about me will decide to kill me. Things like this have happened. And it has happened to people who have taught the very things I am teaching. But it makes you an accessory to murder. I don’t want you to get in trouble for doing this. I know your intentions are good, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And you are leaving a trail to yourself online. I don’t know how wise that is.
The problem is that you don’t really know what I teach. You have only sampled a little from my blogs. It’s like the blind men who are touching an elephant and each one concludes what it is based on a small part they are touching. You are not the only one making this mistake. You may have noticed that most of the comments to my blogs are negative. It’s because they don’t see the whole picture and they are judging me based on what they have learned about bullying from everyone else. On the other hand, almost everyone who attends my seminars ends up being converted in their thinking. But my seminar is six hours. I have a chance to make my points, which are the opposite of the orthodox view of bullying. There is a decent chance that if you took my full day seminar you would discover that you love what I teach.
I have a wife and children and I really hope you will think about the possible repercussions of what you are posting. Stop thinking in terms of bullying and reality will become clearer.
Best Wishes,
Izzy Kalman"
I wrote back to him:
"Mr. Kalman,
I'll try to respond to each of your paragraphs separately.
Nothing I've done with my weblog is "amazing." Some may find it embarrassing or threatening to their sense of status and legitimacy, but certainly not amazing.
I'm making no effort to bully you. Bullies badly want their victims to provide them with a petty excuse so they can escalate to physical violence. I'm not making any attempt to "incite" anyone else to commit a violent act against you either. If you disagree or if I've missed something, please cite the text you believe to be a threat to your safety and I'll remove it.
I don't feel victimized by you any more than I feel victimized by Ryan Tucker. He victimized someone else and the public shamelessly demonstrated its complete indifference to the victim by showing up at his games. You may remember the case from your reading.
I'm well aware that victims are often more dangerous to the public than bullies. As I stated in a previous e-mail, I've never found the behavior of terrorists and serial killers particularly baffling or inexplicable.
I wouldn't be particularly happy if one of my disappointingly small number of readers decided to murder you. If you were to die, criminally or otherwise you would become an object of public sympathy and I would have to find someone else like you to criticize. I much prefer attacking your ideas and attempting to render them irrelevent. You've also made a common mistake by expressing concern for your safety. If someone is willing to sacrifice his freedom or his life to murder you, it won't happen because of my uncomplementary rhetoric. Such an individual will almost certainly be looking for someone to vent his rage upon and the fact that he may have stumbled upon your name in my weblog is the tiniest link in the chain. If my blog did not exist, he would have found someone else to murder. You're probably correct in assuming that our nation's overstock of soulless, blood sucking, sue happy trial lawyers would focus on me.
I would like to debate the problem of bullying if you're willing to participate, but I suspect you have no interest beyond the attempt to frighten me into deleting my weblog. Please clarify either way.
Thank you,
Kim L. Short"
I'm impressed with Izzy Kalman's ability to respond to my e-mails without really responding. Here's his response to the message I sent him in the last post:
"Kim:
One of your readers has posted comments on my Psychology Today blog calling me Hitler and Bin Laden. He blames me for murdering thousands of people and challenges me to come face him.
You are labeling me a terrorist, and as you know, terrorists must be killed.
Please feel free to leave your comments to anything I write. I have not stopped you from doing so. My time is valuable and I can’t afford to get into debates with everyone who dislikes what I say. There are too many of them. If your blog were a major source of information on bullying, I would be happy to debate you because it would give me more exposure. That not being the case, If you wish to pay me for my time, I will be happy to do so. So please forgive me for putting my time into more productive efforts.
Please realize that you are defending programs whose creators are ecstatic if they manage to show a 20% reduction in bullying. What about the remaining 80%? And read the more recent studies of massive implementations of the Olweus program. The results are an embarassment, thought the Olweus organization finds ways to put a positive spin on it. The Olweus people are well aware of my work. You can be sure that if they felt I was saying anything untrue about them, I would have heard from them by now. If they were to take me on, the would lose even bigger because I have been quite “gentle” in my criticism of their operation until now.
Best Wishes,
Izzy Kalman"
I don't expect him to respond but I sent him another message in the event he's willing to expend some of his valuable time participating in a dialog that doesn't produce an immediate income stream.
"Mr. Kalman,
You may want to contact the moderator at the Psychology Today blog if you object to any comments left there. My influence there is somewhat limited. As for comparing you to Hitler and bin Laden; if we widen the criteria enough, all three of you existed on the same planet, belong to the human species and have never been in my kitchen. In that respect it's a fair and accurate comparison.
I looked through the posts on my weblog in search of my "labeling you a terrorist." I couldn't find it. If you could carve out a minute or two to direct me to it I'd appreciate it.
I won't be paying you for your time. The fact that you'd put such a demand in writing pretty effectively makes my case for me.
I've written no defense of any other antibullying programs and I've never heard of "Olweus." It sounds like a Greek play some poor fool was required to study in college. The purpose of my weblog is to explain how the indifferent behavior of the American public is making it easy for terrorists and serial killers to rationalize the acceptability and moral equivalence of what they do. You'd be aware of this if you bothered reading through a few posts that don't include your name in the title. A good example is Columbine. A community that places violent sociopaths on a pedestal and ignores their victims has little moral ground to stand on when complaining about negative social feedback. Take a moment of your highly valuable time to google the words, "another Jew in the oven" for a shining example of the sort of characters deified by that community.
It's been pleasant exchanging rhetoric with you but my dishwasher has finished its cleaning cycle and I have to put my time into something productive.
Thank you,
Kim L. Short"
On March 2, 2012 I invited Izzy Kalman to debate the problem of bullying with me:
"I posted an offer to debate the problem of bullying on my weblog. Would you consider participating?
Kim L. Short"
Needless to say I was pleasantly surprised by his positive response"
"Kim:
I would consider participating, but would first like to know what your blog
is?
Thanks, Izzy"
I had no way of knowing how much of my blog he'd actually read so I sent the following response"
"Mr. Kalman,
Thank you for your consideration.
If you've read through some of the posts not specifically directed at you and still don't understand what I'm doing, it's certainly possible that I haven't done a good job. If you haven't read them, please do so. My explanation will be much clearer.
Thank you,
Kim L. Short"
That was on March 3, 2012. Either he has no intention of participating in any meaningful dialog, or he's too busy to read a few of my posts which means he's too busy to debate, or he's making some sort of evaluation of me based on what I've written. Perhaps I'm wrong on all three possibilities.
I sent Kalman another e-mail because I hadn't heard back from him:
"Mr. Kalman,
Are you still serious about a dialog?
Thanks,
Kim L. Short"
He responded very quickly:
"Kim:
I don’t really know what I mean by “still serious.” You are the one who turned to me. You initially said you have a blog. Now it seems you don’t. Can you please explain to me who you are?
Best Wishes,
Izzy Kalman"
Apparently he wasn't aware of this weblog:
"Mr. Kalman,
I apologize for my previous omissions. It seems that I mistakenly assumed you knew about my blog.
http://chickensoupfortheterroristsoul.blogspot.com/2011/02/chicken-soup-with-izzy-kalman.html
The anti-bullying arguments I've managed to find in weblogs and other publications employ two basic strategies. They either attempt to educate the public about the harm imposed upon bullying victims or they attempt to embarrass bullies by exposing their behavior to the public. Neither strategy works. Bullies and their enablers enjoy hurting people whom they perceive as inferior to them and they're not the least bit embarrassed about what they do. I'm trying a different strategy.
I've never found the behavior of men like Timothy McVeigh, The Columbine Killers, George Sodini, or all of those serial killers our society generates particularly baffling or inexplicable. In my weblog I attempt to explain why they are able to rationalize what they do and still sleep at night. I argue that tolerating, rewarding, or otherwise enabling those who are cruel and violent is an important component in transforming an otherwise healthy adolescent into someone like McVeigh. If you have any interest in participating in a dialog please read through a few of my early posts before writing back to me. And remember to take your own advice to victims of bullying by turning the other cheek after reading posts that focus on you. I look forward to maintaining a dialog that will be educational and productive for both of us.
Thank you,
Kim L. Short"
His response was less than inspiring:
"Kim:
Wow! What you have done is amazing!
I’m sure that you think that what you are doing to me is bullying me to show me that I can’t follow my own advice. But it is meaningless think of this as bullying. The term is overused and has come to apply to all negative behavior. You are not a child playing a practical joke. You are an adult who is inciting hatred towards me and possibly even violence. Incitement of violence is not protected by freedom of speech. It is a true crime. I am not sure if you have crossed the line into incitement of violence but it is possible.
But you are not doing it because you are bullying me. You are doing it because you feel victimized by me. You don’t like my ideas and you think I am hurting the society you live in. So you are trying to hurt me.
Everyone thinks that the most dangerous people are bullies. But they are victims. Victims are angry, hateful and want revenge. People think that terrorists are bullies. But they’re not. They are victims. They are trying to get back at those that they feel are oppressing them.
I don’t know if you will be happy if some wacko who reads your blog about me will decide to kill me. Things like this have happened. And it has happened to people who have taught the very things I am teaching. But it makes you an accessory to murder. I don’t want you to get in trouble for doing this. I know your intentions are good, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. And you are leaving a trail to yourself online. I don’t know how wise that is.
The problem is that you don’t really know what I teach. You have only sampled a little from my blogs. It’s like the blind men who are touching an elephant and each one concludes what it is based on a small part they are touching. You are not the only one making this mistake. You may have noticed that most of the comments to my blogs are negative. It’s because they don’t see the whole picture and they are judging me based on what they have learned about bullying from everyone else. On the other hand, almost everyone who attends my seminars ends up being converted in their thinking. But my seminar is six hours. I have a chance to make my points, which are the opposite of the orthodox view of bullying. There is a decent chance that if you took my full day seminar you would discover that you love what I teach.
I have a wife and children and I really hope you will think about the possible repercussions of what you are posting. Stop thinking in terms of bullying and reality will become clearer.
Best Wishes,
Izzy Kalman"
I wrote back to him:
"Mr. Kalman,
I'll try to respond to each of your paragraphs separately.
Nothing I've done with my weblog is "amazing." Some may find it embarrassing or threatening to their sense of status and legitimacy, but certainly not amazing.
I'm making no effort to bully you. Bullies badly want their victims to provide them with a petty excuse so they can escalate to physical violence. I'm not making any attempt to "incite" anyone else to commit a violent act against you either. If you disagree or if I've missed something, please cite the text you believe to be a threat to your safety and I'll remove it.
I don't feel victimized by you any more than I feel victimized by Ryan Tucker. He victimized someone else and the public shamelessly demonstrated its complete indifference to the victim by showing up at his games. You may remember the case from your reading.
I'm well aware that victims are often more dangerous to the public than bullies. As I stated in a previous e-mail, I've never found the behavior of terrorists and serial killers particularly baffling or inexplicable.
I wouldn't be particularly happy if one of my disappointingly small number of readers decided to murder you. If you were to die, criminally or otherwise you would become an object of public sympathy and I would have to find someone else like you to criticize. I much prefer attacking your ideas and attempting to render them irrelevent. You've also made a common mistake by expressing concern for your safety. If someone is willing to sacrifice his freedom or his life to murder you, it won't happen because of my uncomplementary rhetoric. Such an individual will almost certainly be looking for someone to vent his rage upon and the fact that he may have stumbled upon your name in my weblog is the tiniest link in the chain. If my blog did not exist, he would have found someone else to murder. You're probably correct in assuming that our nation's overstock of soulless, blood sucking, sue happy trial lawyers would focus on me.
I would like to debate the problem of bullying if you're willing to participate, but I suspect you have no interest beyond the attempt to frighten me into deleting my weblog. Please clarify either way.
Thank you,
Kim L. Short"
I'm impressed with Izzy Kalman's ability to respond to my e-mails without really responding. Here's his response to the message I sent him in the last post:
"Kim:
One of your readers has posted comments on my Psychology Today blog calling me Hitler and Bin Laden. He blames me for murdering thousands of people and challenges me to come face him.
You are labeling me a terrorist, and as you know, terrorists must be killed.
Please feel free to leave your comments to anything I write. I have not stopped you from doing so. My time is valuable and I can’t afford to get into debates with everyone who dislikes what I say. There are too many of them. If your blog were a major source of information on bullying, I would be happy to debate you because it would give me more exposure. That not being the case, If you wish to pay me for my time, I will be happy to do so. So please forgive me for putting my time into more productive efforts.
Please realize that you are defending programs whose creators are ecstatic if they manage to show a 20% reduction in bullying. What about the remaining 80%? And read the more recent studies of massive implementations of the Olweus program. The results are an embarassment, thought the Olweus organization finds ways to put a positive spin on it. The Olweus people are well aware of my work. You can be sure that if they felt I was saying anything untrue about them, I would have heard from them by now. If they were to take me on, the would lose even bigger because I have been quite “gentle” in my criticism of their operation until now.
Best Wishes,
Izzy Kalman"
I don't expect him to respond but I sent him another message in the event he's willing to expend some of his valuable time participating in a dialog that doesn't produce an immediate income stream.
"Mr. Kalman,
You may want to contact the moderator at the Psychology Today blog if you object to any comments left there. My influence there is somewhat limited. As for comparing you to Hitler and bin Laden; if we widen the criteria enough, all three of you existed on the same planet, belong to the human species and have never been in my kitchen. In that respect it's a fair and accurate comparison.
I looked through the posts on my weblog in search of my "labeling you a terrorist." I couldn't find it. If you could carve out a minute or two to direct me to it I'd appreciate it.
I won't be paying you for your time. The fact that you'd put such a demand in writing pretty effectively makes my case for me.
I've written no defense of any other antibullying programs and I've never heard of "Olweus." It sounds like a Greek play some poor fool was required to study in college. The purpose of my weblog is to explain how the indifferent behavior of the American public is making it easy for terrorists and serial killers to rationalize the acceptability and moral equivalence of what they do. You'd be aware of this if you bothered reading through a few posts that don't include your name in the title. A good example is Columbine. A community that places violent sociopaths on a pedestal and ignores their victims has little moral ground to stand on when complaining about negative social feedback. Take a moment of your highly valuable time to google the words, "another Jew in the oven" for a shining example of the sort of characters deified by that community.
It's been pleasant exchanging rhetoric with you but my dishwasher has finished its cleaning cycle and I have to put my time into something productive.
Thank you,
Kim L. Short"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)