About all the school shootings this January...

[l***@yahoo.com]

Normally, I think John Rosemond's columns get resented mainly by parents who are jealous of the success he had with his own children - that is, eventually he got the peace, quiet, household labor, and true respect from his two kids (once they became adults) that most parents crave but don't get from their kids, since they THINK they want to be friends and equals with their kids while they're still too young to drive, even. Also, his enemies likely include all the therapists out there who lose business because he pushes his readers to solve the simpler problems themselves - like getting kids to do their chores and homework and do them WELL without parental help. When people criticize him, it's usually in suspiciously vague terms. I can count on one hand the number of times when large numbers of people complained about any individual column of his.

But this column is likely going to be one of them. At the very least, anyone can tell he's oversimplifying the problem. Grossly.

http://www.rgj.com/story/life/2018/01/30/rosemond-therapy-no-substitute-firm-discipline/1079319001/



Lenona.

[l***@yahoo.com]

(The following is what I spelled out to someone else):

Re Florida, what's interesting was something I found in a column a week ago by controversial psychologist John Rosemond (born in 1947), who argued that guns and wildlife hunting were all the rage among teenage boys (including himself and his classmates) in the 1960s, in the state of Georgia, and so, during hunting season, there were always plenty of rifles and such in the cars in the school parking lot (and at other schools as well), but one didn't hear of teenagers committing school shootings back then. Therefore, he says:

https://www.abqjournal.com/1132948/feelings-and-a-lack-of-shame-ndash-not-guns-ndash-are-the-problem-in-america-ex-firearms-may-be-the-means-for-shootings-but-emotional-entitlement-syndrome-is-the-real-issue.html


"No, guns are not the problem. The problem is feelings. I am a member of the last generation of American children whose parents disciplined not only our behavior, but also insisted that we exercise emotional self-control...


"...As I said, guns are the means, but the problem is what I term emotional entitlement syndrome – the narcissistic belief that certain feelings are all the excuse one requires to justify anti-social and/or self-destructive behavior.


"To widespread emotional entitlement one can add the effects of encouraging high self-esteem (which is associated, we now know, with low respect for the rights and property of others) and the demonization of shame, the primary purpose of conscience. A calamity was sure to ensue, and it has. It includes not only school shootings, but the widespread use of social media as a platform for acting out personal soap operas (i.e., emotional dramas), a dramatic rise in child and teen depression and suicide, cutting, epidemic bullying, and millions of children on psychiatric medications that may cause more problems than they solve (if they solve any)."


(end)


I'm surprised the media aren't attacking him yet for saying that - but maybe they don't want to give him extra publicity.


I personally think he's 60% right. That is, what he doesn't seem to want to talk about is that emotional entitlement, unfortunately, is nothing new in the US, contrary to what he implied. Specifically, what other people in the media have pointed out about school shootings, time and again, is that the young gunmen are almost always white. So, one might say, what's the difference between their behavior and the lack of "emotional self-control" that was common among white ADULT Americans between the end of the Civil War in 1865 and the 1960s, considering that lynchings of both black and white people - but mostly black - were so common that, despite the efforts of thousands of people, the anti-lynching bills of the 1920s and 1930s were blocked by the Senate and did not pass.


From Wikipedia: "Roosevelt was concerned about a provision of the (1935) bill that called for the punishment of sheriffs who failed to protect their prisoners from lynch mobs. He believed that he would lose the support of the white voters in the South by approving this, and lose the 1936 presidential election."


And, from the FDR archives:


"It was not until 2005 that the US Senate apologized formally for its shocking failure to pass any anti-lynching legislation '…when action was most needed.' "



Lenona.

[Kenny McCormack]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
Re Florida, what's interesting was something I found in a column a week
ago by controversial psychologist John Rosemond (born in 1947), who argued
that guns and wildlife hunting were all the rage among teenage boys
(including himself and his classmates) in the 1960s, in the state of
Georgia, and so, during hunting season, there were always plenty of rifles
and such in the cars in the school parking lot (and at other schools as
well), but one didn't hear of teenagers committing school shootings back
https://www.abqjournal.com/1132948/feelings-and-a-lack-of-shame-...
"No, guns are not the problem. The problem is feelings. I am a member of...

(deleted rest of excellent text. See lenona321's post for full text)

I'm in agreement with Rosemond here.

But, a couple of comments:

1) At first glance, it is possible to interpret what he says as being a
typical pro-gun nut, with the usual "Guns don't kill people; people kill
people" nonsense. However, I don't think that is where he is coming from.
But I think some people (careless readers) will take it that way.

2) He doesn't go far enough. He doesn't answer the question of "Yes, so,
therefore, what?" I.e., what action should we take as a result of his
thesis? Some would say the answer is obvious, but I'm going to put forward
a contrary view.

The obvious implication seems to be: Get rid of "emotional entitlement".
Get rid of "high self-esteem".

With an implication that if we could do that, then we wouldn't need gun
control.

Well, I can tell you: It ain't gonna happen. You can't put those genies
back in the bottle. People are changing, in terms of their mental outlook
on how to live their lives, and it ain't going back. So, we have to deal
with it. And by "deal with it", I mean, making the world safe, given the
new realities. And that means limiting access to guns.

And here's where I really go out on a limb. I think this is a Good Thing.
A world in which people are not responsible (i.e., not as responsible as
their parents) - that is, they can think as they please, without regard to
consequences - is a Good Thing. As long as they don't have access to tools
that would make those thoughts and desires dangerous.

In other words, Player Piano: Bring it on!

A safe world is a better world!

(I.e., better than a dangerous world in which you have to think and act
responsibly in order to stay safe - given that the people of the present
and future just aren't going to be capable of such responsibility)

[l***@yahoo.com]

Post by Kenny McCormack
2) He doesn't go far enough. He doesn't answer the question of "Yes, so,
therefore, what?" I.e., what action should we take as a result of his
thesis? Some would say the answer is obvious, but I'm going to put forward
a contrary view.
The obvious implication seems to be: Get rid of "emotional entitlement".
Get rid of "high self-esteem".
With an implication that if we could do that, then we wouldn't need gun
control.
Well, I can tell you: It ain't gonna happen. You can't put those genies
back in the bottle. People are changing, in terms of their mental outlook
on how to live their lives, and it ain't going back. So, we have to deal
with it. And by "deal with it", I mean, making the world safe, given the
new realities. And that means limiting access to guns.

Well, unfortunately, some people MIGHT argue (I wouldn't) that since we managed (over a century, obviously) to make almost all people ashamed of committing unprovoked lynchings or even highly provoked vigilantism, there wasn't really a need for the bills that were never passed. Plenty of those murderers never used guns, after all - they could just count on each other for army-style muscle and a code of silence. They can't anymore. (But for how long, with a president who calls for "due process" only when the accused is someone who's on his side, but who also takes out full-page ads regarding the Central Park Five, calling for the death penalty?)

More on that (yeah, I know, CNN):

https://www.cnn.com/2016/10/07/politics/trump-larry-king-central-park-five/index.html

Excerpt:

...The men were later exonerated in 2002, when another man confessed to the crime and DNA backed up his confession. Trump wrote an op-ed in the New York Daily News in 2014, calling New York City's $41 million settlement with the five men "a disgrace.'...

(snip)


Anyway, there have been remarkable changes made over the last 60 years when it came to teaching both the young and old to treat others with respect, including those whom your own PARENTS**** may have taught you, verbally or not, to shun, whether we're talking about race, religion, gender, LGBT, disabilities, etc. Who's to say we can't start teaching kids hard lessons such as "you will always be special to ME, darling. You are NOT special to anyone else or in society in general unless you earn that distinction. You also don't deserve anything you don't work for - like a job."


Lenona.


****Something I wrote elsewhere:



A reminder as to how subtle "teaching" can be:

I found it in a short juvenile nonfiction book on racism that I've been trying to track down since I saw it briefly in 2006. In all likelihood, when you think about it, it was written after 1985 or so - I can't imagine this sort of not-so-common sense being portrayed by a white person in ANY book on racism written earlier than that.

A white Southern woman, probably born in the 1950s, told how her mother was an impeccable lady and also “quite a racist.” However, the mother never said an unkind word about any person based on that person’s skin color, because “she was too much of a lady for that.” Even so, every time the mother and her daughter went shopping and had to talk to a black cashier or black sales employee, the mother used a tone of voice as if she were talking to a silly preschooler. So, wrote the daughter, (not verbatim) “she passed on her racist views to me without a single word being exchanged between us on the subject!”

[l***@yahoo.com]

This is interesting:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/opinion/boys-violence-shootings-guns.html

By Michael Ian Black, comedian.


Lenona.

[danny burstein]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/21/opinion/boys-violence-shootings-guns.html

"I don't like Mondays"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(San_Diego)

[l***@yahoo.com]

And:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/23/opinion/arming-teachers.html

There are four letters. Here's one:

To the Editor:

Let’s consider for a moment the imbecility of the suggestion that teachers be armed and ready to return fire in the event of another school shooting. If the perpetrator is a student at the school, the teachers would be firing at a child; how many teachers do you know who would actually do this?

In the event of a firefight, there is the possibility of friendly-fire casualties; how many teachers would be willing to take that risk?

We already ask too much of teachers: We ask them to work for little pay in underfunded, overflowing classrooms, and they do. They do because they are committed to their mission to educate, nurture and help the next generations succeed.

To our president and members of Congress: Go ahead and ask that same person to take on the responsibility of potentially killing a student, friendly-fire or otherwise, and see what response you get.

BROOKE JONES, HONOLULU

[l***@yahoo.com]

And I have to say this pastor misses the point:

"What Kind Of Society Condemns People For Praying After A School Shooting?"

http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/15/what-kind-of-society-condemns-people-for-praying-after-a-school-shooting/


I mean, he dodges the fact that it's just plain not POLITE (and it's often infuriating) when strangers offer shattered, angry strangers things they may very well not WANT. After all, while it's true that everyone eats, does that mean the grieving survivors in Parkland would appreciate politicians they've never met sending them casseroles or gift cards to supermarkets before coming up with realistic-sounding plans for STOPPING the violence? Has the pastor never heard the expression "God helps those who help themselves?" Not to mention that plenty of people DON'T rely on religion to support them in times of crisis, so "thoughts and prayers" sound far too much like "don't count on us to do anything more for you." Why SHOULDN'T that be ridiculed?

Sheesh. At the very least, politicians should be counted on to postpone that particular remark and say something like this first: "My deepest condolences and you can be assured that I will do whatever it takes to stop this, even if it means risking my office."



Lenona.

[Kenny McCormack]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
"What Kind Of Society Condemns People For Praying After A School Shooting?"
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/15/what-kind-of-society-condemns-people-for-praying-after-a-school-shooting/

Heh heh. I got a good laugh from reading this post. (Thanks for sharing!)

But seriously, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Like most things said by Trumpists, it makes zero sense to anyone with an
IQ above room temperature, but, and this is the key, it is not *intended*
for anyone with that sort of intellectual endowment (i.e., an IQ above room
temperature). It is intended for the knuckle-dragging base, who just eat it
up.

So, really, just let it pass. It's not for you.

[W.C. Green]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
Sheesh. At the very least, politicians should be counted on to
"My deepest condolences and you can be assured that I will do whatever
it takes to stop this, even if it means risking my office."

Nancy Pelosi said that. Trouble is, no one believes her.

[c***@aol.com]

Let’s turn over public policy decisions to dumb 16 year olds in Florida. Yeah, that’s the solution.

[l***@fl.it]

Let’s turn over public policy decisions to dumb 16 year olds in Florida. Yeah, that’s the solution.

I was happy to see they were proactive and for their age, very good
speakers. Don't dismiss them out of hand, they may just be the start
of something new.

[c***@aol.com]

There’s nothing new. It’s using emotion to push an agenda absent facts. We’ve seen this movie before.

[W.C. Green]

Post by l***@fl.it

Post by c***@aol.com
Let’s turn over public policy decisions to dumb 16 year olds in Florida. Yeah, that’s the solution.

I was happy to see they were proactive and for their age, very good
speakers. Don't dismiss them out of hand, they may just be the start
of something new.

IIFC, the Children's Crusade turned out badly for the participants.
(look it up)

[l***@yahoo.com]

Post by l***@yahoo.com
"What Kind Of Society Condemns People For Praying After A School Shooting?"
http://thefederalist.com/2018/02/15/what-kind-of-society-condemns-people-for-praying-after-a-school-shooting/
I mean, he dodges the fact that it's just plain not POLITE (and it's often infuriating) when strangers offer shattered, angry strangers things they may very well not WANT. After all, while it's true that everyone eats, does that mean the grieving survivors in Parkland would appreciate politicians they've never met sending them casseroles or gift cards to supermarkets before coming up with realistic-sounding plans for STOPPING the violence? Has the pastor never heard the expression "God helps those who help themselves?" Not to mention that plenty of people DON'T rely on religion to support them in times of crisis, so "thoughts and prayers" sound far too much like "don't count on us to do anything more for you." Why SHOULDN'T that be ridiculed?
Sheesh. At the very least, politicians should be counted on to postpone that particular remark and say something like this first: "My deepest condolences and you can be assured that I will do whatever it takes to stop this, even if it means risking my office."
Lenona.

What do you know:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/07/opinion/parkland-florida-gun-control.html


Last paragraphs:

All this is infuriating. But even if the federal government won’t pass meaningful new gun laws, states are doing so. Polls show that voters overwhelmingly favor universal background checks, a 21-year-old age restriction on buying firearms and a ban on high-capacity magazines.

Since the 1970s, the U.S. has engaged unintentionally in an international experiment, relaxing gun laws as the rest of the world has tightened access. Gun advocates argued that more guns would make us safer, but instead the U.S. now has 25 times the gun murder rate of other advanced countries.

Indeed, since 1970, more Americans have died of gun violence, including murders, suicides and accidents (1.4 million), than in all the wars in American history (1.3 million).

Whenever there is a mass shooting, there are inspiring individual stories like Anthony’s. But the larger picture is disgraceful: the president and congressional leaders dillydallying on the sidelines, sending “thoughts and prayers” and nothing else.

This will change only when politicians are more afraid of voters than of the N.R.A.

(end)


Lenona.