Life Ain't So Beautiful (Long rant ahead)
Dave Edsall - The Tauminator
you a lot, Sasha, and I hope you'll still respect me after this post.
>All I can say is, how a person can stay sane in this world? How can we
>walk around with this stuff in our heads and remain sane? How can a parent
>send their kid off to school knowing that they could...be shot by some
>twisted dumb fuck?
Your kid could:
Be hit by a car
Die of a drug overdose
Contract cancer or another fatal disease
Be shot by a mugger
It's a risk we all take just being alive and choosing to live around other
people. Civilization will not exist without respect, cooperation anf faith in
each other.
>Worse, no one is even considering the possibility that
>violence in movies and film has anything whatsoever to do with it, for fear
>of censorship, fear of losing status as artgeek.
It only has an effect in providing ideas but a person has to be looking for
those ideas and be willing to harm another for those ideas to have any effect
on the rest of us. Removing the images will not remove the causes. The images
in and of themselves do not spur violence. Something deeper inside us is
responsible for that. T hese two troubled young men were probably troubled
long before any ideas entered their heads.
>Hell, violence, blood is everywhere. Anyone see Millennium last week?
>Showing people with their heads chopped off? How can anyone dismiss it?
And violence has been everywhere for a long long time as others have
pointed out. As a counterexample, why have we not seen a rise in mass violence
by children who survived the Holecaust, or children who lived through the wars
in SOutheast Asia? Were they not surrounded by violence in their lives on a
daily basis, much more than these pampered brats in Colorado?
>
>And you know what? A big ol' fat 'fuck you' to anyone who tries to tell me
>that violent images have nothing to do with this kind of shit.
>
SOrry, I'm married. But, if I were single... :+D
>I think I'll go throw up now.
Please tell me you're not pregnant again? :+D (I meant that as a bit of
light humor. I don't mean to make fun of your distress).
Now on to some harsher statements. I do not condone the violence
perpetrated by these two young men but I surely understand it and am hopeful
vthat it will possibly spur some dialogue on the causes for what they did. They
said themselves that they were teased and harassed by the "pretty people" (my
words). There have been claims for years that teenagers are cruel to each
other and this is true. Many have said, "Well, I was teased but I wouldn't do
anything like this?" I will ask you, how many of you contemplated suicide? I
did. Isn't suicide a form of violence as well, only turned inward rather than
outward? Hasn't teen suicide been around for many years as well?
WHat about this neighborhood? Rich white pretentious baby boomers. My guess
is that most of these parents are dual income and hence are more concerned
with their careers and aggregation of wealth than they are with their
kids. Kids to people like this are something you have because its part of
making yourself feel fulfilled. The boomers want everything but the
responsibilities which go along with those things they have. Yes, Sasha, I
dislike baby boomers but the problems they have are coming home to roost for
themselves and the rest of society. We have a widening gap between rich and
poor because of these losers. But, I'm digressing.
What have the schools, the parents and the communities done to prevent this?
They've only encouraged these problems by treating their brats like adults and
letting them do as they wish. They are more concerned that Janey and Johnny
feel good about themselves than they are about them learning responsible
behaviour and respect for authority. This is rudest generation that has ever
existed in the United States. Can the community foster responsibility and
respect? Hell no. We can't touch the kids or it will be child abuse. We can't
verbally discipline kids without being hauled into court by some irate parent
who has no clue what kind of shit their kid really is. In my parents day, the
whole community fostered respect and responsibility.
Why don't these things happen in other countries? Answer that question and
you'll have a better idea.
I'm sorry these kids were killed. But I am glad the pompous, pretentious
stuck-on-themselves-cliquey little bastards are getting a wake up call that
what they do to their classmates is not funny and is very hurtful. But why am
I not surprised that this comes from a community of people who continue to
have these attitudes towards their fellow adults in the workplace, in their
couuntry clubs and in their narcissistic health spas.
vWhat is truly sad is that only the Canadian media (CBC) has even begun to
concentrate on what was hurting these young men. What is even sadder is the
hypocrisy of this list. How many young people have died in inner city high
schools? A statistic I heard today is that 16 school age kids die EVERY DAY
due to violence. Where were all of you and your sympathies when these kids
were dying? Why does it take the deaths of a bunch of pampered little brats
for us to have a dialogue?
Why did these kids turn to guns? Why did they worship Hitler? Why did they
listen to "violent" music? Because it empowered them. It gave them a sense of
power over the shortcomings their cruel classmates claimed they have. Some of
us turn inward out of desperation and a feeling of powerlessness. Others turn
outward in attempt to gain control of their lives.
Basketball Diaries, NAtural Born Killers and the Matrix didn't cause these
deaths. Our society and its priorities did.
Dave
I truly hope I have not lost the respect of this list as I have always looked
forward to being "one of the Cinema-L gang" since 1991.
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
What is truly sad is that only the Canadian media (CBC) has even begun to concentrate on what was hurting these young men. What is even sadder is the hypocrisy of this list. How many young people have died in inner city high schools? A statistic I heard today is that 16 school age kids die EVERY DAY due to violence. Where were all of you and your sympathies when these kids were dying? Why does it take the deaths of a bunch of pampered little brats for us to have a dialogue?
I say:
Tsk, tsk - a little compassion for the "pampered brats" if you will. Actually, how *dare* you be so ugly about what happened to these kids, this community?
I'll tell you that those 16 deaths a day of school aged children mostly do *not* happen *in* the school (noted on 20/20 last night, only 1% of deaths of school aged children happen on a school campus) - they happen on the streets, kids killing kids in gangs, getting hit by cars, overdosing on drugs whatever. Is there a difference? In some respects, yes - sometimes, they kill themselves (without hurting others) sometimes they have made decisions that make life more dangerous for them (being in a gang) and sometimes life just sucks.
I don't boo hoo for these 16 kids because I don't know about them, they aren't in my community. That certainly doesn't mean I wouldn't worry and rail if I did know about them - I just don't. When a report of one of those deaths is broadcast in my community, I do worry and rail. I may not bring it up on the list but then again, nothing of this scale has happened around me, ever. It swirls its ugliness around us in Denver in perpituity since it began, Today, 20/20, in my hospital, my employees, my community is beleagured - our Annual Meeting last night started with a prayer by the hospital's chaplain who had to rush back in order to continue his work with the victims and their families. So, that is why I am railing, worrying and getting choked up by this tragedy. And that is why I brought it up on this list.
[stuff snipped then Dave said]:
I truly hope I have not lost the respect of this list as I have always looked forward to being "one of the Cinema-L gang" since 1991.
I say:
You are entitled to your opinion Dave - but in this case, I not only don't agree with it, I don't respect it.
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
k...@TheCNI.org
Colorado Neurological Institute
Englewood, CO USA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Sasha Stone
>you a lot, Sasha, and I hope you'll still respect me after this post.
>
> Your kid could:
>
>Be hit by a car
True, but you can teach them to stay out of the street.
>Die of a drug overdose
Again, something I would consider his or her fault; I wouldn't feel
helpless against it.
>Contract cancer or another fatal disease
True, but again, that's what pisses me off about these shootings, natural
death is scary enough, life is precarious enough, do we have to go then add
these events, which could have been prevented fairly easily?
>Be shot by a mugger
See above.
>
> It's a risk we all take just being alive and choosing to live around other
>people. Civilization will not exist without respect, cooperation and faith in
>each other.
True. I agree with you. I gave this a lot of thought, despite my
knee-jerk reaction. Those risks are there. Those risks are bad enough.
But this kind of stuff doesn't deserve to belong in the general risk
category. Schools are supposed to be safe. It's bad enough there are
perverts lurking on every street, rapists and child abusers (think of all
the kids who die at the hands of their parents), and it's true what Gerry
Spence says, that we live in a violent culture, but this didn't have to
happen. It didn't happen by accident. It happened because these guys,
these whiny little snots (go to the Sudan and try on some real problems for
size) weren't being paid enough attention to. So? Neither were many of
the kids I hung out with in high school.
>
> It only has an effect in providing ideas but a person has to be looking for
>those ideas and be willing to harm another for those ideas to have any effect
>on the rest of us. Removing the images will not remove the causes. The images
>in and of themselves do not spur violence. Something deeper inside us is
>responsible for that. T hese two troubled young men were probably troubled
>long before any ideas entered their heads.
>
That's again, true. Let me ask you this. How deep into anthropology do
you go? I cannot help but think the constant visual stimulation, the very
sight of violence on an *hourly* basis changes brain composition,
particularly with young boys who are trigger-cocked anyway.
One of these guys' friends said they played Doom all the time, watched
NATURAL BORN KILLERS (I'm sorry, but that movie was so bad it doesn't
deserve to be held up this way) over and over again...it's true, we can't
take media away from these kids but we have to at least accept that we are
fanning the flames. We have to realize that. If we don't, our kids are
going to have to wear bullet-proof vests.
This shooting is, in my mind, akin to the Manson murders. No one would
ever equate Manson with violent movies. He listened to the Beatles White
Album over and over again and people were blaming rock n' roll for
violence. So, it's true, there will always be violence in our world- there
is alienation, there is too much affluence, and finally, yes, we live in a
pretty-worship culture.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not taking the blame off of these kids. I'm just
wondering how...they weren't dropping acid like the Manson family...
> And violence has been everywhere for a long long time as others have
>pointed out. As a counterexample, why have we not seen a rise in mass violence
>by children who survived the Holecaust, or children who lived through the wars
>in SOutheast Asia? Were they not surrounded by violence in their lives on a
>daily basis, much more than these pampered brats in Colorado?
>
Ha. There you go. I love that about you, Dave! They were pampered brats.
Well, listen, those kids stayed alive because they had to; they *valued*
life because it was almost taken from them. The main difference: we
pampered view violence as entertainment. But I remain defeated in the
argument because I just realized that you couldn't have blamed JD Salinger
for the shooting of John Lennon and you couldn't blame Scorsese for the
Reagan shooting. I mean, it's just a fucked up world.
> Sorry, I'm married. But, if I were single... :+D
>
Thanks for gliding over that one.
> Please tell me you're not pregnant again? :+D (I meant that as a bit of
>light humor. I don't mean to make fun of your distress).
>
It's okay. Not pregnant again. Unless God has been up to no good again.
(Sorry, joke, joke...)
>
> Now on to some harsher statements. I do not condone the violence
>perpetrated by these two young men but I surely understand it and am hopeful
>vthat it will possibly spur some dialogue on the causes for what they did. They
>said themselves that they were teased and harassed by the "pretty people" (my
>words). There have been claims for years that teenagers are cruel to each
>other and this is true. Many have said, "Well, I was teased but I wouldn't do
>anything like this?" I will ask you, how many of you contemplated suicide? I
>did. Isn't suicide a form of violence as well, only turned inward rather than
>outward? Hasn't teen suicide been around for many years as well?
>
Yeah, I know. Bullying and teasing is horrible. An ex-boyfriend of mine
told me that in junior high he was bullied and teased and called a fag
because he was smaller than everyone else. He said he contemplated suicide
and would have committed suicide had it not been for my very own gaggle of
geeks known as the drama club. We accepted the unaccepted into our group
and had a great time. So, yeah.
But one other thing, Dave. These kids were white supremists. They
worshipped Hitler, hated blacks and Jews. I can't sympathize there.
> WHat about this neighborhood? Rich white pretentious baby boomers. My guess
>is that most of these parents are dual income and hence are more concerned
>with their careers and aggregation of wealth than they are with their
>kids. Kids to people like this are something you have because its part of
>making yourself feel fulfilled. The boomers want everything but the
>responsibilities which go along with those things they have. Yes, Sasha, I
>dislike baby boomers but the problems they have are coming home to roost for
>themselves and the rest of society. We have a widening gap between rich and
>poor because of these losers. But, I'm digressing.
>
Ah, but we love you for it, Dave. It's my favorite rant of all. Cracks
me up.
> What have the schools, the parents and the communities done to prevent this?
I don't think they can. I disagree with Barbara that it's the system that
encourages this. I think it's the kids. I think we have always been
visual creatures who separate our mates by looks. We worship beauty and
make fun of those who aren't. A person's life can be over in high school
just because of the way they look, regardless of how brilliant they are
(unless they are strong enough and smart enough to see the big picture,
that none of it matters). But look at Hollywood. Hollywood's the same
way: we push out anyone who isn't pretty. It's our whole society, not just
high school.
>They've only encouraged these problems by treating their brats like adults and
>letting them do as they wish. They are more concerned that Janey and Johnny
>feel good about themselves than they are about them learning responsible
>behaviour and respect for authority. This is rudest generation that has ever
>existed in the United States. Can the community foster responsibility and
>respect? Hell no. We can't touch the kids or it will be child abuse. We can't
>verbally discipline kids without being hauled into court by some irate parent
>who has no clue what kind of shit their kid really is. In my parents day, the
>whole community fostered respect and responsibility.
>
> Why don't these things happen in other countries? Answer that question and
>you'll have a better idea.
>
You're starting to make sense and that's scaring me! :-) You got to wonder
about kids who were able to build bombs in their own home without their
parents knowing. One of these kids had a mother who confessed to her own
son that she was going to commit suicide and when she was going to do it
and a week later the kid went ona shooting rampage. Doesn't take a genius
to figure that one out.
>
> I'm sorry these kids were killed. But I am glad the pompous, pretentious
>stuck-on-themselves-cliquey little bastards are getting a wake up call that
>what they do to their classmates is not funny and is very hurtful. But why am
>I not surprised that this comes from a community of people who continue to
>have these attitudes towards their fellow adults in the workplace, in their
>couuntry clubs and in their narcissistic health spas.
>
Well, I disagree with you here, though I appreciate where you're getting
with this. You have to explain why these kids hated blacks and Jews,
however. One of them called one black kid a "nigger" before he went and
shot him. It wasn't only the pretty people. They acted they were in the
game of Doom. There is no justification for this; there are better ways to
get revenge.
>vWhat is truly sad is that only the Canadian media (CBC) has even begun to
>concentrate on what was hurting these young men.
Okay, Dave, cut me some slack on what I have to say next: I don't give one
rat's ass what was hurting these kids. I'm only sorry I didn't get to pull
the trigger that ended their lives.
What is even sadder is the
>hypocrisy of this list. How many young people have died in inner city high
>schools? A statistic I heard today is that 16 school age kids die EVERY DAY
>due to violence. Where were all of you and your sympathies when these kids
>were dying? Why does it take the deaths of a bunch of pampered little brats
>for us to have a dialogue?
>
If you go back and read over my old posts you'll see that I often commented
about that very thing and even wrote about the seven year old in South
Central who got killed in crossfire. Believe me, I've made that point over
and over so there is no hypocrisy here. I have said numerous times that I
think the National Guard should go into South Central and stop those
bastards. Shoot every last one of them. But people don't care what
happens in those neighborhoods. And anyway, as a parent you do what you
can to get your kids out of the bad neighborhoods and into the good ones
and look what happens.
>
> Why did these kids turn to guns? Why did they worship Hitler? Why did they
>listen to "violent" music? Because it empowered them. It gave them a sense of
>power over the shortcomings their cruel classmates claimed they have.
I don't pity them, though, Dave. I'm not that Christian.
Some of
>us turn inward out of desperation and a feeling of powerlessness. Others turn
>outward in attempt to gain control of their lives.
>
Well, they were losers in the end.
>
> Basketball Diaries, NAtural Born Killers and the Matrix didn't cause these
>deaths. Our society and its priorities did.
>
No, you're right.
>
>I truly hope I have not lost the respect of this list as I have always looked
>forward to being "one of the Cinema-L gang" since 1991.
Isn't cine-hell just a big ol' time suck, though? Just kidding.
Sasha
barbrose
boomers. My guess
>
generalisation territory
> a bit here Dave. Based on a day's mass media reporting, I
don't think
> it's fair to assume *too* much about the community or the
parents in it.
I've been to Littleton...Dave is mostly correct.
Barbara
ating
> Kids to people like this are something you have because its part of
> making yourself feel fulfilled. The boomers want everything but the
> responsibilities which go along with those things they have.
Hey, do I smell an anti-working-mother argument here? This is getting
pretty close to Pleasantville-type territory...
Andy T.
Ed Owens
> I'm sorry these kids were killed. But I am glad the pompous, pretentious
> stuck-on-themselves-cliquey little bastards are getting a wake up call that
> what they do to their classmates is not funny and is very hurtful.
What kind of stupid fuck would even say such a thing? So in your opinion the
lives of sixteen children is worth a lesson on peer pressure and teasing?
Further, the very fact that you labeled them as you did belies a pompous
attitude
of your own.
Look I'm sorry you were harassed as a child, but hey...we all were!!! Yes, I
contemplated suicide more than once, so don't give me your "poor little me"
speech. The difference is you and I lived through it and hopefully put it
behind
us (although it sounds like one of us didn't).
> What is truly sad is that only the Canadian media (CBC) has even begun to
> concentrate on what was hurting these young men. What is even sadder is the
> hypocrisy of this list. How many young people have died in inner city high
> schools? A statistic I heard today is that 16 school age kids die EVERY DAY
> due to violence. Where were all of you and your sympathies when these kids
> were dying? Why does it take the deaths of a bunch of pampered little brats
> for us to have a dialogue?
The pretentiousness behind this particular statement galls me. Where were you
when these kids were dying? As an open forum, you are just as capable of
starting
a dialogue as anyone else. Your silence is perhaps more damning than any
accusation you could level at anyone else, especially if the plight of
inner-city
youth is something that you hold near and dear, as you seem to indicate by your
expressed concern for their welfare.
Violent images don't scare me. People who harbor resentment and bitterness for
past offenses scare me. People who fling around sweeping generalizations in a
hateful and judgemental tone scare me.
Ed, who hopes that all of these comments will be taken with a grain of salt as
he
dons his asbestos undies...
--
"Certainly, in the topsy-turvy world of heavy rock, having a good solid piece of
wood in your hand is often useful."
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
Barbara
I live by Littleton, I work in a Suburb next to Littleton, I have friends who live in Littleton, aquaintences and co workers and I beg to differ with you both.
-Kristen
Ian Moye
>>
>>Be hit by a car
>True, but you can teach them to stay out of the street.
But you can't teach them to avoid the drunken maniac who's swerving all over
the place.
>>Contract cancer or another fatal disease
>True, but again, that's what pisses me off about these shootings, natural
>death is scary enough, life is precarious enough, do we have to go then add
>these events, which could have been prevented fairly easily?
>
>>Be shot by a mugger
>See above.
How do we prevent this easily?
These types of problems have been around for quite awhile, and steps have
been taken against them... evidently nothing's put a stop to it yet. It'd
be pretty hard to stop a psychopath who doesn't care about being injured or
killed, in order to harm others.
~Ian
>>
>> WHat about this neighborhood? Rich white pretentious baby boomers. My
guess
>>is that most of these parents are dual income and hence are more concerned
>>with their careers and aggregation of wealth than they are with their
>>kids. Kids to people like this are something you have because its part of
>>making yourself feel fulfilled. The boomers want everything but the
>> I'm sorry these kids were killed. But I am glad the pompous,
pretentious
>>stuck-on-themselves-cliquey little bastards are getting a wake up call
that
>>what they do to their classmates is not funny and is very hurtful. But why
am
>>I not surprised that this comes from a community of people who continue to
>>have these attitudes towards their fellow adults in the workplace, in
their
>>couuntry clubs and in their narcissistic health spas.
>>
>Well, I disagree with you here, though I appreciate where you're getting
>with this. You have to explain why these kids hated blacks and Jews,
>however. One of them called one black kid a "nigger" before he went and
>shot him. It wasn't only the pretty people. They acted they were in the
>game of Doom. There is no justification for this; there are better ways to
>get revenge.
>
>>vWhat is truly sad is that only the Canadian media (CBC) has even begun to
>>concentrate on what was hurting these young men.
>
>Okay, Dave, cut me some slack on what I have to say next: I don't give one
>rat's ass what was hurting these kids. I'm only sorry I didn't get to pull
>the trigger that ended their lives.
>
>What is even sadder is the
>>hypocrisy of this list. How many young people have died in inner city high
>>schools? A statistic I heard today is that 16 school age kids die EVERY
DAY
>>due to violence. Where were all of you and your sympathies when these kids
>>were dying? Why does it take the deaths of a bunch of pampered little
brats
>>for us to have a dialogue?
>>
Dave Edsall - The Tauminator
>
>> Kids to people like this are something you have because its part of
>> making yourself feel fulfilled. The boomers want everything but the
>> responsibilities which go along with those things they have.
>
>pretty close to Pleasantville-type territory...
>
Actually, no. My mother was a single mom after my Dad left her after 39
years of marriage. I have nothing against two income families so long as the
kids don't suffer. If the parents can work AND bring their kids up in a
responsible way, then I admire them. The group of people I have always
referred to are those whose sole ambition is status, even at the expense of
their kids. I know many middle class parents who HAVE to work in order to
support their families. These are NOT the people to whom I refer.
Dave
Sasha Stone
>You are entitled to your opinion Dave - but in this case, I not only don't
>agree with it, I don't respect it.
I understand your anger and your sadness, believe me. But when you aren't
so upset you ought to re-read Dave's post. I think you'll see that you
agree with a lot of what he is saying underneath it all.
Sasha
Dave Edsall - The Tauminator
>death is scary enough, life is precarious enough, do we have to go then add
>these events, which could have been prevented fairly easily?
I agree. Diseases aren't preventable. These things are as they are caused
by people.
>That's again, true. Let me ask you this. How deep into anthropology do
>you go? I cannot help but think the constant visual stimulation, the very
>sight of violence on an *hourly* basis changes brain composition,
>particularly with young boys who are trigger-cocked anyway.
I don't know much at all about anthropology. I am curious as to whether
images can make an impact on violent behaviour (OCC - I keep seeing Alex in
"A Clockwork Orange" in my head).
>
>One of these guys' friends said they played Doom all the time, watched
>NATURAL BORN KILLERS (I'm sorry, but that movie was so bad it doesn't
>deserve to be held up this way)
I had a hard time watching it through.
over and over again...it's true, we can't
>take media away from these kids but we have to at least accept that we are
>fanning the flames.
Those who produce the films are not fanning the flames. Those who allow
children to consume them or who allow their children to reach a point where
these images provided ideas are causing the problems.
>Don't get me wrong - I'm not taking the blame off of these kids. I'm just
>wondering how...they weren't dropping acid like the Manson family...
And I am not taking the blame off them either. I'm guessing that their
hatred had become so great that it blinded them.
>>daily basis, much more than these pampered brats in Colorado?
>pampered view violence as entertainment. But I remain defeated in the
>argument because I just realized that you couldn't have blamed JD Salinger
>for the shooting of John Lennon and you couldn't blame Scorsese for the
>Reagan shooting. I mean, it's just a fucked up world.
It is our attitudes towards each other, towards responsibility and towards
respect that makes this a fucked up world.
>
>But one other thing, Dave. These kids were white supremists. They
>worshipped Hitler, hated blacks and Jews. I can't sympathize there.
>
Nor can I. I do not condone their racism nor their anti-Semitism. But how
did they get this way? What can we do to prevent this from happening? Remove
Mein Kampf (sp?) from the shelves? Or have a discussion about the book
instead. We need to understand why they identified with these ideas.
>It's our whole society, not just high school.
I agree. The children taunt and are allowed to taunt because no one teaches
them how hurtful it is, or they see their parents doing this. My brother's a
racist because my parents were, for example.
>> I'm sorry these kids were killed. But I am glad the pompous, pretentious
>>stuck-on-themselves-cliquey little bastards are getting a wake up call that
>>what they do to their classmates is not funny and is very hurtful. But why am
>>I not surprised that this comes from a community of people who continue to
>>have these attitudes towards their fellow adults in the workplace, in their
>>couuntry clubs and in their narcissistic health spas.
>>
>Well, I disagree with you here, though I appreciate where you're getting
>with this. You have to explain why these kids hated blacks and Jews,
>however. One of them called one black kid a "nigger" before he went and
>shot him. It wasn't only the pretty people. They acted they were in the
>game of Doom. There is no justification for this; there are better ways to
>get revenge.
>
Did they know that? Possibly they felt there was no where else to turn. As
I said before, they were racist and identified with extremist groups because
it gave them power in a world where they felt powerless. Look at East Germany
for instance. Hitler himself was anti-Semitic because the whole town of Vienna
was anti-semitic (for a variety of reasons, including poor econimic
conditions). Is it morally right to be this way? No. Is it constructive?
No. Is it understandable? Yes.
>Okay, Dave, cut me some slack on what I have to say next: I don't give one
>rat's ass what was hurting these kids. I'm only sorry I didn't get to pull
>the trigger that ended their lives.
>
[...]
>
>I don't pity them, though, Dave. I'm not that Christian.
>
I personally wish I could have helped them. They had such promising
futures. On the other hand, I wish they had lived so that we could try them in
court and use them as an example of being responsible for your actions.
Dave
Dave Edsall - The Tauminator
>
>> stuck-on-themselves-cliquey little bastards are getting a wake up call that
>> what they do to their classmates is not funny and is very hurtful.
>
Ummm...I guess that would be me, Ed.
>So in your opinion the
>lives of sixteen children is worth a lesson on peer pressure and teasing?
Did I say that? No, you inferred that. I would much rather they had been
caught. As they weren't and as I cannot undo what has happened, I can only
hope these and other kids AND THEIR PARENTS can learn from this how hurtful
their actions can be.
>Further, the very fact that you labeled them as you did belies a pompous
>attitude of your own.
Once again, you are inferring this. I'm not pompous or egotistical nor
pretentious. I AM opinionated.
>
>Look I'm sorry you were harassed as a child, but hey...we all were!!! Yes, I
>contemplated suicide more than once, so don't give me your "poor little me"
>speech. The difference is you and I lived through it and hopefully put it
>behind us (although it sounds like one of us didn't).
>
I didn't make this statement in an attempt to elicit sympathy. I made the
statement to support my argument. I'll just ignore your ad hominem attack.
>
>The pretentiousness behind this particular statement galls me. Where were you
>when these kids were dying? As an open forum, you are just as capable of star
ting
>a dialogue as anyone else. Your silence is perhaps more damning than any
>accusation you could level at anyone else, especially if the plight of inner-c
ity
>youth is something that you hold near and dear, as you seem to indicate by you
r
>expressed concern for their welfare.
I am in 100% agreement with you. I am just as hypocritical. Does that
disqualify me when it comes to being able to make this statement? No. It only
weakens my argument. My apologies for attacking this list.
>
>Violent images don't scare me. People who harbor resentment and bitterness fo
r
>past offenses scare me. People who fling around sweeping generalizations in a
>hateful and judgemental tone scare me.
I habour bitterness and resentment. This is true. I have also worked
through a lot of this and have reduced it from the toxicity it had 10 years
ago (trust me, I was a co-dependent asshole and you really wouldn't have liked
me then). Still, does this disqualify me from stating an opinion or proposing
reasons?
>
>Ed, who hopes that all of these comments will be taken with a grain of salt as
he
>dons his asbestos undies...
I don't like salt but I respect your opinions Thanks for showing me up.
Dave
Ronnie Rittenberry
> Now on to some harsher statements. I do not condone the violence
> perpetrated by these two young men but I surely understand it and am hopeful
> vthat it will possibly spur some dialogue on the causes for what they did.
They
> said themselves that they were teased and harassed by the "pretty people" (my
> words).
So what? Who's never been teased and harassed? I mean, give me a break.
I don't understand you people--you Dave, and barbrose and, for god's sake,
Ian--who say you actually "understand" and almost but not quite excuse the
actions of the Trench Coat killers because they were "victimized," because
the preps or jocks or whomever didn't like them and--stop the presses!--
actually called them names.
Again: Sticks and stones, people.
> There have been claims for years that teenagers are cruel to each
> other and this is true.
Whoa? Really? *Claims*? As in, "This just in . . . It is reported that
adolescents are sometimes *cruel*? To each *other*?" No *shit*?
> Many have said, "Well, I was teased but I wouldn't do
> anything like this?" I will ask you, how many of you contemplated suicide? I
> did. Isn't suicide a form of violence as well, only turned inward rather than
> outward? Hasn't teen suicide been around for many years as well?
As Westerberg says (sings), "Committing suicide is wrong / only in
self-defense." But what's your point? The Littleton killers didn't just
commit suicide. Suicide's one thing, but murdering and maiming as many of
your classmates as possible and *then* turning the gun on yourself is
another. I'm just not seeing how you and others are really finding the
sympathy here.
> I'm sorry these kids were killed. But I am glad the pompous, pretentious
> stuck-on-themselves-cliquey little bastards are getting a wake up call that
> what they do to their classmates is not funny and is very hurtful.
A wake up call? You know, the sad/pathetic/frightening thing here is that
you're serious; that you say you've waited all frigging day just to be
able to blurt this out. You and Ian ought to have a picnic. Form your
own sick clique. Or, on second thought--no, you two should stay far away
from each other. We've already seen the results of getting two such like
minds together.
> Why does it take the deaths of a bunch of pampered little brats
> for us to have a dialogue?
Because only at such times do freaks like you come out of the proverbial
woodwork, disseminating such twisted lunacy on the subject?
> Why did these kids turn to guns? Why did they worship Hitler?
Because they were idiots? Ok, maybe that's not COMPLETELY FAIR, and, for
god's sake, we do want to be fair. Clearly they were misguided, after
all, right? So, their parents were/are also idiots. Probably.
> Some of
> us turn inward out of desperation and a feeling of powerlessness. Others turn
> outward in attempt to gain control of their lives.
This is so much horseshit, as far as it being any kind of an excuse goes.
I mean, the mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation, right?
Thoreau said it long before television's/cinema's/Metallica's advent. We
all have our own burdens, our own rows to hoe, or whatever; at some
point, most of us will experience some degree of exclusion. And,
hell, we're ALL called names. Only a relative handful of us--be we
introverts or extroverts--ever go berserk and turn to murder/
self-annihilation by way of response.
> Basketball Diaries, NAtural Born Killers and the Matrix didn't cause these
> deaths. Our society and its priorities did.
> Dave
A couple of punks with a few loose screws and melodramatic "issues" did
this. Punks who believe with you that being called names is grounds for
murder, for not going on. Punks who believe with you that verbal "fire"
calls for literal fire in return, an arsenal of retribution.
> I truly hope I have not lost the respect of this list as I have always looked
> forward to being "one of the Cinema-L gang" since 1991.
Uh-oh. Hope you won't be going ballistic about this (except verbally,
of course), but I'd say it seems you're something of a quote "cliquey
little bastard" yourself, there, Dave.
RR
Shari L. Rosenblum
>It would be a hard task but we must remember that the part of the
>Consititution you mention was written in the late 1700s, after the war
>for independence. We also have the right not to be forced to quarter
>soldiers in our homes. Who says quarter anymore? Rape used to be
>defined (and may still be in some places in the States) as forced sexual
>intercourse with a woman, not your wife.
Kristen, I have several disagreements here. First, you conflate statutory
and common law (e.g., your rape example) with Constitutional law.
They are not the same; do not arise from the same sources; do not
serve the same purposes.
Second, you confuse the need to exercise rights at any given moment with
the need to protect the exercise of those rights should the moment so
call for.
It is fair to note, for example, that the Third Amendment,
which protects us from the forced billeting of soldiers in times of
peace and the uncontrolled forced billeting of soldiers in times of
war, does not often make the daily papers. But even if you don't
believe that there might otherwise exist an imminent threat of having
such imposed (e.g. for economic purposes), you cannot deny that the
government's guarantee to the people to respect their individual
sovereignty over their own homes, their own space, to respect them
as individuals within a community, is a fundmental premise of
democracy.
It is error, furthermore, to confuse the application of
rights protections in the late 18th century with the essence
of rights protection.
A careful study of the Constitution will demonstrate that the
rights articulated in Amendments I through VIII are neither
temporary, situation specific, nor government granted. They
are rights inherent to the individual, applicable in all
situations and for all time. Whether or not they are called
upon or tested once in a century or in a millenium.
At bare bones, the First Amendment protects our intellectual integrity/
dignity; our right to believe, reason, choose our company and protest
against the government's interest, against the government's desires, against
the government's determinations; the Second Amendment protects our personal
and communal integrity/dignity by guaranteeing our right to defend ourselves
and our communities against the governement and its incursions; the Third
Amendment protects our personal and communal integrity by guaranteeing our
soverignty in our home and our right to our space; the Fourth Amendment
protects our integrity in our person and our property; the Fifth
Amendment protects our moral integrity/dignity against the system
and from the system; the Sixth Amendment protects our moral integrity/
dignity within the system; the Seventh Amendment protects our economic
and social dignity in the larger community; and the Eighth Amendment
protects our economic and physical integrity from and within the system.
The integrity / dignity of men and women is not a variable or
fluid value; it is only those who seek to assume for themselves
(or transfer sheeplike to others) the rights with which we are
born who can sustain the argument that the guarantee of any
right is "outmoded."
>But off my seventh tangent of the day and on to your point. Just because =
>a law is in the Constitution of the United States, does not make it =
>sacred.
Quite. Rights are not "sacred" (i.e., untouchable, unquestionable) because
they are in the Constitution; they are protected by the Constitution
because they are "sacred."
The Bill of Rights is not a collection of laws, but a guarantee by
the founders of our nation that the rights of man -- the rights to
which all (wo)men are born -- will not be infringed by those to
whom we lend our voices in government.
They are not laws, but exceptions to the power of the government to
make laws.
Article I of the Constitution sets forth the realm in which the
federal legislative body may exercise its power. From these
powers are excepted those provinces on which the government
may not tread. The rights of the people.
> It is up for interpretation or being repealed at any time =
>depending on what the people want.
No. It is not up for interpretation, and certainly not according
to what the people want. The rights of the people are not subject
to the will of the majority. They are inherent in the individual,
end of story.
> Remember, the one of the Amendments to
>the Constitution was Prohibition? That wasn't such a good idea either.
All the Amendments do not serve the same purpose; nor are they
written to, intended to, exercised for. The Bill of Rights,
which includes the 8 substantive amendments, the open protection
of the Ninth Amendment, and the description of distribution of
powers in the Tenth, are distinguishable from the later Amendments
in that their articulated purpose was to put in writing (i.e.,
make the government accountable for) the protection of the people's
rights. Subsequent amendments may focus on other modifications of
the text, such as the means by which to elect a president, the
structure of governmental hierarchies, the distribution of voting power, etc.
(The reconstruction amendments (13-15) may sometimes be counted with the
Bill of Rights in that they strive to protect rights of people and
deny infringing powers to the government)
The failure of the Prohibition Amendment is interesting in the context
of what you suggest for the correction of the current situation.
You may note that it is the one Amendment that was truly paternalistic --
that went to controlling the population's freedom rather than guaranteeing
its protection or merely structuring its governmental organization.
It was the one Amendment that manifested its distrust for the
people rather than its trust. Always the wrong way to go in a democracy.
Shari
Sasha Stone
> I don't know much at all about anthropology. I am curious as to whether
>images can make an impact on violent behaviour (OCC - I keep seeing Alex in
>"A Clockwork Orange" in my head).
>
Yeah, I wonder that as well. Mainly I've always worried that the amount of
*fictional* violence kids see every day (added with the afternoon news
programs that show violence) will make death seem trivial.
>
>
> Those who produce the films are not fanning the flames. Those who allow
>children to consume them or who allow their children to reach a point where
>these images provided ideas are causing the problems.
>
Well, that's true. There is a whole other dimension to the media's
inlfuence on kids and that is (this is my pet theory, like your anti-yuppie
thing) that we create such a perfect little world (Laurie Anderson: "They
say that Heaven is like TV; a perfect little world that doesn't really need
you...") on television so that anyone who grows up differently from that
perfect world will feel inadequate. A lot of parents just don't have the
time to watch their kids, moreoever, to make their kids feel loved, secure
and responsible. Since we're all sharing our sad stories, let me just say
that my mom was a single mother of four children, all under the age of six
in her mid-twenties. Luckily, we grew up in a hippie enclave outside of
LA. But my older brother (who is now very happy, and very rich) overdosed
on a mixture of ludes and something else when he was only 13 years old. He
was a car thief and basically a deliquent but he would never have blown up
a school or killed people. His hatred didn't go that way. We had a hard
life, all of us. And I think that's why I have such little sympathy for
these kids. Anyway - way off track! Sorry.
> And I am not taking the blame off them either. I'm guessing that their
>hatred had become so great that it blinded them.
>
The weird thing is, their closest friends couldn't believe they'd done it.
The really scary thing is that they weren't a Ted Kazinsky (OCC-Still
burned that the mathmatician in GOOD WILL HUNTING didn't know who TK was.
That's just bad writing) locked up in a tiny shack while their hatred
simmered.
> It is our attitudes towards each other, towards responsibility and towards
>respect that makes this a fucked up world.
>
I don't know. Part of me thinks that there are too many of us, no tribes
to keep war-mongerers separate, not enough love to go around. We evolved
as tribes, small communities who *all* watched the children grow up. There
simply wasn't time/opportunity/motive back then. We expect our children to
be able to grow up alone. Truth is, they need their parents, just as they
need other parents watching out for them. We all need to be in each
other's business, watching out for kids, watching out for each other. Too
many loners are slipping through the cracks unchecked. Oh, god. Panic
attack. Where's the goddamned valium!
>
> Nor can I. I do not condone their racism nor their anti-Semitism. But how
>did they get this way? What can we do to prevent this from happening? Remove
>Mein Kampf (sp?) from the shelves? Or have a discussion about the book
>instead. We need to understand why they identified with these ideas.
>
They knew it was wrong. According to one member of their gang (so-called),
they were into some stupid rock band who identified with the Nazis. They
wouldn't have believed in it if they didn't know it was wrong. Kids will
do anything to get the attention they need - you tell them not to play in
the toilet, that's exactly where they want to play (take it from me!).
It's just that now, kids are shooting other kids to get that grand sort of
attention reserved for celebrities. You and I can't solve this problem.
All I want to know is, how can I keep my daughter safe?
>
> I agree. The children taunt and are allowed to taunt because no one teaches
>them how hurtful it is, or they see their parents doing this. My brother's a
>racist because my parents were, for example.
>
Children do know that taunting is wrong; they do it anyway. They do it for
the same reason the shooters did: because they feel more powerful and they
don't feel vulnerable anymore.
> Did they know that? Possibly they felt there was no where else to turn. As
>I said before, they were racist and identified with extremist groups because
>it gave them power in a world where they felt powerless. Look at East Germany
>for instance. Hitler himself was anti-Semitic because the whole town of Vienna
>was anti-semitic (for a variety of reasons, including poor econimic
>conditions). Is it morally right to be this way? No. Is it constructive?
>No. Is it understandable? Yes.
>
Not to me, Dave. I can't even close to what happen in Germany, just as I
can't get close to picking up a gun and shooting people just to get
attention. I just want to curl up into a ball and hope it all goes away.
> I personally wish I could have helped them. They had such promising
>futures. On the other hand, I wish they had lived so that we could try them in
>court and use them as an example of being responsible for your actions.
I wish they'd have lived too, just so that they could have gotten older and
looked back on this, so that they would realize how silly, how childish,
selfish, disgusting, and moronic their actions were. You tell me we don't
respect violence in this country. We know their names. We're all talking
about who done them wrong. They got exactly what they wanted. Only they
were too stupid to realize that you can't enjoy it if YOU'RE DEAD. Oh,
well. I suppose just knowing that the whole world would remember them was
good enough for an afternoon's fun.
ARGH.
Sasha
barbrose
as to whether
> >images can make an impact on violent behaviour (OCC - I keep
seeing Alex in
> >"A Clockwork Orange" in my head).
> Yeah, I wonder that as well. Mainly I've always worried that
the amount of
> *fictional* violence kids see every day (added with the
afternoon news
> programs that show violence) will make death seem trivial.
Well, first of all, in the "big" picture, death is trivial.
People, animals, insects, plants die every second of what we
term as time. None of us are significant to anyone but
ourselves, friends, family and possibly acquaintances. Some of
us are not even important to some of them. Death is trivial and
it takes a person's mind to make it otherwise.
Secondly, though, I do believe that what we allow ourselves to
view makes a large impact on us...especially, though certainly
not exclusively, when we are very young. And, furthermore,
IMHO, what we 'hear' makes an impact too...especially on the
infant who is lying in its crib, hearing loud screaming,
gunshots, etc. That infant can not differentiate between real
life and tv (everything is "real" to the infant). People who
from early life all the way to adulthood are inflicted with and
then inflict themselves with violent images and noises, IMHO,
are much more likely to be prone to violence or accept it in
others than those who stay away from such images and noise.
> A lot of parents just don't have the
> time to watch their kids, moreoever, to make their kids feel
loved, secure
> and responsible.
Gee, maybe those people who don't have the "time", should think
twice before having the children.
> We evolved
> as tribes, small communities who *all* watched the children
grow up. There
> simply wasn't time/opportunity/motive back then. We expect
our children to
> be able to grow up alone. Truth is, they need their parents,
just as they
> need other parents watching out for them. We all need to be
in each
> other's business, watching out for kids, watching out for each
other.
I certainly agree with that. They also need the school system
watching out for them and teaching them tolerance of
differences...even if some of their parents are not.
> >
> > Nor can I. I do not condone their racism nor their
anti-Semitism. But how
> >did they get this way? What can we do to prevent this from
happening? Remove
> >Mein Kampf (sp?) from the shelves? Or have a discussion about
the book
> >instead. We need to understand why they identified with these
ideas.
> They knew it was wrong. According to one member of their gang
(so-called),
> they were into some stupid rock band who identified with the
Nazis. They
> wouldn't have believed in it if they didn't know it was wrong.
Kids will
> do anything to get the attention they need - you tell them not
to play in
> the toilet, that's exactly where they want to play (take it
from me!).
> It's just that now, kids are shooting other kids to get that
grand sort of
> attention reserved for celebrities. You and I can't solve
this problem.
But it is JUST you and I who will have to solve this problem if
it is to be solved at all. Parents must insist that the
government and the schools start saying "NO" to taunting,
bullying, excluding, ridiculing...instead of just saying "Oh,
kids will be kids". Discussing problems in schools instead of
letting these types of resentments build in students till those
who do not have the inner power to resist, crack and destroy
others and themselves.
> All I want to know is, how can I keep my daughter safe?
There is nothing you can do to keep your daughter safe unless
you start to take an active part in creating a dialog with the
school administrators in your area.
> Children do know that taunting is wrong; they do it anyway.
They do it for
> the same reason the shooters did: because they feel more
powerful and they
> don't feel vulnerable anymore.
Then school teaching must give children the tools they need so
as not to feel vulnerable. My parents did it for me and I am
forever thankful for that. But I know that many parents are
only capable of passing on their own fears so someone else (the,
at this time in history, the school system is that someone else)
must take over the job.
Barbara
Shari L. Rosenblum
to my remark:
>>No. It is not up for interpretation, and certainly not according
>>to what the people want. The rights of the people are not subject
>>to the will of the majority. They are inherent in the individual,
>>end of story.
>
>recognize them depends on their presence in the Constitution.
This is false, and explicitly so by the terms of the Ninth Amendment.
The fact that the protection of a right is not articulated in the
Constitution *may not* be used to deny or disparage that right.
>The Bill of
>Rights ensures that the government must respect these inherent rights of
>citizens. If they were revoked, they would still be rights inherent in all
>citizens but the government would no longer be legally bound to respect these
>rights. Do you see the difference?
The nuances are hardly obscure; but in fact, you overread the power of
the government. If the government were to deny, disparage or usurp the
rights retained by the people it would be overstepping the powers granted
to it by the Constitution, not just in any particular amendment, but
in its fundamental structure.
But your semantics are sloppy: one cannot "revoke" that which it has
not given in the first place. Rights are not granted by the
government, cannot be revoked by the government.
The power of the government is granted by the people, not the other
way around. That's what the founders of this nation recognized
You may recall that the debate prior to ratification of the Constitution
centered, in part, on whether it was essential to put the respect of
rights in writing -- reinforcing the recorded fact that recognition of
such rights was never in question. Those who opposed the written
record of such protections did not submit that the rights were
questionable, debatable, infringible at the people's will, but rather
that fools and evilmongers might use the articulation of certain
rights to deny or disparage others not so listed. The argument,
and its ratified articulation in the Ninth Amendment, serve to
dispute the sustainability of any pretense that the government could
*legitimately* "revoke" or deny or disparage the rights retained by
the people.
> It is quite obvious that a homosexual has
>an inherent right to not be disrcriminated against due to sexual orientation
>but the government need not respect or promote this right if their is not
>provision in the Constitution itself or in any amendments which requires it to
>do so.
If the right is an inherent right, the government absolutely need respect
it, whether or not there is an explicit provision requiring it to do so;
so says the Ninth Amendment.
>>Subsequent amendments may focus on other modifications of
>>the text, such as the means by which to elect a president, the
>>structure of governmental hierarchies, the distribution of voting power, etc.
>
> Subsequent amendments may also repeal the requirement that the government
>must respect the inherent rights of its citizens. We pass amendments to
>Constitution to make up for items which were lacking in the original document
>or to repeal those which are outmoded in the minds of the majority.
No. The Constitution, for all intents and purposes, is a contract.
And as with a contract, the only provisions that may be modified,
with the proper consent, are those whose substance is determinable
by the parties to the contract. The rights of the people, as
the document clearly acknowledges, are beyond such determinations
(note the Ninth Amenmdment's articulated recognition that rights
are "retained by the people," with or without the government's
consent or articulated acknowledgment.). They exist outside
and in spite of the power initiatives of the government or
majority whims.
For further discussion, I refer you to contemporaneous writings
(as well as the text itself, first and foremost) for the recorded
"anti-majoritarian" impetus behind the articulation of rights
protections.
Shari
Sasha Stone
>People, animals, insects, plants die every second of what we
>term as time. None of us are significant to anyone but
>ourselves, friends, family and possibly acquaintances. Some of
>us are not even important to some of them. Death is trivial and
>it takes a person's mind to make it otherwise.
>
world, but in this case, I do. Animals do not murder for sport, they don't
murder because they were ignored by their parents - they murder for food,
for territory, for mates, if you can call it murder. That is significantly
different than killing because killing is wrong in our culture and
therefore brings along with it, power. We, all of us creatures, value life
vigorously, otherwise we would not try so hard to stay alive. You are
wrong that death is trivial. Only in our selected interpretation could we
say so. And I'd ask you to give an example (other than human intervention)
where, in the natural world, death is trivial. Not to wolves, not to
whales, not to monkeys, certainly not to gorillas. No, we go to great
lengths to ensure the survival of our species, all of us. Hence Darwinian
evolution. If death were trivial, we would not have evolved in the way
that we have. We value life above all else.
Human beings are naturally compassionate (so are dogs, btw). It's true, we
have to be, either born fucked up, or else desensitized to our own
instincts and our own compassion.
>Secondly, though, I do believe that what we allow ourselves to
>view makes a large impact on us...especially, though certainly
>not exclusively, when we are very young. And, furthermore,
>IMHO, what we 'hear' makes an impact too...especially on the
>infant who is lying in its crib, hearing loud screaming,
>gunshots, etc. That infant can not differentiate between real
>life and TV (everything is "real" to the infant).
I don't know about that. Truth is, I never liked our culture's idea of
putting and leaving children in cribs, carseats, etc. Children need the
warmth and love of bodies. They need to be held. Our baby books teach us
to let our kids "cry it out" and that, to me, is the biggest crime of all.
We are the only culture that encourages that sort of disconnection from our
babies. It's insanity! We teach our babies that their cries do not
matter, that we don't care about what they need. So of course they're
going to always feel that they don't matter.
People who
>from early life all the way to adulthood are inflicted with and
>then inflict themselves with violent images and noises, IMHO,
>are much more likely to be prone to violence or accept it in
>others than those who stay away from such images and noise.
Except that it's the same old argument: these kids were the exception, not
the rule. Noise makes kids hyper because it's too much stimuli; they don't
know where to put all of that energy.
>Gee, maybe those people who don't have the "time", should think
>twice before having the children.
>
And maybe those kids ought to have thought twice before shooting their
classmates and shooting themselves. What kind of a comment is that?
>But it is JUST you and I who will have to solve this problem if
>it is to be solved at all. Parents must insist that the
>government and the schools start saying "NO" to taunting,
>bullying, excluding, ridiculing...instead of just saying "Oh,
>kids will be kids". Discussing problems in schools instead of
>letting these types of resentments build in students till those
>who do not have the inner power to resist, crack and destroy
>others and themselves.
I don't agree with you on this point, not that I won't be involved, just
that it doesn't help the fringe kids who have a screw loose.
>
>There is nothing you can do to keep your daughter safe unless
>you start to take an active part in creating a dialog with the
>school administrators in your area.
>
Administrators have nothing to do with it. Unless you're talking about
armed guard protection. There is only one solution: private school.
>Then school teaching must give children the tools they need so
>as not to feel vulnerable. My parents did it for me and I am
>forever thankful for that.
Yeah, your parents taught you. Teachers have very little, if any,
influence over kids who are on the outside. And besides, teachers are too
weary to bother. That was my impression of them. At my school there were
maybe three or four teachers who were good teachers. The others were just
tired and didn't give a shit. Our culture doesn't even value teachers.
How can we expect our kids to respect people who are underpaid and
undervalued?
Sasha
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
-Kristen
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
k...@TheCNI.org
Colorado Neurological Institute
Englewood, CO USA
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
>>> Sasha Stone <sst...@PRIMENET.COM> 04/22 7:41 PM >>>
Kristen Mahan-Moutaw
Underneath it all? Underneath the "pompous" comments (was Daniel Mauser pompous? Was Cassie Bernall pompous? What about Dave Sanders? Corey De Pooter? Maybe Lauren Townsend, she was a Valedictorian candidate, maybe she was pompus...Rachel Scott? Kyle Velasquez? Isiah Shoels? I could go on - five times) I don't think I'll agree with it after my upset, not at all. (And I know there were other comments raised, I just am to upset to get into them all, again)
CariAnnV
Tauminator <eds...@IASTATE.EDU> writes:
> Why did these kids turn to guns? Why did they worship Hitler? Why did they
>listen to "violent" music? Because it empowered them. It gave them a sense of
>power over the shortcomings their cruel classmates claimed they have. Some of
>us turn inward out of desperation and a feeling of powerlessness. Others turn
>outward in attempt to gain control of their lives.
>
Dave - what would you consider ways of empowering the kids who already have
such hate and low self-esteem?
Carolyne