Why the Confederacy was Unconstitutional

Just for the heck of it. These are some of the reasons the Federal Government had the right to put down the Secessionist/insurrectionists of the 1860's:

Constitution says:

"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

This means the confederacy was unconstitutional on it's face.

"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress."

This means that the New York Port Authority may be behaving unconstitutionally.

"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

Of course once the North invaded the South they had a right to defend themselves. But since they had no right to form the confederacy in the first place, they had no right to raise the armies they raised either.

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

They had no right to leave the United States without the permission of the rest of us.

Which is why Abraham Lincoln had a difficult time with the diplomacy of the Civil War. Had he granted them bellicose status as if they were a nation that would have ratified their leaving. Of course West Virginia only had the right to become a State without the permission of the Rest of Virginia by the rest of Virginia seceding. By seceding the rest of Virginia was breaking the law and so West Virginia had a right to claim it was the true Virginia, though the constitution is clear otherwise:

"New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress."

I guess one day West Virginia ought to put a resolution to vote in Virginia to ratify it's existence.

Commonwealth according to Locke

The word commonwealth may have entered English sooner, but it was John Locke who gave it a more modern definition (literally) segueing from a speech by King James that referred to the concept. In his book "Twin Governments he contrasted the concepts of commonwealth with those of monarchy, admitting that only with checks and balances can a Kingdom be a commonwealth and of a state of nature with that of a "man in society,"

Southern Strategy And War On Poor

Lee Atwater clip on Youtube

I find the subject of race and class sometimes painful because my family background is a mix of North South, East and West, and because some of my ancestors were on opposite sides of the Civil War. My family has a strong preachy element and that is where I drew my earliest efforts to understand the subject outside of cultural conditioning. Observing how it influenced my own family shaped me from someone who might have grown up a racist, bigoted Christian Fanatic, into someone who's been on a life long vision quest. I've had some great teachers who sometimes taught me by example, and sometimes by doing the wrong thing in an illustrative fashion.

Recent studies have added welcome complexity to the debate about race and class in the United States. Unfortunately our far right wing nut jobs (RWNJ) have tried to muddy the subject by using them as a source for denying reality. The Southern Strategy was more complex and a longer and more nuanced campaign than it is sometimes portrayed. I lived it and saw the complexity first hand so I'm not surprised at either the studies, their conclusions or how they are used by RWNJs as part of a strategy that was first articulated by Lee Atwater (although he really was following other teachers rather than inventing something).

The Modern Southern Strategy

James Carter IV interviewed Lee Atwater way back in 1981 and The nation published an article on Lee Atwater that shared the audio from that famous interview in 2012. They advertize:

"Now, the same indefatigable researcher who brought us Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remarks, James Carter IV, has dug up the entire forty-two-minute interview from which that quote derives. Here, The Nation publishes it in its entirety for the very first time."[Lee Atwater]

http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy

It has become, for liberals and leftists enraged by the way Republicans never suffer the consequences for turning electoral politics into a cesspool, a kind of smoking gun. The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

It also turned out to be a wonderful tool for getting blue collar workers and the poor to vote against their own best interests:

“You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.””[Lee Atwater]

And that abstraction winds up being aimed at things that benefit working people who happen to be white as well as black. Cutting taxes benefits the rich. Cutting "welfare" cuts the welfare of the working poor who think that the politicians are going to only cut benefits to black poor and working folks.

It's more complicated

Of course Nixon's southern strategy was halting. Otherwise he wouldn't have had to contend with George Wallace. His Silent Majority talk was not explicitly racist. He used some of the code words; "law and order", etc... but wasn't willing to break with Republican Tradition. That took even less ethical Republicans like Ronald Reagan. Nixon:

"In 1968, George Wallace ran as a third-party candidate against Nixon and Humphrey, on an explicitly segregationist platform. Humphrey had been the main champion of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the Senate; Nixon, while no civil rights activist, rejected an overtly racist platform. Feeling abandoned by both parties, Southern white racists flocked to Wallace's cause, winning him the Deep South states of Ark., La., Miss., Ala. and Ga."[http://www.umich.edu/~lawrace/votetour10.htm]

The Article notes that Nixon did originate the "Southern Strategy:"

"Political analyst and Nixon campaigner Kevin Phillips, analysing 1948-1968 voting trends, viewed these rebellious Southern voters as ripe for Republican picking. In The Emerging Republican Majority (Arlington House, 1969), he correctly predicted that the Republican party would shift its national base to the South by appealing to whites' disaffection with liberal democratic racial and welfare policies. President Nixon shrewdly played this "Southern strategy" by promoting affirmative action in employment, a "wedge" issue that later Republicans would exploit to split the Democratic coalition of white working class and black voters. (See John Skrentny, The Ironies of Affirmative Action (U Chicago Press, 1996)). This strategy soon produced the racial party alignments that prevail today."

Kevin Phillips went on to write prophetic books about the results of Nixonian and RW policies. He predicted the financial collapse of 2008 and uncovered a history of fraud and manipulation in Wall Street. But in 1968 he showed Republican operatives where to go.

“From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don’t need any more than that….but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That’s where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.” Nixon’s Southern Strategy: ‘It’s All in the Charts’ New York Times (May 17, 1970)"[http://samuel-warde.com/2014/08/republican-southern-strategy/#]

And they went there. Jimmy Carter won newly enfranchised whites and progressive southerners (they do exist) in 1976, but lost most of them by 1980 and by 1984:

"The success of the "Southern strategy" was made evident at the Presidential level in the 1984 election, pitting Ronald Reagan against Democrat Walter Mondale. (Georgia Democrat Jimmy Carter, the Democratic nominee for 1976 and 1980, obscured this because he was competitive in the South). Democrats had picked up votes in the South due to the re-enfranchisement of blacks via the Voting Rights Act of 1965. This is observable in the low Republican (hence high Democratic) turnout in areas with large black populations--the Southern Black Belt and urban North. However, Democrats lost more white votes than they gained black votes--not only in the South, but in white Northern suburbs. Thomas and Mary Edsall, in Chain Reaction (W.W. Norton, 1991), argue that Republican success in the Northern suburbs showed that opposition to government programs that benefit blacks appealed to Northern whites, who, identifying crime and welfare dependency with blacks, were receptive to coded Republican messages ("welfare queens," "special interests," "quotas") appealing to antiblack racial antipathies."

This was the southern strategy articulated by Lee Atwater. And it would gradually lead to Southern Politicians abandoning the Democratic party for the new Republican party's new organization and the rise of politicians like Newt Gingrich. It also led to the spread of these racist concepts to areas in the North where there were also black people. This has been a tragedy, because it has led to a war on the poor championed by by people who are nearly as poor.

And of course the battle is three ways: Country versus city versus suburbs. I have more to say but I can't find the articles today that I was reading yesterday so it will have to wait for another post. This makes a nice intro.

Youtube voice:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AT2fsv7xt4E

http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-206533086/the-bulldozer-revolution-suburbs-and-southern-history#/

Origins of Racism

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/01/05/260006815/the-ugly-fascinating-history-of-the-word-racism

How to defeat ISIL

I've been talking about ISIL for almost a year. I traced it's origins as an outgrowth of Al Qaeda. I've traced those origins to CIA programs and shown the circumstantial links to the Saudis, especially Prince Bandar. All to establish my belief that they are a tool of the Saudi Secret Service, maybe P. Bandar, maybe renegades, but certainly a tool of Saudis. But the question becomes. How to actually defeat ISIL?

To Defeat ISIL, a head on attack by USA forces might send them packing. But unless it is a complete extermination it will only send them underground. The fighters might decamp to other battle fields, or carry out terror attacks. Indeed more than likely they will try to do both. Some of them will decamp back home, having established bona fides as warriors. Whatever happens it will feed into the Al Qaeda Salafist propaganda machine. A sort of Arabic Robin Hood narrative of good outlaws versus an evil machine of crooked government enemies. In any case, the fact that we only seem interested in organizations like ISIL when we are protecting our oil transportation lines also feeds into the street narrative of the Arabic world that European, USA and Israel are behind the whole mess. The Saudis would rather hear that narrative than one that points back to them and the gulf states.

So to defeat ISIL we need to make noises about how the Saudis oil interests are at stake. How the Saudis are behind ISIL. And how they are playing a duplicitous game to take the world's eyes of the fact that they use their oil revenues to make a very small subset of Arabs incredibly wealthy while repressing their brothers around the world. Including the Palestinians who are expected to somehow conquer Israel with no help from them, and aren't allowed to resettle elsewhere as citizens of an Arab Brotherhood.

The Betrayal of the Ummah

I'm not strong on Muslim belief. But I believe they emphasize the brotherhood of the Ummah[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ummah]. In that concept the Muslim World ought to be like a commonwealth or the United States, where all Arabs are equal. Heck all Muslims are part of the Ummah. Anyone who has experienced Islam up close knows about this sense of brotherhood. Even Shiah and Sunnah put aside their differences long enough to visit Mecca or other primary holy sites. One goes to a mosque and one senses this sense of brotherhood. Malcolm X experienced it in his trip to Mecca. http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/a/me080220b.htm]He is said to have experienced an epiphany on his trip to Mecca [http://middleeast.about.com/od/religionsectarianism/a/me080220b.htm] which changed his attitude towards both race and religion. Islam is based on a concept of universal brotherhood. It's not supposed to be about virulent hate of Christians and Jews.

In his experience he recounts that people “were hugging and embracing. They were of all complexions, the whole atmosphere was of warmth and friendliness. The feeling hit me that there really wasn’t any color problem here. The effect was as though I had just stepped out of a prison.” To enter the state of ihram required of all pilgrims heading for Mecca, Malcolm abandoned his trademark black suit and dark tie for the two-piece white garment pilgrims must drape over their upper and lower bodies. “Every one of the thousands at the airport, about to leave for Jedda, was dressed this way,” Malcolm wrote. “You could be a king or a peasant and no one would know.” That, of course, is the point of ihram. As Islam interprets it, it reflects the equality of man before God."

Democracy

Democracy is congruent with Muslim theory too. Muslims operated by consensus in their early years, and the purpose of structures like voting is to establish a sense of consensus and a means of re-establishing consensus when consensus is broken that is superior to warfare and internal insurrection.

Compatibility with Secular Government

This equality of man before God is also the belief of other Western Religions. The reason that early Islam was able to conquer much of the ancient Christian world is as much the disunity and hypocrisy of the people running Christian institutions and governing Christian Countries. Had these people accepted the universal principles of Islam, the program of conquest and destruction might have been less successful, and Islam would have been forced to accommodate them instead of trying to supplant it. A "Dhimmi" status might have been appropriate in the early days of Islam, but time has shown that not only are all men equal before God, but God doesn't play favorites between Christians, Muslims or Jews.

Thus modern Islam should not be incompatible with Secularism. The Shia know that Islam went wrong when the Caliphate suppressed the children of Ali. The Sunna lived under the yoke of foreigners for centuries because of their arrogance. It is time for Muslims to accept that secularism is the best way to live up to Islamic theory. It need not be incompatible with secular democracy.

And indeed Our first treaty with the Barbary states established that the USA, being a Secular Democracy, was not incompatible with Islam:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Sane Foreign policy based on principle of freedom of Religion embodied in Secular Government

A sane foreign policy would use this reality in the same way that Adams and Jefferson did in dealing with the Tripolitarian princes in the early 1800's. The divide between Shia and Sunnah is founded on it's surface on disrespect for the principle of freedom of religion. But deep inside the real issue is the respect of those who are elevated to power for those who elevate them. And that means respecting differing opinions. Secularism is not about eliminating religion, but respecting different points of views. In the long run the Muslims must fashion their own secular Federation. They can't impose Shiah or Sunnah, but they can create a government that respects consensus by building it through republican forms.

Practical Recommendations

Defeating ISIL is actually conceptually Easy

Meantime the easiest way to defeat ISIL is to help the folks who find ISIL obnoxious: Sunnah tribesmen, Kurds, local folks, Shiah and just about everyone except their fellow fanatics. It also means shaming the Saudis into admitting that their Salafist Caliphate dreams are not likely to involve the Royal Saud line becoming Caliph if they keep funding terrorists. That would require admitting who funds, supports, trains and creates groups like ISIL in the first place. Sure now their most respected Preacher is criticizing ISIL (the Russians are right on this one):

http://en.ria.ru/analysis/20140821/192225993/While-Riyadh-Denounces-ISIS-as-Evil-the-Saudi-Elite-Sponsor.html

If we want to stop ISIL we have to cut off the money coming to them from our Saudi Frenemies:

"The Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) now threatening Baghdad was funded for years by wealthy donors in Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, three US allies that have dual agendas in the war on terror… Sometimes the support came with the tacit nod of approval from those regimes," emphasized Josh Rogin, a foreign policy correspondent for The Daily Beast, in his article "America's Allies Are Funding ISIS" published in June, 2014.

The Russians further report:

"ISIS is part of the Sunni forces that are fighting Shia forces in this regional sectarian conflict. They are in an existential battle with both the (Iranian aligned) Maliki government and the Assad regime," said Andrew Tabler, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, as cited by Josh Rogin."

They actually go so far as to suggest that the Saudis were bribing McCain and his buddies:

"However, it looks like the US leadership has no influence on the Gulf elites: Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the head of Saudi Intelligence, openly criticized US President Obama for his "inability" to invade Syria after chemical attacks had been conducted against its civilians. Experts claim that the notorious Saudi prince was behind the sarin gas attacks in East Ghouta and Aleppo, which were aimed to provoke the US to strike Syria. Moreover, according to Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist, Prince Bandar had allegedly bribed key US Senators to approve a "shock and awe" military attack on Damascus."

Bandar has recently been removed from office and the Saudis now say:

"The ideas of extremism, radicalism and terrorism ... have nothing to do with Islam and (their proponents) are the enemy number one of Islam," claimed Saudi Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz al-Sheikh on Tuesday, August, 19, as cited by Al Arabiya.

So to defeat ISIL we have to recognize that we can't protect our oil supply by supporting tyrannical regimes whether secular or religious, but by promoting secular government, republican forms, and freedom of religion. That includes existing institutions such as tribal leaders, mosques, and fostering local leaders. It doesn't mean letting others bribe our officials or run false flag operations using religious fanatics as useful idiots in their efforts to make money by keeping things churning.

And that means recognizing the double dealing of our "frenemies" and stopping our own crooked politicians from receiving their bribes.

Read Wayne Madsen's shocking allegations here:

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/09/12/323583/bandar-bought-support-for-syria-strike/

"“Wayne Madsen, moreover, has learned from multiple intelligence sources in Washington, London, Beirut, and Paris, that Saudi intelligence chief Prince Bandar bin Sultan has paid off key members of the US Senate and House leadership, as well as key ministers of the French government, with ‘incentive cash’ to support an American and French ‘shock and awe’ military strike on not only Syria but (also) Hezbollah positions in Lebanon,” Fetzer wrote."

Fortunately the man who they wanted to bribe the most didn't take the money. Thank God our President is honest. Something I'm not so sure about with regard to certain Senators.

Dirt Bags

You hear the TV brutes spit out "dirt bags"

As they blow away some human "fags".

It sounds all brave, and glorious and macho

When heads fly off and blood squirts everywhere.

And maybe that term is ultimately fair

When they stick us in the ground, by then

We have become essentially "dirt bags."

 

I don't understand the attraction.

Of bodies slamming together in violent compaction.

What is the attraction to pain, and hurt and fear,

Of those in comfortable chair sitting in the rear?

Reality is these things are thuggish, brutal terror

And while still alive the term dirt bag is usually in error

The TV brutes may fill fantasies of Cowboy Bob

For folks in front of a TV fat like blobs

But they can't look their murder victims in the eye

Until just before they die.

I don't get the need for this porn.

 

Think about the definition of terror and then,

Wonder who is being the terrorist, and when.

Is it the brute with a bomb-belt under his suite

Or is it also the one with a joystick in his hand,

Blowing up wedding parties full of "dirt bags?"

The definition of purpose of shock and awe is terrorism.

Whatever BS reason they give as their "ism"

The value of wars and blows and body bags, is fear.

And the first step to stopping this dear friends,

Is to recognize those "dirt bags" could be people we love.

And we dirt bags should be better than this.

Christopher H. Holte

When they stick us in the ground. Even if we are in a box instead of a bag we are essentially "dirt bags."

Positive law and negative law

Negative law is expressed as "thou shalt not" terms. A lot of the bible is "negative law" and telling people what they can't do. It's purpose is to set boundaries and rule those boundaries with measurements and punishments. Thou shalt not steal is defined in hundreds of more detailed laws from laws against shoplifting to unenforced laws against banks swindling people out of billions.

Positive laws are expressed as "thou shall". The bibles "Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." Positive laws start with setting goal posts and then work to define the requirements for virtue and good function. Positive laws define both the good and the means for attain the goood. Our laws for creating corporations are an example of positive law, implied by the requirements within the constitution:

“The power of creating a corporation, though appertaining to sovereignty, is not, like the power of making war or levying taxes or of regulating commerce, a great substantive and independent power which cannot be implied as incidental to other powers or used as a means of executing them. It is never the end for which other powers are exercised, but a means by which other objects are accomplished. No contributions are made to charity for the sake of an incorporation, but a corporation is created to administer the charity; no seminary of learning is instituted in order to be incorporated, but the corporate character is conferred to subserve the purposes of education. No city was ever built with the sole object of being incorporated, but is incorporated as affording the best means of being well governed. The power of creating a corporation is never used for its own sake, but for the purpose of effecting something else. No sufficient reason is therefore perceived why it may not pass as incidental to those powers which are expressly given if it be a direct mode of executing them.” [McCulloch vs Maryland]

A society cannot survive without both positive law and negative law. Negative laws keep people within their swim lanes, out of each other's hair and keep them from killing people. Positive law through it's implied power defines what civilizations should look like, how they should provide for the common good, and what it takes to attain that good. They then establish and insititutionalize organizations and give them the resources to accomplish that good.

Bullying and what to do about it

Today I saw a horrible story about bullying from my friend Bridgett on Facebook, and it brought back memories of my own childhood. I usually keep those memories fully buried, but this image brought them all back:

The image breaks my heart. The URL says she beat herself up:

Little Girl Kicked & Assaulted, School Determines That She Injured HERSELF

http://realitywives.net/blogs/little-girl-kicked-assaulted-school-determines-injured-self/

The article via Gulf Live says:

An Arlington Elementary student was injured on the school’s playground on Tuesday and her mother filed a police report on Thursday, according to Pascagoula Police Department Lt. Jim Roe.

The child was beat up on the playground.

“The mother alleges another child kicked her child on the slide,” Roe said. “Right now, there’s no indication something criminal took place. I have spoken with school security and an assistant superintendent is investigating the matter.”

Instead of acknowledging the reality the school Authorities here are real ********, they compound her injuries with the same kind of bull chips that authorities always put out in response to bullying. The idea of confronting it is foreign to authorities, who just plane don't know how to confront bullies. Teachers are intimidated. They often are bullied by the same miscreants themselves!

Roe identified the mother as Lacey Harris and the student has been identified on social media sites as AvaLynn. There is a Justice For AvaLynn Facebook page created as well as a gofundme.com account that is raising money to help pay for her medical bills. It indicates about $1,000 has been raised in one day.

I think I'm not the only one who has first hand memory of being Bullied. But the School district? Do they know what to do? No:

"The Pascagoula School District issued the following statement about the incident:

“A student was injured while playing on the playground at Arlington Elementary School Tuesday afternoon. School officials responded to the situation. The parent was contacted and the student received medical treatment. No other children were involved in the incident. The Pascagoula School District remains committed to the safety of all its students.”

So regardless of the little girl's testimony, "no other children were involved" -- which is an obvious lie.

"The gofundme.com page indicates AvaLynn was “was badly injured in an incident at her elementary school.”"

The Justice for AvaLynn Facebook page says she was “attacked by another student on the school playground. We are fighting for answers and for greater supervision at school.”

[http://realitywives.net/blogs/little-girl-kicked-assaulted-school-determines-injured-self/]

Greater supervision is important. But I don't see any evidence schools are any less clueless now than they were then.

My own experience with Bullying

I'm sure I also did some bullying. But I also remember going through years of bullying that in retrospect I see as even more horrendous than it seemed at the time. We had unrestricted play time in my school. They might have had one playground mom, but there were hundreds of us. Then they integrated the school and new kids came in who picked on me. I remember getting into fights and getting beat up. And then after that every day at lunch time I raced the bell out into the field and dived into where there was a thicket with blackberries, wild roses and rasberries. I'd dive under the bushes and wait until the bell ran again and then run again. I was terrified.

Then one day the kids ran with me, caught me and formed a circle around me punching me over and over again until I collapsed on the ground. Then they kicked me until I couldn't move. Finally one of them helped me into the Principle office and said "This kid got beat up on the field". Instead of being grateful I shouted he was one of the kids who beat me up. He got suspended. After that I sat out recess reading books.

Eventually I got to know some of the kids a little. But I'll talk about that more. The bullying went on, but one day I traded lunches with the smallest of them. I had forgotten my lunch and left it outside the school in the morning. A boy nick-named Junior with a tiny thumb who sucked it all the time. He had a really small lunch and I remember being hungry that day. I was angry because after lunch I realized my mom had simply packed the wrong type of cupcake. I traded lunch for a wishme sandwich because I couldn't believe my mom would give me a coconut covered cupcake. I guess I was an entitled little asshole. But it became a lesson later.

My Karma sucked. We moved and I rode the bus with the same kids. One day one of them put out a cigarrette on my head and I got even more hurt when I tried to hit the guy who did it. They would just laugh at me. Shortly after that two other kids. One named Daniel and the other one I've been wracking my brain to remember ever since, stood up for me and stopped them. I became friends with Daniel and his friend. This was the sixties. I learned a lot from meeting Daniel. For one thing I learned to look at the people bullying me as individuals. I also was being bullied by white kids, so it was really nice to find friends. Later the kids from my own neighborhood tried to attack me and I simply attacked one of them and broke through their circle. I'm sad to say I didn't become a bully myself, but I did come close to killing people. I remember having fantasies of bringing a machine gun to school. Fortunately I was broke.

I don't even like thinking about this, but there are methods for dealing with bullying, and they involve a variety of approaches that are also approaches for improving school hermaneutics.

Lessons Learned

1. Bullying doesn't end by ignoring it.

What is happening to that little girl will no more stop because the School administration denies it, than bullying stopped for me when I was a kid. Later, when I was a little more recovered friends would excuse it by telling me "well you're so pickable." Bullies pick on people because they are vulnerable. If Children aren't protected, the bullies take advantage. Unfortunately.

2. Bullies ignore efforts to stop them and escalate.

As we are learning from the experiences of law abiding black people with bullying cops one of the important things is to know how to de-escalate situations. When I was a kid I would fight back when I shouldn't or react to taunts, and that pretty much guaranteed Bullying. But the way to de-escalate is to act somewhat submissive while while trying to switch the conversation transaction from "parent-child" or "child-child" interactions to adult ones. That is why black people, who are expert at dealing with bullying, raise their hands and bow their heads a little. Cops would understand how to de-escalate situations but currently our cops are being taught bad Doctrine, Policy and getting bad guidance on how to deal with suspects or crowds, all involve teaching de-escalation. And that is also true with handling bullies. As long as a person is in "macho mode" (male or female) they're "fight or flight" brain is engaged and the rational analytical one is suppressed. You have to stop bullying. But then you have to find a way to de-escalating the conflict that drives the bullying. Whether it is angry racist prejudice, or criminal rebellion and fear, it won't stop until the parties decide to stop it. And that requires de-escalation.

3. Bullies need Intervention. Ironically intervention involves as a first step de-escalating the situation. The Crisis Prevention Website [http://www.crisisprevention.com/Resources/Knowledge-Base/General/De-escalation-Tips] has instructions for Police, for intervention. But they apply to bullies and demonstrators dealing with dysfunctional police too:

4.  First step in intervention is de-escalation

Dealing with Bullying as law enforcement with the Mentally ill

“A difficult and potentially dangerous situation for officers involves being called to a scene and engaging with a person who may be mentally ill. Most individuals with mental illness are not dangerous, but a special set of skills is required to bring a mutually successful end to the encounter.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Essentially dealing with bullies or cops is dealing with mental illness. It may be illness so common it's like the common cold, but it is illness nevertheless. Bullies are often hurt people themselves. The kids who bullied me on the playground were dealing with issues I (literally) could not comprehend at the time. The ones in my neighborhood also. In fact a study out of Brown University says that:

“Bullies often continue the cycle of social abuse that they have experienced themselves.”[http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/10/22/bullies-more-likely-to-have-mental-disorder/]

The author, Hilfer, continued:

“They can be depressed, fearful, and they often take out some of their anger and frustration on others down the pecking order,”[mental-disorder study]

And he continues:

“Support is often given to the bullied peers who are seen as victims. Many bullies should also be viewed as victims and offered help to change their behavior, they said.”[mental-disorder study]

So it is apt that a conflict de-escalation involves treating police, rioters, mobs, and deranged individuals as folks needing mental health support.

“This finding emphasizes the importance of providing psychological support to not only victims of bullying but bullies as well.”[mental-disorder study]

So while “The study did not look at the likelihood that bullies would have a mental health disorder.” experience with bullies suggest they need to be treated as if they have one. Bullying Behavior may be a symptom of a disorder. It certainly is disordering to both bully and bullied. The report notes that those bullied often bully in turn.[mental-disorder study]

Thus de-escalation requires intervention, and de-escalation:

“Although an officer's inclination may be to intervene immediately, that may not always be the best response. As long as the individual isn't an immediate danger to self or others, there's time to make a quick assessment. CPI, an international training company specializing in violence prevention and crisis intervention, recommends evaluating the person's behavior before acting, if at all possible.”[De-Escalation Tips]

The following steps apply to stopping bullying as well as stopping violence. I've added [or teacher/principle] to emphasize the quotes apply to schools too:

“How does an officer [or teacher/principle] make the decision about how to treat that individual? Of course the answer is communication: talking to the person and evaluating the responses. But what if the person is unable or unwilling to speak? Again, as long as the person is not a danger to self or others, there is time. Use it to listen to what the person is saying—not only with words, but also with body language and tone of voice.c[De-Escalation Tips]

Empathy

“CPI stresses the importance of listening with empathy, trying to understand where the person is coming from. Like other skills, empathic listening can be learned. The five keys are: give the person undivided attention; be nonjudgmental; focus on the person's feelings, not just the facts; allow silence; and use restatement to clarify messages.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Empathy is important because there is a strong link between bullying and trauma. Not only is bullying traumatic for the victim but bullies are often passing on what they learned as victims of trauma, of other people's bullying. The British Journal of Psychiatry [http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/193/5/378.short] reported:

“Adolescents who reported psychotic symptoms were significantly more likely to have been physically abused in childhood, to have been exposed to domestic violence and to be identified as a bully/victim (that is, both a perpetrator and victim of bullying) than those who did not report such symptoms.”

Bullying and Being Bullied as forms of Trauma

Bullying and being bullied are both forms of trauma. It could be that they induce Post Traumatic Stress symptoms in people. It really changes perspective to consider that both victims and victimizers are being traumatized. [http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/11/28/bullying-can-lead-to-ptsd-symptoms/48213.html

So when we endure Bullying from police, authorities, school mates and others some empathy is needed. That doesn't mean that it doesn't have to stop. Or that it is right. It just means that stopping it requires a different paradigm than simple violence or punishment. We are dealing with wounded people. Empathy has a practical role too. When someone is out of their mind or one is dealing with a person who is not fully rational. Empathy also helps one figure out where the person is going and maybe even understand where they are coming from. A good hunter knows his quarry so well he/she can anticipate their moves. That too is empathy. "Not fully in one's right mind means "handle with care." We have to give them:

Undivided Attention

“When people are paid attention to they feel validated; they feel important. The converse is also true: people feel less important and sometimes feel they need to up the ante if they feel like they need attention. Paying attention doesn't just mean saying, "I'm listening." It means looking at the person, making eye contact if it's culturally appropriate, and virtually listening with the entire body. By really listening, and conveying that through body language as well as words, an officer [or teacher/principle] can take away the person's reason for escalating the situation.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Often times just listening to a person calms them down enough so that they begin to think more clearly. So because school bullies, police, violent people aren't always in their right mind. De-escalating a situation usually also requires we make sure we understand the situation fully. That means:

Be Nonjudgmental

“If someone says, "The sewers are talking to me," an officer's [or teacher/principle] immediate reaction might be to think that the person is crazy. That reaction, especially if verbalized, will probably upset the individual even more. Even if not said aloud, that attitude may be conveyed through the officer[or teacher/principle]'s body language. If someone is psychotic, she may tune into the nonverbal communication much more than words. So besides paying attention to what is said, ensure that body language and tone are nonjudgmental as well. This will go a lot further in calming the individual.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Focus on Feelings

“Going back to the previous example, if an individual says, "The sewers are talking to me," a feeling response might be, "That must be pretty scary," or even, "Tell me what that feels like." This isn't getting into a therapist's bailiwick, but it is using a handy therapeutic tool. Most likely it will elicit a response that is positive, since the individual will know that the officer [or teacher/principle] understands what's happening.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Allow Silence

“As people devoted to protecting and serving, officers [or teacher/principle] are quite comfortable using silence during interrogations, but may not be quite so comfortable using it on the street. Officers [or teacher/principle] want to make sure the incident is handled quickly and peacefully. However, sometimes allowing that moment of silence can be the best choice.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Patience

“If the individual doesn't immediately answer a question, it doesn't mean he didn't hear you. It may mean he's thinking about his answer, or even that he wants to make sure he's saying the right thing.”[De-Escalation Tips]

More Patience

“Allow a moment of silence. If the person's face registers confusion, then repeat the question and let the silence happen again. Just as officers [or teacher/principle] are taught in basic training, another good reason for silence is that no one likes it—and people tend to start talking when silence lengthens.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Clarify Messages

“When a subject makes a statement, an officer [or teacher/principle] may think he knows what the person means. The only way to be sure is to ask. Sometimes a question may be perceived as challenging and can make the subject defensive. So restatement is used instead.”[De-Escalation Tips]

“For example, someone living on the street might say, "I don't want to sleep here anymore." The officer [or teacher/principle] might think he knows what the person is saying, but instead of just making an assumption the officer [or teacher/principle] could restate, "Oh, you're ready to go to the shelter?"”[De-Escalation Tips]

“The homeless person could say, "Yes." Or perhaps, "No, I don't want to sleep here anymore. I'm going to move over to Main Street where it's safer." In either case, the officer [or teacher/principle] has shown an interest in the individual and has kept the lines of communication open.”[De-Escalation Tips]

“One of the most important actions in any crisis is for the officer [or teacher/principle] to remain in control of himself. This factor, which CPI calls rational detachment, will be the key to whether the officer [or teacher/principle] helps de-escalate or escalate the situation. To rationally detach: develop a plan; use a team approach whenever possible; use positive self-talk; recognize personal limits; and debrief.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Develop a Plan

“Devise a plan before one is needed. Decisions made before a crisis occurs are more likely to be more rational than those made when on the receiving end of emotional outbursts. Think about those things that are upsetting and practice dealing with those issues ahead of time. This is called strategic visualization and is effective in helping officers [or teacher/principle] get through some stressful and even dangerous moments. Just as with other professional training officers [or teacher/principle] receive, this training will kick in when needed.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Use a Team Approach

“It's easier to maintain professionalism when assistance is nearby. Support and back up are both crucial pieces when trying to rationally detach.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Use Positive Self-Talk

“Positive self-talk has been the butt of many jokes. Picture Al Franken on Saturday Night Live saying, "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and doggone it, people like me." Sure, that's funny, but positive self-talk really can work wonders. Just as saying, "I can't deal with this" might cause an officer to behave in one fashion, saying to oneself, "I'm trained, I know what to do" will cause another response.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Recognize Personal Limits

“Being a professional doesn't mean that a police officer must be able to excel at everything. That's an unrealistic expectation. Know what your limits are. Know that sometimes it's not easy to leave problems alone. Sometimes the most professional decision is to let someone else take over, if that's an option.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Debrief

“Be sure to debrief with coworkers, team members, or a supervisor after a major incident. Talking about it can relieve some of the stress and is also a good time to start planning for next time: what was done correctly, what could have been handled better, how could the response be improved the next time a similar situation occurs. This serves to assist in being able to rationally detach in the future.”[De-Escalation Tips]

“Assisting someone with a possible mental illness is only one example of when an officer's evaluation, assessment and negotiation skills come into play. There are many other examples: domestic disturbances, dealing with children, assisting victims, helping traumatized witnesses, and even calming down an out-of-control colleague. No matter what the situation, keeping the lines of communication open can help to de-escalate a potentially dangerous crisis.”[De-Escalation Tips]

Bullying is also socially unacceptable and requires Adjudication

But like dealing with criminality. Dealing with bullying doesn't stop with de-escalation. It requires an adjudication. Someone has been hurt. And someone else hurt them. All this trauma doesn't justify bullying. It just is the vehicle by which bullying is passed on generation to generation.

It's pretty established that our formal legal system is incapable of handling school crime. There have been scandals where judges have been caught funneling children to private prisons. One reason why schools are loathe to turn offenders (such as the bullies of the little girl in Arlington Elementary, into the police is that the consequences are either the ruination of a child's life, or the kids getting away with it. There has to be a better way.

Trial by Peers in School

Schools have used mock trials for years to teach kids civic and laws. I'd suggest that schools have real trials with the Principle acting as judge and teachers acting as counsel. The trials would not have force of law beyond school discipline, but the students would pass judgment on the accused and the teachers would ensure that rules of law and procedure are followed. A conviction might involve escalation to the the Police. But more likely some kind of arbitration type solution can be found. And kids know the circumstances of what happened better than outside adults. The goal isn't to shame the perpetrator but to teach the kids about bullying, violence and the consequences of violence. I can't find any literature on that idea. But it seems like common sense idea so long as the basic principles of separation of officers (Separate Judge, jury, executive and counsel for all involved) are observed, and the adjudication is informal and informational. Kids literally are a jury of one's peers.

I'm not anyone important and I can't find any evidence of this working well.

Mock trial information: http://19thcircuitcourt.state.il.us/services/pages/mock_trials.aspx