Thursday, July 07, 2005

How Do We Deal With Bullies?

When I was in Jr. High school, (that's what middle school used to be called) I was unusually small for my age. This school had 7-9th grades. Even as a 9th grader, I was still one of the shortest kids in school, and that made me a target for those bigger kids, we sometimes refer to as "bullies". Often they would accost me in the hallways, or in the restroom, and pick me up, I suppose, to demonstrate their physical strength, although picking up a 65 pound kid doesn't require great strength. But it's the only reason I can think of to explain that behavior. I hated that picking up thing. But I suffered it because I was afraid if I resisted I would be "beat up". This fear only served to encourage the bully treatment.

One day, an older boy named James Wilder, who was at least a foot taller than me, approached me in the restroom, with the intention of practicing the most popular humiliation technique upon me that others like me had suffered before, that is, forcing my head into a toilet bowl. Bad idea on his part.

My parents had always taught me that fighting was never the preferred option, but sometimes the only one.

I was grabbed and dragged kicking and struggling to the nearest stall. I knew what he intended to do. At this point, I had some choices.

1. I could let it happen, and hold my wet head in my hands crying and feeling sorry for myself.

2. I could let it happen and, as soon as I could, run to the principals office and report him.

3. I could fight and maybe spare myself from the ultimate humiliation.

I chose to fight. And I beat the crap out if him. And my head stayed dry. But more importantly, I was never bullied again. By anyone.

London, England was attacked by terrorists today. Incidently, this is another reason why I believe what I write about in my blog. Now Great Britain has some choices. These same choices are the ones that the United States faced after 9/11. What will England do? I know what I would do. Do you?

16 comments:

Ragnar Danashold said...

Uhh...I don't think your site should be called "views from LEFT field." Seeing as you are so conservative.

Just a thought.

Mark said...

Ragnar, go to my very first post,, back in April. I explain the title of my blog there.

Mark said...

Rag, you must have read some of my other posts. There certainly isn't anything in this one that would indicate I am a conservative. At least I would hope that liberals would feel the same way about this as I do.

Etchen said...

I agree with the importance of establishing a balance in our children as well asin our own lives. But if now is not the time to stand up and say we will not allow this to continue and consequently fight, then when is the time? Maybe the Brits can find Osama for us? God knows we don't seem to have a clue.
I keep forgetting to ask you, would you mind if I linked you to my blog?

Scott Menendez-Reynolds said...

Damn Right. We will fight on.

Mark said...

Etchen, I would be honored. Thank you.

tugboatcapn said...

Mark, I had a similar experience when I was young. The bullie tormented me until one day I finally snapped and during the ensuing fight, I stuck my right index and middle fingers into his nostrils and tried my best to tear his nose completly off his face.
Not only did HE leave me alone after that, he told everyone he knew that I was crazy and would kill somebody if they messed with me.
Begging him to leave me alone never got me anywhere, neither did trying to understand why he was torturing me, nor did trying to tell on him and get someone else to intervene on my behalf. The only thing that solved my problem was me, standing up for myself and DECISIVELY handling the problem.
I know EXACTLY what I would do...

FrenziedFeline said...

My parents were of the same thinking as yours. My dad always told we hadn't better start a fight, but if finding ourselves in one, we'd better be the one to end it. I've always told DS that, and the advice served him well when he was in third or fourth grade. They "dog piled" him (all piled on top of him), but he saw it coming and threw off the first ones that tried. They didn't try it again because of that.

Now if we can get past the touchy-feely garbage, we wouldn't be such a target.

TerryTT said...

The USA chose to respond to their terrorist attack by invading Iraq who didn't really have anything to do with it. Lets hope any response from the UK is against those known to have committed the attack. Attacking other bullies is dangerous and probably what led this in the first place.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

TerryTT, respectfully, I think that's a bit narrow-sighted. The Bush Administration listed several reasons to remove Saddam from power. Saying he helped plot 9/11 was not one of them, which is what liberal democrats have been implying and mischaracterizing. Iraq serves as one piece in a broader war against terrorism.

Little Green Footballs, by the way, has some great reporting, as does Hugh Hewitt with plenty of links.

Mark, nice story. Some on the Left, I guarantee, are laying the blame of the London bombings at the feet of President Bush and Prime Minister Blair. That if we hadn't invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, these killers would have left us alone. Well, we hadn't invaded anyone, and 9/11 still happened, as well as other attacks of a lesser scale, yet terror attacks, nevertheless. Of course the self-blame game will then have you believe we brought it upon ourselves because of they hate our foreign policy, we put Saddam in power (insert :rolleyes: emoticon here), we are in Saudi Arabia, we support Israel, etc.

Blaming us for taking the war to the terrorists is misguided. That's like police detectives going after the mafia or gang units butting gangbangers away behind bars; then the mafia and gang going after the police or their family to terrorize them and make future police officers think twice about taking them down. So if we don't have the courage to stand up to evil, who will? Who will you pass on the responsibility of protecting civilization onto? While you cower, accepting victimhood, how does this make you safer?


Damn...I like those thoughts....I think I may continue on with it in my blog!

(^_~)

rich bachelor said...

Actually Wordsmith, Mr. Bush did in fact use that as one of his many reasons for further destroying that country that we systematically starved/bombed throughout the years of Bush I and Clinton. Then he changed the subject, at least four different times. Sorry.
Furthermore, the translator at msnbc (which is an arm of the liberal media, and of course we must never listen to them)pointed out that whatever previously unknown Islamic org. that is claiming responsiblity for this one misquoted the Quaran in their statement, followed up by the editorial statement that "This is something al Qaeda would never do."
In short, I agree that the same parties responsible for 9/11 are responsible for this one. What we disagree on is who that actually was.

rich bachelor said...

And just for the record, go and check it, over at msnbc.msn.com under the heading for the London story, the subheading being "Islamic goup claims responsibility for attack", since it will be gone by the next news cycle.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Actually Wordsmith, Mr. Bush did in fact use that as one of his many reasons for further destroying that country

No...what the Bush Administration mentioned, and rightly so, is that there were links between Iraq and al-Qaeda. That is different than saying Saddam had a direct hand in orchestrating 9/11 along with al-Qaeda.

But that was one out of a number of reasons given for going to war.

that we systematically starved/bombed throughout the years of Bush I and Clinton. Then he changed the subject, at least four different times.

He's been consistent; liberals just have selective hearing on what is said.

And as far as "systematically starving" the people of Iraq....that blame goes squarely on the shoulders of Saddam. Sanctions put in place because of his repeated violations to Cease-fire agreements, making Saddam a constant danger. And when we give in to human rights watchers and set up the UN Food for Oil Program to alleviate the suffering of the Iraqi people....hmm....what happened there? While the coffers of Saddam's regime grew richer and he built palace after palace everywhere, his people suffered AT HIS HANDS!!!!

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...

Furthermore, the translator at msnbc (which is an arm of the liberal media, and of course we must never listen to them)pointed out that whatever previously unknown Islamic org. that is claiming responsiblity for this one misquoted the Quaran in their statement, followed up by the editorial statement that "This is something al Qaeda would never do."
In short, I agree that the same parties responsible for 9/11 are responsible for this one. What we disagree on is who that actually was.


I wasn't sure what you were driving at here, but what? You a conspiracy theorist who believes Jews, the CIA, or someone other than militant islamic terrorists were responsible for 9/11 and the London Bombings? Not The "al-Muhajiroun" gang or "the secret organization of al-Qaeda in Europe"?

Mark said...

I don't think it matters which terrorist group us responsible. After all, don't they all have the same purpose and aren't they all criminals? What matters is what are we going to do to stop it?

tugboatcapn said...

Apparently, if we just bash our President long enough and hard enough, the terrorists will leave us alone.