RSS

Mom and Pop Cop

16 Oct

Chief_Wiggum_Arresting_Bart

Nobody wants to (or can) police his or her child. From the moment they’re born children discover how to manipulate the world around them. The first thing a human discovers is that crying often results in having one’s belly filled. As children get older they (hopefully) learn more sophisticated means to get what they want. From a very young age they determine which parent is good for which needs. They also learn what information to hide to avoid unwanted repercussions. It is a very useful and normal developmental process. However it takes a crafty and confident parent to oversee such goings on. Children should be allowed their privacy and some secrets. It is only when there are signs of harm to self or others that all bets are off.

Hiding dangerous behavior is normal but not acceptable. Kids wrestling with eating disorders will go to great lengths to hide the effects and the behavior. Rarely will a kid come home and announce; “Guess what new drug I tried today?!” The same is true for proclamations of; “I totally humiliated a kid in gym today!” No, as we discussed above, kids are pretty savvy in getting what they want. And what most of them want is to not get in trouble. There’s no kid in the world (save a diagnosed sociopath) who does not know that being mean is bad. But kids are human and adults in training and as such are very susceptible to temptation. That is why they will drink (at all or too much), engage in dangerous stunts, sniff household products, develop food issues, etc. The world can feel out of control and very big to a child. Engaging in myopic behaviors is a way to gain control and shrink one’s world. Bullying is one harmful way to do just that. Bullying, unlike other alarming behaviors is not about self-harm. Bullying is a means of controlling one’s world. The bully lords over a created contained reality. There are leaders, followers and victims; and the players often change roles with lightning speed. There is no way that all parents can know what their children are doing at all times. Even parents glued to the side of their child cannot know what is going on inside their little heart and soul. No teacher or school administrator can know what is going on with every child at every moment. The first step is simply to accept this.

However once an adult does know what is going on it is the adult’s problem. Quite simply preventing a child from harming him or herself or others is one of the reasons parents (or guardians) were invented. By now we’ve all heard stories of parents of bullies or bullied who knew what was happening and did not take draconian measures. No doubt they intervened in some manner, but they did not stop it. The most glaring examples are those that involve cyber bullying. To not confiscate devices and disable accounts is tantamount to doing nothing. A Florida sheriff agrees, in theory, with this premise. Sheriff Judd did a little arresting. He grew so outraged that the parents of two bullies did not confiscate devices but instead insisted that their children’s accounts had been hacked, that he arrested them; the children that is. And that’s where Sheriff Judd and I would disagree. I’m not sure anyone in this very tragic case (the bullied killed herself) should be arrested. But if anyone should be legally held accountable it should be the adults who knew of the behavior and tried to cover it up. It’s a bit blithe to declare that “kids will be kids,” but there is some serious truth to that adage. It is not an excuse it is an explanation. Children do really stupid things, it’s how they learn and grow. It is also why they are assigned adults.

There is something terribly chilling about the long arm of the law stepping in for lax parenting. Maybe there is an explanation as to why these girls were allowed to be typing vitriolic Facebook posts taking credit for their (7th grade) classmate’s suicide. It’s difficult to imagine what it would be but that doesn’t mean it couldn’t exist. The sheriff was not interested in any explanation (understandably.) His primary concern was the of the children’s lack of remorse and their potential ability to continue victimizing. He rushed into arresting the (12 and 14 year-old) girls before completing the investigation. It is a very unfortunate means to an end. What these kids need is some empathy training based counseling and aggressive parenting. Neither of which is going to happen while locked up. Couldn’t a more sophisticated penal system order the parents to confiscate all devices and accounts and attend parenting classes? A judge could threaten parents with incarceration if they did not comply. Arresting children is rarely a solution for anything. They’ve been charged with stalking which would suggest that the parents of bullied children everywhere should/could be filing restraining orders and accusing bullies of stalking. I don’t know if anyone wants that to happen, but it’s good to have options. There is a mighty fine line to not cross when it comes to blaming parents for their children’s behavior. But there are also very clear-cut cases of parents being complicit in their children’s wrongdoing. We are sophisticated enough to discern between the two. Kids will be kids and hopefully parents will be adults.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 16, 2013 in Childhood, Well-Being

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Remember The Smoking!

15 Oct

beautiful_example_of_imagination_mushroom_cloud

Grab your guns; we’re heading for the Alamo! On October 19th gun enthusiasts will be participating in a “Line In The Sand” armed rally in St. Antonio, Texas. Participants are encouraged to carry their “long guns” and the event is billed as family friendly. It is not a protest in the traditional sense, as Texas has some of the most lenient gun laws in the land; it’s more of a show of arms if you will. The assumed intent is to create a powerful visual of gun slinging American families. To encourage a wholesome atmosphere participants are asked to remove bullets from chambers before marching.

Once one gets past the image of a John Wayne (or Mel Brooks) movie, the conceit is not that strange. People often march to express strong feelings, and clearly people feel very strongly about their guns. What is strange is that as a nation we seem to have bought into that sentiment. We continuously elect representatives who hold gun rights sacred. It’s challenging to conjure any other “right” that directly impacts the rights of others as dramatically as gun rights. We think nothing of restricting individual rights that have little if any impact on larger society. We set restrictions on; who can marry, female reproduction, child safety, and the right to die. In the past few decades we have begun to set limits on individual rights which affect the public. You can no longer drink and drive with impunity. Smoking is so restricted as to be unrecognizable as the American pastime it once was.

Smoking was once ubiquitous. People smoked in movie theaters, buses, planes, and even elevators! Ashtrays were everywhere! Freestanding ashtrays were in doctor’s offices, factories, office buildings, and schools. The smoke cloud emerging from most teachers’ lounges rivaled that of a nuclear test. Once upon a time cigarette smoke was everywhere. About twenty-five years ago C. Everett Koop (U.S. Surgeon General) published a report equating the addictive nature of nicotine to that of heroin. You’d be forgiven for not considering this a “Eureka!” moment. But keep in mind that the tobacco industry was (if not is) one of the more powerful lobbying groups in the country. Shortly after the report’s publication cigarette packaging had to include a warning box. Dr. Koop later published a report regarding the hazards of “secondhand smoke.” The first restaurant smoking sections then cropped up. Some readers might remember the bizarreness of smoking sections; everyone seemed to pretend that smoke doesn’t move. But as behavior change motivation goes, baby steps are often the way to go. Fast-forward to 2013 and most of us live in a practically smoke-free environment. Smoking is considered a private behavior and as such cannot infringe upon the larger population.

So why haven’t we been able to treat gun ownership this way? Secondhand smoke couldn’t possibly kill more people than guns. Why have we not set limits on how many firearms a registered, licensed and certified owner can possess? Where are the laws about which kind of weapons are allowed outside of a registered, licensed and law abiding gun club and which must stay secured? Why do we tolerate gun show loopholes? How can a household that includes children be allowed guns, but apartment residents with children must have window guards? There are gun enthusiasts in favor of reasonable restrictions. Not all gun fans cling to the 2nd amendment like it was an out of context bible passage. Not every person who enjoys guns holds fast to rhetoric and flag waving. So where are those voices? Where is our C. Everett Koop?

People will show up to the Alamo with their guns and children. Even if the showing is paltry the imagery will be startling. Once again we will be lulled into thinking that gun owners are monolithic. Once again the issue will be framed as all or nothing. Color me a pessimist, but once again our capital will be noticeably silent.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 15, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Good Cop, Bad Cop

09 Oct

adam12

Being a police officer is a job, a dangerous, often unpleasant and demanding job. It is not however a way of life, say like being a monk or a nun. Police officers are entitled to a life outside of their oath and duties. It would be nice if they were model citizens during their off-hours, but it’s not required. We, the public, can no longer be surprised by domestic violence, alcohol and drug use among officers. We’ve seen Al Pacino movies and NYPD Blue. We get it; the job does things to you man. And perhaps more importantly the people who are attracted to such a job are perhaps wired for action.

Chicken or egg aside, it is troubling to discover police officers on the wrong side of the law. It’s always upsetting to hear of an officer involved in a drunk driving incident. (Especially when we factor in how bad the incident must have been for it to have ever seen the light of day.) Moving or cashing in on illegal guns and drugs is equally disturbing. But the most recent incident to come to light, involving an attack on a motorist chills one to the marrow. Feelings about swarming motorcyclists aside, the notion that a cop would participate in terrorizing, chasing and attacking a man driving with his wife and child is shocking. To then run from the law (which is what not coming forward is) and lie about the degree of involvement is unconscionable. Maybe, just maybe, we could think; “Okay so this thug has evaded his superior’s detection. It’s an anomaly.” But see there were two officers involved in the rampage. And that second one? Well he was already on modified duty what with being charged in a domestic dispute.

For those few people who have not seen the video(s) of the rampage, be assured it was terrifying. Motorcyclists on the West Side Highway surrounded the families’ S.U.V. One of the bikers who cut directly in front of the S.U.V. slowed suddenly and the S.U.V. bumped the bike causing it to crash. The driver stopped his S.U.V. and the bikers swarmed. He drove from the scene and was chased, cornered and attacked. The bikers (including at least one of the officers) pummeled the S.U.V., broke a window, dragged out the driver and beat him.

The incident itself is very bizarre and Wild West. There are many things to fear in NYC and motorcycle gangs aren’t often one of them. The idea that police officers would not stop (let alone participate) in such barbarianism is simply unfathomable. Who exactly are we to call when we find ourselves transported into a horror movie?! Of course in our most rational moment we know these officers are not typical. There are 40,000 NYPD officers and it stands to reason that there will be some less than stellar employees. In my neighborhood alone there is a mounted officer who greets residents and allows tourists to pose with his horse and there are officers sitting in their car glued to their mobile phones. (Why uniformed officers need to or are allowed to carry their personal phones escapes me, but I also think theaters should make audience members check their phones.) Suffice it to say there are varying degrees of competency in any industry. But there’s a whole lot of real estate between incompetency and criminality. Exactly what kind of screening goes on in law enforcement? It’s a question posed often about the military, but do we ask it about domestic peace officers? Inciting a riot and terrorizing innocent people is one of the fundamental reasons we, the people, need law enforcement. After an incident like this, one as jarring for the amount of video as it is its content; we are entitled to ask these questions. New Yorkers need to be told exactly what happened (including attempts at a cover-up) why we should consider this an anomaly, and what kind of measures are in place to prevent future occurrences. These are the same things one asks of anyone who has betrayed a sacred trust.

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 9, 2013 in Cultural Critique

 

Tags: , , , , , , ,

See (All Of) You Real Soon*

07 Oct

Annette&Frankie

When did working for Disney become the gateway to sex, drugs and rock & roll? How did the world’s most wholesome brand start churning out girls gone wild? When did Annette morph into Christina, Britney, Lindsay and Miley; and more importantly, why? The Disney vehicles themselves have hardly changed but the players have. It was in the late 1990s that Christina and Britney began to strip down and gyrate, but it was not the first time we had seen child stars stumble their way into adolescence. In the mid 1980s Drew Barrymore was clubbing and drinking (with her mother’s guidance) well before her 13th birthday. People were scandalized and she received treatment quite early and effectively. There have been many male child stars who have drunk and drugged their way into adulthood. But we’d all be hard pressed to think of one that sexually exploited himself. It is the sexual exploitation, versus the drinking and drugging that is most troubling and novel.

We expect that children working in an adult world and (often) treated like mini-royalty, will develop some bad habits. We expect them to be bratty, socially ill at ease, and unbearably precocious. Adoring and adulating adults often surround them. These children will drink and smoke and use drugs because they can. But why do they then strut around in their bra & panties and writhe around a stage? It can’t simply be to get attention, the whole world is already watching. Could it be that like every child star before them, they want to be taken seriously as an adult? And unlike any time period in the past, sexual objectification is synonymous with womanhood? It’s a troubling thought.

It’s never been easy for any child, in or out of the spotlight, to transition gracefully into adulthood. Surviving puberty while mapping out a grown-up public persona is mind-boggling. In olden times a child star would lobby for an onscreen kiss to signal the end of pigtail days. Many would rush into (very) early marriages to convince bosses and the public that they were grown. There are many child stars that successfully transitioned into real life and left the spotlight. There are those who went to (impressive) colleges and later forged mature acting careers. In other words, it is not written in stone that show business will upend a young life.

Performing and posing as if you’re working a Times Square peep booth, doesn’t necessarily forecast ruin. But it is very sad. These Disney women with varying degrees of talent do not need to use their bodies and cursory knowledge of sexuality to attract attention. They are not Anna Nicole or an unknown future Miss America (now actress) desperate for a break. They are household names with recording contracts and movie deals. Why do they do it? Could it be that the public rewards them for it? Is the fact that unlike decent people who would turn their heads away from such a display, we exalt the exhibitionism with our incessant chatter? Do enough of us explain to our children that we won’t be buying music, movie or concert tickets because to do so would be ghoulish? Do we boycott corporations who reap the benefits of the sexual exploitation of minors? Or do sales of a magazine skyrocket when a mouseketeer shows her breasts?

Clearly the parents of these child stars are involved in some way. Some readers might remember the public outrage over the film Pretty Baby (1978). Teri Shields was vilified for permitting a 12-year old Brooke to appear naked as a prostitute. (The public wasn’t too horrified to not see the movie however.) For years Mother Shields was heralded as the new Madame Rose. Whether it was responsible parenting or not, Brooke was playing a role in a film, not performing as her sexualized self. In fact, later Brooke was quite vocal about her very conservative views on sex. A (very) young woman strutting around television in her under things and simulating anal sex does not mean she’s sexually rampant or irresponsible. It does mean she wants to be seen as sexually available and maybe just a bit freaky. (And not in the Freaky Friday way.) These young women didn’t invent this world in which women are seen as a means to sexually pleasing (heterosexual) men. But they certainly are doing their part to perpetuate it. They are young and are finding their footing and most likely surrounded by adults who tell them they are the greatest star of all. But mostly they are too young to know any better. Becoming comfortable in your own adult skin after being a child star is tough. Doing so after creating a career based upon your sexuality is unimaginable.

*Mickey Mouse Club March (1955) Jimmie Dodd

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 7, 2013 in Childhood, Cultural Critique, Media/Marketing

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Winslow Boy – Review

03 Oct

Winslow Boy

Sometimes it really is just a matter of right. It can turn the world upside down and erodes health and home; letting right be done, but it is one of the few things that separates us from the animals. A flawless example of this phenomenon can be seen in the Roundabout Theatre Company’s The Winslow Boy. This (1946) Terrence Rattigan is based on a true turn of the (20th) century incident in England. A 14-year old boy has been accused (and expelled for) stealing a five-shilling postal note. It is a minor, at best, infraction but one that is entirely relatable in our modern world. Even without adjusting for inflation one can easily imagine a family fighting to clear the name or rectify a similar slight today.

In this production from The Old Vic and directed by Lindsay Posner it isn’t necessary to impose any modern or personal reality. The story and performances are so compelling and relatable as to stand completely on their own. For almost three hours the audience watches a family, at home, struggle with the realities of doing the right thing. We see them over the course of two years wrangle with declining resources and health. Their uncertainty, certainty, regrets, and pride are real and raw, all of it under the constraints of 1912 London manner. Making period pieces and characters believable and relatable is no easy thing. Often it is unnerving to see only a familiar actor in a wig or buckle shoe. Posner’s actors disappear into the play and all the audience sees is the characters. Mary Elizabeth Mastrantonio (Grace Winslow) is a joy to behold as she rides the emotional roller coaster the events have created. Her husband Arthur played by Roger Rees captures the quiet internal struggles of his class, time and circumstance. Charlotte Parry and Zachary Booth play the elder Winslow children to perfection. It is the youngest boy of the play’s title that is the most surprising. His role, while not huge, is pivotal and he must achieve the most challenging of technical feats. Due to the timing of the incident and length of the pursuit of justice, Ronnie Winslow must age two adolescent years. Many writers and directors suffer from age-blindness and see few gradations from 0-21. Under Posner’s direction Spencer Davis Milford portrays Ronnie with heartbreaking age accuracy. He is almost unrecognizable as he ages from Act to Act. The fragile and vulnerable child morphs into a blasé teenager. He grows up (quietly and subtly) before our eyes.

Henny Russell, Chandler Williams, Michael Cumpsty and Alessandro Nivola are wonderfully cast as Violet, John Watherstone, Desmond Curry and Sir Robert Morton. The set by Peter McKintosh has a smaller role, but a no less perfectly executed one. The living room, with doors opening to the garden and dining room, is a homey depiction of middle-class Britain. The choice to make the set static is wonderfully retro and adds much to the production. The audience feels they are peeking into a window not watching a play.

The Winslow Boy opens at the Roundabout Theatre on October 17th

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 3, 2013 in Uncategorized

 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

← Older posts
Newer posts →