Bullying and Self-Esteem

“Bullying is unwanted, aggressive behavior among school aged children that involves a real or perceived power imbalance. The behavior is repeated, or has the potential to be repeated, over time.“

Above is the vague and nearly all encompassing definition of bullying that is promoted on the stopbullying.gov website.  That’s right, our government is spending your money on an anti-bullying campaign.  But that’s a good thing, right?  Bullies are bad and we shouldn’t mind that the government is trying to eliminate that problem from our children’s lives, right?

Of course we should.  To understand why, lets look deeper at the governments’ belief about bullying: “Kids who are bullied can experience negative physical, school, and mental health issues.”  I assume these claims are based on scientific studies but none are cited.  In any case, it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if many kids who are bullied do experience these issues, so, for arguments sake, I’ll just take their word for it.  Another page on the government site claims that bullying causes low self-esteem.  For most people, this is the crux of the problem with bullying.  They believe that bullying hurts kids’ self-esteem and that leads to all sorts of mental problems that might plague someone their entire life.  The glaring problem with this belief is that no other individual in this world can hurt your self-esteem.  That’s why it’s called SELF-esteem – it is what YOU believe about YOURSELF. 

If you choose to base your belief about yourself on what others believe about you (or say they believe), that is now YOUR problem and you cannot blame that on anyone else.  The beauty of self-esteem is that we own it.  No one can touch it.  The old saying “Sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never hurt me” can be true for you if you believe it.  Your self-esteem is yours, don’t give it up to anyone else.

Perhaps the biggest flaw with the government’s definition of bullying is that it claims that bullying only happens “among school aged children.”  You can stop reading this if no one in your post-adolescent life has tried to bully you.  It doesn’t stop after childhood!  Many adults have been bullied by their colleagues, bosses, friends, spouses, and even, in some cases, by their own adolescent children.  People are sometimes mean to each other.  That is bullying by the government’s definition.  It’s going to happen.

So the problem with an anti-bullying campaign is two-fold.  The first is that bullying only hurts you if you let it - remember, it’s YOUR self-esteem.  So, the root cause of low self-esteem is oneself and, therefore, the only real fix is to fix oneself.  Am I blaming the victim?  Yes, because in this case the victim is also the perpetrator.  You may not be the one doing the bullying, but you are the one who is listening to and believing the bully.  No one can touch your self-esteem but you.  The bully can say and do all sorts of mean things, but he/she cannot touch YOUR belief about you.  If your self-esteem is low, that is your doing.  This is great news!  It means that you can fix it.  “Yes you can” believes in your ability to lift yourself up despite what others may think or say of you. 

The second problem is that bullying isn’t going to go away.  While kids need to be taught to be nice to one another, they also need to be taught how to deal with those who aren’t so nice.  If a child doesn’t learn how to deal with people being mean to him/her, I have no doubt that the negative issues alleged to be the product of bullying will plague him/her.  The anti-bullying campaign does not teach children that they are in control of how they feel about themselves.  This, really, is the only solution and the current anti-bullying campaign by the government won’t even touch it.

Full disclosure: I was bullied significantly as a child and, to my shame, I recall participating in bullying others once or twice.  Thankfully, I had parents who taught me that my self-esteem is my own and that I should be nice to others.  

The following came from the WSJ:

Air Jordan and the 1%

By MATTHEW SCHOENFELD

What does Michael Jordan tell us about income inequality in the United States? The U.S. has greater income inequality than nearly all other developed nations, and the former basketball star earned far more in most years than the typical American earns in a lifetime. So is our system unfair and stacked against the middle class? First, some historical perspective.

"From the time of Pericles until the end of the 18th century in London—2,300 years," notes Harvard Prof. Lawrence Summers, "standards of living on Earth increased perhaps 100%." In the U.S. since 1790, by contrast, real per capita gross domestic product has increased nearly 4,000%. Quality of life, in other words, increased 40 times more in 220 years of American history than it had globally over two millennia. In 2012, a typical American in the bottom fifth of the income distribution has a far higher quality of life—and life expectancy—than the average member of the top 1% in 1790.

Critics today often point to the 1950s as the last years before American society became so divided between haves and have-nots. At the end of that decade, America's "Gini coefficient"—the most common measure of income inequality, running from 0 (least unequal) to 1 (most unequal)—was 0.37. Today it is 0.45.

But in 1959, more than 20% of families fell below the poverty line. In 2010 that figure was just over 13%. Real per capita GDP today is 270% higher than it was in 1959. A family in the bottom fifth of the income distribution today makes the same amount in real terms as a family earning the median income in 1950. So inequality might have increased, but so too—dramatically—has quality of life.

Even over the last two decades, while real income has essentially stagnated for the bottom fifth of earners, basic conveniences have become far more affordable. In 1992, only 20% of American families below the poverty line had a dishwasher—50% had air conditioning and 60% owned a microwave. When the Census Bureau last surveyed these figures in 2005, those figures were 37%, 79% and 91%, respectively. Critics who minimize the importance of these conveniences likely have never had to do without them.

Enlarge Image

Associated Press

Michael Jordan reacts after making a play.

And that brings us to Michael Jordan, who starred for the Chicago Bulls from 1984 to 1998. In 1986, the Bulls' median player salary was $300,000. The team's lowest-paid player made $135,000, and its highest-paid player made $806,000. The team's Gini coefficient was 0.36. But Jordan's superstardom increased the team's popularity and revenues, and by 1998 salaries looked different. The median income was $2.3 million, the lowest was $500,000, and the highest (Jordan's) was $33 million. The Gini coefficient had nearly doubled, to 0.67.

Jordan's salary of $33 million consumed over half the payroll, but everyone was better off. The median player in 1998 made more than seven times what the median player made in 1986, while the income of the lowest-paid player in 1998 quadrupled that of his 1986 peer.

Detractors would suggest that this situation is anomalous to sports, that many of today's wealthy inherited their money or acquired it without adding commensurate value to society. But consider another basketball player, Rashard Lewis of the Washington Wizards.

Lewis was the second-highest paid player in the National Basketball Association in 2012, making $22.1 million—even though he appeared in fewer than half of his team's games and performed poorly when he did. Is it fair that Lewis was compensated so handsomely? More pertinently, if his team could repossess a portion of his salary and redistribute it more "fairly" to deserving players following the season, would it benefit the franchise?

Perhaps it would in the short term, as the team could reward players and temporarily strengthen morale. But top players would be disincentivized to play for the team in the future, knowing that such repossession could also happen to them. And without an objective measure of overall player performance, the team could one day decide that even a high-performing player was overcompensated and therefore should see some of his proceeds redistributed to his teammates. The team would quickly become uncompetitive.

Certainly there are reasons for concern if lower-income Americans aren't able to save or acquire sufficient capital to pursue innovative ideas, or to see their children attend decent schools. They will suffer, and the country will lose out on significant intellectual capital and growth opportunities. But this should not be confused with inequality.

Equality is not a good in itself and shouldn't be analyzed in a vacuum. If we remember that, perhaps a century from now low-income Americans will pity the living standards of today's 1%.

Mr. Schoenfeld is a recent graduate of Harvard Law School.

Freedom Over Security

My wife thinks I was a bit harsh in my last post. She has appreciated the generally positive outlook of the Yes You Can concept. That positive outlook and hope for a better future for every individual is what attracts me to this concept as well. If I am harsh, it is because self-critique and vigorous self-discipline is required to achieve that better future.

I explained that Americans are lacking in their personal morality. One of our greatest moral problems today is a desire to get something for nothing. This has caused Americans to become reliant on Government in a very dangerous way. It results in dependency, slavery, and a loss of freedom. We must be better than that. The American Dream is beyond the reach of anyone who would have it gifted to them. It must be earned. Yes You Can believes in the power and capacity of the individual to create their own prosperity. Consider the following words by Dean Alfange:

I do not choose to be a common man. It is my right to be uncommon. I seek opportunity to develop whatever talents God gave me - not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the state look after me. I want to take the calculated risk; to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. I refuse to barter incentive for a dole. I prefer the challenges of life to the guaranteed existence; the thrill of fulfillment to the stale calm of utopia. I will not trade freedom for beneficence nor my dignity for a handout. I will never cower before any earthly master nor bend to any threat. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid; to think and act myself, enjoy the benefit of my creations and to face the world boldly and say - “This, with God’s help, I have done.” All this is what it means to be an American.

Why Romney Gets My Vote

There is a lot of talk out there that our country is in a crisis. I suppose there’s always some sort of crisis going on in America. It is true, however, that we have some serious problems right now. Our economy is in real trouble and may be beyond recovery without enduring some serious pain first. Our government is bailing out private institutions and socializing medicine. Individual responsibility and self-reliance is no longer valued. Homosexuality is gaining acceptance at a rate we’ve never seen before. Christianity is attacked for being bigoted and oppressive while “old-fashioned” morality is scoffed at for being, well, old-fashioned (as if morality were a style that could change with the times). No doubt, these are troubling times.

So what kind of leader do we need to help America rise up again? Well, if we look at most of these problems of ours, it’s evident that they are the result of everyday Americans being foolish. I don’t think the politicians are the root cause of the problem. Granted they’ve passed legislation and programs that are harmful to America, but they’ve largely done it as a response to our wishes and in an attempt to maintain their own power. Why is it that most of our politicians are selfish and care more about their careers than they do the country they “serve”? It’s because most Americans care more about themselves than their country or their fellow men. Too many Americans lack personal morality. And who are these selfish politicians? They’re Americans! No surprise they reflect our own problems of selfishness and a lack of personal responsibility.

So, if you, like me, believe that our real problem in America is a lack of personal morality, than you may also agree that the solution to this problem does not lie primarily in government legislation. Instead, what America needs is a moral citizenry. In a previous post, I cited D. Todd Christofferson’s discourse on this very problem.

Now let’s look at the office of President for a moment. The President is the leader of the Executive branch of our government. This means it is not his job to legislate - or write laws. The role of the Executive branch is to enforce the laws that are passed by Congress. Unofficially, the President also has another role which I believe is imbued with more power and influence than leading the Executive branch. The President is looked to as the leader of our country. Congress and everyday Americans alike look to the President as a leader. They expect him to point the way and lead us to great places. Most presidents throughout our history have failed in this unique and important role. Most of our presidents have not been model citizens that Americans can look to as an example. At times they’ve talked of being good citizens but even then have often failed to back up their words with their own actions. The irony is, that kind of president, who leads us to be better than we are now, is exactly what we need most. Where the president stands on legislative issues is important since he holds the veto power and can lend powerful support to legislation of his choice, but his example and moral leadership will have a greater impact on this country’s future than almost any piece of legislation. We need a president that makes people want to be good Americans.

This, I believe, is largely what made Obama so appealing during his campaign. He seemed to have this kind of appeal and ability to make people hope for something better in our country and ourselves. Unfortunately, he did not deliver as President.

So how does all this apply to Mitt Romney? I think he is the only candidate today that has any chance of giving us this kind of leadership. I don’t anticipate he’ll be the next George Washington and live forever as a beacon of honesty and honor. Nevertheless, of all the candidates on the stage today, he is the only one with significant leadership experience on a large scale. More importantly, is the only one that regularly talks of the necessity of a good leader and the potential of the American people to dig themselves out of our current problems. All the others think we can escape our problems through proper conservative legislation. Mitt Romney seems to understand that America does not rise and fall on governmental whims but on the moral integrity and hard work of the American people.

Can he do it? Can he lead Americans to become better than we now are on such a significant scale that we might actually rise out of the hole we’ve dug for ourselves? I don’t know. But of the available candidates, I think he stands the best chance. I want someone I can look to and trust and want to follow. Romney is often criticized for being the perfect model of a good leader. They say he’s out of touch with the American people. Perhaps. But why would we want someone who is as morally corrupt as the rest of us? That’s how we got in this crisis in the first place. We need someone who is better than the average American. We need a good, moral leader. Here’s to Mitt.

We Shouldn’t Have to Defend our Moral Code with Secularist Philosophy

It seems, over the last few years, that there has been a strong movement to invalidate religious arguments in the public policy debate. The claim is that religious beliefs are not founded on any concrete evidence and are therefore invalid as a basis for public policy. This is especially evident in the debate over gay marriage. Many Christian believers do not want the government to support gay marriage because the Bible is so clearly against homosexuality. Those in favor of gay marriage believe that these Christians are unfairly enforcing their own moral beliefs on everyone else and that those moral beliefs are empirically unfounded and therefore invalid.

There are a few problems with this argument. For one, the idea that religious beliefs are empirically unfounded is extremely short-sighted. But that is not my focus today. What I take issue with is this idea that my religious beliefs can not inform public policy in regards to morality. The law has always been founded on some kind of moral code. That’s what law is at its root. For centuries, that moral code has been informed by religion. Why then, should I now have to give a secular argument for my moral beliefs which are founded in my religion? The idea is ludicrous, offensive, and oppressive.

This does not mean that everyone must found their moral code on religious principles. I have no problem allowing the secularists to base their morality on whatever philosophy they choose. Even if it is a godless philosophy. That is their right and their choice and they are free to voice that opinion as loud as they wish. Do not, however, claim that I must fall back on your same godless philosophy when explaining or defending my own moral code.

I have decided that when I am asked why I support any given social policy, I will not shy away from explaining my beliefs as they are founded in my religion. I will not seek for secular explanations of eternal moral principles. Don’t ask me to give an explanation for morality that excludes our Creator, because I don’t think such an explanation exists.

Ending Racism

The first rule to ending racism - Don't talk about racism
The second rule to ending racism - don't talk about racism

Government Regulation vs. Individual Moral Discipline

The following is an excerpt from a talk given by Elder D. Todd Christofferson, a General Authority in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and an Apostle. I can say nothing to add to this. It truly is the only solution to whatever problems we may face as a society. Enjoy:

The societies in which many of us live have for more than a generation failed to foster moral discipline. They have taught that truth is relative and that everyone decides for himself or herself what is right. Concepts such as sin and wrong have been condemned as “value judgments.” As the Lord describes it, “Every man walketh in his own way, and after the image of his own god."

As a consequence, self-discipline has eroded and societies are left to try to maintain order and civility by compulsion. The lack of internal control by individuals breeds external control by governments. One columnist observed that “gentlemanly behavior [for example, once] protected women from coarse behavior. Today, we expect sexual harassment laws to restrain coarse behavior. …

“Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we’ve become.”

In most of the world, we have been experiencing an extended and devastating economic recession. It was brought on by multiple causes, but one of the major causes was widespread dishonest and unethical conduct, particularly in the U.S. housing and financial markets. Reactions have focused on enacting more and stronger regulation. Perhaps that may dissuade some from unprincipled conduct, but others will simply get more creative in their circumvention. There could never be enough rules so finely crafted as to anticipate and cover every situation, and even if there were, enforcement would be impossibly expensive and burdensome. This approach leads to diminished freedom for everyone. In the memorable phrase of Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, “We would not accept the yoke of Christ; so now we must tremble at the yoke of Caesar.”

In the end, it is only an internal moral compass in each individual that can effectively deal with the root causes as well as the symptoms of societal decay. Societies will struggle in vain to establish the common good until sin is denounced as sin and moral discipline takes its place in the pantheon of civic virtues.

--D. Todd Christofferson

He also cited this from a WSJ piece:

“Sin isn’t something that many people, including most churches, have spent much time talking about or worrying about through the years of the [sexual] revolution. But we will say this for sin: it at least offered a frame of reference for personal behavior. When the frame was dismantled, guilt wasn’t the only thing that fell away; we also lost the guidewire of personal responsibility. …

“The United States has a drug problem and a high-school-sex problem and a welfare problem and an AIDS problem and a rape problem. None of this will go away until more people in positions of responsibility are willing to come forward and explain, in frankly moral terms, that some of the things that people do nowadays are wrong” (“The Joy of What?” Wall Street Journal, Dec. 12, 1991, A14)