Lil' Squirts
Wichita Low-LifesNot exactly WICHITA low-lifes, but Kansas, anyway.
Two children in Leavenworth, KS, 11 and 14 were arrested yesterday after holding up a discount store (read: Dollar General, Dollar Store, etc.) with squirt guns. They had apparently wrapped the guns in black electrical tape to make them appear more realistic. The two boys were apprehended only a few minutes later by police and did not abscond with too much money.
The concern here, of course, is their age. What on Earth is happening to this country? An 11 year old ROBBING A STORE AT GUN POINT? Granted it wasn't a REAL gun and no one was hurt, but give me a break! How in the hell does a kid that age get the idea to rob a store and THEN actually engage in said activity?
When I was 14, the thought of acting out against anyone (other than my parents, perhaps), let alone a stranger, scared the hell out of me! At 11, I wasn't even thinking outside of my own little world of GI Joes and Legos...
What an amazing change in just a few decades.
~Dubya
Dave Shuck said:
I hate to be one of those that blames the cultural environment and ignoring parental irresponsibility which I suspect was also at play here, but at 11, Van Halen, Ratt, the Scorpions, U2, David Bowie, Men at Work, and whatever else was on MTV weren't offering me detailed descriptions of how they committed crimes. The people that I idolized didn't brag about how many fools they had capped and how gangsta they were. Kids emulating their icons is a given. I think our icons were less sociopathic.
Now I am heading back to my rocking chair on the porch to yell at the young whipper snappers to stay off my lawn. Wake me up when Matlock comes on.
Now I am heading back to my rocking chair on the porch to yell at the young whipper snappers to stay off my lawn. Wake me up when Matlock comes on.
lindainks55 said:
Dave as an old man -- lol. Guess I'm not that old yet since I truly like whipper snappers, and the rocking action interferes with my blogging so I don't own a rocking chair.
"Our" generation is always the good ole days. That's as it should be.
At some point it seems we could no longer get any of what we want on one income OR we have confused our wants and needs very badly and want so much more. Anyway, Mom went to work and that contributed to more social ills than any other factor (IMO).
"Our" generation is always the good ole days. That's as it should be.
At some point it seems we could no longer get any of what we want on one income OR we have confused our wants and needs very badly and want so much more. Anyway, Mom went to work and that contributed to more social ills than any other factor (IMO).
Vaughn Tolle said:
Linda, it occurs to me that in my adult lifetime, the period when Mom first went to work in large numbers was the 1970s, as the stagflation set in, interest rates for mortgages, etc. were skyrocketing, the price of gasoline dramatically increased, so that it was perceived two incomes were needed "to get by".
Soon, this translated to higher real estate prices, higher prices for various consumer goods, the ability to buy "new" vs. "used" as the result of there now being two incomes. Now, it seems to me, the prices of goods and services have adjusted to the two income level as a norm.
The lack of a parent at home during the formative years may well be the largest contributing factor to any number of social ills now faced. I don't know. We are where we are, and we, as a society, are now beginning to pay the toll extracted as a result of these ills, whatever the proximate cause thereof is.
Soon, this translated to higher real estate prices, higher prices for various consumer goods, the ability to buy "new" vs. "used" as the result of there now being two incomes. Now, it seems to me, the prices of goods and services have adjusted to the two income level as a norm.
The lack of a parent at home during the formative years may well be the largest contributing factor to any number of social ills now faced. I don't know. We are where we are, and we, as a society, are now beginning to pay the toll extracted as a result of these ills, whatever the proximate cause thereof is.
Dave Shuck said:
When my wife and I found out that our first kiddo was on the way 1999, one of our first discussions (after the 'oh @#%&!!' discussion) was that we would find a way for her to stay home. Even though we obviously had to tighten our belts a bit, it is a decision that we have never regretted... even after three of them! We often hear that our kids behave well, and my oldest is the only kid in his class that has "stayed on green" all of this kindergarten year, which means he has never gotten in trouble. I can't help but think that always being at home with Mommy has a lot to do with that.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Dave, a similar tale here. We also agreed to find a way for her to stay home (I volunteered, but was refused). Thus, my wife stayed home until the younger was in first grade, when a surprise job offer came to her that she felt she couldn't refuse. I think this was a part of the girls turning out as well as they have (fingers crossed) to date.
rm6046 said:
I'm afraid that it's a bit more complicated than rap music and stay at home moms. There are Ph.D's with junkie kids and junkies with Ph.D kids. I believe that the underlying dogma, perpetuated by our educational system, lies with the prevailing attitude that people are not responsible for their actions. There should be no consequences because their "self esteem" is in delicate balance, and far be it from anyone to upset that balance adversely. I, for one, am sick and tired of our schools turned out "grads" that can't spell "cat", if you spot them the "c" and the "t", but their self esteem is intact. Bullshit!
How much self esteem is going to be left when they realize that flippin' Big Mac's is as good as it's ever going to get?
I hope someone here follows this Leavenworth story through to the end ... many, many months from now ... and finds out how, in the end, nothing much will come of it. But, hey, those two kids will have a hell of a story to tell and that will certainly boost their self esteem.
How much self esteem is going to be left when they realize that flippin' Big Mac's is as good as it's ever going to get?
I hope someone here follows this Leavenworth story through to the end ... many, many months from now ... and finds out how, in the end, nothing much will come of it. But, hey, those two kids will have a hell of a story to tell and that will certainly boost their self esteem.
Dave Shuck said:
I couldn't agree more about the death of personal responsibility, but I think it is my responsibility as a parent to teach about responsibility, and take that responsibility away from the educational system that may be undermining it!
It starts pretty dang early too. My oldest played in a soccer league last year where they didn't keep score. The funny thing is at the end of the game those 5 year olds had no problem telling you who won and by how many goals. :)
It starts pretty dang early too. My oldest played in a soccer league last year where they didn't keep score. The funny thing is at the end of the game those 5 year olds had no problem telling you who won and by how many goals. :)
Dave Shuck said:
On re-read, that second paragraph seemed like a non-sequetor to the first, but I was actually tying that to the quote "There should be no consequences because their "self esteem" is in delicate balance, and far be it from anyone to upset that balance adversely."
rm6046 said:
Dave: The line you quoted was sarcasm, pure and simple. (That's the unfortunate part about the written word vs. audio conversation.) But, in short, that's the direction the system has taken. Yes, absolutely, the children should learn it at home, BUT, once they have hit the first grade, the school has them "cornered" more hours than the parents do, once you deduct the time spent sleeping, preparing dinner, doing all of the tasks necessary to keep the house from falling down, homework, etc.
Including ones' children in many of these tasks buys you some more time, but as they get older, it seems, their ability to be a part of what Mom or Dad is doing is inversely proportional to their desire to do it. ;)
Including ones' children in many of these tasks buys you some more time, but as they get older, it seems, their ability to be a part of what Mom or Dad is doing is inversely proportional to their desire to do it. ;)
Wendy said:
I don't know. I don't like the idea, or the implication that, if I am not a stay at home mom, my child is somehow inferior, or not being raised properly. I would LOVE to be a stay at home mom - unfortunately for me it simply is not an option. But I don't feel my son is short changed at all for it. I think whether or not mom is home doesn't have as much to with it as WHAT mom does when she is home... And my son is extremely intelligent for a two year old (okay some of that is probably parental bragging BUT he is smart for his age, the dr did verify this!) has a LARGE vocabulary, can count to ten in english and spanish, say his prayers at night, sing itsybitsy spider, twinkle twinkle little star, happy birthday, and several other nursery rhymes, knows his ABC's beginning to end, knows all his colors, and can identify all the parts of his body... and I work over 40 hours per week, and his father has visitation every other weekend. But I spend TIME with my child. That is the fundamental difference. It doesn't matter that I work, because i make sure to spend TIME with him, and I know stay at home parents that don't spend nearly as much TIME with their kids as I spend with my son...
okay, I will get down off my soapbox now... the point to that rant was more that staying at home simply isn't an option for everyone, no matter how much we would like it to be... it isn't about "keeping up with the Jones'" for many of us, it's about simply keeping afloat - because for many parents in my position, the only way we can stay at home is to go on welfare!
okay, I will get down off my soapbox now... the point to that rant was more that staying at home simply isn't an option for everyone, no matter how much we would like it to be... it isn't about "keeping up with the Jones'" for many of us, it's about simply keeping afloat - because for many parents in my position, the only way we can stay at home is to go on welfare!
lindainks55 said:
You make excellent points, Wendy! I made an unfair generalization.
I was at home with my daughters until they started school but didn't have that opportunity with my sons. I was a single mom, their dad never felt child support or even seeing his kids was something he wanted to do. I worked so we could have a roof over our heads and food on the table. I do understand having to work.
Sorry I used such a broad brush! Some parents who work make sure their children are cared for, but some don't.
Most generalizations are probably unfair!
I was at home with my daughters until they started school but didn't have that opportunity with my sons. I was a single mom, their dad never felt child support or even seeing his kids was something he wanted to do. I worked so we could have a roof over our heads and food on the table. I do understand having to work.
Sorry I used such a broad brush! Some parents who work make sure their children are cared for, but some don't.
Most generalizations are probably unfair!
Rox said:
I agree 100% that we have major problems with our youth. As a boomer, I'll be one of the first to admit that we've done the current "young" generation a disservice. Yeah, it's somewhat our fault. I'm just not sure exactly what we did to cause it. Maybe it was the Me generation that followed. I truly don't know, but I do agree that personal responsibility is the key.
I can't agree fully that it all should be blamed on working mothers. Wendy is one case in point, and Linda is another. I'll give a third.
I grew up in a two parents family, and my mother worked while I was growing up--in the 50's and 60's when most moms didn't. I don't think she could have NOT worked. She's that kind of person. For much of the time she owned her own business as a market researcher and was gone overnight at times, sometimes for as long as a week. I grew up okay. No problems with the law, pretty good grades, etc. Sometimes I wish I weren't quite so responsible.
Maybe it happened in the 60's, but at some point we began catering to youth. Amazing, really, as youth really have no buying power, but that's what happened. Was it because parents were made to feel guilty and so tried to make up for that by giving too much of the material? I guess I don't think it's one particular thing that has brought us to where we are, but, instead, a combination of several things. I keep thinking that, by some miracle, we'll be able to reverse this and see the trend change. Okay, I keep praying that will happen. Let's just keep trying to do the best we can at raising our kids (and grandkids) and hope that the rest of the parents out there will see the light. :)
I can't agree fully that it all should be blamed on working mothers. Wendy is one case in point, and Linda is another. I'll give a third.
I grew up in a two parents family, and my mother worked while I was growing up--in the 50's and 60's when most moms didn't. I don't think she could have NOT worked. She's that kind of person. For much of the time she owned her own business as a market researcher and was gone overnight at times, sometimes for as long as a week. I grew up okay. No problems with the law, pretty good grades, etc. Sometimes I wish I weren't quite so responsible.
Maybe it happened in the 60's, but at some point we began catering to youth. Amazing, really, as youth really have no buying power, but that's what happened. Was it because parents were made to feel guilty and so tried to make up for that by giving too much of the material? I guess I don't think it's one particular thing that has brought us to where we are, but, instead, a combination of several things. I keep thinking that, by some miracle, we'll be able to reverse this and see the trend change. Okay, I keep praying that will happen. Let's just keep trying to do the best we can at raising our kids (and grandkids) and hope that the rest of the parents out there will see the light. :)
Vaughn Tolle said:
And I'll give a fourth. Grew up in a two family home. During the mid-60s my dad's business started to tank, and my mom had to go to work. There were 6 of us, all of whom turned out without any felony records, etc., although one of my brothers had the occasional scrape with the authorities. We've all gone on to raise families, again for the most part with reasonable success.
I also don't attribute "working moms" as the only cause, or even the proximate cause. There is a lack of personal responsibility among many in the current "youth" generation. Why, I'm not sure. However, one thing I'm sure of is that current parents have to be PARENTS, not their offspring's' best friends.
rm also touched upon a point of concern, the educational system. As I'm sure those who have been reading my tiresome posts for a while know, I'm an advocate for education. As you likely also know, I find fault often with how the same is being delivered in these days. The weak link in USD 259, and I believe from many articles I have read, nationwide, is Middle School. Why this happened, I don't know. What I do know is that the level of academic accomplishment varies greatly in USD 259 among the students coming to high school from the various middle schools. I'm not enough of a sociologist, educator, psychologist to do a formal segregation of factors analysis, but from external observation at NEMHS, the Middle School attended seems to make a very large difference in academic preparedness for high school in students who are otherwise very similar in ethnic, economic, etc., status. Anecdotes tell me that at some Middle Schools, students are rewarded for "just turning something in", regardless of quality, timeliness, or whatever. Other Middle Schools "crack 'em" if the homework isn't done on time, is of poor quality, etc.
I've heard the "self esteem" argument given as the reason for the first type of Middle School expectations, etc., so often I could vomit. There can be no real self esteem, IMHO, unless standards are set and all are held thereto. If this happens, the student who does the work well and on time is rightfully rewarded therefor; those who do not are not rewarded. This, I believe, acts as a reinforcement to get the work done well and on time, and those who do so have their "self esteem" raised by realization that they earned their grade.
BTW, I know that the Middle School concept can work. The school (albeit private) where my wife is employed is proof of this. In USD 259, the Robinson MS (the only one with which I'm personally familiar) program seems to work as well. The common thread between both is high standards and expectations, with rewards to those who meet them, and appropriate negative rewards for those who don't.
I also don't attribute "working moms" as the only cause, or even the proximate cause. There is a lack of personal responsibility among many in the current "youth" generation. Why, I'm not sure. However, one thing I'm sure of is that current parents have to be PARENTS, not their offspring's' best friends.
rm also touched upon a point of concern, the educational system. As I'm sure those who have been reading my tiresome posts for a while know, I'm an advocate for education. As you likely also know, I find fault often with how the same is being delivered in these days. The weak link in USD 259, and I believe from many articles I have read, nationwide, is Middle School. Why this happened, I don't know. What I do know is that the level of academic accomplishment varies greatly in USD 259 among the students coming to high school from the various middle schools. I'm not enough of a sociologist, educator, psychologist to do a formal segregation of factors analysis, but from external observation at NEMHS, the Middle School attended seems to make a very large difference in academic preparedness for high school in students who are otherwise very similar in ethnic, economic, etc., status. Anecdotes tell me that at some Middle Schools, students are rewarded for "just turning something in", regardless of quality, timeliness, or whatever. Other Middle Schools "crack 'em" if the homework isn't done on time, is of poor quality, etc.
I've heard the "self esteem" argument given as the reason for the first type of Middle School expectations, etc., so often I could vomit. There can be no real self esteem, IMHO, unless standards are set and all are held thereto. If this happens, the student who does the work well and on time is rightfully rewarded therefor; those who do not are not rewarded. This, I believe, acts as a reinforcement to get the work done well and on time, and those who do so have their "self esteem" raised by realization that they earned their grade.
BTW, I know that the Middle School concept can work. The school (albeit private) where my wife is employed is proof of this. In USD 259, the Robinson MS (the only one with which I'm personally familiar) program seems to work as well. The common thread between both is high standards and expectations, with rewards to those who meet them, and appropriate negative rewards for those who don't.
lindainks55 said:
Middle school seems to be the age where decisions are made and paths chosen that lead to success or NOT. It was with my four the most difficult time. It was a year later (grades 7 - 9) and called Junior High when my four went through it. All four of mine experimented with drugs and drinking at this age. Even thinking about those years now makes me shudder.
I'll never forget the night I picked up my oldest daughter and a carload of friends from a party. The car was full of giggly girls rehashing the party until we were down to just the two going to my house. That's when I discovered my daughter was unusually quiet. Over the next hour I was close to taking her to the emergency room as I thought she was very ill. There was lethargy, what I thought might be neurological involvement, finally vomiting blood (well, it WAS red). BOY WAS I A DUMMY! Sloe gin was the culprit!
I could repeat this story with just a few changed details for all of my kids -- some more than once! There were times I thought none of us would live through those years. I was gonna die from worry and pain; the kids because I was gonna strangle em! Their self esteem was the last thing I was thinking of! And I wasn't a friend -- I was the enemy.
I think I raised them all with the same values, expectations, rules, love... What each did with that upbringing varies widely. I didn't learn any lessons from one that helped with the next because the people and situations were all different.
So my rate of success was about 50%. If raising a child to be an independent adult counts as success then it could be as high as 75%. My youngest daughter is totally independent. She is raising her family in a church that advocates (demands?) isolation from all unbelievers. Long story, but unbelievers are everyone outside THAT church which includes me and the rest of the family. Then there's my youngest son who struggles with alcoholism (and ALL that entails).
I have no advice! I don't to this day know what is right or wrong. I love them all unconditionally. I am today a friend to three of them and estranged from the fourth. They are adults so IF something I did was wrong, they can change the course as adults. Even IF something I did or didn't do contributed to the adults they are, I can't change a single thing from the past. All I can offer is love.
I'll never forget the night I picked up my oldest daughter and a carload of friends from a party. The car was full of giggly girls rehashing the party until we were down to just the two going to my house. That's when I discovered my daughter was unusually quiet. Over the next hour I was close to taking her to the emergency room as I thought she was very ill. There was lethargy, what I thought might be neurological involvement, finally vomiting blood (well, it WAS red). BOY WAS I A DUMMY! Sloe gin was the culprit!
I could repeat this story with just a few changed details for all of my kids -- some more than once! There were times I thought none of us would live through those years. I was gonna die from worry and pain; the kids because I was gonna strangle em! Their self esteem was the last thing I was thinking of! And I wasn't a friend -- I was the enemy.
I think I raised them all with the same values, expectations, rules, love... What each did with that upbringing varies widely. I didn't learn any lessons from one that helped with the next because the people and situations were all different.
So my rate of success was about 50%. If raising a child to be an independent adult counts as success then it could be as high as 75%. My youngest daughter is totally independent. She is raising her family in a church that advocates (demands?) isolation from all unbelievers. Long story, but unbelievers are everyone outside THAT church which includes me and the rest of the family. Then there's my youngest son who struggles with alcoholism (and ALL that entails).
I have no advice! I don't to this day know what is right or wrong. I love them all unconditionally. I am today a friend to three of them and estranged from the fourth. They are adults so IF something I did was wrong, they can change the course as adults. Even IF something I did or didn't do contributed to the adults they are, I can't change a single thing from the past. All I can offer is love.
Vaughn Tolle said:
Sloe gin, that substance the consumption of which resulted in the loss of innocence by more than one young woman.
Gster said:
Constantly moving a family is also hard on the kids involved. If I recall correctly, when I hit East High here in Wichita in the 10th grade, it was the 10 school in 4 states I'd attended.
Then in the Army, I did 3 foreign countries in a little over 3 years.
So, no, I don't like moving/traveling and I'm perfectly justified in being slighly warped as evidenced by my current situation!
I earned it (?).
Then in the Army, I did 3 foreign countries in a little over 3 years.
So, no, I don't like moving/traveling and I'm perfectly justified in being slighly warped as evidenced by my current situation!
I earned it (?).
Vaughn Tolle said:
Gster, your comment about the constant moving around got my thinking (dangerous on a Friday afternoon). My wife was an "Air Force Brat". She attended schools in Germany(3), Kansas (1), Pennsylvania (1), Alabama (1), and Washington State (2). So, you have her on number of different schools, and the two of you tie on states, but she wins with the tie-breaker (Germany). She contends the constant moving/readjustment was of benefit to her in her life, especially with going off to school (to KU from Tacoma, WA). Unlike you, she enjoys traveling, and takes moving in stride (most unlike me!).
Gster said:
Vaughn- I guess in hindsight, I really don't mind traveling, but I don't do it as much.
I can remember that is was rough leaving friends so often ,and I didn't tend to make as many in later moves.
I don't know how many accents I picked up! Going several times from Texas to where ever will do that for you!
I can remember that is was rough leaving friends so often ,and I didn't tend to make as many in later moves.
I don't know how many accents I picked up! Going several times from Texas to where ever will do that for you!
rm6046 said:
Great sloe gin story!!! Many years ago, one of my friends, who certainly enjoyed his beer, was married to a very nice lady who was vehemently anti-alcohol, in any form. One night, my late wife and I took them to dinner. Of course, the server came for a drink order, and she decided, I suppose, "if you can't lick 'em, join 'em", and told the server she had never drank alcohol in her life and did not know what she should order. With much patience, the server questioned her "flavor" likes and dislikes, and it was finally decided that she would have a sloe gin fizz. After downing it in about three gulps, she excused herself to go to the restroom. Several minutes later, my wife felt that she should go check on her. As you can guess, she was sicker than a dog, and several minutes later, they emerged. My friend's wife was clearly "much the worse for wear".
After she was helped back into her chair, my friend looked at her, smiling, and said calmly, "See, honey, and all of this time, you thought I was out having FUN!"
That's been close to thirty years ago, and I doubt she has seen the humor in yet! :)
After she was helped back into her chair, my friend looked at her, smiling, and said calmly, "See, honey, and all of this time, you thought I was out having FUN!"
That's been close to thirty years ago, and I doubt she has seen the humor in yet! :)
Rox said:
Middle school is a very dangerous time. Kids are just beginning to have the freedom to make choices, and even though we've spent all the previous years teaching them about morals and values and right and wrong, their peers begin to have more power than anything we taught them. Add those emerging, screaming hormones, and it can spell disaster.
A friend who started her family several years before I did once told me that with girls, the "bad stuff" starts at 10. As a mother of four girls, I can tell you that she was 100% right. And guess what? 10 is about the age most girls begin to edge into puberty. Boys come a couple of years later. Is it any wonder, with all the body (and mind) is going through during those times, that they need a little heavier hand used to stay on the straight and narrow?
Linda, my kids are far from perfect. We have our own horror stories. My oldest was in St. Joe's Adolescent Unit when she was in eighth grade for five days and diagnosed with depression. It was somewhat of a relief to find out just why she had threatened me with a knife, more times than I care to count. The next oldest ran the gamut of drugs, booze, and sex, beginning when she was 14. She turned her life around and has become the most responsible of all of them now. Sometimes more responsible than I am! I'm amazed and take no credit for that. SHE did it on her own. The youngest has GAD (General Anxiety Disorder) and has never been able to deal with school or many normal social situations. The next to youngest has her own problems and can't get along with her sisters, which went so far that her sister was arrested for domestic disturbance and spent a year on diversion for basically doing what most siblings do--fight.
And it isn't only kids who are irresponsible. I see many, many fully grown adults these days who don't take responsibility for anything. So is it any wonder their kids are the same?
A friend who started her family several years before I did once told me that with girls, the "bad stuff" starts at 10. As a mother of four girls, I can tell you that she was 100% right. And guess what? 10 is about the age most girls begin to edge into puberty. Boys come a couple of years later. Is it any wonder, with all the body (and mind) is going through during those times, that they need a little heavier hand used to stay on the straight and narrow?
Linda, my kids are far from perfect. We have our own horror stories. My oldest was in St. Joe's Adolescent Unit when she was in eighth grade for five days and diagnosed with depression. It was somewhat of a relief to find out just why she had threatened me with a knife, more times than I care to count. The next oldest ran the gamut of drugs, booze, and sex, beginning when she was 14. She turned her life around and has become the most responsible of all of them now. Sometimes more responsible than I am! I'm amazed and take no credit for that. SHE did it on her own. The youngest has GAD (General Anxiety Disorder) and has never been able to deal with school or many normal social situations. The next to youngest has her own problems and can't get along with her sisters, which went so far that her sister was arrested for domestic disturbance and spent a year on diversion for basically doing what most siblings do--fight.
And it isn't only kids who are irresponsible. I see many, many fully grown adults these days who don't take responsibility for anything. So is it any wonder their kids are the same?
Danny said:
What does one say to this. I'll admit my busy schedule last week prevented me from typing anything here, but I'll have some time this week.
I won't address anybody specifically, but kudos to those single parents working to ensure their kids have a shot! I think ultimately that is taking responsibility and demonstrating responsibility to their children.
I don't think it is so much stay at home mom or dad that is going to solve the problem, but parents showing responsibility in areas of their own lives. Be it financial, moral, or whatever else have you. Kids see this day in and day out. Parents are the first place kids see how to behave.
I'll have to agree with Wendy above, it is the time spent with the children that is important. Being a parent is just that. Anyway, I don't think I added too much to what was already said.
I won't address anybody specifically, but kudos to those single parents working to ensure their kids have a shot! I think ultimately that is taking responsibility and demonstrating responsibility to their children.
I don't think it is so much stay at home mom or dad that is going to solve the problem, but parents showing responsibility in areas of their own lives. Be it financial, moral, or whatever else have you. Kids see this day in and day out. Parents are the first place kids see how to behave.
I'll have to agree with Wendy above, it is the time spent with the children that is important. Being a parent is just that. Anyway, I don't think I added too much to what was already said.
Loading....