Just goes to show ya - people suck

[lucky-E-leven]

I am weird. I understand exactly what you're saying, and agree, but my source for such reminders is not freak-show criminality. It is instead history. Also, an awareness than on large parts of this globe desperation and tragedy are a part of everyday life, just as they were for everyone for most of history. What makes me weird is that I think in terms of, "You think you have it tough," (to myself). "Be glad your not a resident of one of the cities of the Khoresmian Empire in the 1220s when Genghis Khan was sweeping through, in some cities putting every living being to the sword, in others just rounding them all up and bustling them off to the slave markets, with no rhyme or reason to which city got which treatment."

I can't avoid my knowledge of history and the wider world, but I can choose to avoid knowing any details of "retail" atrocities like this one, and so I do.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Becoming a nurse has put my back against the wall and forced me to decide how I want to deal with tragedy. Every time I set foot in the hospital, I encounter people in their most vulnerable state (many of whom have been involved in freak-circumstances to be there). I have worked along-side nurses that view their patients as somehow removed from the same day-to-day living circumstances that we all must endure. What I have witnessed as a result of this is a standard of nursing well inferior of that which I wish to provide. Their patients end up feeling like a burden, somehow feel responsible for things over which they never had any control, and grow more apathetic every time a nurse with that mentality cares for them. My experience has been that just a tad of compassion and empathy goes a very long way to improving a patient's overall sense of autonomy and worth which in turn makes them heal faster. The trick, I'm finding, is just how much is necessary to achieve this without giving so much that it adversely affects my ability to do my job.

Part of why I refuse to chalk these situations up to freak-show criminalities is because if something awful were to happen to one of my children, I wouldn't stand for the trivialization of that loss. I don't expect anyone else to suffer as I do, but I damn sure don't want to feel that I have to prove their worth or my loss to anyone. I realize that's not at stake here, but I have to maintain at least a smidgen of belief that there were people that loved that little boy and whose lives will never be the same because of his death. It's about hope, and it's about a healthy respect for human life. No matter the circumstances.

As an aside, but somewhat related, a friend of ours has a husband in Iraq. Okay, we have many friends whose husbands and brothers are serving in Iraq currently. We received word just a day or two ago that one of those men was killed. His wife was due to have their first child soon, and he was loved and revered by all who knew him. I never had the pleasure of meeting him, but I mourn his loss anyway. I respect and appreciate that he lived. It's a bonus that he was a stand-up guy and died defending our freedoms, but I'd still mourn him were he homeless and addicted to drugs.

 

[lucky-E-leven]

Is this a worthwhile expenditure of compassion? Should one be discriminating about the tragedies one chooses to focus on? Every now and again something like this strikes home and you can't avoid it, but in general, is it a better choice to not pay attention to the details of such stories?

I'm not saying that anyone here makes a habit of focusing on these things - this incident was thrust upon Cloudy, and she understandably wanted to share her angst with her friends, who being good friends tuned into it. I am speaking in general terms, as I did in my first post on this thread describing why I choose not to focus on stories like this for personal reasons.

You make it sound like I set up a shrine of his photographs in my home and went running up and down the streets screaming with rage. I may not be clear on your definition of 'focus-on', but it sure comes across to me like you feel folks that have shown compassion are somehow obsessed with the passing of this little boy. I am never alright with children dying. There is something fundamentally wrong with it, and that's just the way I'm wired. It could have been any child anywhere. It just so happens it was a little boy in Alabama this time. It just so happens that it came to my attention and struck a chord. I don't make a habit of chasing bad news around, but when tragedies come to my attention I pay them the head space I think they deserve. Things like this, my heart gets involved too. I fail to see why that's problematic.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your limitations of compassion. It's as highly individualized as every person you pass on the subway. Some people suck at kindness, others ooze it from their pores every waking minute. I think attempting to generalize a population when it comes to things like love, forgiveness, or compassion is a dead end road.

 

[rgraham666]

Do we have an accounting system for 'worthwhile expenditures of compassion'?

What happens to those those who aren't 'worthwhile'?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

You make it sound like I set up a shrine of his photographs in my home and went running up and down the streets screaming with rage. I may not be clear on your definition of 'focus-on', but it sure comes across to me like you feel folks that have shown compassion are somehow obsessed with the passing of this little boy. I am never alright with children dying. There is something fundamentally wrong with it, and that's just the way I'm wired. It could have been any child anywhere. It just so happens it was a little boy in Alabama this time. It just so happens that it came to my attention and struck a chord. I don't make a habit of chasing bad news around, but when tragedies come to my attention I pay them the head space I think they deserve. Things like this, my heart gets involved too. I fail to see why that's problematic.

I wholeheartedly disagree with your limitations of compassion. It's as highly individualized as every person you pass on the subway. Some people suck at kindness, others ooze it from their pores every waking minute. I think attempting to generalize a population when it comes to things like love, forgiveness, or compassion is a dead end road.

You are a good, good woman. I have great admiration and affection for you. I'm sorry that my words have caused you any stress. As I sometimes do I did not communicate clearly, using too much "short hand" in my post.

I certainly did not mean to suggest that you or anyone here was making "shrines" or obsessing on news stories like this. When one of these penetrates your consciousness it is impossible not to have the feelings that you described, and would be less than human to not feel those things. This event entered Cloudy's awareness because it happened so near to her. She was upset and naturally wanted to express her angst with her friends, who being good friends (like you) focused on the case and had the reaction you described in your first post.

In my first post I separated out this specific instance by noting these things, and then made a general comment about my own news consumption habits, which applies where the story does not involve anyone I know even indirectly (like Cloudy here), or did not take place right in my neighborhood. Unless those things apply I do not let my eyes focus on those newsstories, but pass right over them, for the reasons I described in my first post here. I mentioned there that the media "distills" such stories from a population of 300 million, but did not mention why they do so: The stories are sensational, and lots of people read them. Some people read them all, and get worked up about them all, and even obsess about them. I did not mean to suggest that anyone here does that.

My point was, in my opinion that is not a good thing to do, because there is nothing you can do about a tragedy that took place in a different city and involved a crazy person doing an evil thing. I believe it is better to reserve your attention and compassion for things over which you can have some influence.

But to repeat, now and then one of these stories does penetrate one's consciousness, and the very human reaction is the one you described. Perhaps it is a good thing that this happens now and then, as a reminder, also per your description.

I apologize for being less than perfectly clear about what I was saying, and for leaving the impression that I was being in any way critical of anyone here. I posted what I did with the hope that one of my friends here would benefit from it. I imagined someone reading my words and thinking, "Hey, I read all those stories because somehow I felt I have to, but they always make me feel like crap and leave me thinking ugly thoughts like, 'Just goes to show ya, people suck,' which is really not true, so by gum, Roxanne is right, and I'm going to stop reading all those stories, and I'm glad someone pointed out that I don't have to, because otherwise I would have kept doing it even though if benefits neither me nor anyone else (except newspaper publishers) by one little bit."

With regard to compassion finite or infinite, someday maybe we can all get together in a cozy pub around a warm fire with pints of Guiness or Dos Equis and hash that one out. It's very possibly a case where there is no real disagreement, but we are all talking about different things.

Lucky, you go right ahead ahead and tell me I'm full of shit anytime. I respect you so much I will give very serious consideration to your words and sincerely introspect. You can't make me angry, doll - only humble.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Florida is still a death penalty state, thank all that's holy.

We simply don't use it often enough. And no, I will not debate that opinion- it's mine and YOU CAN'T HAVE IT!

Because as we all know, killing a murderer will make his/her victims come back to life...

 

[TheeGoatPig]

Because as we all know, killing a murderer will make his/her victims come back to life...

It doesn't bring anyone back. But for multiple murderers, it surely keeps them from making victems of anyone else. It's not the same, but it is just as important to me.

 

[Misty_Morning]

It doesn't bring anyone back. But for multiple murderers, it surely keeps them from making victems of anyone else. It's not the same, but it is just as important to me.

Me too.

 

[Pure]

comments,

cloudy, that is very sad news indeed. i think these deaths are very worth noting, along with the kids who starve to death every day.

i don't agree with Roxanne that it's all that freakish. here a nice link on the phenomenon.

http://www.deathreference.com/Ce-Da/Children-Murder-of.html

the most common form of child murder, once almost universal, and still occurring, is female infanticide, practiced in all the great civilizations (Greek and Roman) that Roxanne finds it worthwhile to read about.

this is somewhat of a re tread of the Susan Smith case, i'm sure you remember.

i think it's part of looking at reality 'square' to acknowledge familial murders, in all the combinations. in our city, recently, a teen was finally charged with drugging her mom and drowning her in the bathtub. (she couldn't help bragging about it; when everyone believved it was an accident).

families generate the most intense passions, for good or ill--- hence such things as spouse/spouse killings. on the other side of the coin, sometimes family members are treated as cavalierly as rats. IOW, sometimes 'blood' does NOT yield cosiness and protecting, but is as thin as water. the myth of the rosey nuclear family needs exploding! like a pressure cooker, it either creates a great pot roast, or blows up in your face.
---

this criterion is way narrow for me, as to interests and things i'm curious about:

Rox: I believe it is better to reserve your attention and compassion for things over which you can have some influence.

That would eliminate 90 %of my local paper and 99% of the new york times; also all biographies, like the one on Sacher Masoch i just read.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

And locking them up for good doesn't?

(I'm of course using the term "lock up for good" as in "no parols and no pardons and no years off for good behaviour - I mean lock them into a prison and never let them leave it.)

And why should we waste money on feeding killers?

Because it's the humane thing to do. Killing a killer makes you a killer as well. You have NOT ridden the world of some psycho who thought he could take other people's life as he wanted - you have just replaced him.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

i don't agree with Roxanne that it's all that freakish. here a nice link on the phenomenon.

http://www.deathreference.com/Ce-Da/Children-Murder-of.html

FBI: In 2005, 328 children age 1-4 were murdered, 75 age 5-8, and 78 age 9-12.

500 child murders is a depressing number, but very few are horrific stories like this one. It probably amounts to a few dozen each year at most - and every one of them gets heavy media attention. (The article Pure cites uses the term "multifactored character" of child murder, and lists many of the factors but does not quantify them.) That is horrible, but out of a population of 40 million children age 9 and less, it's a tiny, tiny number. A number small enough to characterize as "freakish?" You be the judge.

 

[TheeGoatPig]

And locking them up for good doesn't?

(I'm of course using the term "lock up for good" as in "no parols and no pardons and no years off for good behaviour - I mean lock them into a prison and never let them leave it.)

And why should we waste money on feeding killers?

Because it's the humane thing to do. Killing a killer makes you a killer as well. You have NOT ridden the world of some psycho who thought he could take other people's life as he wanted - you have just replaced him.

In prison they have the potential to kill other people locked up, or even worse one of the guards or other pennetentiary employees. I feel that locked up people should have the right to survive their prison term if they so choose. Petty robbery convicts don't deserve to die for their crimes. People who murder, murder again, and murder again don't seem the type of person to ever stop to me. I would rather end their spree of killings then wait for them to strike again.

But this isn't a death penalty topic, and I really don't care to derail this topic any more.

 

[Misty_Morning]

FBI: In 2005, 328 children age 1-4 were murdered, 75 age 5-8, and 78 age 9-12.

500 child murders is a depressing number, but very few are horrific stories like this one. It probably amounts to a few dozen each year at most - and every one of them gets heavy media attention. (The article Pure cites uses the term "multifactored character" of child murder, and lists many of the factors but does not quantify them.) That is horrible, but out of a population of 40 million children age 9 and less, it's a tiny, tiny number. A number small enough to characterize as "freakish?" You be the judge.

Roxanne, I could not disagree more. EVERY murdered child if horrific.

Every murder is horrific.

Allowing an individual the possibility to perform another murder is horrific.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Killing a killer makes you a killer as well. You have NOT ridden the world of some psycho who thought he could take other people's life as he wanted - you have just replaced him.

You're pushing it too far here. Your opposition is based on what is essentially a religious belief, that no human should take the life of another for reasons that are at root almost mystical. That is fine, that is your right. But in that last sentence you are in a way insisting that others adopt the same belief.

Personally, if the guy who pulls the lever in the execution chamber lived next door to me it would creep me out, but I would not fear for my life. If a psychotic criminal who kills for pleasure lived next door to me - you get the point.

I do not favor the death penalty for reasons I explained above, which are not the same as your reason. BTW, does your belief extend to self defense, or say the defense of another? If a psychotic has already killed three hostages and has his knife at the throat of a child, would you give the police sniper who has a clear shot the order to take it? If yes, would that be replacing one murderer with another also? (Hopefully you won't deny that such choices happen in the real world - they do.)

PS. I don't think it is necessarily hypocritical to oppose capital punishment for the reason you do but support self defense.

 

[Pure]

yes, roxanne is right,

upon research it appears that only about 1200 children die per year in the US from abuse and neglect by natural parents. heck, 3 per day in a large prospering nation, the richest and best in human history. (NIS-3 data for 1996, below). that's probably only 1 every 2 days from the actions of natural mums.

of course, sob sisters and america haters will point out there are the 500,0000 seriously injured, but that's only 1300 per day. but most of those get better, so best not expend compassion uselessly.


actually only 18,000 suffer permanent disability, so on the bright side, and looking at things realistically, more than 96% recover w/o permanent disability. kids are resilent, you know. breaking it down, these permanently disabled are (just) under 50 per day, a freakish fly speck on the gleaming escutcheon of US society (compared, by roxanne's figures, to 30 million healthy kids running around quite happily). it's an even smaller speck when you leave aside neglect and realize that actual physical abuse is maybe about half of that.

----
http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/info_vac.htm
---
Chapter 6 from NIS-3
http://www.canadiancrc.com/PDFs/US_NIS_Chapter6.pdf

The homicides of young children (0-5 years) are committed largely by family members using beatings and suffocation and victimize boys and girls about equally. A large portion of offenders are female.
------

http://www.yesican.org/stats.htm
l
In 1999, an estimated 1,401 child abuse and neglect related fatalities were confirmed by CPS agencies, nearly 4 every day. [1200 fatal, by natural parents]

Since 1985, the rate of child abuse fatalities has increased by 39%. Based on these numbers, more than three children die each day as a result of child abuse or neglect (NCPCA's 1996 Annual Fifty State Survey).

According to information from at least 18 states that were able to report the type of maltreatment which caused the child's death for at least one of the past three years. Approximately 54% of the deaths were due to physical abuse while 43% resulted from neglect. Young children remain at high risk for loss of life. Based on data from all three years, this study found 82% of these children were under the age of five while an alarming 42% were under the age of one at the time of their death (NCPCA's 1996 Annual Fifty State Survey).

The U.S. Advisory Board reported that near fatal abuse and neglect each year leave "18,000 permanently disabled children, tens of thousands of victims overwhelmed by lifelong psychological trauma, thousands of traumatized siblings and family members, and thousands of near-death survivors who, as adults, continue to bear the physical and psychological scars. Some may turn to crime or domestic violence or become abusers themselves (U.S. Advisory Board on Child Abuse and Neglect, 1995 report, A National's Shame.)"

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Pure, you don't have to be contentious and obnoxious when you have something to say - just say it, and leave the sneering out, please. I looked up the murder stats, and they are quite precise, and bear out what I was saying, that horrific murders of the type under discussion here are rare. Now if you want to broaden the discussion by all means do so (you already have).

 

[Pure]

if you need me to connect the dots, roxanne, how's this: 1200 US children per year dying from their natural parents' abuse or neglect is a non trivial problem and a non-freakish event. that's about the level of casualties in Iraq. and as with Iraq, there is a multiplier of 5 or 10 for wounded/maimed, with about 18,000/year becoming permanently disabled.

i don't think the moral approach to the phenomenon is worth much, i.e., declaring the parent, often the mom, where it's a young kid, "evil."

there is a correlation of child abuse and neglect with poverty, and likely the same for other types of intrafamilial violence. in any case, child abuse, like spouse abuse, is, i would say, far closer to rampant than rare or freakish, but i won't get into hairsplitting about your definitions of these terms. for children under 5, after accidents, homicide is the second most common cause of death, and this 80% due to natural parents according to the National Incidence Survey cited.