Saturday, March 5, 2011

A 10-year-old Makes a Death Threat Against President Bush

This is one of the saddest news I have heard recently:

A 10-year-old Atlantic City boy allegedly made a death threat against former President George W. Bush this week, sources say. The fifth grader, who attends Dr. Martin Muther King, Jr. School in Atlantic City, called the George W. Bush Presidential Library near Dallas, Texas earlier this week. The boy left a voicemail saying that he was going to kill the former president, sources confirmed to NBC Philadelphia’s Ted Greenberg.
I dislike former President Bush as much as the next person but it is tragic that anybody - let alone such a small child -  would make death threats against him. What's wrong with this boy's parents? I mean, obviously a 10-year-old child's only way of discovering that a former president is "bad" is from his parents. It isn't like such small boys would get together to discuss Bush's economic policies or the Patriot Act. Do the parents who have robbed the poor kid of his childhood realize what they have done? The boy has his entire life ahead of him to worry about politics. Shouldn't the eleventh year of his life be dedicated to worrying about whether he'll get a new bicycle for his birthday and whether his Little League team will win the season?

When I was growing up in the Soviet Union, my parents did everything they could not to rob me of my childhood by voicing their discontent with the regime in front of me. Now I know that they hated the system passionately. They abstained, however, from discussing their dissidence in my presence because they realized that this would be a burden too heavy for a child to carry. A 10-year-old doesn't understand the intricacies of our political reality. Many adults fail to comprehend them, so it's no surprise that a fifth grader would arrive at a conclusion that since Bush is bad he needs to be killed. 

I hope that the kid's irresponsible parents will realize what they have done and start controlling what they say in front of him.

17 comments:

Steve Hayes said...

Yet in some parts of the world kids that age are soldiers, and the problem is that the young very often have no compassion. Many, many children cannot help being exposed to politics at an early age.

Pagan Topologist said...

I posted a comment to the wrong entry just now. It was intended for here, not the Ricardian post.
i will fix it when I can.

It's Only Bruce said...

While I disagree with you about not discussing things like politics in front of children, I do agree that the blame lays squarely at the foot of his parents.
A 10 year old is not too young to be exposed to ideas, but this one was also exposed to something else. I have no doubt that the idea that Bush should be killed was not an original thought. It was planted.
So in addition to the idea that the thing done by Bush were evil, his parents also bestowed upon this child the concept of revenge.

el - 1st part said...

I don't think parents have to constantly monitor themselves and talk only about TV comedies and unwashed dishes, if children are present. It's like the "Don't EVER talk in front of kids about politics /your economical problems /sex" attitude. By this I don't mean trying to place all the burden on children's shoulders!

The last sentence reminded me of one 5th grade Ukrainian student, who had to work after school at the market to help support his siblings and got into trouble at school for stealing bought at school's cafeteria food from smaller students. And he was not alone. Teachers were told to go to the local market to catch those working students, but, since they weren't heartless fools, didn't show much enthusiasm. Again, some people you knew refused work, while others in our small town sent even their kids to work to survive.

Some parents may go to the other extreme, trying to hide all bad or "adult" facts of life from kids. (I don't mean your parents did so, just that the post could be viewed as supporting the approach, whether you wanted it or not.) Anyway, one can't achieve this. Seeing one's beloved and terminally ill grandparent is infinitely more traumatic & robbing of childhood than overhearing 1001 anti-Bush conversations, which 10-year-old can't fully grasp.

When children are too young, adult conversations will pass them by, their childhood undamaged. I don't think "poor boy without childhood" here. Quite sure he isn't spending many a sleepless night worrying himself sick about the consequences of former President's policies. Young kids often do stupid things, like lying on the rails and waiting till the train approaches, smoking and drinking (for the latter, think about a Russian village), etc. Teenage gangs in US with kids as young as 11 are a problem. Poverty is a problem, which even younger kids can't not to see. This? Stupid young kid. Don't see what's the great difference between him and my former 13-year-old classmates, who phoned for "fun" to people from the local phone book. Yes, those were not death threats, "just" harassment, but they were 13-14, not 10.

el - 2nd part said...

When they're older (later teens ~16), they're old enough to start shaping their own views, which don't fall from the sky the moment one turns 18 and can vote. May be hearing their parents will create less apathetic young people, who view being interested in politics as being a sports fan, instead of what's really is - deciding their futures. One blogger described how having feminist, activist mother influenced her since childhood. Should the mother have hidden her activism from her daughter, instead of explaining in suitable for her age way? If not, where is the limit and why do you think the boy's parents dedicated every other evening to "Bush deserves death" speeches? Imo, it doesn't have to be true to give a child stupid ideas.

About USSR: I still remember this very, very thick "Children - Heroes" book from my childhood with Pavlik Morozov as one of the examples and I was born in the 80-ies. In case your dissident parents shielded you from this, here is the cover:
http://www.ozon.ru/multimedia/books_covers/1000351140.jpg
Seen it? This book should be in a USSR Museum. Giving USA & Russian students some its' entries to read would convey the time's spirit better than 100 paragraphs with expressions, like "cult of personality", "youth movements", "propaganda", etc.

I wouldn't worry about my kids going Pavlik Morozov on me, but a "wrong" face expression during lesson, a careless word or telling a "friend" (or telling a friend who'll mistakenly tell a "friend") could cost too high there. Imo, there is a huge difference of kind, not degree, between being against a regime itself, like your parents, and disapproving of one changed-every-4-years President. Kids understand it. I would've understood it at 10. The 1st can be soul destroying for a small child with all the propaganda at school / TV/ friends, while the latter won't create wounds... unless the politics the parents hate would make them (almost) homeless or lose a relative in war, in which case the damage would be done by "reality", not words.

Clarissa said...

"I don't think parents have to constantly monitor themselves and talk only about TV comedies and unwashed dishes, if children are present. "

-When did I ever suggest that?? All I'm saying is that parents who transmit to the children the message that the world is nasty and scary instead of the message that the world is beautiful and amazing are irresponsible jerks.

"The last sentence reminded me of one 5th grade Ukrainian student, who had to work after school at the market to help support his siblings and got into trouble at school for stealing bought at school's cafeteria food from smaller students. "

-That's another example of extremely irresponsible parents.

"Seeing one's beloved and terminally ill grandparent is infinitely more traumatic & robbing of childhood than overhearing 1001 anti-Bush conversations, which 10-year-old can't fully grasp."

-Only if the irresponsible parents haven't been able to discuss death in a positive and non-traumatic way with the children.

el said...

It's Only Bruce, you may be right, but does it have to be so? I know from experience that not every stupid, immoral thing a kid does comes from parents. Kids have their own characters and times of stupid too. "Planting the idea" as if the parents are the only people to shape the child, who is simply incapable of jumping from "Bush makes me afraid for our future" to "Let's kill him then", or, more correctly, "Let's harrass him a bit" since, unlike abortion clinic bombers, the child wasn't fully aware what he was doing and didn't went after the man with a gun. "Bestowing the concept of revenge" LOL! As if "the concept of revenge" and violence isn't at the playground, at school, in the news, on practically every TV program. Let's see: abortion clinic bombers, numerous wars USA is involved in, USA responding to 9/11 by another war (I don't judge right or not, just what the child would know), scaring voters during campaigns, huge prison population and drug gangs, police treatment including of minors... I am tired already and barely scratched the surface. The child doesn't know everything, but hardly exists in the outer space.

Clarissa said...

10-year-olds don't usually watch the news. Most adults don't watch the news or read newspapers, come to think of it.

And yes, if the child believes that making death threats is a normal response to anything, that is absolutely the parents' fault.

el said...

Was my "el - 2nd part" of the comment lost? It was the better part. :(

Our small town turned into a horror after the USSR's collapse. Not everybody could move away with the children. F.e. one parent went to Russia to work, another stayed. Often you saw a child at the door, you see a child from a good family begging for a potato. Were all those parents irresponsible? I think many wanted to do right to their kids, who didn't beg / work before, but not everybody could find the way.

Only if the irresponsible parents haven't been able to discuss death in a positive and non-traumatic way with the children.

I understand and agree with discussing the subject, mentally supporting children and partly shielding them (f.e. not taking very young kids to see the dead body). However, I am not sure what you mean by positive. "We'll all die one day, me and then you. Don't weep, it's a part of life" ? If one doesn't believe in God, what's positive about dying except as an end to suffering from diseases?

el said...

Was my "el - 2nd part" of the comment lost? It was the better part. :(

Our small town turned into a horror after the USSR's collapse. Not everybody could move away with the children. F.e. one parent went to Russia to work, another stayed. Often you saw a child at the door, you see a child from a good family begging for a potato. Were all those parents irresponsible? I think many wanted to do right to their kids, who didn't beg / work before, but not everybody could find the way.

Only if the irresponsible parents haven't been able to discuss death in a positive and non-traumatic way with the children.

I understand and agree with discussing the subject, mentally supporting children and partly shielding them (f.e. not taking very young kids to see the dead body). However, I am not sure what you mean by positive. "We'll all die one day, me and then you. Don't weep, it's a part of life" ? If one doesn't believe in God, what's positive about dying except as an end to suffering from diseases?

Clarissa said...

For some reason, the 2nd part of your post was placed in Spam. I recovered it from the spam box now. I have no idea why this happened.

Clarissa said...

' Should the mother have hidden her activism from her daughter, instead of explaining in suitable for her age way"

-No, of course not. It is more than possible to present any activism in positive terms. Instead of the ills of patriarchy, one can talk about the joys of shared political action, the great people one meets, the positive change one effectuates.

" I still remember this very, very thick "Children - Heroes" book from my childhood with Pavlik Morozov as one of the examples and I was born in the 80-ies."

-I read the book. And I loved it. I also LOVED the three collections of stories about the good Grandpa Lenin that I had. One of them I liked so much that I stole it from school. :-) My parents were smart enough not to tell me what rubbish it all was. As we can see, it didn't do any damage to my literary taste. :-)

Clarissa said...

"Our small town turned into a horror after the USSR's collapse. Not everybody could move away with the children. F.e. one parent went to Russia to work, another stayed. "

-You and I come from the same country. I am very familiar with your area of Ukraine. Still, the way you and I saw the same events is completely different. Why, do you think, you saw horrors where I saw hopeful developments and opportunity?

" one day, me and then you. Don't weep, it's a part of life" ? If one doesn't believe in God, what's positive about dying except as an end to suffering from diseases?"

-There are tons of books that help parents talk about death to children. Getting reconciled with the prospect of death is a necessary part of anybody's life journey.

I, for example, would talk about any grief for a person who died is really grief for one's own loss. The dead person feels nothing. They don't grieve. Our grief for them is purely selfish and doesn't help the dead person in the least.

el said...

Have you seen "Children - Heroes" book before? And I am very curious to understand what you meant by positive.

I've recently started to read a bit English poetry and since many old poems deal with death, found quite a few I liked.

Searched your blog for your favorite English and Russian poets, but unfortunately haven't found any recs. May be you'll write about them in the future? Reading about your favorite kind of music, singers and songs would be very interesting too.

In case you haven't read, I really loved "Mortality" by William Knox, which was Abraham Lincoln's favorite poem. Here it is:
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/education/knox.htm

Gray's "Elegy Written in a Country Churchyard" and Bryant's "Thanatopsis" were great too.

el said...

Instead of the ills of patriarchy, one can talk...
Agree.

Thank you for your answers. I too liked good Grandpa Lenin stories, only I didn't have to steal them, had plenty at home in children's books. From what I remember, couldn't they also be partly viewed as that era's morality tales?

RE those times' children literature, I have at home and still love "Dinka" and "Dinka says goodbye to childhood".

Why, do you think, you saw horrors where I saw hopeful developments and opportunity?

Because you were older and I was a child im my early teens, who only saw how people in our town lived (worse and worse) and how my relatives lived (worse, without prospects until we went to Israel).

grief for them is purely selfish and doesn't help the dead person in the least
Yes, but I wouldn't call this "positive". It's still all very sad.

Clarissa said...

I think we have come full circle in this discussion. :-) The younger the children are the less they should be exposed to the tragic mentality that sees horrors everywhere.

The Dinka books were SO good. there was also this book of Armenian stories called 'Armine.' Great reading.

Tom Carter said...

Leftists fairly openly talked about killing Bush, in addition to tagging him with all sorts of highly offensive names. Rightists are doing about the same thing with Obama. How are kids supposed to be isolated from all this when it's openly discussed among their parents and other adults they're exposed to?

Just as bad if not worse, I've seen lots of photos and video of little kids with their parents during demonstrations of all kinds, some of them carrying very negative signs. The kid has no idea what he/she is doing, but they're certainly learning.