Gangs in schools

In many schools, gangs are a problem. Schools, politicians, parent groups, etc. ask "How can we help save these kids?" Speaking as someone who went to a school with a significant gang problem, I have to wonder if we are asking the wrong question. I have to wonder if the question should be "Should gang members be in school at all?"

Now my sister, who works with at-risk youth is probably going to kill me when I head up to Ohio, but I think it is a question worth asking. We're talking about how to enhance school security all the time. We're talking about how we should screen every kid's writing assignments with a fined tooth comb for "warning signs," have metal detectors at every door, have drug sniffing dogs  come in at random and make everyone dress all pretty. It's strange how no one thinks that maybe expelling students belonging to organizations dedicated solely to murder and mayhem might enhance security. Certainly a great deal more than making people dress nice.

It goes against modern education orthodoxy to be sure. We currently believe that we should try and educate everyone no matter how much they don't want it and no matter the cost (unless they're honor students with a butter knife in their lunch box  or have gun shaped toaster pastries). But let's do that "comparing ourselves to other countries" exercise we do whenever we want  to try implementing some hair brained scheme.

In other countries, if you tossed a chair at another student, started fights, got 5 of your buddies to "jump" someone in the hallway, and attacked teachers (all things I witnessed), you'd be out. And not out for a few days or months. You'd be gone. No school shrinks, no appeals, no excuses. And this isn't just in China. Try that garbage in Japan and you'd be kicked to the curb. And that's what we should do here.

I can hear the objections now.

"We're not Communist China!" or fascists or whatever else.

This isn't about ideology. This is about protecting the rights of kids who go to school to learn. This is one group we never hear about. Besides, we base half our ideas on the "China does it" standard anyway.  May as well use a productive idea. It would be a nice change of pace.

"It'll hurt minority youth!" (Followed by racism this and racism that)

It really is funny to me how whenever someone like me talks about gangs, I'm told I'm using "gangs as slang for minorities" and therefore I'm being racist.  Yet whenever someone says "Hey those people think wearing the wrong colored clothes is an acceptable reason to commit premeditated murder. Maybe they shouldn't be in school." They basically say gang member equals minority. They do know there are white gang members and I'll say up front they should be expelled too but want to, but for whatever reason, equate someone who brings up the idea of expelling members of criminal organizations, to the local Grand Wizard.

That aside, you know what hurts minority youth? Being afraid to go to school. And not the "I didn't study for my test" afraid. More like "Will I get put in the ER?" afraid.

"The gang members have a right to an education."

Sure I'll buy that. However, all rights are conditional on respecting the rights of others. If you go around punching people in the face, you can't claim you have the right to live in your own home in lieu of going to jail. And what about the rights of the other kids? What about the kid who wants to overcome his circumstances and be the  first in his family to go to college? Doesn't he have the right to an education without having to deal with gang nonsense? What about the girl who wants to escape generational poverty? Doesn't she have the right to be able to do her work without having to look over her shoulder wondering if she might get caught in a Crip/Blood fight? Seems the only students who have "rights"  are the ones who have no interest in the rights of others.

"Where will the gang members go?"

Who cares? Thugs not having a place to go is  not a valid reason to make kids who want to learn have to deal with them. Most drop out the exact nanosecond they can anyway.

"Discrimination! Freedom of Association!"

Sorry all you thug lovers but there is no freedom to be part of, and say it with me now, a criminal organization. And we discriminate all the time. We don't let arsonists be firefighters. We don't let sex offenders run daycares. Both things are acceptable. Certainly we can discriminate against people who don't go to school for any reason other than to destroy it.

"Maybe we can save some!"

Sure. There might be a chance we can save a few. And we'll get a mediocre MTV Movie out of one. But  most won't be saved.  Sorry to say, but the vast, vast majority of gang members have made their decision. Why? Because they don't want to be saved. Ask any addiction counselor. You can't help someone who doesn't want to be helped and trying to is pointless.  No amount of the teacher bending over backwards will save them. And what's the cost of trying to save gang members  from their own stupidity?

We have to have metal detectors because gangs bring in guns.
We have to have drug sniffing dogs because the gangs bring in drugs
We have to pay armed security guards because the gangs keep fighting.
We have to pay for cleanup because gangs vandalize everything.
We have to pay for uniforms because someone thinks that making kids dress nice will make them less likely to be gang members (what a laughable idea).
We have to pay teachers extra health insurance because gang members attack them.

And the reverse also applies. How many kids get dragged down by gang members? We don't drag many kids up from the gangs but the gangs drag a lot of kids down.

If we weren't so intent on trying to save gang members from themselves, what could we do with that money? How many more teachers could we hire?  How much more could we contribute to our beleaguered special ed budgets? How many more books could we buy? How much more could we do for the kids who want to learn?

Instead we waste it trying to save people who only come to school to harm others and drag other people into the muck with them.

It's time to stop. We need to stand up for the kids who want more for their lives than prison. If that means we have some extra empty desks, so be it. Being a gang member and being a productive member of society are mutually exclusive. We have spent the last thirty years giving Crips, Bloods, Skinheads, etc. chance after chance. It's time to give the kids who want to learn the chance they deserve.

Do Zero Tolerance Policies Work?

With stories of kids being  suspended for chewing a toaster pastry into a shape of a gun, shaping their fingers into guns on the playground, and even wrestling a loaded gun away from someone who intended to kill another student, the zero tolerance debate has flared up again.

This time people other than student rights advocates, ardent libertarians and armchair pundits have been getting in on the action. In Tennessee, a bill has been introduced that would exempt students from zero tolerance consequences if they were acting in self defense or defense of someone else. Some have expressed trepidation that it will encourage fighting. Others, including many victims of bullying and their parents, have praised the proposed change saying that self defense is a human right.

In Maryland a State representative has introduced a bill that would address administrators overreacting to innocent child behavior.

These assaults on long held zero tolerance policies are largely unprecedented, especially so soon on the heels of Newtown. However, to understand why these bills are coming up, one must first understand the reason zero tolerance policies came about to begin with.

Many attribute them to the Columbine Massacre. However the rise of these policies came about much earlier. Throughout the 80's and early 90's, many minority rights  groups were protesting that school administrators were singling out minority and poor students for harsher punishments for the same offense that a white student committed. Which was true to an extent. School boards responded by instituting zero tolerance policies that mandated that students get punished the exact same way regardless of intent in hopes that removing discretion would remove the inequalities and personal biases when it comes to school discipline. Has the idea worked?

Judging by the statistics, the answer seems to be "no."

Many researchers have found that overzealous zero tolerance policies affect minority and poor students the most. According to researchers at the University of South Florida minorities are disproportionately affected by zero tolerance and it contributes significantly to the "school to prison pipeline."

And there's a significant possibility that zero tolerance policies are being abused by teachers and administrators to get rid of students they don't like. Think about it. With all the paperwork it takes to suspend a student, it's kind of hard to believe that a teacher/administrator would want to take time out of their day to deal with  kids playing cops and robbers going "bang bang" on the playground. Unless they have another motive. If you want to get rid of some kids dragging down your class' test scores down or just get rid of a kid  you don't like,  finding a reason to get him thrown out under overzealous zero tolerance policies  doesn't take much effort. School officials are just as human as everyone else and a policy that allows them to say "my hands are tied no matter what" and "we just can't tell you the full story" is certainly a great smokescreen to give parents and the public respectively.

What about bullying? Rules that say both sides must be punished for being in a fight even if one side was defending him/herself or even if one side doesn't lift a finger is tantamount to victim blaming. In all cases, the prospect of being punished for being a victim makes them more scared to step forward. This only serves to help bullies. Victim blaming only served to make adult victims more afraid to come forward. Isn't it amazing supposedly educated people, with master's degrees even, think it's different for kids?

Drugs? If they'd only focus on actual narcotics, sure. But then you have kids getting stripped searched for allegedly having aspirin, a girl getting expelled for having Motrin to ease her period, or even suspending a kid with asthma for having an inhaler.

Defenders say things like "Zero tolerance is all we have to combat violence and drugs." They're wrong. They have brains. It doesn't take a big one to look at the security camera to see that the kid getting pounced on by four or five gang members is not the person to blame in a fight. You don't need a master's degree to know that the asthmatic with an inhaler is not trying to get high. You don't need to be Stephen Hawking to know that a Pop-Tart isn't a gun.

In the face of all the evidence it fails at everything it attempted to do. It was supposed to keep racial biases from interfering with discipline. Instead it puts more students of color than ever on the school to prison pipeline for minor or even non-existent infractions and gives people with biases a great smokescreen. It was supposed to keep kids safe. Instead it silences victimized children by blaming them for being beaten to a pulp (while at the same time harassing kids for eating Pop-Tarts, clearly a higher priority for educators).

Television for Women

With all the complaints about Honey Boo Boo, I think I should draw attention to another reality show about exploiting children for money. It's called Teen Trouble with Josh Shipp. This guy is a self proclaimed "teen behavior expert." In reality he is certified in absolutely nothing and man it shows. He's a Class A moron.

Usually the show starts with some kid with a problem, Shipp demonstrates his kooky methods. One of these involved having a young girl, already traumatized by the death of her father have go inside a morgue and wash the hair of a dead person and then sealing said girl in a in a coffin. Then ends with him sending the kid to some wilderness lock down facility owned by the Aspen Education group.

Odd how an "expert" always seems to use the last resort solution. If he were such an expert he wouldn't need to do this. But he's not an expert. He's a shill for Aspen.
Now here are some interesting facts about Aspen. A school that was owned by Aspen, Mount Bachelor Academy, was shut down after:

"State investigators found students were required to engage in sexualized role-play and other humiliating activities, such as re-enacting past abuse, in front of staff and peers."

They've also been known to tell rape and molestation victims they should "take responsibility" for it.
Making sex abuse victims re-enact their trauma and telling rape victims it was their fault is now television for women apparently.

Another program, SageWalk (featured on ABC's Brat Camp) got shut down when a teen died after he was denied medical treatment in spite of his obvious distress. This is part and parcel for Aspen and pretty much all the other players in the troubled teen industry. They don't want doctors to see their "work" and start asking questions so they pretend the problem doesn't exist by saying the teen is "faking" even when they're vomiting blood only acting when it is too late.
I suppose being dead would correct bad behavior though (sarcasm).

A number of the schools that are featured on the show have been dealing with some nasty stuff. Axiom Youth Community is being investigated for sexual abuse of a minor and an ensuing cover up. Considering what happened at their other schools I would not be surprised to find it was true.
Of course neither the fact that Aspen's schools have been shut down for neglecting kids or telling rape victims it was their fault, or the fact that the school the parent is signing their kid over to is being investigated for molestation, shows up in the show nor is this told to parents.

Interesting that the people who defend these schools on the basis of "parental rights" ignore the fact that parents are lied to about these and other things as a matter of routine by the entirety of this industry. Don't parents have the "right" to know if the school is being investigated for that sort of thing before they sign their kids up? Evidently the "parental rights" nutters don't think so since they squealed like a stuck pig when bills to require this, as well as other things that the rest of the civilized world call common sense came before the House.

Seems "parental rights" only works when it's being used to protect abusive nutjobs.
Seriously, where other reality shows like Jersey Shore are just plain stupid this show is nasty. Not only is it putting kids, a number of whom have significant mental issues in the hands of people who have a nasty habit of making things worse, it's also putting them in physical danger.

Sources:
Videos of GAO investigation of the Troubled Teen industry.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5txr_Vy6jWc
Other videos can be found in the sidebar this was just the most egregious lie the GAO caught
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2009/11/state_suspends_license_from_sc.html
DHS report on Aspen's idea of treating young people
http://cafety.org/images/stories/documents/MBA/mba_emergency%20suspension_2009.pdf
Sagewalk report
http://www.cafety.org/privately-funded-programs/834-abuse-investigation-a-protective-services-report-death-of-sb-or-sagewalk
Change.org petition
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/josh-shipp-and-lifetime-television-network-stop-placing-children-at-serious-risk-of-ill-treatment-and-torture?utm_campaign
 

Pass this letter to your representative

I recently shared a letter written by a former student of the infamous Judge Rotenberg Center. It's the school that uses electric shocks to allegedly stop students with varying psychiatric disabilities from engaging in behaviors that harm themselves or others. They tell parents, lawmakers and judges that the shocks hurt little worse than a bee sting.

In the letter to my Senators and the one I'm posting here, I detail why that is not the case. Keep in mind that the links within the letter are graphic. I encourage you to write your own Representatives. You can use details in my letter if you wish. Heck post it on your website too. The word needs to get out.

My name is Matt Stafford We've dealt with each other before so I'm going to get to the point. Previously I came to you as an Internet freedom advocate. Today I come before you as disability rights/child rights advocate.

You might be acutely aware of the Judge Rotenberg Center. It is a school for children (and some adults) with autism as well as various other psychiatric disabilities. It is unique in that it uses electric skin shocks as a way to control self injury behavior and various other forms of aggression on others. For many parents who are at their wit's end trying to keep their child from cracking their head open on the wall or something, this sounds like a godsend compared to keeping them on thousands of dollars worth of psychotropics (the sort that Eric Harris was on).

And while they tell parents, lawmakers, and judges that shock devices are only used when a student is engaged in some sort of aggressive or dangerous behavior, and they say that the GED device is little more than a bee sting, the reality is far different.

Here are some letters to the FDA concerning JRC's practices. Note that these letters do go into graphic detail

One is from a girl with autism who was there for four years. In it she describes what she went through. Most of the things she got shocked for were not aggressive or self injurious behavior, but things human beings (yourself included no doubt) do every day such as twirling a pencil or thinking out loud. Note that in this letter, a doctor ordered that the device be removed after a seizure, but they continued to use it.

http://www.autistichoya.com/2013/01/judge-rotenberg-center-survivors-letter.html

Another letter from a former teacher details what he did. He gave shocks to kids using a GED-4 device under the impression that it was FDA approved. It is not. After learning this, he resigned. He also detailed a number of shocks that were not the result of aggression or self injury. Furthermore, he states that many of these behaviors are provoked by the staff in order to give them a reason to shock or to get judges to approve the use of GED devices.

http://www.autistichoya.com/2013/01/letter-from-former-teacher-at-torture.html

Note number 7:

"7. I can testify that student behavioral plans were sometimes altered three months prior to court-dates so that judges would not see many of the behaviors for which students were shocked. I can name specific students and their Case Managers. This may be an intentional and systematic misleading of the judge. An investigation could look to see whether hard-copy samples were only kept of the three months leading up to court dates, or if samples of written recording sheets were destroyed altogether, especially for the lower functioning (nonverbal) students."
Here is a video of one of the shock sessions. Warning this is graphic as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtRGQRtwh2U

You can see why JRC spent a lot of money trying to keep this video off the record. It shows that A. The pain is not a simple bee sting. B. The shocks aren't just relegated to when the student is engaging in dangerous behavior. They're done for fun.

And I know you'll get an earful from the "parent's rights" people, large numbers of whom would jump at the chance to remove the meager protections afforded to children in their own homes and various institutions. I ask you, don't parents at least have the right to know the FULL truth about the treatment they've agreed to subject their children to?

You'll also get an earful from parents who support JRC. Most of them have been misled into thinking that the shocks were used only for self injurious behavior or trying to harm others. Many of their kids are nonverbal so they can't speak up. Many of them say that it worked out fine for their child.

However, just because something works out fine for a few does not mean it should be given a free pass. Many victims of terrorism have used their experience as the catalyst for positive life changes but it does not excuse the evil act the terrorist committed.

I implore you Senator to be the voice these kids need. Tell JRC (as well as other schools that use other forms of torture such as starvation diets, extreme isolation, etc.) that doing things that we'd never dream of doing to prisoners is wrong.

-Matt

P.S.

With all the talk about mental illness in the wake of Newtown, maybe it is time to re-evaluate whether or not practices that can lead to things like PTSD and other things that can contribute to gun suicides/homicides should be legal to use on children.

Gun rabies

Conservatives have gone off the deep end regarding gun control. At one point, most supported ideas like not letting people who had violent histories or mental illnesses that in some way or another impair their ability to differentiate between right and wrong own guns. However as of late, this is not the case. Do not impede the criminal's right to bear arms they say. Don't stop the guy who has more voices in his head than the Wu Tang Clan from getting a gun that can fire 100 bullets in 15 seconds. After all, he might need that to go hunting they say (because sometimes you just need to turn the deer into hamburger on site I guess). Don't you dare do any background checks. They'll just get their guns some other way on the black market they say. 

Ladies and gents I'm first to admit I'm pro Second Amendment but like every other Amendment there are limits. Making bomb threats is not free speech and human sacrifice is not valid religious practice so certainly there are limits on the Second Amendment. Limits like “if you've proven that you flat out won't control your actions or that you are incapable of understanding the physical, moral and social ramifications of your actions, you shouldn't have a gun.”

Most people find such an idea reasonable. After all, proving that you don't care about the rights of others or simply don't understand the idea that other people actually have rights, such as the right to walk into a movie theater and not leave with bullets in all their organs, kind of disqualifies you as a “responsible gun owner.” But to some people, this isn't the case. According to them, anyone should be able to waltz into any gun store at any time they wish, buy as many guns and bullets as they wish and waltz back out armed to the teeth, with no questions asked about mental stability, gang affiliation, drug abuse, or criminal history. To call these types pro-gun would be inaccurate. What we're looking at is “gun rabies.”

Gun rabies is this idea that everyone should be allowed to have any kind of gun no matter how powerful the gun is or how screwed up the buyer is. This idea used to only be tossed around in the most radical circles but gained steam when the President became a photo negative of all the others. As much as I hate to bring race into anything (largely because it just degenerates into accusations of racism from everyone) , it's true. Enforcing regulations already in place in lieu of making new ones was once the battle cry from pro-gun conservatives. Now, the battle cry is shred any and all regulations no matter how reasonable. This change is in part due to the election of President Obama and the rise of so-called militias. Apparently, they think gang members and the mentally unstable would be inclined to join them in an armed uprising against the government rather than do what gang members and psychos are more inclined to do in such situations.

Their justification is that banning guns for people who can't or won't control themselves was never specifically mentioned in the Constitution so we shouldn't do it. Still no consistent word from these types on the War on Drugs or using our military to interfere in other countries internal conflicts, which also fail the “specific mention” test though. Funny how that works.

They claim that guns aren't the problem. We have significant social problems and no amount of gun bans or taxes or regulations will stop gun violence. The social problems have to be addressed.

The weird part is, they're right. They are entirely right. You can talk about banning guns all you want but you'll never get anywhere unless you do something about the people pulling the trigger.

So do they advocate fixing our mental health system and making treatment easier to get for people with mental illness who tend to be the ones who go on the murder sprees? No because that would be socialism. Do they advocate overhauling our education system and making it easier to obtain in light of the fact that most of the people committing gun crimes are uneducated and the other fact that people who are educated are far less likely to commit crimes? No that would also be socialism. What about making it easier for a person to turn his life around after he gets out of jail? Do something tp expunging a criminal record easier for a guy who wants to get on the straight and narrow so he can provide for himself (and thus, far less likely to commit a gun crime or any crime for that matter)? Anyone who suggests that better be ready for the “law and order” types to yowl so loud it would be heard from outer space. Do they advocate finally dropping the Drug War, thus taking power away from the street gangs that commit large portions of gun crime? The law and order crowd would scream.

Well since they reject the obvious solutions what do they suggest? Brace yourself for this one (and by that I mean get some high quality booze): School prayer. Yes their only real “solution” is Miss Jenkins leading her first grade class in school prayer. If only we prayed in schools, there would be less crime. After all, it worked in the 50s and there was less crime then so that must be the solution right?

Ignoring the fact that most of these people making this stupid comment weren't even born, or at best not even out of diapers, there were a lot of other things that were different in the 50s. When a person got out of jail it was much easier for him to start over. We didn't cry socialism every time someone suggested investing in our people and infrastructure. We invested in our mental healthcare (imperfect though it was) instead of just throwing them on the street to save money. Yet none of them want to go back to that. I suppose it's easier to pray than actually do anything productive about the problem. But then rabies does impair judgment. Perhaps gun rabies does the same.

People Not Baggage (a follow up)

So I was spreading my last story around to some forums that were primarily populated by people who saw Liza Long's post and ongoing media tour are "acts of courage." Every forum needs a few dissenting voices after all. I was surprised to get a  such a  rather scathing reaction. The forum is made up of whose leanings are "left of center" shall we say?

One of the posters said that I should just ignore the fact that this kid is having his darkest secrets  aired on  NBC  without his consent because "it's not my decision" or right to criticize. Historically, this has been the exact same justification used by basically every child abuser. So I was a tad surprised to hear it coming from him.

And in a technical sense he is right. However, it is my decision to stand up and show people that there's difference between "courage" and "dangerous recklessness." She wants to have the discussion on a lack of mental health services in this country. I say great! Let's have it. Just not at the expense of another, and say it with me now, human being. And  I will now contribute my bit to the discussion. One of the biggest problems in this country is that in the public sphere we see the disabled, of all types and ages, as primarily extensions of their parents/guardians. Baggage. As a society, we're more concerned for families of people with disabilities than we are for those with disabilities themselves. Liza Long is just another example. Whenever some parent steps forward with their disabled child's private and very personal struggles, we get so focused on the parent's struggles that we conspicuously ignore that there's another person here who probably didn't want the notoriety they receive. Especially the  kind that could be rather negative. I very much doubt the younger Long wanted  the world to see his picture on a blog wherein he is compared to a guy who gunned down 27 people as well as every other person who went on a murder rampage in the last 16 years. And we reflexively call any attempt to bring up said fact an "attack" on the message. Even though it isn't. No one who is criticizing Long is attacking her message. We're calling into question the wisdom of using another person's photos and personal info to make the case. And we're attacked.   Here's a question: In all of the press coverage that’s transpired on mental illness and violence the past few days, how many people with mental health diagnoses have we heard from? Outside of the disabilities corner of the blogosphere, zip. In her media tour, have we heard from the other Long? Nope. And I very much doubt it will get any better. Not when disclosing very sensitive (and easily dangerous in the wrong hands) information of people with disabilities on Huffington Post is seen as an act of "courage." I'm going to be blunt. As a society (note that phrase before hitting the comment section), we don't like acknowledging the fact that people, especially children, with disabilities are people. Just look at all the sheer hate for IDEA, the ADA and EEOC. As a society, we don't like people with disabilities and we don't like hearing their views (especially when it concerns what society is doing wrong). Sure we're much more polite about it. All the same, hearing someone say something like "that kid with autism is a person, not a cross to bear on TV," tends to bring  negative reactions. We don't like it because disability makes us feel very uncomfortable for two reasons. 1. Disability doesn't discriminate. You can be a WASP in a gated community and you could still become disabled. Every able bodied person is one freak accident away  from blindness, one car crash away from using a wheelchair, and one severe concussion away from a brain disorder of some type.  A rich man is just as likely to have a kid with autism as a poor man. A white mom could have a doctor make a mistake that gives her newborn cerebral palsy just as easily as a black mom can. The sheer randomness  of it makes us cringe so we don't like to think about it.   2. Acknowledging people with disabilities as people rather than extensions of their guardians, reminds them of the impact their decisions on the political or personal levels have.  A mom violating her  autistic son's privacy on a global scale, people with developmental issues being subject to violent electroshock therapies, people with trauma or emotional disturbances being  kidnapped in the middle of the night and dragged out to a "school" in the wilderness run by a sociopath who pretends he was in a military, are all very easy pills to swallow when it happens to someone with the same legal status as a lawn chair.  And when people such as myself, or any of these guys: http://www.disabilityandrepresentation.com/2012/12/16/no-you-are-not-adam-lanzas-mother/ http://mypoorgeneration.wordpress.com/ point out that this is a person that this stuff is happening to, we're told we're being insensitive to the parent's struggle or how it's their "right" and how we should just "deal with it." Note that it's all about the parent/guardian in these debates. They are simply too wrapped up in their "courage" or "struggle" to acknowledge that there is another person in these situations who might not like what happens and rightly so. Someone has to acknowledge it. Now, more than any other time in history, we need to acknowledge that people of any age with disabilities, be they physical, developmental, or psychiatric, are people. Not just property or some mother's cross to bear on NBC. Doing so would improve the mental health dialogue in this country and it might just help more than a few people who have disabilities to know that our society sees them as people rather than baggage.

In Defense of the Son of Liza Long

So the whole "I Am Adam Lanza's Mother" post has gone viral. I'm not posting the link here and you'll hopefully see why in a moment. If you  haven't read it go do so.

Half the Internet is basically ready to nominate the writer, Liza Long, for the patron  saint of special needs moms. Before we do, I think it would be wise to consider the broader implications of her writing.

In the blog she discusses how hard and expensive it is for a parent to get adequate treatment for a child with mental illness. And it is hard especially if you want trained professionals and not pseudo spiritual loons, religious quacks looking for farm hands, or sociopaths pretending they were in the military getting their jollies beating on kids.  On its face, the point is very much valid. But like they say, "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." And there is so much wrong with how she said it.

For starters, she publicly compared her son to Lanza, Harris, Klebold and a few others on the basis they had violent tendencies and mental disturbances. Regardless of what issues they have, comparing your child to mass murderers in front of a worldwide audience is incredibly disgusting. But on the day after  a mass murder? While posting a picture of him for the entire world to see? She may as well send him out into the community with a target on his back. That is basically what she has done. For the rest of his life this article will always be hovering over him. Yet no one seems to care about that.

Those pictures are  a second problem. She says she gave him a fake name. However, the fact that she originally posted it under her own name, on a blog that had his name on it while putting a picture of him up makes this irrelevant. Giving him a fake name after that is like setting your PIN number to 1234.  Everyone is still going to know that he's the one his mom said was Eric Harris and Adam Lanza. Worse yet, all this personal information being plastered all over the Internet puts the child at risk. People with disabilities are often the targets of the same sexual predators we try to protect kids from by telling them not to post their private information on the Internet. Yet with the large amount of information she's posted on her blog, any sicko can easily get to him. But it gets worse.

People with disabilities are often the victims of hate crimes and after something like this, the rate will be even higher. It is very possible that some ignorant twit might brand him as the next Adam Lanza and try to do harm to him somewhere down the line  after seeing the photo and his mother actually comparing him to a mass murderer. Such a thing is not unheard of.

Consider this: After 9/11, Muslims, and those that looked like them were often attacked on the basis they were future terrorists by white supremacist lunatics and many Muslim schoolchildren were bullied on a larger scale than ever. A few were actually killed. Maybe it's me but screaming to the world that her son has a mental disturbance while posting his photo and publicly comparing him to the most hated person in America currently is incredibly irresponsible and given how dumb some people are, could lead to another tragedy.   So you can see at least one reason why this might be bad for his physical well being. But this damages his emotional well being too.

She willfully and recklessly divulges his private medical information. This is stuff only family members, teachers and  doctors need to know. Now every sicko and sociopath looking for some kicks knows nearly everything about his history and location (or enough to fill in the gaps within ten minutes) and how it could be exploited.Now he, and for that matter the rest of the kids, most likely think they can't share anything with the mother for fear of her telling all on NBC. As a human being, he has a right to have some things not shouted from the rooftops. Medical information being one of those things.

Before anyone fires back that he's just a kid, let me make it clear: Kids have a right to have at least some things kept private. It is not the right of the parent to share information that could damage a kid for years to come with everyone from New York to Timbuktu. As a human being, age and mental illness  notwithstanding, he is entitled to this simple dignity.

Yet now she's going on a media tour and divulging said information reckless abandon without regard for how he feels about having his dirty laundry aired. If this were an able-bodied child, there would be much more criticism. But since he has a disability, the rest of the world thinks it's okay. It's not.

And this is  the biggest problem I have. The implication here is that it's entirely okay to divulge a person's darkest moments, regardless of the consequences to their physical and emotional well being and reputation so long as the guardian thinks the ends justify the means.

I can get that she's desperate and needs help. But how does effectively painting a target on her child's back help him? To be blunt, it doesn't. A child with disabilities needs at least one rock of support. His only rock of support has betrayed his trust and effectively painted a target on his back for dangerous reactionaries.  Even if this led to him getting the help he needs, this will always follow him like a shadow.

Perhaps she meant well. Maybe she legitimately wants to start a conversation about our broken mental health system and get him help. It does not matter. Airing his personal information to the Internet was not the way to go here.