We Are... Scioto County

The biggest threat to Scioto County is resistance to broadening our view of a singular community. The seemingly insurmountable problems we face in Southern Ohio have festered here for well over two decades. Many of our individual districts and municipalities have faced issues that contributed to our decline and have made modest strides; however, most of the positive improvements that have been made remain isolated and generally unrelated. Some might call this a "shotgun" approach to our ills.


We have bought into the myth that in order to survive, we must remain clannish and resistant to change. And, true, history is ripe with instances in which the government and private enterprise have reaped huge profits by exploiting Appalachia's greatest treasures – our natural resources and our strong, faithful inhabitants. As a result of being duped and used, many residents no longer associate with people in our own many neighborhoods because they have lost confidence in even the most simple alliance. As disassociation and distrust gained prominence, so did rumor and belief in isolation.


Who now has a positive sense of living in Scioto County? Who encourages their family and friends to help build a new image of the county that motivates others to believe that fashioning a brighter future is an attainable mission? Most have locked themselves into a mindset of despair because the area cannot regain its past. Many young people see (and have been taught) that no viable future remains here.  


Since it's nonproductive to live in the past and impossible to return to it, residents feel helpless in a changing environment. Many now choose to complain about their "terrible" state and scapegoat out of frustration. They see themselves as victims of fate, and they accept what they consider to be inevitable – economic decline, joblessness, strong reliance on the welfare state, severe addiction, and lawlessness.


We, in Scioto County, should strive to build belonging, not belonging in a sense of habitation or simple inclusion in small neighborhoods, but belonging that encourages “drive-by” and “lip service” contributors to become regular, active community members who understand belonging entails providing significant and sustained contributions that strengthen a larger community comprised of the entire county. To put it bluntly, we continue to belong in depression because we must learn to trust in our own initiative.


Great teams are comprised of players with great initiative and drive. Contributors must be intent on growing new, stronger teams. If we build stronger teams, infuse these teams with a sense of personal connection to new members, and welcome our new contributors with open arms, we will likely build belonging and thus grow a strong and scalable county community that can grow beyond the current membership base and produce new generations of competent contributors in the future.


Every neighborhood has groups of working, positive relationships already in place – workplaces, schools, churches, clubs, trustees, social groups. These are the structural foundations of Scioto County comprised of people with different perspectives, personalities and attitudes that can significantly influence positive morale and facilitate problem solving. They are not just people in positions of authority; a wise and effective contributor on the bottom rung of the ladder can sometimes have more influence (if not power) in a group than a senior position of authority. Even critics open to workable compromise empower group integrity.

I believe it is time these foundational people widen their concerns from a community level to a county level and create bold, new interfaces within the larger group that can be complex and unearth other subtle foundational members. Then, the “old boy” members can help embrace change, encourage total participation, and forge new, vital understandings that build a brighter Scioto County.

Jono Bacon, author of The Art of Community, says, “In other words, where confidence exists in the structural integrity of a group, it unlocks a fantastic world in which anything is possible, where all problems are solvable, and where the unity of the group builds a strength that is beyond the capabilities of any individual; this is the true opportunity of community.”

And, importantly, a new Scioto community must learn to solve potential structural weaknesses. These breakdowns will certainly occur because team members represent a diverse range of people working on different problems that affect the county. At these points of conflict, the group must surrender and operate within the spirit, ethos, and best interests of the community in order to maintain structural integrity.

This brings me to a few very important questions that seem to confound the distrustful and depressed populace of the area. These questions must be answered in order to form a coalition of Scioto neighborhoods:

1. What spirit will guide the Scioto community?

2. What ethos (principles and ideology) will underlie the foundation of the Scioto community?

3. What are the achievable best interests that will most benefit the Scioto community?

In times of trouble and dire need, people can choose to form strong alliances to fight against staggering odds. Our county, Scioto County, is most definitely in need of help from its inhabitants. Ranking as the most unhealthy county in the State of Ohio and in the top ten of the most unhealthy counties in America, it is time for us to reorganize, regroup, and re-strategize our efforts to improve ourselves.

No politician, no spiritual leader, no office holder, no single movement is going to “save” the county. The job rests squarely on the backs of the citizens, and each person must realize failure to contribute to progress drives another nail into the coffin of total collapse. Many separate efforts have already begun to create mass change, yet the community of Scioto County must now join together in singular spirit, ethos, and interests. To do otherwise is to remain inundated with inefficiency and to remain hopeless while struggling with overwhelming problems.

It's not only what benefits the West Side or Lucasville or Sciotoville or Portsmouth or Wheelersburg or Minford or McDermott or any of the many other small neighborhoods in our county that counts. What counts is building a strong Scioto community that features spirited teamwork, a new vision of hope, and active participation that forwards integrity and the benefits of hard work. It means the dawn of a new Scioto Community.

“I am of the opinion that my life

belongs to the whole community

and as long as I live,

it is my privilege to do for it

whatever I can.

I want to be thoroughly used up when I die,

for the harder I work the more I live.”

-George Bernard Shaw

Many thanks for inspiration from Jono Bacon, “Building Strong Community Structural Integrity,” Community, July 25 2012.  Article: http://www.jonobacon.org/2012/07/25/building-strong-community-structural-integrity/

Lost In Love? Is Your Lover Not Yours?

I Am Not Yours by Sara Teasdale

I am not yours, not lost in you,
Not lost, although I long to be
Lost as a candle lit at noon,
Lost as a snowflake in the sea.


You love me, and I find you still
A spirit beautiful and bright,
Yet I am I, who long to be
Lost as a light is lost in light.


Oh plunge me deep in love -- put out
My senses, leave me deaf and blind,
Swept by the tempest of your love,
A taper in a rushing wind.

Two souls fueled by fiery passion touch to become one flame of torrid, inseparable love. Isn't this the expectation of anyone who falls for another and becomes unwittingly lost in love?

We can dissect love and carefully describe its various stages with words such as fancy, attachment, infatuation, yearning, lusting, and rapture. But, all our logic and our scholarly evaluation of the situation fail to help us understand how to adjust as our once-titillating love affair slowly matures.

Although we desire to sustain and even to increase the heat of the erotic flame, we find passion in ever-shorter supply as love lingers. At some point, we begin quenching our sensual thirsts by relying more upon our imaginations and memories than upon reality. We, as lovers, are expected to increase our ingenuity to maintain our own passion.

With considerable regret, all lovers comprehend these subtle changes and accept the dimming fire as a result of increased familiarity or aging, leading to pragmatic, unconditional or even unrequited love. The longer it burns, the flame of love is fed more by charity, generosity, and kind virtue. Some would say love mellows while some would say it dwindles.

In her poem "I Am Not Yours," Sara Teasdale employs the speaker to address her beloved in an unusual way by saying that she does not belong to him. The speaker says she is "not lost" in him although she does "long to be." Teasdale uses the imagery of a "candle lit at noon" and a "snowflake in the sea" to illustrate the unfathomable depths of her passion for a perfect union of impassioned love.

The speaker freely admits her companion does "love" her with a spirit "beautiful and bright." Yet, she desires more. She longs to be completely transparent and one with the "light" of her life, not a separate, shiny entity "in love" but instead a crystalline fusion shaped by the forge of Eros. Her declaration of "I am I" emphasizes her passionate, romantic vision of pure, burning love. 

In the last stanza, the speaker is is pleading for the realization of her desire. She yearns for her beloved to absorb her so completely that she has no separate existence apart from him. The speaker gives no explanation for the apparent romantic division, but she emphasizes her complete desire for becoming lost in a "tempest of (his) love," helpless to resist.

To me, "I Am Not Yours" speaks of longing and disconnection. For whatever reasons, we humans seek the incredible spice with many tastes -- love. Although we become disoriented and dizzy in love, we long to be in this mental and physical state of consuming attraction -- a burning magnetism for a lover.

But, love is like an economic exchange in the respect that if one partner is putting more into it than another, it will likely fail. Why? Because love is a nutrient of the soul and a
love-starved person is unfulfilled.

It seems to me that the biggest craving for most hungry lovers is being Teasdale's "taper in a rushing wind." They expect their lovers to consume them with untold passion and fashion ways to keep them "lost in love." Since the extension of this love requires so much attention to interdependency, many find they cannot meet lofty erotic expectations.

This is not to say people shouldn't want to live "as one in love." Yet, I think this is an ideal most have to sacrifice due to the realities of living in the real world. To me, Teasdale is confirming the gap between beautiful desires and accepted attainments. When searching for love, some find a soul mate; some find a best friend; some find an acceptable companion; and some even find themselves sharing a bed with a complete stranger.

I wonder how many people in love with another realize "I am not yours"? How many people just cannot seem to find a connection to fulfill their expectations of love? Teasdale speaks to those who understand the contrary nature of the emotion of love. "I want mine" is such a simple phrase that seems to cause so much confusion and so many problems.

Everybody wants their own, especially after they solidify a love relationship. During courtship, torrid love gives freely and consistently promises inseparability. But later, after longer attainment, love dies down and separate egos hold court. What does each lover owe the other in terms of rekindling the "burn"? I don't know.

Is it that we really never know how to find the means to sustain the power of love? Why else would our greatest desires turn to something less after we unselfishly give our all to get what we want? For whatever reason, many of us understand deep inside "I am not yours."

For those who feel such a disconnect, the poem creates a lonely mood of being in love. Whether the actualization of passionate love is denied by a "one-way street" of affection or by an "alone/together" relationship of convenience, the desire does not die. It remains in the heart of a lover, flickering like a candle ready to ignite a blaze.

"Love is divine only and difficult always. If you think it is easy you are a fool. If you think it is natural you are blind. It is a learned application without reason or motive except that it is God."

-TONI MORRISON, Paradise

Guns N' Roses' Duff McKagan Recovers To Rock Again

"He went on and on down the road,

finally coming to a blackwoods,

where he hid and wept as if his heart would break.

Ah, what agony was that, what despair,

when the tomb of memory was rent open

 and the ghosts of his old life

came forth to scourge him!"

 -Upton Sinclair, The Jungle

Recovery

Is there a fatal attraction between

celebrities and controlled substances?

Why do some survive and some die?

How do you step away from addiction

when the spotlight is always on?

"It's that caustic mix of sudden celebrity and being strung out and it being condoned by the people around you," says Duff McKagan, 48, the original bass player for rock band Guns N' Roses and a longtime drug and alcohol addict who had to nearly die from an exploding pancreas in 1994 at age 30.

He was told by his doctors that he would be dead within a month if he did not stop drinking. Although McKagan had made previous attempts to curb his alcoholism (which had become so notorious that, according to his autobiography, the fictional product Duff Beer on The Simpsons was named for him) this health crisis was his incentive to become sober for good.

What contributed most to his getting help? McKagan cites his mother weeping in her wheelchair over her youngest child, and his eventual discovery of the physical and spiritual strengths of martial arts for being his prime motivations. 

McKagan is author of the revealing  memoir, It's So Easy (And Other Lies). McKagan’s last ten years provides ample fodder for a separate book. Here’s a guy who was a drug addict and high school dropout, bloated from booze, mentally incapacitated by drugs and emotionally wasted from decades of self abuse.

That this man physically recovered is literally amazing, given the abysmal recovery rate of addicts and alcoholics. That he continued playing music, started another platinum-selling band (Velvet Revolver), scored a college degree and founded a wealth management company strains the definition of credibility.

Addiction experts say it's a misleading assumption that celebs are more prone to addictive behavior, because anyone can inherit that DNA. "Addiction does not discriminate, it cuts across all socioeconomic classes," says Kevin Hill, addictions psychiatrist in charge of drug abuse treatment at Harvard Medical School's McLean Hospital. "People use according to psycho-social stressers. Celebrities might have slightly different stressers, such as fame, but they use drugs like regular people — they just use better drugs." (Maria Puente, "Celebrity Addicts: Who Dies, Who survives, and Why?" USA Today, March 25 2012)

What actors, singers, athletes, even CEOs have

that regular people might not have is

more access to drugs, more time to indulge,

more money to pay for it,

and often a horde of enabling hangers-on

who are financially dependent on them

and thus more motivated to supply substances for them.

It adds up to a situation hard to walk away from, McKagan says.

"Some can do (drugs) and move on and some do it and get stuck," he says. "In the last year before ending up in the hospital, I had given up, I said I can't stop this," says McKagan, "I had to be scared to death."

Life coach and family advocate Lisa Nkonoki, who says she helped Ray Charles Jr. overcome his addictions, reports that celebs, like anyone else, can become addicts because they don't feel strong or good about themselves at some level. (Maria Puente, "Celebrity Addicts: Who Dies, Who survives, and Why?" USA Today, March 25 2012)

"It's an escape (from) the persona people want them to be instead of the person they truly are," she says. Successfully stepping away from addiction, she says, comes only after accepting that it's a disease. "No one wants to wear this badge, no one wants to go through this struggle. But when you get this disease, you have to deal with it, manage it, emerge from it and move on."

The key factor in treating addictions, celebrity or otherwise, is recognizing that there's usually an underlying mental-health issue, says Kathleen Bigsby, CEO of The Canyon at Peace Park, an expensive, exclusive and super private comprehensive treatment center in Malibu that has treated celebrities (no names, she says) for addiction and "co-occurring disorders."

"Just addressing the addiction isn't enough — there's anxiety, depression, trauma," Bigsby says. "Addicts need a new skill set to learn how to manage their stress."

My Bottom Line

It is up to all of us to help teach these new skills to those in recovery. Health professionals must help them manage the stress they feel. Without this help, even the most popular celebrity or the richest individual who becomes addicted will likely fall and eventually perish. History has proven time and time again this outcome is true. Encourage people you know to become involved with the healing process by contributing their time and money to saving lives.

Society imposes stigma - and its damage - on addicts

and their families because many people still believe

 that addiction is a character flaw or weakness

 that probably can't be cured.

The stigma against people with addictions is so deeply rooted that it continues even in the face of the scientific evidence that addiction is a treatable disease and even when people know others in their families and in their communities who live wonderful lives in long-term recovery.

Stigma explains why addicts and their families hide the disease. Stigmatized people internalize other people's hatred of them and transfer the hatred to shame.

Too often, people with alcohol and drug problems and their families begin to accept the ideas that addiction is their own fault and that maybe they are too weak to do anything about it.

In many ways, hiding an addiction problem

 is the rational thing to do because

seeking help can mean losing a job and medical insurance,

 or even losing a child when a social service agency

declares a person an unfit parent

because he/she has an alcohol or drug problem.

Stigmatized people are excluded from rules that govern "normal people." For example, insurance companies get away with refusing to pay for alcohol or drug treatment, or with charging higher deductibles and co-pays than for treating any other disease.

Though studies have found that helping employees to recover is more cost-effective than termination, some employers believe that firing an employee with a substance abuse problem is a lot easier than providing rehabilitation. A firestorm of protest would erupt if employers treated workers with cancer or heart disease the same way. (David L. Rosenbloom PhD., "Coping With the Stigma of Addiction," HBO Addiction, www.hbo.com) 

What can you do today?

* Demand equal medical insurance coverage for alcohol and drug treatment.

* Tell your state lawmakers to remove the legal barriers that prevent people recovering from addictions from getting jobs.

* Give more than lip service to the reality that addiction is a disease, not a character weakness.

* Be an advocate for an individual or family with an addiction problem.

Duff McKagan on Addiction and Recovery

Duff McKagan on Dr. Phil

Turning Up the Volume at the Columbia Music Arena

A noise complaint surrounding a downtown business has caused First Ward City Councilman Kevin Johnson to inquire of Portsmouth City Solicitor Mike Jones as to the feasibility of creating a more specific noise abatement ordinance to alleviate the problem of loud, amplified music coming from concerts at the recently opened Columbia Music Arena in downtown Portsmouth.

Several area residents and business operators also recently attended a Portsmouth City Council meeting in June to complain about the noise. When the facility reopened after a fire destroyed the original closed arena, a section of the roof was left open, which residents say allows the sound to amplify throughout the neighborhood.

Local businessman Terry Ockerman said he pulled in to the lot to park at The Lofts around 8 p.m. on July 21 during a Columbia concert, and “The first thing I hear is ‘I’m gonna turn this m-f out.’” He said the act performing on the stage made that statement into the microphone, and it was heard all over the area.

Later, Ockerman got a call saying, "Terry what’s going on down here? Have you heard this (the offensive noise from the music arena)? Ockerman can't believe the loud volume and the graphic content of the lyrics emanating from the Columbia.

Ockerman said at one point in the evening  patrons of the concert spilled out into the street, and then some — including a boy he described as 15 years old — began harassing the patrons at the nearby Royal bar which developed into a confrontation involving racial slurs and unacceptable, potentially violent public behavior.


The fact is I wasn't there and did not observe the reported behavior. But, reading reports in the Portsmouth Daily Times and having knowledge of the businesses involved, I realize the source of the problem, and I think I understand the complications of redress.

Read Sixth Ward Councilman Steve Sturgill's comments carefully:

“I don’t think we’re any farther along toward solving your problem, Terry, than we were on the first day of the report. I could be wrong, but I have no way of knowing. The city allowed the Columbia to build an open-air theater, and now we’re trying to backtrack, trying to fix this. I don’t know how you fix that - the paste is already out of the tube. I don’t know how you fix it.

"It’s not Mr. Kalb’s fault. It’s not (arena owner) Mr. (Lee) Scott’s fault that they were allowed to build that facility the way they were allowed to build it. What we’re going to find out is the same thing. We get ourselves into these things. Over the years we have bought buildings we can’t use. Now we’ve got an open-air theater and there is nothing but controversy. You (Ockerman) have to keep coming to express your frustration, and we sit over here and wonder what’s going on. That’s not a very good working situation.”

Now read Columbia Music Arena Lee Scott's view:

Scott says he has become frustrated with recent attempts to get him to cut down on the noise in that neighborhood created by the concerts.

“They’re coming at us from every angle they can, and I’m just fed up with it,” Scott said. “I’m just about to say, ‘hey, I’m going to run six nights a week until 2:30 in the morning like my licenses says we can.’

“In my estimation, (Columbia operator and Portsmouth City Councilman) Jim (Kalb), myself, my wife (Attorney Christine Scott), really are going to continue to run the theater. We have bent over backwards. But I’m just about sick and tired of them running over us after giving us permission, after I spent $2 million and four years to build it again, after I was given permission,” Scott said. “I don’t know what the legal ramifications would be to the city if they tried to instill even more laws on me than what they already have.”

Now read the words of Columbia operator and Portsmouth City Councilman Jim Kalb:

“Just a short response to Mr. Ockerman’s comments,” Kalb said during remarks by members of City Council. “First of all I have no intention of recusing myself or removing myself from City Council. I understand what you were saying, and perhaps there was a problem inside, something that we can handle, but when people go outside and they’re slinging vulgarities and everything, are you going to blame that on the Columbia?”

My Final Take

Mr. Ockerman, other nearby business owners, and area residents have every right to complain. If proper corrections are not made, innocent, law-abiding people will continue to pay the consequences of breach of the peace. Perhaps, Councilman Johnson's noise abatement ordinance could help alleviate the problem. It is a start. I strongly believe the public should not be subjected to noise or language from an nearby venue that the average person, applying contemporary community standards, finds offensive.

But, I have a suspicion that the real problem with the Columbia Music Arena has seeds planted many years ago. That problem is twofold: (1) a lack of foresight by the city concerning the construction and operation of an open arena in downtown Portsmouth, and (2) the political and personal histories and attitudes of those involved in the fracas.

Councilman Sturgill, I agree with you that too little has been done correctly in the past. But, I do think something can be done now to "fix it." And, I do think we can assign this "fix it" task to City Council, Mr. Scott, Ms. Scott, and Mr. Kalb. Given the selfish motives of those involved, the real "noise" is the continual desire to aggravate, stir controversy, and strike out at every opportunity. The camps of the opponents have deep roots, and I suspicion money, power, and revenge drive the conflict. Isn't this another self-motivated squabble about "whose stream is more powerful than whose"?

How ridiculous. Why should The Lofts, The Royal, other nearby businesses, or for that matter, anyone enjoying the esplanade on a Saturday evening be subjected to aggravation from the Columbia? Shouldn't the people who created this problem, a problem that does produce and will continue to produce a potential for violence and injury be dedicated to correcting it? 

If it is too late to be proactive, it's not too late to be corrective. The biggest obstacles to correction are clearly the subjects involved.

Making statements like, "I’m going to run six nights a week until 2:30 in the morning like my licenses says we can" exacerbates the severity of the potential for further fighting. And, for someone to say when our problem spills outside, we have "no blame" is irresponsible. Of course, owners and operators need proper security and safety measures in place.

No one is suggesting the Columbia be closed. However, people do want limits and tight supervision. In a time when cool heads and logical solutions should be prevailing, the "old divisive" cast has chosen to stonewall and spit venom at anyone standing in their way to personal gain. Refusing to work together in gardens of opportunity, people prefer to plant more seeds of discontent. "When will we ever learn, when will we ever learn...."

Portsmouth City Council

• First Ward - Kevin Johnson (740) 876-8558 

• Second Ward - Rich Saddler (740) 821-9652 rich@saddler.me

• Third Ward -Nicholas Basham (740) 357-1230 nrbasham@yahoo.com

• Fourth Ward - Jim Kalb (740) 354-5753 jkalb@roadrunner.com

• Fifth Ward - John Haas (740) 353-9805 ii6svvh@yahoo.com

• Sixth Ward - Steve Sturgill (740) 776-2487 ssturgill@zoomnet.net

Betty Ford: Champion of Addiction Recovery

Betty Ford had a unique celebrity. She never shied away from having the nation know her views on addictions, depression or mental health. Ford was a First Lady who could have chosen to be quiet and remain secluded from the public eye. Instead, she willingly revealed her own addictions and embraced her unique opportunity to remind others that addictions are treatable illnesses. Her courage and honesty impacted so many, especially women at the epicenter of the America family.

Betty Ford not only spoke about her alcoholism publicly, but openly admitted she had an opiate addiction. At the time Betty Ford admitted she was an alcoholic and drug addict, most women who were suffering from alcoholism and other addictions felt like bad wives, mothers, daughters or even grandmothers. These women chose to keep the "elephant in the living room" secret, but when Ford sought help, she was deluged with letters and words from women all over the country who felt the same guilt and shame about their own lives.

Taking care of her own sobriety first, Ford then stepped into an iconic role of creating awareness. She maintained her role with grace and class over the next 30 years. By taking her public stand, Betty Ford reduced the shame and stigma associated with the treatment of chemical dependency. Her legacy continues to make the world a better place for those struggling with alcohol and drug addiction and their families.

Treatment and Recovery Debate

Today, the debate about drug control still rages between two old-school extremes -- drug legalization on one hand and heavy law enforcement on the other. What is seldom considered is the great value of a policy guided by science and the tenets of mental and behavioral health. How can Americans neglect the hundreds of thousands of people in treatment and recovery who are working hard to break free from the grips of substance use and reclaim their lives?

America must view and support those in recovery from active addiction and, in fact, also support the way the recovery community itself views and supports each other.

In a recent New York Times article David Colman quotes American writer, editor and entrepreneur Maer Roshan as saying, “The recovery world is now where the gay world was then,” he said. “Back then, there was a still a stigma to saying you were gay. There was a community, but it was mired in self-doubt and self-hatred, and it’s changed considerably. Not just gay people, but the perception of gay people has changed. There’s a lot of secretiveness and shame in the recovery world, too, but that’s changing.

“There’s not a day that goes by that some major figure doesn’t announce himself as a substance abuser. There’s a community of people who don’t see it as shameful. These are people that have learned from challenges who have a hunger for life and money to spend, and who want to make up for lost time.”

(David Colman, "Challenging the Second 'A' in A.A." The New York Times, May 6 2011)

America needs Betty Ford’s brand of courage and leadership when it comes to changing the way recovery from addiction is viewed and treated in broader society. People who have confronted addiction need not be pitied, praised, or treated with "kid gloves." Addiction is an illness like any other illness.

As actor, author, activist Christopher Kennedy Lawford says, "Nobody congratulates cancer patients for dealing with their cancer. They may comment on the grace or fortitude with which they approach treatment but that’s a different thing. Those in recovery from addictive illness are only different from our fellows in the way that our biology relates to the addictive substances or processes."

(Christopher Kennedy Lawford, "Betty Ford: Bringing Addiction Recovery Out of the Closet," christopherkennedylawford.com, August 2 2011)

Director of the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy Gil Kerlikowske cites the importance of expanding access to recovery support services; identifying and addressing barriers to recovery in the community, and fostering the development of recovery-oriented systems and services.

“This country hasn’t looked at recovery in a way that makes a lot of sense,” Kerlikowske, a former Seattle police chief, told an audience mostly of addiction scientists gathered at the Betty Ford Center.
Recovery was “kind of an afterthought” and “often overlooked,” he said.

("Long Term Recovery Advocated By Drug Control Policy Director,"bettyfordcenter.org, June 28 2012)

Kerlikowske asked the millions of Americans living in recovery to help reduce addiction’s stigma by sharing their struggles publicly. “The country needs to hear your stories. It also needs to hear your setbacks,” he said. “The more we talk openly on substance abuse, the better we can actually treat it.”

He also touted a federal voucher program that recovering addicts use for counseling, transportation, transitional housing, child care, work clothes and other services to stay clean and sober after treatment. Some $30 billion has been spent on such programs in the past three years, Kerlikowske said.“The federal government should expand access to a drug-free life and not diminish it,” he added.

Kerlikowske hopes his “third way” approach, advocating neither full- blown drug legalization nor an emphasis on arrests and incarcerations, can make a difference curbing drug abuse.

My Final Take

Thank God for courageous people like Betty Ford who, despite their disease and all the stigma associated with addiction, openly face treatment and recovery. Ford was a true pioneer in the fight against drug abuse who set an example: "If Betty Ford can do it, I can do it. I don't have to be ashamed of my problems."

Candor worked for Betty Ford, again and again. She built an enduring legacy by opening up the toughest times of her life as public example.

And, most importantly, Betty Ford didn't just lend her name to the cause and to a wonderful facility, she became actively involved, showing up in person to help others. In her book, A Glad Awakening, she described her recovery as a second chance at life. And in that second chance, she found a new purpose. "There is joy in recovery," she wrote, "and in helping others discover that joy."

We must take a new view of addiction to meet the needs of those struggling to find "that joy." No longer can we be divided into two camps of thought about solutions to the problem: (1) legalization, or (2) overwhelming law enforcement. Drug addiction is a complex illness that too often goes untreated. It is our problem. It is a problem we must prioritize and work to fix. The repercussions of ignoring it are unthinkable.  

New Celebrity: Lifting Up the Famous and the Infamous

"Eighty-one percent of 18- to 25-year-olds surveyed

in a Pew Research Center poll (2007)

said getting rich is their generation's most important

 or second-most-important life goal;

51% said the same about being famous."

"We're seeing the common person become famous for being themselves," says David Morrison of the Philadelphia-based research firm Twentysomething Inc. MTV and reality TV are in large part fueling these youthful desires, he says.

"Look at Big Brother and other shows. People being themselves can be incredibly famous and get sponsorship deals, and they can become celebrities," he says. "It's a completely new development in entertainment, and it's having a crossover effect on attitudes and behavior."

The results of the Pew telephone survey of 579 young people describe the "millennial" generation (also known as Gen Y), who were born since the early 1980s and were raised in the glow and glare of their parents' omnipresent cameras. While experts say it's natural for humans to seek attention, these young people revel in it. They're accustomed to being noticed, having been showered with awards and accolades. (Sharon Jayson, "Generation Y's Goal? Wealth and Fame," USA Today, January 10 2007)

Add in the anything-is-possible attitude typical of youth overall, and experts say that even among millennials of lesser economic means, there is an optimism that fame and fortune can happen to anyone.

Where does the desire for fame originate? The desire to be famous comes from a basic human need to be part of a group, said Orville Gilbert Brim, psychologist and author of the new book Look at Me! The Fame Motive From Childhood to Death. Often those who seek fame find the need for acceptance and approval because of rejection by parents, adolescent peer groups, or others. Brim believes insecurity develops in these people and emerges as the fame motive.

The fame motive has come out of the basic human need for acceptance and approval and when this need is not fulfilled because of rejection by parents, or adolescent peer groups, or others, a basic insecurity develops and emerges as the motive to seek fame.

Ironically, in most cases, fame is not the answer for the need for love and acceptance. The desire is never fulfilled, so the search for fame remains, driven by those basic needs. In fact, Brim estimates four million adults in the U.S. (2 of every 100) have fame as their primary motive. Of course, many will not fulfill their dream of being famous, then experience deep frustration and be faced with adjusting their primary ambitions.

And, Brim says, for a person with the fame motive,

whatever level or strength of fame may be achieved,

it is never enough to either satisfy the fame seeker

or to cause the fame motive to disappear,

leading to what has been called the "16th minute of fame,”

the desire to live on in people’s minds after death.

(Orville Gilbert Brim, Look at Me!: The Fame Motive from Childhood to Death, 2009)

Some people seek fame more as a "call for attention" or a desperate need for celebrity they believe can be fulfilled by seeking media exposure. They have done nothing that deserves to be publicly praised as an achievement. A part of this group will do injurious or open evil that brings extraordinary attention to the general public. At times, the infamous act is not done on purpose, it’s an accident, but many other times it is sought. A recent example is the “balloon boy” where the father was seeking fame through this infamous act of pretending the boy was in the balloon in order to gain attention

Studies have called attention to the specific reasons of a desire for fame among the general population. (John Maltby, et al., "Implicit Theories of a Desire for Fame," British Journal of Psychology, December 31 2010) A model has been developed.


A Six-Factor Analytic Model of Conceptions of the Desire To Be Famous

1. Ambition
2. Meaning Derived Through Comparison With Others
3. Psychologically Vulnerable
4. Attention Seeking
5. Conceitedness
6. Social Access

Author and psychologist David Giles argues that fame should be seen as a process rather than a state of being, and that "celebrity" has largely emerged through the technological developments of the last 150 years. (David Giles, Illusions of Immortality: A Psychology of Fame and Celebrity, 2000) The explosion in mass communications has permanently altered the way people live.

However, we know little about many of the phenomena these conditions have produced - such as the "parasocial interaction" between television viewers and media characters, and the quasi-religious activity of  "fans."

The level of coverage given by the news media to certain great crimes appears to encourage unbalanced people, seeking a lasting fame, to copy these crimes.

In an episode of Charlie Brooker's BBC series Newswipe, a forensic psychiatrist outlined the guidelines for news reporting of such a tragedy, assuming that your aim was to prevent further ones.

He says:

If you don’t want to propagate more mass murders… do not start the story with sirens blaring.

Do not have photographs of the killer.

Do not make this 24/7 coverage.

Do everything you can not to make the body count the lead story.

Do not make the killer some kind of anti-hero

Do localize this story to the effected community and as make it as boring as possible in every other market.

Brooker said: "Repeatedly showing us the face of a killer isn't news; it's just rubbernecking. ... this sort of coverage only serves to turn this murdering little twat into a sort of nihilistic pinup boy."

Given the intense media coverage of mass killings, don't these frenzies 

(a) play straight into the perpetrators' tendency to want recognition for their crimes? and

(b) encourage copycat repetitions?

(Robert Wright, "How To Discourage Aurora Copycats," The Atlantic, July 21 2012) 

Can major media outlets police themselves not to play into these dynamics?
Perhaps, media should adopt a code and call for a norm, about not featuring certain things in their coverage of mass murder. The better media can do what our better media has always done as a matter of vocation: It can go on the attack and shame those responsible for social exploitation. (J.J. Gould, "Disrupting the Infamy Game: How to Change the Coverage of Mass Shootings," The Atlantic, 2012)

Twenty years ago author Clayton Cramer considered this possibility.

"Can we develop a code of ethics that resolves this problem? Let us consider the following as a first draft of such a standard: "A crime of violence should be given attention proportionate to its size, relative to other crimes of violence, and relative to the importance of its victim. Violent crime of all types should be given attention, relative to other causes of suffering, proportionate to its social costs." We must develop a strategy for dealing with this problem now -- before another disturbed person decides to claim his fifteen minutes of fame."

(Clayton Cramer, "Ethical Problems of Mass Murder Coverage In The Mass Media," Journal of Mass Media Ethics, 9:1, 1993-94)

Gunning Down the Masses

A man from Colorado purchased four guns at local shops and more than 6,000 rounds of ammunition on the Internet in the past 60 days. He spent $3,000 for his personal arsenal that included a Remington 12-gauge shotgun, a .40 caliber Glock handgun, and an AR-15 rifle, a semiautomatic assault weapon that would have been banned at the time if the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 had still been in force. The AR-15 is capable of carrying 100 rounds, and with its drum magazine, it can shoot 50-60 rounds within one minute.

"All the ammunition he possessed, he possessed legally, all the weapons he possessed, he possessed legally, all the clips he possessed, he possessed legally," Aurora, Colorado Police Chief Dan Oates said.

All of this the man did legally in a world where among the 23 wealthiest countries, 80 percent of all gun deaths are American deaths and 87 percent of all kids killed by guns are American kids.

All of this the man did legally in a country, the United States, where the gun murder rate is almost 20 times higher than the next 22 richest and most populous nations combined.

Is was obvious this man spent his money within the rights guaranteed to him by the laws of Colorado and the rights of the U.S. Constitution. In fact, his only known brush with the law had been a traffic ticket for speeding. Unfortunately, he had plans to use his authorized purchases to contribute to the carnage of mass murder.

On July 20, 2012, at 12:35 A.M., James Egan Holmes, a 24 year-old grad school dropout, walked into a Colorado movie theater during a screening of The Dark Knight Rises, a new Batman sequel, and sprayed patrons with gunfire, killing at least 12 people and injuring scores of others. When detained by arresting officers, Holmes, described by acquaintances as a quiet, intelligent “nerd,” identified himself as “the Joker.”

Jack Levin, the director of the Brudnick Center on Violence and conflict at Northeastern University in Boston, author of more than two dozen books on murder and criminology says, "We're still in the dark about where this comes from."

Levin co-wrote Mass Murder: America's Growing Menace, in 1985. At the time, he recalls, "there was zero" research about mass killers, serial killers and the like. Since then, many people have studied mass murderers, writing conclusions about a possible profile. Scientists have done lots of brain research. Studies using MRIs report some mass murderers have high levels of neurotransmitters like dopamine and plunging levels of serotonin. There's even research into the limbic system, a primitive part of the brain that controls emotions and behavior.

But, according to Levin, none of it really touches the psychology of mass murder.

My Take

The exact identities of mass murderers only become clear in the aftermath of their crimes. Even if criminologists develop a profile for mass murderers, how would it be employed? Would enforcement round up all the potentially dangerous people? And, even if they could do this, what would they do to prevent them from carrying out their deadly intentions? In a democracy, all of this seems ridiculous.

I think that the suddenness, randomness, and unpredictability of these attacks makes it nearly impossible to employ security measures that would eliminate them. Mass murderers are determined and deliberate. They have methodical plans that facilitate their strong will to kill. Certainly, security can be improved; however, mass murderers scheme elaborate ways to confound the best efforts.

Pro-gun groups will look at the Colorado incident as a perfect example of why people should be allowed to possess and carry guns. They consistently promote legislation allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons in public places. They say that an armed citizenry would deter criminals or, at least, reduce the death toll when a mass murderer strikes.

But, would counterattacks be successful in crowded places when a murderer unleashes an attack and mass chaos ensues? In these cases, it seems it would be difficult to distinguish the criminal with a gun from a “good guy” with a gun. And, what about when the police arrive in the middle of such a firefight? How would they do their job safely and effectively without injuring some hero behind a weapon?

Most likely, nothing besides a thorough security inspection could have prevented James Egan Holmes from entering the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and carrying out his terrible massacre. Even if security agents had found him armed, Holmes could have killed them and entered the crowded theaters.

Should we submit everyone to security checks in all public venues? Are Americans even willing to subject themselves to invasions of privacy in order to better secure their public gathering places? I know that bags and carry-in items are routinely checked at professional sports events such as Major League baseball games and NFL football contests. Do we now do this in even smaller gatherings? The expense alone would be astronomical.

YET, TO ME, ONE THING REALLY STOOD OUT ABOUT THIS LAST HORRIBLE EPISODE OF MASS MURDER. Please reread the first five paragraphs of this post and see if you agree with me.

High-ranking legislators like Senator Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) still promote the right of individuals to buy magazines that carry 100 rounds because they believe limiting them would infringe on the Constitutional rights of the American public. Where do the Constitutional gun rights end for the common citizen?

Senator Johnson, how about 200 round magazines? 1,000 round magazines? Are RPG rocket launchers OK too? I assume you would say “yes.”

12 people died and 58 others were wounded in the Aurora, Colorado shooting.

Six people died in the January 8, 2011 attack in Tucson, AZ. that wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others. The weapon used was reported to be a 9mm Glock 19 semi-automatic with a 33-round magazine.

On August 3, 2010, Omar Thornton, armed with a Sturm, Ruger SR9 semi-automatic pistol and high-capacity ammunition magazine, opened fire on his co-workers at beer distributor Hartford Distributors in Manchester, CT, killing eight and wounding two.

On November 5, 2009, Nidal Hasan, armed with an FN 5.7 semi-automatic pistol and 30- and 20-round high-capacity ammunition magazines, killed 13 and wounded more than 30 at the Fort Hood military base in Fort Hood, TX.

On April 16, 2007, Seung-Hui Cho, armed with a Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol, Walther P22 semi-automatic pistol, and 15-round high-capacity ammunition magazines, killed 32 and wounded 17 on the campus of Virginia Tech in Blacksburg, VA,

On April 20, 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, armed with an Intratec TEC-DC9 semi-automatic assault pistol, Hi-Point 9mm semi-automatic Carbine, two Savage shotguns, and high-capacity ammunition magazines, killed 13 and wounded 23 at Columbine High School in Littleton, CO, before taking their own lives.

On and on and on and on....

The assault weapon mania of American citizens is partly fueled by irresponsible policy. I am not suggesting a ban on all handguns or even a change in the concealed-carry rights of responsible people. I am saying that America can cut down on senseless slaughter by restricting weapons with high-capacity ammunition magazines such as assault rifles. I know all about the rights of a militia, etc. But, I believe these weapons cause too much destruction.

Judging from the over 250 million guns in America today, it's obvious that the gun control legislation currently in place is not working. Assault rifles are weapons of war. Now citizens and police officers are daily facing these rapid-fire guns.

Mass murders may be a consequence of the many freedoms we enjoy in America. Perhaps nothing can stop the tragedies from occurring, yet some measures can be taken to reduce the large tolls of deaths and injuries when a mass murderer attacks.

If assault weapons are necessary and effective, perhaps all public areas should be guarded by trained security armed with these guns. Can you imagine seeing officers with fully loaded assault rifles roaming all public gatherings? Schools, malls, stadiums, concert halls, theaters, churches – more guns would surely make these places safer, wouldn't they? Is that the best defense in the land of the free?

The "Bad People" -- All Safe and Dead

"People 'die' all the time. ... Parts of them die when they make the wrong kinds of decisions-decisions against life. Sometimes they die bit by bit until finally they are just living corpses walking around. If you are perceptive you can see it in their eyes; the fire has gone out ... you always know when you make a decision against life. ... The door clicks and you are safe inside- safe and dead."

-Anne Morrow Lindbergh, American author and aviator


I took some liberty changing tense in this Anne Lindbergh quote. I felt it spoke to me about the decisions we all make in our lives and, particularly, the impact of making bad decisions. I have never understood the workings of fate and the interplay of human will that lead to certain outcomes. In fact, some who make what Lindbergh calls "decisions against life" are able to recover and overcome their poor choices while others find it impossible, no matter how hard they try, to escape the door that seals their fate and their eventual demise.

I honestly don't believe inherent depravity or unyielding weakness of character leads all of us into the room of the "safe and dead." To me, we all could make one ill-chosen decision at a particularly vulnerable moment that might change our course of good intentions. For whatever reason, once on such a life-robbing path, we could prefer to traverse it unconsciously to its end.

I believe lack of love can overpower any good intention. Although we all tire of hearing how unfortunate circumstances and horrible environments lead people to make poor decisions, we, the fortunate recipients of grace and love, are quick to judge others. We really care little about “how” whom we judge as the “Bad People” deal with hatred, loneliness, or abuse. On the other hand, we extend overwhelming sympathy to those we deem innocent and worthy of our attention.

Too often we seek revenge upon wrongdoers and believe they are forever unworthy of our trust. We allow little, if any, chance for the Bad People to have new beginnings. In fact, I believe many of us merely wish to discard these troublesome miscreants and enjoy what we perceive as a "cleaner" environment without them.

Just for a moment imagine yourself imprisoned in a life created by your own bad decisions. Why would you even want to leave your confines to fit into a world that holds no trust in you and no comfort for your presence? Even if you wanted to re-enter the real world, how would you exist? You would need to find good friends, a job, and a place to survive for the remainder of your lonely existence. Once you make yourself one of the Bad People by making bad decisions, you carry that deep brand of shame with you everywhere you go. You become unwanted refuse – breathing, walking trash.

Who Should Have Redemption?

Christians believe Christ's blood, or life, which he surrendered for them, is the “ransom” by which the deliverance of his people from the servitude of sin and from its penal consequences is secured. It is the plain doctrine of Scripture that "Christ saves us neither by the mere exercise of power, nor by his doctrine, nor by his example, nor by the moral influence which he exerted, nor by any subjective influence on his people, whether natural or mystical, but as a satisfaction to divine justice, as an expiation for sin, and as a ransom from the curse and authority of the law, thus reconciling us to God by making it consistent with his perfection to exercise mercy toward sinners" (Hodge, Systematic Theology)

Many people are unfairly denied employment and other opportunities because of a very old criminal record. Today, this problem is very troublesome. An article published in the journal Pediatrics shows how the arrest rate has grown — by age 23, 30 percent of Americans have been arrested, compared with 22 percent in 1967. The increase reflects in part the considerable growth in arrests for drug offenses and domestic violence.

The existence of criminal-background checks and the efficiency of information technology in maintaining those records and making them widely available, have meant that millions of Americans — even those who served probation or parole but were never incarcerated — continue to pay a price long after their crime.

In November 2011, the American Bar Association released a database identifying more than 38,000 punitive provisions that apply to people convicted of crimes, pertaining to everything from public housing to welfare assistance to occupational licenses. More than two-thirds of the states allow hiring and professional-licensing decisions to be made on the basis of an arrest alone.

What does research have to say about redemption?

One study used criminal record checks to predict future unwanted behaviors. A central question these decision makers face is how much time it takes before offenders can be considered “redeemed” and resemble non-offenders in terms of the probability of offending.

Building on a small literature addressing this topic for youthful, first-time offenders, the research found that young novice offenders are redeemed after approximately 10 years of remaining crime free. For older offenders, the redemption period is considerably shorter. Offenders with extensive criminal histories, however, either never resemble their non-convicted counterparts or only do so after a crime-free period of more than 20 years. (Shawn D. Bushway et al., “The Predictive Value of Criminal Background Checks: Do Age and Criminal History Affect Time To Redemption?” Criminology Volume 49, February 2011)

Another study of redemption research by Kiminori Nakamura based on first-time arrestees found that after five to eight years of staying clean from drugs and alcohol, an individual with a prior conviction is of no greater risk of committing another crime than other individuals of the same age. ( Kiminori Nakamura, “Redemption Research: Kiminori Nakamura,” January 19 2012)

My Bottom Line

People must have opportunities for redemption. We must aid in creating these opportunities. This is not to say that people who make bad decisions and break the law should not pay for their crimes. However, much of American society has been conditioned with very slanted opinions about who should pay the steepest price for wrongdoings. Celebrity and money influence the views of the public and the courts when it comes to paying for doing wrong. In the eyes of the public, both seem to give people free-redemption status.

True, most people want criminals to receive their “just rewards.” I believe this too. But, usually it's the poor who pay most for their mistakes. And, we tend to become callous to these Bad People.

Consider the plight of the poor concerning arrest. The poor are more visible to the police, as well as to other citizens who may complain to law officials: They can't afford offices or similar places to hide. Also, biases in police training and experience may cause police officers to blindly blame crimes on certain groups, such as people of color and lower-class juveniles. Finally, the fear of political pressure and “hassles” may prompt law enforcement officers to avoid arresting more affluent and influential members of society.

Once arrested, the poor pay more. Poor people typically cannot post bail, so they must wait in jail for their trial. Hence, they are unable to actively work in their own defense. Moreover, when the time for the trial comes, defendants who are not out on bail look guilty because they must enter the courtroom led by police—probably influencing judges and juries. Social research even indicates that defendants who pay their bail are more likely to be acquitted than those who do not.

Even though the United States entitles all defendants to legal counsel, the quality of this assistance varies. Poor people receive court-appointed lawyers, who may receive lower wages and have a heavy caseload.

Why do the poor pay more during criminal sentencing? The poor generally receive tougher penalties and longer prison terms than do the more affluent convicted of the same crimes. The race of the victims plays a role in the harshness of sentencing as well. Regardless of the murderer's race, those murdering whites are more likely to receive the death sentence than those killing minorities.

Prisons ideally should deter crimes but the research remains very cloudy about the effectiveness of the prison system to do so. Prisons do isolate criminals from the general public, but, ideally, prisons should rehabilitate criminals into productive citizens who no longer commit crimes. In truth, about 50% of these individuals will repeatedly return to the prison system.

Many studies show that up to 50 percent of recent parolees become homeless at some point after being released from prison. By lifting many of the bans that prevent individuals with drug felony convictions from being able to apply for government help with housing or food, states can help ensure that ex-prisoners have a safe place to live.

Without a physical address, looking for a stable job can be impossible, which can compound the problem for many parolees. Programs that help ensure parolees have a stable place to live after leaving prison can help prisoners build a more successful life after leaving prison.

Many of you are probably now thinking, “What's the use? Helping these Bad People will take lots of money and other resources. These folks cannot take control of their own lives, so they don't deserve redemption.” But, please, consider again how one or two bad decisions can essentially insure that a person will be imprisoned for life – either behind metal bars or in the “safe and dead” room to which Anne Morrow Lindbergh refers.

If America is still a Christian nation, citizens must exercise mercy towards sinners. Shouldn't they do this on earth as they live by their beliefs? Aren't we all sinners anyway? Is the magnitude of your sins less than that of an addict or a thief? In the end, God is the judge. But, too many of us judge others and contribute to their earthly stays in hell by ignoring the real solutions. Too many want all Bad People to pay dearly. Hatred and revenge are instruments of evil. Forgiveness, recovery, and love can help make a saint of any person, regardless of his or her past mistakes. My hope is that everyone has an opportunity to make a difference in the life of another sinner. Recovery, sweet recovery.

Scioto County -- Have We Been Our Own Worst Enemy?

“Chronic poverty in rural areas, and urban areas for that matter, really represents long-term neglect and lack of investment -- a lack of investment in people as well as communities. And in the rural areas that I know in America, that lack of investment began as deliberate efforts by those in power -- local elites or employers -- to hold people back. Because it has worked for them, to keep their labor force vulnerable, keep them powerless.”

-Cynthia M. Duncan, Professor of Sociology

And so it goes... the "poor, poor" cries of Appalachia. What can be done, if anything?

Statistics show the effect of long-term underinvestment: low education, low employment, high disability, chronic problems. These histories of underinvestment are still playing out in contemporary isolation for poor people, preventing them from being able to get together what it takes to be part of the mainstream.

The adults are undereducated, the institutions are poor and inadequate to make up for what families do not offer young people, and everyday life for these kids is just plain hard.

Even during the '60s and President Johnson's so-called “War on Poverty,” Appalachia experienced increased attention but not much substantial change. Duncan says, “Without greater commitment to investment in education and skills, without a significant economic engine to create the kind of jobs that support a solid middle class that can be holding government accountable, it didn't have a lasting, far-reaching effect for the region.” (Cynthia M. Duncan, "Why Poverty Persists In Appalachia," Frontline interview, December 29 2005)

Let's Work On Education

All schooling is not the same in Appalachia. The level of expectations and the quality of education varies greatly throughout the region, even throughout districts within specific counties. Some schools in poor rural areas lack quality in schooling the underprivileged, so, naturally, the expectations for at-risk students aren't as high as they are for middle-class kids – this can be a vicious cycle in which schools treat their poor students with low expectations and these students, in turn, believe in these limits and attempt to achieve little personal growth beyond.

This type of freely administered self-exclusion produces a large body of students with no aspirations of getting outside their particular class or situation. They live in a world of only the poor, and they are being told over and over that they do not belong in another group. Duncan states, “I'm sure a therapist would say that in a way it's helping poor students cope. I don't pretend to know about that. But I do think it's also part of blaming yourself for where you are and accepting the way other people are blaming you.”

Students' personal expectations are largely based on their experiences in the world that they know. When they think about their futures, they imagine only the most immediate world around them as framing that future. Many kids coming from a really poor neighborhood imagine themselves being like their aunt, the person next door, or maybe a teacher they admire. They structure their behavior to conform to "what people like us do." Thus, the individual most confident of working towards a good future must have the support of the community of people “who care for them.”

Duncan stresses the importance of mentoring for better education. Duncan states, “We see this over and over, and rigorous evaluation studies show that mentoring makes a real difference for kids at risk, kids who are disconnected... the kids who made it were those who had mentors who believed in them, that when a young girl or boy would get special attention from a coach or teacher or an aunt or an uncle, it could make a big difference in the kind of decisions that he or she made going forward.”

What else can seriously restrict the options of poor children within their own communities and seriously damage their potential for mobility out of poverty? Consider the way the Appalachian community works. Many of these communities have a mindset of behavior that confirms special treatment by “That's the way things are done around here.”


Upper and middle-class kids do make mistakes and get into trouble. However, Duncan believes family resources and the access to community resources in upper-class and middle-class settings give kids a second chance that is deeper and different than what we see in low-income communities and for low-income families. In truth, the lower class shoulders the blame for most problems in the Appalachian community while being deemed unworthy of “a second chance.”


Finally, family stability is very important. Kids who can have predictability in the family income and where families live and what's going on in the family, are time and again more successful at navigating adolescence. A set of studies, including a project called "New Hope" in Chicago and others documented by Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation have shown that an intervention to give earnings supplements to families in exchange for getting the household heads and partners in the families to work steadily, has a positive effect, not only on family well-being and marriage stability, but even on how the kids did in school, what their grades were -- presumably because it is interjecting the stability.

Cynthia Duncan thinks of civic culture as having three components:

1. The extent of trust in the community,

2. The extent of inclusive participation,

3. The extent of investment.

Do people trust one another, or are they fearful or suspicious?

Is one part of the community making all the decisions, leaving others isolated and cut out?

How much are people investing overall in community institutions and how much do they care whether those institutions are open to everyone, even "the kids at the end of the road" who are hoping for a chance for mobility?

In these Appalachian communities people talk all the time about haves and have-nots. And the haves aren't rich people necessarily; they're people who aspire to be like the few very rich people. They really do discriminate against the kids from the hollows.

Please read these words of Duncan and consider Scioto County:

“One of the things that's going on in that region is this kind of broken civic culture where, because things have been bad so long and there's a history of patronage and getting things according to who you know or your family name, that there's an ongoing distrust and nervousness about whether you'll be associated with those who never do any good. And so there's a distancing -- the low-income families are really isolated from the others, made to feel they deserve what they get.

“You know, even if 40 percent of the people in a community are poor, it means 60 percent are not. So we have to ask ourselves, what are those 60 percent doing and thinking? And in the case of these chronically-poor places, my experience and others' is that they're distancing themselves from the poor rather than looking for ways to bring them into the Boy Scouts or into the after-school program or into the same church as the more middle-class folks.

“That means that the cultural toolkit is constricted and constrained in ways that can perpetuate poverty because the individuals are experiencing such isolation, living in a world of only the poor, and being told over and over that they do not belong in another group.”

My Bottom Line

We have wonderful communities and terrific school districts in Scioto County that rally around their children as they support sports, social activities and cultural events. I am very proud to live in Scioto County, a truly beautiful part of Appalachia. As a past teacher at Valley High School, I have served on the front lines, and I feel fortunate to have taught so many excellent students.

Yet, as I read what Cynthia Duncan says, SO MANY things strike me as true. Top to bottom, adults to children, our sense of community does not extend to many of those in dire need. Being such a small, rural county of approximately 80,000 residents, Scioto County can be considered one, integrated community of loosely related villages and districts. We have the promise and the ability to build stronger and better ties to benefit all county youth, but we must bring the various districts together.

Consider Duncan's concept of civic culture in our county:

1. Would you say the community of Scioto County works to foster great trust of community in our youth?

(trust for politicians, local government officials, law enforcement, media, educators, adults)

2. Would you say the community of Scioto County encourages our youth to have great inclusive participation?

(using efforts to be inclusive as a county of all races, creeds, religions, persuasions and appreciate their diversity)

3. Would you say the community of Scioto County puts a great investment in our youth?

(investments of money, time, and attention to the needs of all classes)

I would honestly answer “no” to all three questions. Just how much are we doing to FOSTER civic culture? I believe we certainly do too little. Celebrating and sharing our differences may help break down these obstacles to better civic culture, while holding onto old grudges and being exclusive only create greater divisions.

Consider Duncan's “underinvestment” discussion as it relates to our county:

1. For whatever reason, do a great number of capable adults in Scioto County show resistance to educating themselves and, thereby, foster that same resistance to learning in their own children?

2. Do we in Scioto County too often show two sides to fairness and equity by employing a “That's the way things are done around here” mindset of disparity?

3. Do we, intentionally or not, help create a judgmental class system in Scioto County that divides our individual school populations ever-stronger as they progress K-12?

4. As a Scioto County community, do we, as simply residents, take far too few opportunities to mentor the development and the education of our youth?

I believe the answer to each question 1-4 is “yes.” I know we can better our situation.

To improve our status, we in Scioto County must help foster the education of more adults, correct the “Old Boy” favoritism and clannish mentality that contributes to injustice, be more active in tearing down walls that confine the poor and needy, and EACH of us must take an active role in mentoring all aspects of the daily education of our youth.

I'm not talking about sports, schools, churches, civic groups, other structured programs and institutions that people assume will properly educate the youth of Appalachia. I am talking about You and Me. WE must see that WE do these things. Only then will significant change result. Like it or not, we all are part of our problems, and our youth is our greatest commodity.

"My whole thesis is

that you can't understand America

until you understand Appalachia."

-Jeff Biggers, American author, journalist, playwright