Bob Collins's Comments
Page 1 of 3  first | prev | next 
Nov 28, 2007 | comments: 7
Bob Collins Nov 28, 2007, 7:26pm EST
It's not really that simple, Nanci. You have to understand the entire social structure these days and for the most part it starts with Facebook. It's true, there are bullies everywhere but it's not just a matter of "suck it up, kid." Keep in mind, if you will, that the brains of young teens are still developing so what makes sense to us as adults doesn't -- and can't -- compute with the unfinished brain.

The formation of social contacts is,in fact, critical to their development. The Internet has made it easy to remove that social contact and, in fact, damage the very development of the person. That's part of the reason why we see the school shooters usually having some connection back to the lack of an accepting social structure.

yes, there are bullies everywhere. The difference with the Internet is it can create a situation where there is nothing BUT bullies. There are no friends. There is no acceptance. There is only stigma and shame.

For the most part, we adults have nothing to offer in the way of telling people to just "suck it up," because for the most part, we don't live in that kind of world. We have social contacts.
Nov 28, 2007 | comments: 7
Bob Collins Nov 28, 2007, 5:41pm EST
I think it would be a good -- potentially, better -- idea if we put more effort into identifying who the people are that are being bullied. To that end, there's a Web site in Canada that lists ways to identify those people. Find it here:
www.cyberbullying.ca

It's near the bottom of the page.
Nov 20, 2007 | comments: 11
Bob Collins Nov 24, 2007, 9:53am EST
Not sure that alcohol is a huge part of the Upper Midwest culture? Not sure what to give you for evidence all the 50-state survey of behaviors just showed that 8 of the top 11 states for binge drinking are in the Upper Midwest... again.

They're just caryring on a family tradition. A sick tradition, perhaps, but still a tradition.
Nov 21, 2007 | comments: 10
Bob Collins Nov 22, 2007, 10:34am EST
It would appear those who went to the media didn't like her much. Didn't like her youth, didn't like that she was a colleague of Gonzalez etc. Few of the complaints have to do with wrongdoing (and there's no evidence that I can see that there was). So i guess the question is whether not liking your boss and undermining her (or his) tenure is the act of a whistleblower in the true sense of the word or just the act of a po'd employee.

In any case, the issue is not the legality, the issue is the handling of information. Let's say the next u.s. attorney comes in and wants to prosecute a child molester instead of someone else. Let's say an asst. u.s. attorney disagrees. What is the proper coure where making information public is concerned?

More important, let's say a grand jury doesn't indict someone that the u.s. attorney knows is guilty. Let's say in retribution, the u.s. attorney (or subordinate) leaks to the press that the individual was beofr ethe grand jury in the first place (a felony, by the way).

The Minneapolis U.S. attorneys office has proven, so far, that it has no problems leaking information. So i guess my main question is regardless of whether you think it was right or wrong, where does and should that particular talent stop.

The staff, it seems to me, has done nothing to warrant the trust of the next u.s. attorney. They might have been "right" in their actions on this case, but I would suggest that the integrity of the office has been tainted by more than just the presence of Rachel Paulose.
Nov 20, 2007 | comments: 11
Bob Collins Nov 22, 2007, 10:27am EST
I've been fascinated by the binge drinking conversations (conversations about binge drinking, that is) in the last few weeks. It's amazing to me, really, how many people want to just walk away and say "stupid kids." But the Upper Midwest has been the leader in binge drinking for years... we older people -- apparently -- have passed our love for the excess of alcohol from generation to generation. In that context, I guess I shouldn't be surprised by anything that happens.
Nov 21, 2007 | comments: 10
Bob Collins Nov 21, 2007, 1:54pm EST
Did you guys miss the point or are you just ignoring it to have another Dem vs. GOP battle?
Nov 21, 2007 | comments: 10
Bob Collins Nov 21, 2007, 10:42am EST
Ok, well, that's the problem with the situation. Everyone talks about not politicizing the Justice Department, but nobody can bring themselves to discuss the next step without...ummm... politicizing the Justice Department.

At this point, the politics of it all is entirely irrelevant. We're down to ethics now. And, it's true, in the political world, "he (she) did it first" is often seen as a legitimate defense. But in the ethical world, it's irrelevant.
Nov 20, 2007 | comments: 11
Bob Collins Nov 20, 2007, 2:38pm EST
Right, I get that. I'm not that interested in TV news people per se. I am interested in journalists and journalism, though, and that's what this piece is about. There are countless situations in which reporters -- and I know some people won't believe it but some people have families and kids and understand about heartbreak and pain -- have a story to tell and a job to do and have an interest in a greater good. And sometimes they're faced with decisions in which there are no winners.

I think if you click on any of the links provided and read some of the stories of these sorts of decisions, there actually is a conversation that people and the media can have that goes beyond the "I hate you" stage.
Nov 20, 2007 | comments: 11
Bob Collins Nov 20, 2007, 1:40pm EST
I disagree, though, Gary. It's not as easy as saying "the (&#(*& media." That's the problem.

Look, Minnesota loves to drink. And we are in complete denial that this is a young person's problem. It's not. For decades, Minnesota and the upper Midwest have been the biggest drinkers in the country. It's in our culture, and we pass it down to our kids.

THAT's the story that the media should be doing.... turning the situation back on ourselves to say why? Why do we pass this culture along.

The problem is it's difficult to that without an entry point. Two weeks ago it was Amanda Jax and if this case turns out to be one of alcohol, this case will be too.

You're right, the family doesn't need the media vultures circling the body. But people do need to reassess why we do what we do in the hope that some other family doesn't go through this.

It's not black and white. There's no good guy and bad guy here. It's not that simple.

It never is.
Nov 12, 2007 | comments: 5
Bob Collins Nov 16, 2007, 7:34pm EST
That's for others to decide for themsleves. But, for me, yes. In a story about taking a link to the Web site off his site, he linked to the site.

But what IS the point of shunning in a medium in which it's impossible?
Nov 14, 2007 | comments: 13
Bob Collins Nov 14, 2007, 1:09pm EST
In many cases, the medical bills are more than they can sue for. So they're losing money for driving on a bridge that fell down. Is it a legal issue? Or is it a moral issue?

And, is it more than we give farmers and ethanol producers?
Nov 12, 2007 | comments: 5
Bob Collins Nov 12, 2007, 4:15pm EST
But MSM is still in its "arrogance" phase. It still thinks its silencing those that must not be named by refusing to acknowledge that it exists. Unfortunately, for most people, given their dependence upon MSM, that's enough to be effective.
Nov 7, 2007 | comments: 7
Bob Collins Nov 7, 2007, 5:08pm EST
But theyd on't really add up. First, the marketplace has already brought EnergyStar computers. It's virtually a sure bet that if you buy a reliable, say, laptop, it's going to meet the goals that Pawlenty outlined today. Take a ThinkPad, for example. So calling a big news conference and making a big splash about somethign that was likely to happen anyway by osmosis, doesn't really make a big difference since -- as I said -- it was goign to happen anyway.

And changing a lightbulb is nice...but if you really wanted to save energy, you'd turn down the thermostat on the heat (or up on the air conditioning)

You could also reduce the size of the state auto fleet... or consolidate duplicative units of government.

That would be hard.
Nov 5, 2007 | comments: 7
Bob Collins Nov 5, 2007, 1:23pm EST
Actually, I'm starting this new gig here (at MPR) in a few weeks in which I go off and peel layers away from stories. This would be one of them. There are so many.

Mankato would be a good place to go. A 21 year old died there last week from binge drinking. And early in October the city council there postponed a vote on sweeping liquor law changes... like two-for-ones and "all you can drink" specials.

Students and bar owners testified and what interests me is how they attempted to debate this in the same manner as the smoking ban -- as a combination of being an economic issue and a "government intrusion" issue.

And that's all well and good except that it's illegal for teenagers to drink. Period. Smoking is not illegal.

Which, to me, brings up the role of bar owners and local enforcement. I went by a couple of bars over at the U a few weeks ago and, of course, the bars were packed. I'd be willing to bet that a large majority of people weren't over 21.

So I think part of the reason it's a problem here is because there's a culture of collectively shrugging it off.
Nov 5, 2007 | comments: 7
Bob Collins Nov 5, 2007, 12:38pm EST
I don't see where the breakdown is by economic status. Clearly the poverty rate can be attributed to, well, having more poor people. But I don't see any evidence that binge drinking is related to the failure to "toughening" of welfare rules, especially since Wisconsin is a bigger binge drinker than we are.

But your connection to not toughening welfare rules, isn't really supported by the anecdotal evidence. We slipped from #1 to #2. Theoretically, if this were related to welfare rules, Wisconsin would've shown a significant increase in health because of its tighter laws. But Wisconsin's overall rank has dropped from 10th to 12th.

Comparing to Minnesota, Wisconsin has more smokers, more binge drinkers, more obesity (a huge jump -- pardon the pun -- from a year earlier), slightly more fatalities on the job, and more children in poverty, more cancer deaths, more premature deaths.

The health care is an interesting story. Minnesota got tough with prenatal care in '02-'04, for poor people. And it shows, We trail Minnesota in providing prenatal care.

I guess the point is we're an attractive place for poor people to come but if that's true, Wisconsin wouldn't be.
Oct 11, 2007 | comments: 13
Bob Collins Oct 12, 2007, 3:15pm EDT
Not letting people go to lunch is all part of my "downsizing government strategy.

Seriously, I'm ALL for considering any proposal to reduce the size of government, I simply want to know what people are willing to give up from those items that they perceive benefit them.

Otherwise, to me, it's all just speechmaking.
Oct 11, 2007 | comments: 13
Bob Collins Oct 12, 2007, 2:11pm EDT
(nothing but silence)

See what I mean? Once you get past the speechmaking, there's no "there" there.

Nobody wants to be specific about what THEY would be willing to give up.

Why? They don't want to give up anything! They just want everyone else to give up stuff.

I'm not a big fan of FactCheck.org, but they're out with a very salient position on campaign ads today. (http://www.factcheck.org/99_fact-free.html)

They're always talking about "wasteful spending". Some people think building roads is wasteful. Otherws thing health care spending is wasteful. Otherrs think subsidies to farmers is wasteful. Some think a war is wasteful.

But if we really wanted our candidates to be honest, we'd encourage them to cite SPECIFICALLY what they mean.

And when a candidate is speaking before a group -- say farmers -- they'd have to tell the farmers EXACTLY what of their favored spending programs the candidate will cut.

Politics IS powered by hot air.
Oct 11, 2007 | comments: 13
Bob Collins Oct 12, 2007, 12:20pm EDT
I'm willing to bet we're spending more money on bridges than we are on bike trails.

So, let's change this a bit. To all: what are YOU willing to give up? I don't mean on what additional spending might benefit you. Right now. What are YOU willing to give up?
Oct 11, 2007 | comments: 13
Bob Collins Oct 12, 2007, 11:01am EDT
Well, you've got part of that right in that you've acknowledged that there's no difference between fees and taxes (actually, one can argue that the gas TAX is more of a user fee than the car registration FEE (a little $5 add on) since the former is based on amount of use and the latter is not.

The problem, however is the construction. One begins with a "T" and one begins with an "F," and the candidate who, usually when he's in a battle to determine who's the most conservative, starts invoking the "no new TAXES" rather than a "cut spending" or a "no new fees, either," it is grounded in the assumption that the voter is stupid and that's really one of the problems with politicians... their strategy assumes the voter is stupid.

And the problem with THAT is that many times the voters are. The no new taxes pledge isn't far removed from the sudden wave of candidates who change their name to Anderson (In Minnesota, anyway) shortly before the election. Both seem to work.

Can we stop spending? Sure. Anytime. All you have to do is outline what you're going to stop spending money on and then let everyone know. But we didn't hear that in the debate the other day because that would involve a commodity in shorter supply than money: courage.

Plus,we're not a generation (s) that believe i sacrifice. If we come up with a list of things we are willing to forego, in government spending, the chances are we'll start with what primarily benefits someone else.

The farmers don't want to give up subsidies. The oil companies don't want to give up their coziness, the politicians don't want to give up their per diem etc.

But we don't have that discussion because we spend too much time creating boogeymen to blame everything on, rather than look in the mirror.
Oct 11, 2007 | comments: 13
Bob Collins Oct 12, 2007, 10:11am EDT
Gary, that's kind of a "convenient definition" isn't it? The taxes are usually not lowered to compensate for the shifting of the cost of government to the "recovery method." That's the first clue that it's really just a way of grabbing more money from the citizen while still being able to claim "no new taxes." Clearly the Club for Growth isn't fooled, in noting the large fee increases of Gov. Romney.

It also obscures a fact; that the benefits of some government expenditures may benefit the taxpayer, even though the taxpayer is not a "direct" user. But tthat definition doesn't -- and shouldn't, perhaps -- include beng an indirect beneficiary.

The "no new taxes" pledge is a sham. I know it. You know it. The '27 Yankees know it. It sounds good, but it's built on the assumption that the average voter won't really investigate how it works and -- as I already mentioned -- it'd intentionally constructed as an alternative the much more honest discussion about reduced spending.

In Ramsey County the other day, by the way, I know of a woman who had been assaulted by her ex-husband, who couldn't get an order of protection because she couldn't afford the $120 fee.

You'd think we're talking about playing on the basketball team.
Page 1 of 3  first | prev | next 
 
Bob Collins
Woodbury, MN
Gather | Friends | Groups | Share
About Gather | Engagement Marketing | Make New Friends | Gather Points | Advertise on Gather | Gather Press | Privacy | Terms of Service | Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.