Government creates, maintains and defends bureaucracies. On Wednesday March 16, 2005 a joint meeting of the Human Services Committee and the Public Safety Committee of the City Council was held in the Ackerman Room of City Hall.

With the City’s social and human services bureaucrats present in force could this have been the germination of a new City bureaucracy? Arriving late, I did not know the specific purpose of the meeting. It was generally about bullying. School Committee member Marc McGovern gave out copies of the "Cambridge Public Schools Anti-Bullying Policy," which states, "Bullying is aggressive, intentional, or deliberately hostile behavior, by a student(s) toward another student(s)." Did the City Council want to extend the policy to the entire city?

What is bullying?

From http://www.nobully.prg.nz "Bullying is when someone keeps doing or saying things to have power over another person, by calling them names, saying or writing nasty things about them, leaving them out of activities, not talking to them, threatening them, making them feel uncomfortable or scared, taking or damaging their things, hitting or kicking them, or making them do things they don't want to do."

The Executive Director of the Cambridge Commission on Nuclear Disarmament and Peace Education spoke about bullying women in Niger and Lima, Peru. Councilor Maher used a bullying analogy, saying that one speaker "hit the problem on the head." Ouch!

It was unclear what population was the target of protection against bullying. Would a new bureaucracy regulate bullying of deserving persons?

The police are intensely interested in bullying. Who is bullying the police? An officer on the Tactical Patrol Force and the attorney for the police were present. (Isn’t there any better way to spend taxpayer money?) The police lawyer handed out copies of a report from the Office of State Senator Jarrett Barrios, "Reducing Gang Violence in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."

I asked if there was a problem with gangs in Cambridge. I got no answer. But on the Sunday after the meeting, the Boston Herald reported that two young persons were shot in Cambridge in gang related violence.

Some young people (like some older persons) join gangs to avoid being bullied. Local governments are unable to protect citizens. Gangs protect their members. This embarrasses the government. Mostly poor persons are bullied. Rich people willingly pay to avoid harassment. It only costs them a cup of coffee.

Harvard earns $17 million per day interest on their endowment. Money buys a lot of protection. It enables Harvard to bully their critics. A speaker said, "The victim is not the only victim—The bully is the victim too." Harvard is a victim too?

A social worker, Dina, complained that schools are too busy with teaching. What happened to politics? Must we protect the bullies from the police and from their parents?

Another reported that the mental health subcommittee (of what was not identified)suggested that bullying was due to widespread depression in the nation. Countries without the bomb get depressed? The discussion wandered to understanding what causes depression, then to how to make sports a good experience.

Does government corruption from a one party system contribute to depression? Is Cambridge depressing its citizens? Increasing business for the psychiatrists?

Councilor Simmons said, "We know the problem." She did not identify who "we" is, or what the problem is. But she did recognize that "kid on kid bullying" was not the only problem. She said sometimes it is teachers who bully students. I am shocked!

Susan mentioned the Mental Health Initiative. Councilor Simmons reported that the National League of Cities has extensive information on bullying—for free.

Chris said the Nuclear War Commission director did five workshops. Do nations with the bomb bully other nations? She didn’t say.

Deputy City Manager Ellen Semonoff, attorney and master theoretician on bureaucracy, noted that the media promotes a lot of violence. She asked what vehicle should be used to promote training and inclusion.

This made Councilor Simmons assert, "If you don’t know where you’re going, any train will get you there."

Some members said inclusion was essential for training. The notion of community building is important too. I did not hear the word respect. Being respectful is not the way to bully, or to stop bullying.?

Councilor Davis asked, "How did we get to where we are today?" She asked if the focus should be on training parents, who would then teach children. "Should we have acity wide meeting with parents?" But parents bully their children.

Deputy City Manger Semonoff revealed one goal was getting funding to create a new bureaucracy for intensive training. Must we distinguish proper bullying from unapproved bullying? There is a right way and a wrong way. She said she knew where to get some money for this. She suggested that bullying was like CPR training.

The Nuclear War Commission Director told about how other countries handled the problem. How to do without the bomb? She suggested peace promotion, as in Lima, Peru. (Peru does not have the bomb.) She said, skills of mediation, and promotion of peace are helpful if your country does not have a nuclear bomb.

The Director of the Nuclear War Commission also said she works with sports coaches. She prefers non-violent communications, which rules out using bombs. She said children in Niger changed shirts with each other during sports. She did not say if they washed them first. Yech! She said Bob McGowan encourages peaceful competition in sports programs. He says changing shirts during time outs is a way to mitigate the competitive spirit and to generate love between the teamsShe did not reveal what to do about violent parents who attack each other, and each other’s children during hockey games.

Councilor Simmons said she wants more practitioners at the next meeting. To practice bullying? I said there were no persons present who were victims of bullying. Councilor Davis asked, "How do you know?" Later I said it would be helpful to hear from victims. She said she was bullied. Noting that Bill Clinton was a poor young man who is now wealthy and powerful, I asked, should he speak for poor persons? I said people currently being bullied should be heard and that persons at the meeting are not currently being bullied.

But persons bullied by psychiatrists and police had no one to speak for them.

I asked if the bullying policy were applied to the police? All remained silent. Fifth Amendment? If there was a problem with gangs in Cambridge why was there no discussion of this? The Police attorney remained silent. Fifth Amendment again?

Children learn from adults. In Cambridge there is one dominant political party. They are mostly bullies toward others. Adults, politicians, and academic leaders generate a lot of hatred toward the President. Does this encourage bullying?

No representatives of the Handicapped Commission were present. Either no persons with disabilities are bullied, or no one on the commission was concerned about it. City policy is to see no evil. No one cares!

No identified representatives of older citizens were present at the meeting on bullying. No older persons, like no persons accused of psychiatric illness, are victims of bullies. Really?

No one was upset about bullying of vulnerable persons by police, psychologists and psychiatrists. It is curious that psychiatrists are hired to address the abuses. It is convenient to be both the source and the remedy of bullying.