Roberta M. Helming: Keeping food from children is nothing short of abuse
Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 22, 2010 @ 11:56 PM
How would you feel if you learned that children were being denied lunch or breakfast at school because they had no money to buy a meal?
I can’t believe the Norwich Board of Education (Sept. 17 Norwich Bulletin) discussed a potential policy change at its Sept. 14 meeting that would, if implemented, stop giving free lunches to children who often come to school without a lunch or money.
The problem is the school’s “oops” lunches that consist of a sandwich and juice, and/or for breakfast, a piece of fruit. “Oops” meals are a free, one per day, snack.
There are no limits as to how many “oops” lunches children may have during the course of the school year. That’s a problem for the board, which is considering putting a limit of no more than three per school year per student. After three, nothing until payment is received. Are they serious?
As a side note, a piece of fruit is not a healthy way to start a day — but it’s better than nothing. A growing child needs breakfast with protein and carbohydrates. Without that, classroom performance suffers. An underfed body equates to an underfed mind, which reduces grades.
OK, I admit it. I’m not a fan of welfare, especially for people having children they can’t afford. Regardless, the children are born, many under never-ending, difficult conditions. The least we as a society can do is scrape together the 40 cents to feed a child whose family doesn’t have the means or who is being raised by irresponsible adults.
There should never be a doubt in a child’s mind that they will be fed at school like all the other children. Even incarcerated criminals get their three meals every day.
Feed first, collect after
If the Norwich Board of Education wants the school system to be reimbursed, that’s fine, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. Feed the children and then seek out answers from parents regarding lack of payment. It’s sad that in America we’re debating whether to feed schoolchildren or let them go hungry.
It’s this kind of depravation that causes children to develop emotional problems. They see themselves being treated differently.
I agree the larger issue — children coming to school without lunches or lunch money — needs to be studied. But resolving the issue needs to have the least negative impact on children — after all, this isn’t their fault.
Just the thought of possibly withholding food from children seems criminal.
To the Norwich Board of Education: You should know better. It was painful to realize you’re even thinking along these lines — abusing children by withholding food.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
I feel it is important to do what we can to make a difference in this world. This is my contribution.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
We Do Have The Power To Make A Difference: Roberta M. Helming: Keeping food from children is ...
Roberta M. Helming: Keeping food from children is ...: "Roberta M. Helming: Keeping food from children is nothing short of abuse Norwich Bulletin Posted Sep 22, 2010 @ 11:56 PM How would you fee..."
Roberta M. Helming: Racial profiling shouldn’t be an acceptable practice
Roberta M. Helming: Racial profiling shouldn’t be an acceptable practice
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted May 13, 2010 @ 10:35 PM
Racial profiling, though nothing new and ever present, is at the forefront of the news with Arizona’s controversial law. This law lends itself to blatant racial profiling to ascertain the legality of those from south of the border residing in the United States.
Racial profiling is not new and occurs frequently. Has it now become acceptable and necessary?
We’ve heard and read how being nonwhite could result in being pulled over, removed from a car and interrogated by police. How is this fair when there’s an equal chance that the individual is a legal, law-abiding citizen?
I find myself soul-searching for answers to the moral questions. What tools can we offer law enforcement, especially those in border states, to help them identify those illegally in this country without causing hurt and embarrassment to those who are here legally, but who have been singled out because of facial features? No one deserves that. But how is legality determined without profiling?
It’s very disturbing to be racially profiled when you are a citizen just because you’re from another country. People who look Middle Eastern, for example, face profiling and removal from airports and airplanes because they have a “profiled” terrorist appearance.
It doesn’t matter if they are citizens born and raised here. An appearance of Middle Eastern heritage equates to a precedent for innate fear because of past terrorist acts. But often, action is taken first; innocence to be determined later.
What happen to the premise of innocent until proven guilty? Or is it now unsafe to take a chance and assume innocence? Are innocent lives placed in danger if we do?
Do citizens born and raised in the United State, but who appear to be Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Asian, etc., have to begin redefining and accepting what it means to “look” American, which is continually changing?
Just live with it?
Is subjection to profiling something one must now accept in becoming a citizen, or having been born and raised here, but from a Middle Eastern heritage?
What has the Time Square bombing attempt by an American citizen from Connecticut, of Pakistani decent, done for the furtherance of profiling? Is profiling even more necessary now?
Caucasian American citizens aren’t free of committing terrorists acts — remember the Oklahoma City bomber?
Shouldn’t this equate to racial profiling of caucasians, ensuring that it’s fair to all, and truly random and the reality of all people regardless of race or facial features?
The bottom line: For every terrorist there are far more law-abiding citizens undeserving of profiling. Profiling is a broken system. Is there hope for changing this disturbing, unfair, arbitrary practice?
Is it an unnecessary practice or is it truly needed?
Racial profiling: a conundrum in need of careful evaluation and change.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted May 13, 2010 @ 10:35 PM
Racial profiling, though nothing new and ever present, is at the forefront of the news with Arizona’s controversial law. This law lends itself to blatant racial profiling to ascertain the legality of those from south of the border residing in the United States.
Racial profiling is not new and occurs frequently. Has it now become acceptable and necessary?
We’ve heard and read how being nonwhite could result in being pulled over, removed from a car and interrogated by police. How is this fair when there’s an equal chance that the individual is a legal, law-abiding citizen?
I find myself soul-searching for answers to the moral questions. What tools can we offer law enforcement, especially those in border states, to help them identify those illegally in this country without causing hurt and embarrassment to those who are here legally, but who have been singled out because of facial features? No one deserves that. But how is legality determined without profiling?
It’s very disturbing to be racially profiled when you are a citizen just because you’re from another country. People who look Middle Eastern, for example, face profiling and removal from airports and airplanes because they have a “profiled” terrorist appearance.
It doesn’t matter if they are citizens born and raised here. An appearance of Middle Eastern heritage equates to a precedent for innate fear because of past terrorist acts. But often, action is taken first; innocence to be determined later.
What happen to the premise of innocent until proven guilty? Or is it now unsafe to take a chance and assume innocence? Are innocent lives placed in danger if we do?
Do citizens born and raised in the United State, but who appear to be Hispanic, Middle Eastern, Asian, etc., have to begin redefining and accepting what it means to “look” American, which is continually changing?
Just live with it?
Is subjection to profiling something one must now accept in becoming a citizen, or having been born and raised here, but from a Middle Eastern heritage?
What has the Time Square bombing attempt by an American citizen from Connecticut, of Pakistani decent, done for the furtherance of profiling? Is profiling even more necessary now?
Caucasian American citizens aren’t free of committing terrorists acts — remember the Oklahoma City bomber?
Shouldn’t this equate to racial profiling of caucasians, ensuring that it’s fair to all, and truly random and the reality of all people regardless of race or facial features?
The bottom line: For every terrorist there are far more law-abiding citizens undeserving of profiling. Profiling is a broken system. Is there hope for changing this disturbing, unfair, arbitrary practice?
Is it an unnecessary practice or is it truly needed?
Racial profiling: a conundrum in need of careful evaluation and change.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Roberta M. Helming: Give honor to those who defend our country
Roberta M. Helming: Give honor to those who defend our country
By Roberta M. Helming
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted Jun 04, 2010 @ 12:07 AM
What do you think when you hear the news that a soldier has died in war?
Does it elicit feelings of compassion?
What about Staff Sgt. Edwin Rivera, the father from Waterford who recently died from injuries suffered in Afghanistan, and who will be laid to rest soon. Do the thoughts of the pain his family must be feeling come to mind?
Personally, when I hear of such tragedy, my mind starts to wander and I begin to realize what will never be because of this unique person’s untimely death.
I see a family left behind, devastated. I see children growing up without a parent; parents suddenly without their child; siblings with a void in their heart and grieving grandparents. In a split second, their lives are forever changed, and now they try to make sense of their new world without their loved one.
After more than eight years of war, and the approach to the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we’ve seen a major shift of disinterest in patriotism. Yet, one wonders what continues to speak to the hearts and minds of those who bravely volunteer for the military — and war? It isn’t mandatory.
Going to work
We need to feel grateful for these heroes for whatever it is that makes them want to be in combat. What must it feel like to not know that “going to work” today may be your last trip?
This country is, and always has been, built on the courageous men and women who have fought in wars, making sacrifices, that enable the rest of us to breathe easier, live better lives.
As a sign of gratitude, we really need to become more meaningfully involved in showing support for those putting their lives on the line. We don’t have to dedicate our lives to it, but in some small way we each can make a soldier and his or her family feel that they are recognized as heroes.
Will you start by joining me in remembering our most recent fallen Connecticut soldier with sympathy cards. Encourage family, friends and co-workers to do likewise.
Our community support will mean the world to those who have suffered the loss of our heroic American soldier.
I also invite you to join me in getting friends and families to sign cards for our soldiers serving in foreign lands at Christmas time, a project very dear to my heart. We may not be serving in those wars, but my year-round “Cards for Veterans” program will enable us to show support of those who are. Contact me if you’re interested.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By Roberta M. Helming
For The Norwich Bulletin
Posted Jun 04, 2010 @ 12:07 AM
What do you think when you hear the news that a soldier has died in war?
Does it elicit feelings of compassion?
What about Staff Sgt. Edwin Rivera, the father from Waterford who recently died from injuries suffered in Afghanistan, and who will be laid to rest soon. Do the thoughts of the pain his family must be feeling come to mind?
Personally, when I hear of such tragedy, my mind starts to wander and I begin to realize what will never be because of this unique person’s untimely death.
I see a family left behind, devastated. I see children growing up without a parent; parents suddenly without their child; siblings with a void in their heart and grieving grandparents. In a split second, their lives are forever changed, and now they try to make sense of their new world without their loved one.
After more than eight years of war, and the approach to the end of the first decade of the 21st century, we’ve seen a major shift of disinterest in patriotism. Yet, one wonders what continues to speak to the hearts and minds of those who bravely volunteer for the military — and war? It isn’t mandatory.
Going to work
We need to feel grateful for these heroes for whatever it is that makes them want to be in combat. What must it feel like to not know that “going to work” today may be your last trip?
This country is, and always has been, built on the courageous men and women who have fought in wars, making sacrifices, that enable the rest of us to breathe easier, live better lives.
As a sign of gratitude, we really need to become more meaningfully involved in showing support for those putting their lives on the line. We don’t have to dedicate our lives to it, but in some small way we each can make a soldier and his or her family feel that they are recognized as heroes.
Will you start by joining me in remembering our most recent fallen Connecticut soldier with sympathy cards. Encourage family, friends and co-workers to do likewise.
Our community support will mean the world to those who have suffered the loss of our heroic American soldier.
I also invite you to join me in getting friends and families to sign cards for our soldiers serving in foreign lands at Christmas time, a project very dear to my heart. We may not be serving in those wars, but my year-round “Cards for Veterans” program will enable us to show support of those who are. Contact me if you’re interested.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Roberta M. Helming: Take action and save the life of a loved one
Roberta M. Helming: Take action and save the life of a loved one
During a recent visit to one of the local casinos, I was encouraged when a server at one of the bars refused to give an inebriated man more alcohol. It seems the casino has new rules, two drinks per hour. An encouraging first step indeed.
All too often, we’ve read of drunken driving accidents claiming the lives of innocent people. We are surrounded by businesses — and not just the casinos —that continue to serve liquor beyond the point of an individual being legally drunk.
The downside to what I witnessed, however, was a suggestion to the patron to try another casino bar. Quite disturbing indeed, the idea that although denied at one place, he might be given more elsewhere.
While in a convenience store recently, I observed a very large circular container holding ice and drinks. Guess what? There was no water or soda, only bottles and cans of beer. Next to the receptacle was a tiny clear plastic bin containing bottle openers with a sign informing customers they would need one of these.
Do the owners of this business believe that only passengers riding in vehicles are going to avail themselves of a nice cold beer on a hot day? In some states, any open container in a car is illegal. Unfortunately, Connecticut is not one of those states.
Better, not solved
When I was growing up in the 1970s, there were far more alcohol-related fatalities then we see today. That’s the good news. Still, one death caused by someone driving drunk is still one too many.
When I was 18, a co-worker and her husband were killed by a drunken driver on the Fourth of July weekend, an event that left an imprint in my mind and heart since 1982. It made me an opponent of drunken driving. As a country, we have made tremendous progress on that front, but we need to do more. We cannot rely upon police alone.
We need to be a good friend and refuse to allow someone to drink and drive. That is what friends do, isn’t it — look out for the ones we care about?
The summer’s biggest holiday celebration is rapidly approaching, the Fourth of July. Please join me and make a point: If you see someone who shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a car, stop him or her. Don’t allow someone’s anger to sway your decision. There are too many people living with regret and hurt because they did, and sadly, and tragically, a friend or loved one was lost.
Living with the knowledge that a tragedy might have been averted is horribly painful.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
During a recent visit to one of the local casinos, I was encouraged when a server at one of the bars refused to give an inebriated man more alcohol. It seems the casino has new rules, two drinks per hour. An encouraging first step indeed.
All too often, we’ve read of drunken driving accidents claiming the lives of innocent people. We are surrounded by businesses — and not just the casinos —that continue to serve liquor beyond the point of an individual being legally drunk.
The downside to what I witnessed, however, was a suggestion to the patron to try another casino bar. Quite disturbing indeed, the idea that although denied at one place, he might be given more elsewhere.
While in a convenience store recently, I observed a very large circular container holding ice and drinks. Guess what? There was no water or soda, only bottles and cans of beer. Next to the receptacle was a tiny clear plastic bin containing bottle openers with a sign informing customers they would need one of these.
Do the owners of this business believe that only passengers riding in vehicles are going to avail themselves of a nice cold beer on a hot day? In some states, any open container in a car is illegal. Unfortunately, Connecticut is not one of those states.
Better, not solved
When I was growing up in the 1970s, there were far more alcohol-related fatalities then we see today. That’s the good news. Still, one death caused by someone driving drunk is still one too many.
When I was 18, a co-worker and her husband were killed by a drunken driver on the Fourth of July weekend, an event that left an imprint in my mind and heart since 1982. It made me an opponent of drunken driving. As a country, we have made tremendous progress on that front, but we need to do more. We cannot rely upon police alone.
We need to be a good friend and refuse to allow someone to drink and drive. That is what friends do, isn’t it — look out for the ones we care about?
The summer’s biggest holiday celebration is rapidly approaching, the Fourth of July. Please join me and make a point: If you see someone who shouldn’t be behind the wheel of a car, stop him or her. Don’t allow someone’s anger to sway your decision. There are too many people living with regret and hurt because they did, and sadly, and tragically, a friend or loved one was lost.
Living with the knowledge that a tragedy might have been averted is horribly painful.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Roberta M. Helming: Put down your phone and focus on the road
Roberta M. Helming: Put down your phone and focus on the road
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Aug 03, 2010 @ 12:01 AM
Are accidents resulting from cell phone use while driving in danger of surpassing the number of fatalities caused by drunken drivers?
The lead story in the July 27 Norwich Bulletin concerned a new crackdown by police on unsafe — distracted — drivers, a practice that should be a continuous effort. Statistics show that more emphasis needs to be placed specifically on enforcing the ban on driving while using a cell phone.
Cell phone use can be very dangerous, even unintentionally fatal. Distracted drivers are a leading cause of accidents in the United States, whether it be texting or talking, even using hands-free devices.
In 2008, 800,000 Americans were talking or texting on cell phones while driving in the daylight hours. Such distractions resulted in almost 6,000 fatalities, a number slightly more than half the total of drunken driving fatalities for that year. This disturbing trend, if permitted to continue on our roads, will have serious consequences.
Cell phones “arrived” 20 years ago. Cars were invented more than 100 years ago. In one-fifth the time, the combination of the two has quickly outpaced the number of drunken driving fatalities. We should all find that alarming.
Fortunately, tough laws against drunken driving came into being sometime around the 1980s, resulting in reduced numbers of alcohol fatalities. We need the same kind of tough enforcement now for cell phone use by irresponsible and uncaring motorists.
Police and people
We cannot afford to wait. The consequences are just too dire to do so.
But it will take a combination of law enforcement and individual responsibility to avoid what will become unthinkable numbers of cell phone-related fatalities.
Cell phone use while driving is still in its infancy. Motorists have been distracted behind the wheel for years, reading maps and newspapers, eating, adding make-up or combing one’s hair, changing stations on the radio or having deep conversations with passengers.
But even adding all those other distractions together, it doesn’t equal the same level of distraction that cell phone use has had in a short period of time. I don’t know why that is, but I do know the numbers should be a concern to all of us.
Is someone’s life — maybe your own — worth that conversation on a cell phone?
Let’s be safe. Pull over to the side of the road to talk or text. No one deserves the consequence of not doing so, a death or serious injury that could be avoided.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Aug 03, 2010 @ 12:01 AM
Are accidents resulting from cell phone use while driving in danger of surpassing the number of fatalities caused by drunken drivers?
The lead story in the July 27 Norwich Bulletin concerned a new crackdown by police on unsafe — distracted — drivers, a practice that should be a continuous effort. Statistics show that more emphasis needs to be placed specifically on enforcing the ban on driving while using a cell phone.
Cell phone use can be very dangerous, even unintentionally fatal. Distracted drivers are a leading cause of accidents in the United States, whether it be texting or talking, even using hands-free devices.
In 2008, 800,000 Americans were talking or texting on cell phones while driving in the daylight hours. Such distractions resulted in almost 6,000 fatalities, a number slightly more than half the total of drunken driving fatalities for that year. This disturbing trend, if permitted to continue on our roads, will have serious consequences.
Cell phones “arrived” 20 years ago. Cars were invented more than 100 years ago. In one-fifth the time, the combination of the two has quickly outpaced the number of drunken driving fatalities. We should all find that alarming.
Fortunately, tough laws against drunken driving came into being sometime around the 1980s, resulting in reduced numbers of alcohol fatalities. We need the same kind of tough enforcement now for cell phone use by irresponsible and uncaring motorists.
Police and people
We cannot afford to wait. The consequences are just too dire to do so.
But it will take a combination of law enforcement and individual responsibility to avoid what will become unthinkable numbers of cell phone-related fatalities.
Cell phone use while driving is still in its infancy. Motorists have been distracted behind the wheel for years, reading maps and newspapers, eating, adding make-up or combing one’s hair, changing stations on the radio or having deep conversations with passengers.
But even adding all those other distractions together, it doesn’t equal the same level of distraction that cell phone use has had in a short period of time. I don’t know why that is, but I do know the numbers should be a concern to all of us.
Is someone’s life — maybe your own — worth that conversation on a cell phone?
Let’s be safe. Pull over to the side of the road to talk or text. No one deserves the consequence of not doing so, a death or serious injury that could be avoided.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Roberta M. Helming: Sometimes technology doesn’t have best answer
Roberta M. Helming: Sometimes technology doesn’t have best answer
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 08, 2010 @ 10:27 PM
Last update Sep 09, 2010 @ 12:03 AM
It’s September and a new school year has begun.
Each day your child gets on the bus and his or her care and safety are placed in the hands of principals, teachers, aides, etc. But what if your child were being monitored by electronic tracking devices? How long before technology takes over, hence relieving the need for care by principals, teachers, aides, etc.?
Such technology is being studied in the New Canaan school district. It’s called “RFID,” radio frequency strips, a tracking device placed in a backpack or an ID card that enables a student’s whereabouts to be known to school officials at all times. It could be available for voluntary use by high school students as early as the spring of next year.
Jim Kucharczyk, a New Canaan Board of Education member, believes this tracking device will be a new, unimaginable way for children to become familiar with how modern technology works firsthand. Really?
School-age children possess perhaps cell phones, laptops and more — technology they’ve known their entire lives. Children don’t need to know how modern technology works. They’re probably capable of teaching it.
More importantly, what high school student is going to “volunteer” to be monitored? These are high school children, not recent parolees.
For children to learn to be well-adjusted adults, they need to be trusted. This device has the potential to do just the opposite, resulting in psychological issues and rebellious behavior.
Decision maker
A key person making this decision is New Canaan District Transportation Coordinator Roy Walder. He says, in the event of an emergency, the location of the cards will be known. Not the children, the cards. He seems thrilled the school system can “experiment,” and it won’t cost anything. He thinks the price — free — is right, even though it dehumanizes and objectifies children.
This “experiment” shouldn’t be taken lightly. It should be questioned. Children shouldn’t be the free laboratory rats allowing this ludicrous tracking system to come to fruition. Let those responsible for these children do their jobs, just as their predecessors did for many decades.
Unfortunately, sometimes the highly educated don’t realize that just because technology is available, it doesn’t mean that it’s right and we should use it.
As with anything in life, an informed, fact-based decision is key to doing what’s right for children.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 08, 2010 @ 10:27 PM
Last update Sep 09, 2010 @ 12:03 AM
It’s September and a new school year has begun.
Each day your child gets on the bus and his or her care and safety are placed in the hands of principals, teachers, aides, etc. But what if your child were being monitored by electronic tracking devices? How long before technology takes over, hence relieving the need for care by principals, teachers, aides, etc.?
Such technology is being studied in the New Canaan school district. It’s called “RFID,” radio frequency strips, a tracking device placed in a backpack or an ID card that enables a student’s whereabouts to be known to school officials at all times. It could be available for voluntary use by high school students as early as the spring of next year.
Jim Kucharczyk, a New Canaan Board of Education member, believes this tracking device will be a new, unimaginable way for children to become familiar with how modern technology works firsthand. Really?
School-age children possess perhaps cell phones, laptops and more — technology they’ve known their entire lives. Children don’t need to know how modern technology works. They’re probably capable of teaching it.
More importantly, what high school student is going to “volunteer” to be monitored? These are high school children, not recent parolees.
For children to learn to be well-adjusted adults, they need to be trusted. This device has the potential to do just the opposite, resulting in psychological issues and rebellious behavior.
Decision maker
A key person making this decision is New Canaan District Transportation Coordinator Roy Walder. He says, in the event of an emergency, the location of the cards will be known. Not the children, the cards. He seems thrilled the school system can “experiment,” and it won’t cost anything. He thinks the price — free — is right, even though it dehumanizes and objectifies children.
This “experiment” shouldn’t be taken lightly. It should be questioned. Children shouldn’t be the free laboratory rats allowing this ludicrous tracking system to come to fruition. Let those responsible for these children do their jobs, just as their predecessors did for many decades.
Unfortunately, sometimes the highly educated don’t realize that just because technology is available, it doesn’t mean that it’s right and we should use it.
As with anything in life, an informed, fact-based decision is key to doing what’s right for children.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Friday, September 24, 2010
Roberta M. Helming - The French Connection
The French Connection
By Roberta M. Helming
When I was transitioning from elementary school to junior high school, I wanted to study French. “No” my counselor told me, “You will need to learn to cook and sew so that you can take care of your husband and children when you grow up.”
I guess it was assumed that because I came from a poor neighborhood I wouldn't stand a chance of going to college since I would be having children instead. In the end I prevailed and studied French for three years.
Fast forward 16 years and along comes the man of my dreams. And guess what? He has a degree in French from a prestigious university. I would have married him for 100 other reasons, but the “French connection” was the clincher.
The moral of my story: Never give up on your dreams because you never know when they will bear fruit. (And you know, he doesn't mind cooking, cleaning and sewing when I give him directions to do so in French.)
On a serious note, my story illustrates the importance of not categorizing children's educational futures based on current socioeconomic status.
Copyright 2008 - All Rights Reserved. This may not be reproduced without the written permission of the author.
By Roberta M. Helming
When I was transitioning from elementary school to junior high school, I wanted to study French. “No” my counselor told me, “You will need to learn to cook and sew so that you can take care of your husband and children when you grow up.”
I guess it was assumed that because I came from a poor neighborhood I wouldn't stand a chance of going to college since I would be having children instead. In the end I prevailed and studied French for three years.
Fast forward 16 years and along comes the man of my dreams. And guess what? He has a degree in French from a prestigious university. I would have married him for 100 other reasons, but the “French connection” was the clincher.
The moral of my story: Never give up on your dreams because you never know when they will bear fruit. (And you know, he doesn't mind cooking, cleaning and sewing when I give him directions to do so in French.)
On a serious note, my story illustrates the importance of not categorizing children's educational futures based on current socioeconomic status.
Copyright 2008 - All Rights Reserved. This may not be reproduced without the written permission of the author.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Keeping food from children is nothing short of abuse
Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 22, 2010 @ 11:56 PM
How would you feel if you learned that children were being denied lunch or breakfast at school because they had no money to buy a meal?
I can’t believe the Norwich Board of Education (Sept. 17 Norwich Bulletin) discussed a potential policy change at its Sept. 14 meeting that would, if implemented, stop giving free lunches to children who often come to school without a lunch or money.
The problem is the school’s “oops” lunches that consist of a sandwich and juice, and/or for breakfast, a piece of fruit. “Oops” meals are a free, one per day, snack.
There are no limits as to how many “oops” lunches children may have during the course of the school year. That’s a problem for the board, which is considering putting a limit of no more than three per school year per student. After three, nothing until payment is received. Are they serious?
As a side note, a piece of fruit is not a healthy way to start a day — but it’s better than nothing. A growing child needs breakfast with protein and carbohydrates. Without that, classroom performance suffers. An underfed body equates to an underfed mind, which reduces grades.
OK, I admit it. I’m not a fan of welfare, especially for people having children they can’t afford. Regardless, the children are born, many under never-ending, difficult conditions. The least we as a society can do is scrape together the 40 cents to feed a child whose family doesn’t have the means or who is being raised by irresponsible adults.
There should never be a doubt in a child’s mind that they will be fed at school like all the other children. Even incarcerated criminals get their three meals every day.
Feed first, collect after
If the Norwich Board of Education wants the school system to be reimbursed, that’s fine, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. Feed the children and then seek out answers from parents regarding lack of payment. It’s sad that in America we’re debating whether to feed schoolchildren or let them go hungry.
It’s this kind of depravation that causes children to develop emotional problems. They see themselves being treated differently.
I agree the larger issue — children coming to school without lunches or lunch money — needs to be studied. But resolving the issue needs to have the least negative impact on children — after all, this isn’t their fault.
Just the thought of possibly withholding food from children seems criminal.
To the Norwich Board of Education: You should know better. It was painful to realize you’re even thinking along these lines — abusing children by withholding food.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 22, 2010 @ 11:56 PM
How would you feel if you learned that children were being denied lunch or breakfast at school because they had no money to buy a meal?
I can’t believe the Norwich Board of Education (Sept. 17 Norwich Bulletin) discussed a potential policy change at its Sept. 14 meeting that would, if implemented, stop giving free lunches to children who often come to school without a lunch or money.
The problem is the school’s “oops” lunches that consist of a sandwich and juice, and/or for breakfast, a piece of fruit. “Oops” meals are a free, one per day, snack.
There are no limits as to how many “oops” lunches children may have during the course of the school year. That’s a problem for the board, which is considering putting a limit of no more than three per school year per student. After three, nothing until payment is received. Are they serious?
As a side note, a piece of fruit is not a healthy way to start a day — but it’s better than nothing. A growing child needs breakfast with protein and carbohydrates. Without that, classroom performance suffers. An underfed body equates to an underfed mind, which reduces grades.
OK, I admit it. I’m not a fan of welfare, especially for people having children they can’t afford. Regardless, the children are born, many under never-ending, difficult conditions. The least we as a society can do is scrape together the 40 cents to feed a child whose family doesn’t have the means or who is being raised by irresponsible adults.
There should never be a doubt in a child’s mind that they will be fed at school like all the other children. Even incarcerated criminals get their three meals every day.
Feed first, collect after
If the Norwich Board of Education wants the school system to be reimbursed, that’s fine, but let’s not put the cart before the horse. Feed the children and then seek out answers from parents regarding lack of payment. It’s sad that in America we’re debating whether to feed schoolchildren or let them go hungry.
It’s this kind of depravation that causes children to develop emotional problems. They see themselves being treated differently.
I agree the larger issue — children coming to school without lunches or lunch money — needs to be studied. But resolving the issue needs to have the least negative impact on children — after all, this isn’t their fault.
Just the thought of possibly withholding food from children seems criminal.
To the Norwich Board of Education: You should know better. It was painful to realize you’re even thinking along these lines — abusing children by withholding food.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Friday, September 17, 2010
Roberta M. Helming: Domestic violence must be unlearned
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Aug 23, 2010 @ 12:05 AM
A woman sits with blackened eyes, a man with scratches on his face and a child cowers in a closet in fear of being hit again. They are all victims of domestic violence.
In 2008, there were 20,000 domestic violence arrests in Connecticut, yet many experts say it has been — and continues to be — a hidden crime, a crime of near silence.
Women, and even more so men, don’t want to admit they’re a victim. And it’s often out of fear of further abuse that many victims don’t leave their situation. It can go unnoticed for decades — and worse, it teaches children that it’s OK, normal even, to hit family members, and the unthinkable behavior is passed on. Domestic abuse may be a learned behavior; it should never, however, be an excused behavior.
Often, it’s the stress of unthinkable events that can trigger an outburst that escalates into violence.
The Gulf oil spill, for example, devastated people’s lives and livelihoods. There was a noticeable increase in 911 calls for domestic abuse after the realities of the spill started to settle in. Could that have been prevented? Probably, to some degree.
Here in Connecticut, as of July 1, domestic violence laws were made stricter. Shelter hours have been extended and tougher enforcement against offenders put in place. But that doesn’t necessarily solve the problem.
A major component of domestic violence that needs to be considered is psychotherapy, and not just for the victims, but for the perpetrator as well. Until he or she discusses the anger, a perpetrator will be back in the system, having hurt another person.
Jail doesn’t work
No one is born knowing how to beat another person. It is learned behavior, and until it is unlearned, no amount of jail time or tracking devices will help that person, man or woman.
We must protect the victims, but also re-educate the abusers by giving them the tools they need to stop before raising a hand. Encourage them to pick up the phone instead and call a crisis intervention hotline to talk about what’s bothering them.
We need to teach men that they’re still men even when talking about issues of hurt. Teach them that they are more of a man for talking about what’s hurting them, than they would be by hurting someone else.
President Barack Obama, when he visited the devastated Gulf Coast, assured the people there their physical needs would be met. But what about their emotional needs? Just as we need to feed our bodies, we need to do the same with our minds.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By ROBERTA M. HELMING
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Aug 23, 2010 @ 12:05 AM
A woman sits with blackened eyes, a man with scratches on his face and a child cowers in a closet in fear of being hit again. They are all victims of domestic violence.
In 2008, there were 20,000 domestic violence arrests in Connecticut, yet many experts say it has been — and continues to be — a hidden crime, a crime of near silence.
Women, and even more so men, don’t want to admit they’re a victim. And it’s often out of fear of further abuse that many victims don’t leave their situation. It can go unnoticed for decades — and worse, it teaches children that it’s OK, normal even, to hit family members, and the unthinkable behavior is passed on. Domestic abuse may be a learned behavior; it should never, however, be an excused behavior.
Often, it’s the stress of unthinkable events that can trigger an outburst that escalates into violence.
The Gulf oil spill, for example, devastated people’s lives and livelihoods. There was a noticeable increase in 911 calls for domestic abuse after the realities of the spill started to settle in. Could that have been prevented? Probably, to some degree.
Here in Connecticut, as of July 1, domestic violence laws were made stricter. Shelter hours have been extended and tougher enforcement against offenders put in place. But that doesn’t necessarily solve the problem.
A major component of domestic violence that needs to be considered is psychotherapy, and not just for the victims, but for the perpetrator as well. Until he or she discusses the anger, a perpetrator will be back in the system, having hurt another person.
Jail doesn’t work
No one is born knowing how to beat another person. It is learned behavior, and until it is unlearned, no amount of jail time or tracking devices will help that person, man or woman.
We must protect the victims, but also re-educate the abusers by giving them the tools they need to stop before raising a hand. Encourage them to pick up the phone instead and call a crisis intervention hotline to talk about what’s bothering them.
We need to teach men that they’re still men even when talking about issues of hurt. Teach them that they are more of a man for talking about what’s hurting them, than they would be by hurting someone else.
President Barack Obama, when he visited the devastated Gulf Coast, assured the people there their physical needs would be met. But what about their emotional needs? Just as we need to feed our bodies, we need to do the same with our minds.
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Roberta M. Helming - Solidarity shouldn’t require a tragedy
Roberta M. Helming: Solidarity shouldn’t require a tragedy
By Roberta M. Helming
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 16, 2010 @ 12:13 AM
President Barack Obama should make Sept. 11 a permanent national holiday.
Maybe by doing so, we can bring some dignity back to the day. I’m all for people voicing opinions and protesting when necessary, but what we witnessed this past weekend — thousands of people protesting the proposal to build a mosque a few blocks from ground zero — just didn’t seem right.
Those who died in those terrorists attacks deserve to be memorialized. They died as a result of a crime, unwillingly and unknowingly becoming soldiers in the war on terror before the war was even declared.
They deserve some kind of medal, something for family members and friends to look at and know that this country still cares about their loved ones’ sacrifice.
Nine years ago, our country and the world were thrown into a state of confusion, devastation and pain. For the families of the victims, and those who continue to suffer the flashbacks of running into an inferno to save people who couldn’t be saved, their world and their lives were forever changed.
The rest of us had to take stock and redefine our world in terms of this new threat.
We need to remind ourselves it was more than just two tall buildings in New York City. It also was the Pentagon and the passengers on United Airlines flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania — all deserve to be recognized as heroes, “soldiers.”
Good out of tragedy
Sept. 11 was horrific. But it also brought out the spirit of America, our tolerance in our accepting people regardless of race, religion, etc. No one was checking that day to see who anyone was before lending a helping hand. It was a day of equality that seems today to be only possible in extreme circumstances — and who wants that.
And let us not forget the thousands who survived. They, too, should be honored because they, too, lost something that day. Even nine years later, many haven’t yet been able to move on.
Instead of waiting to care about Sept. 11 when Sept. 11 rolls around each year, we need to recapture the spirit that was that day, and the unity that showed itself in the days after — and try and do that every day.
Sept. 11, 2001 proved that ultimately none of the things that divide us really matters when it comes to saving lives in a tragedy. We should ask ourselves, why should it take a tragedy?
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
By Roberta M. Helming
For the Norwich Bulletin
Posted Sep 16, 2010 @ 12:13 AM
President Barack Obama should make Sept. 11 a permanent national holiday.
Maybe by doing so, we can bring some dignity back to the day. I’m all for people voicing opinions and protesting when necessary, but what we witnessed this past weekend — thousands of people protesting the proposal to build a mosque a few blocks from ground zero — just didn’t seem right.
Those who died in those terrorists attacks deserve to be memorialized. They died as a result of a crime, unwillingly and unknowingly becoming soldiers in the war on terror before the war was even declared.
They deserve some kind of medal, something for family members and friends to look at and know that this country still cares about their loved ones’ sacrifice.
Nine years ago, our country and the world were thrown into a state of confusion, devastation and pain. For the families of the victims, and those who continue to suffer the flashbacks of running into an inferno to save people who couldn’t be saved, their world and their lives were forever changed.
The rest of us had to take stock and redefine our world in terms of this new threat.
We need to remind ourselves it was more than just two tall buildings in New York City. It also was the Pentagon and the passengers on United Airlines flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania — all deserve to be recognized as heroes, “soldiers.”
Good out of tragedy
Sept. 11 was horrific. But it also brought out the spirit of America, our tolerance in our accepting people regardless of race, religion, etc. No one was checking that day to see who anyone was before lending a helping hand. It was a day of equality that seems today to be only possible in extreme circumstances — and who wants that.
And let us not forget the thousands who survived. They, too, should be honored because they, too, lost something that day. Even nine years later, many haven’t yet been able to move on.
Instead of waiting to care about Sept. 11 when Sept. 11 rolls around each year, we need to recapture the spirit that was that day, and the unity that showed itself in the days after — and try and do that every day.
Sept. 11, 2001 proved that ultimately none of the things that divide us really matters when it comes to saving lives in a tragedy. We should ask ourselves, why should it take a tragedy?
Roberta M. Helming is a freelance writer from Ledyard and regular contributor to the Norwich Bulletin. She can be reached at RMHelming@aol.com
Copyright 2010 Norwich Bulletin. Some rights reserved
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)