There has been a lot of talk here and elsewhere about R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Whether it pertains to "these kids today" or adults, I think we as a society have lost some amount of respect for each other.
To the above, I drive past the old Ranch House on the corner of Schoeneck and East Lawn at least once a day. Coming home from work yesterday was the first time that I noticed it had been "tagged". Somebody (or multiple somebodies) had spray painted each side with "gang-like" graffiti. In addition to the Ranch House, the apartment building just North on Schoeneck had also been vandalized. I drove around both this morning and snapped these photos.
To me, defacing property (whether it is public or private) with graffiti, is pretty low. You might expect to see this in larger cities but not in Nazareth (at least I did not expect to see it). If it is not quickly painted over, it seems to spread.
The question I ask, is who does something like this? Is it bored kids? Adults in the middle of a mid-life crisis? Or is it symptomatic of something more sinister? I know gangs are active in and around the Lehigh Valley. Could we be seeing this coming to Nazareth or is this just wannabees? Have you seen any more graffiti in and around Nazareth? What do you think?
31 comments:
The site I refer to is the old tavern on the corner of East Lawn and Schoeneck not the Ranch House. I inadvertently called that old site the Ranch House... My mistake.
I thought it was interesting in the articles that appeared in the Express-Times and the Morning Call on Tuesday, both noted one girl spray painted her car in protest of the skate park being closed.
Not exactly a common item one keeps in a vehicle - spare tire, flash light, spray paint.
And I'm not saying the spray paint was hers, but it was on hand. Anyone whose kid has spray paint ought to be asking questions.
I love the insinuation here. Brad blogs about someone spraypainting graffiti, and you immediately point to the girl who spraypainted her car over the skatepark.
1 + 1 = 3.
It's called bias, Ross. ASre you related to Conrad?
Ross, c'mon man. What is with you lately? You are making a ridiculous and unfair assumption. The ET article does mention that she "spraypainted her car in protest." However, if you go into any Target, Walmart, etc. this time of year (i.e. graduation season) you will see a product that is specifically designed to spraypaint on to cars as a temporary decoration ("Just Married," "Congrats Class of 2007," etc.). How do you know that isn't the product that the girl in the artlce had? How do you know she didn't go home and get some paint out of her garage? So for you to post something like that on your own blog is presumtive, unfair, and biased.
How do we know you or this Brad guy didn't paint the graffitti yourself, take a picture and post it just to solidify the recent "R-E-S-P-E-C-T" theme you've been on? It is suspicious that the word "respect" is on one of those buildings. Who's mind has that word been on alot lately? Interesting.
Of course, I am being fecetious. But I think you get my point.
Whoa! Let's slow down a moment and actually look at what I wrote.
I said it struck me that a kid had a can of spray paint on hand and if your kid has a can of spray paint you ought to be asking questions.
End, done. I never even said it was hers. I just said it was there and as a parent if you see your kid has it you ought to be asking questions. ANY KID, regardless of recreational hobbies.
Now to Paper Boy, if it was the stuff you're referencing for decoration I perfectly understand why a kid would have it and it makes sense.
To Bernie, there is no bias in saying if your kid has spray paint you ought to be asking questions.
It is a parent's responsibility to do so.
You go off and say that I'm biased for pointing this out. How is this statement biased? It happened. Are they related? I don't know. I simply said it was interesting that the kid had it available. It is not a common item to keep in one's car.
I didn't attack anyone, I didn't accuse anyone, I only said that parents need to be vigilant about their children's activities and if they see a can of spray paint they ought to be asking questions.
It amazes me that a statement of that nature gets a response like it just did.
No, Ross, there was an unfair insinuation in your comment. You immediately tried to connect graffitt to the kids using the skatepark. You did not blatantly accuse anyone, but you made an insinuation. And I am tired of all the negative undercurrent, whether from you or someone else. Incidentally, I don't think you need to tell parents how to raise their own kids.
Bernie,
So far you've only accused me of what you thought I meant when I wrote something and not about what I actually wrote.
Regarding the insinuation, here is the actual background on my thinking.
I used an example from a recent news story and raised the question why is spray paint available on the spur of the moment to a teenager?
Spray paint is connected to graffiti and that was the reason I brought it up.
Does that mean the teen was responsible for graffiti? No.
The point simply was that no teen should be driving around with a can of spray paint and if they are the first line is the parents. I'm putting the onus on them first.
Does that mean I'm telling them how to raise their kids? Maybe, but don't I have the ability to comment like anyone else?
To the point the paper boy made, he had a good one and I acknowledged that.
No ulterior motives for me Bernie. I simply connected a recent news story to the post Brad made as it related to spray paint, which is a core component of graffiti. I don't generate controversy to get readership and I'm not going to create insinuations to undermine people.
I've been pretty supportive of the Skate Park and skating, but not been supportive when they do it on private property or are disrespectful to others. I think I've been pretty fair, but since I don't support everyone of them 100% of the time, you seem to have me pegged as someone against them and that is simply not the case.
I'm more amused anyone would think "gangs" are coming to Nazareth. HA! That in itself makes me laugh. Even, if Nazareth had a gang, I really hope they stay in Nazareth. It's pretty scary out there beyond city limits.. Just the thought of it. Ha! OMG, I just fell of my chair.
They'd prob call themselves Our Gang too, led by none other than Buckwheat and Alfalfa. Ohh, can u picture it, hahah, too funny.
Sorry, but as an outsider moving in, I equate Nazareth to Little House on the Prairie.
Now, bombing anyones house is just plain wrong. But "where's the respect", or why do kids do the things they do, as a topic is getting old, take a psych class if you really need the answer to that.
I find it funny you would think there are not gangs in Nazareth. I have 3 young adults who graduated between 2000 and now. They have talked about the gangs to us while in school usually the last few years. They may not be as violent as Easton or Reading area but they are there. The high school administers know about them too. It just isn't published.
Nazareth high school has cliques, big time, but I'd never heard reference to actual gangs in this small town. Maybe the groups your kids referred are just cliques, with attitude.
First off, take a look at the picture of the girl's car that was in the morning call and you will notice that the paint on the car is white. The paint on the houses is black. Personally, I find it hard to make that connection.
Second, the tagger of both locations is the same. Notice that the "tag" is the same with the exception of a little extra on the second.
Third, have you tried to by spray paint lately? I bought marker spray paint and had to show ID in order to purchase it, and was told that there had to be an adult present in order to purchase it. Not because they work that way, but because it is the law. So, the parents shouldn't be questioning WHY a child has spray paint, but WHY they don't have better control over it.
As for gangs, we could put our heads in the sand and say we don't have them in Nazareth, but that would be foolish.
They may not be violent (yet), but they are here. Either accept that fact and do something about it, or follow the traditional school district method and act like if we ignore it and don't talk about it, they will go away.
Ross, sorry, but the other are right. Reading between the lines of your first post on the topic, one gets the very solid impression that you think the tagger and the girl in the car are one and the samme. I figure you probably didn't mean to do that (I would hope), and maybe you should choose your words a little more carefully and a lot of the flames would have been avoided.
I never even said the paint on the girl's own car was her own, only that it was available, and that was the point - why was it available?
I never said she tagged it and I also noted the color was different when I saw the pictures on the site, even more reason for me not to jump to conclusions as I'm accused of doing.
I think people have gotten so for or against the skaters that they can't be objective and when you make an accusation based on something that doesn't exist, but is between the lines, it reveals more about the reader than the writer.
I was very careful about what I wrote and about the point I was making and it had nothing to do with the point you are reading between the lines.
I don't write between the lines. I make my point by writing about the subject I'm interested in or that has gotten my attention.
To the point of gangs, I can't speak to that, but I can say I've been told they are around Nazareth and if there are drugs being sold you can bet there are gangs not far behind.
"And I'm not saying the spray paint was hers, but it was on hand"
Sorry Ross, but reading between the lines, that is a very sideways way of almost saying it was her.
Again, all I said was choose how you comment a littel more careful.
What about the adults that had to buy that paint? Or are you saying that paint shops are selling to kids illegally?
One more curious item. Enlarge the picture to full screen. Carefully look at the tags. One thing for certain, the "RESPECT" does not appear to be done by the same hand that did the rest.
I'm not saying this is true, but maybe a NOC reader/anti skater did that after the fact to blame it on them?
(Note extreme sarcasm and using your quote in the same context).
Anon-
I think you are somewhat right on the tagging of the building, specifically the word "respect". However, if you look closely it appears that there have been (at least) two different "taggers" on the old tavern building. All four sides have been hit. The word respect is in a different hand and is lighter in color than the other tag. But there are plenty of tags on that building that match the style of the respect tag.
My point of posting wasn't to blame skateboarders or anybody else. I just think it's unsightly and (un)respectful.
I questioned the presence of gangs (real or wannabee) because I do hear things...
I think people have gotten so for or against the skaters that they can't be objective and when you make an accusation based on something that doesn't exist, but is between the lines, it reveals more about the reader than the writer.
No, Ross, you are biased. Like most biased people, you just refuse to see it.
1) In your original post concerning a young man cited for skateboarding on a basketball court, you stood a MC story on its head in an attempt to belittle both the reporter as well as that boy's mother.
2) You used that incident as an occasion to vent your displeasure w/ boarders.
3) You actually state, in subsequent comments, you have no obligation to try and get to know these kids.
4) You posted nothing about the skateboard park dedication. (You did post about the website at the request of one of your readers, who happens to be the designer). You tell a reader that's because you weren't there and had no independent report. There were independent reports from both newspapers. You usually have no trouble relying on them for other posts, but not here.
5) You failed to list the skatepark opening in your calendar of activities. In one of your posts dated 7/6, I actually placed a comment to remind you about it. But it was never included and you did not have the courtesy to even reply to my comment. Talk about R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
6) Instead of a positive or any post about the skatepark dedication, you posted a blog the day before the ribbon cutting entitled "R-E-S-E-P-C-T." You indicate your post is the result, at least in part, of "recent conversations" on your site. That would be the skateboarding conversations because your blog had gone for weeks without comments prior to that.
7) Your attempt to relate some graffiti in Lower Nazareth to the skatepark is just plain absurd. There's just no rational way to justify that, although you try awful hard. Given the amount of controversy on your site and mine, I think your remark was subconsciously intended to add fuel to the fire.
8) You offer your advertising services to local businesses while skateboarders can't afford to pay you $50 per month and a $150 minimum. If you know that potential customer don't like skateboarders, you have an economic reason to lash out at them.
Now I don't think you are being purposely deceitful. But you've been told by enough people that you're biased. There's lots of extrinsic evidence to support that conclusion. I don't have to rely solely on insinuations, but there is that, too.
Ross, you're a good guy, and I usually understand your reasoning, even when I disagree. In this case, the only ones you're convincing is a rather dark undercurrent that seems to be intolerant of anything different in Nazareth.
Bernie,
You simply have refused to listen and have instead formed an opinion and blocked out all facts and explanations. I don't get it.
You keep calling me biased because you disagree with my position and its easier to attack the person.
Let's look at your points:
1) In your original post concerning a young man cited for skateboarding on a basketball court, you stood a MC story on its head in an attempt to belittle both the reporter as well as that boy's mother.
Bernie when you read the article you have yet to acknowledge there was both a quote from the mother and a statement from the reporter. I questioned the reporter's assessment of "many parents" not the parents. I didn't turn the story on its head, nor did I belittle the reporter, I simply pointed out that the reporter may have taken the word of the parent without fact checking.
2) You used that incident as an occasion to vent your displeasure w/ boarders.
I found it interesting that the story was turning from the actions of the skaters to the harassment by the police of them so I asked, "What do you think? Are more people upset with the skaters or the harassment of them?" I also clearly stated I didn't believe it was all skaters, but a small number giving them a bad reputation.
3) You actually state, in subsequent comments, you have no obligation to try and get to know these kids.
The point I made was that whether or not you know a person, their actions are their actions. If I know a kid who skateboards on private property without permission it doesn't make the action any more or less respectful.
4) You posted nothing about the skateboard park dedication. (You did post about the website at the request of one of your readers, who happens to be the designer). You tell a reader that's because you weren't there and had no independent report. There were independent reports from both newspapers. You usually have no trouble relying on them for other posts, but not here.
What do you mean I posted nothing? I announced the event that was coming up on Wednesday. I highlighted the web site. I said what a good job they did. I added their group to the left sidebar so it remained available and people can keep updated from their home page. As I recall you commented and later deleted it, because you hit the link, took a look, and made a few comments about how the site didn't do what I said it did. I pointed out your errors and you then deleted it.
I didn't see a news story on the dedication itself, only on Monday's closing. While its a bit late now, feel free to send me a link and I'll add it.
I often encourage people to submit content from events and activities they attend and when one reader made the comment twice about how great it was and I didn't cover it I simply noted I wasn't there (as I just said I didn't see an article on it) and they were welcome to write a piece and I'd post it.
5) You failed to list the skatepark opening in your calendar of activities. In one of your posts dated 7/6, I actually placed a comment to remind you about it. But it was never included and you did not have the courtesy to even reply to my comment. Talk about R-E-S-P-E-C-T.
I saw your comment, got the email about the new web site and on the Wednesday before made a post that included: "Thanks to Rich Strucke for alerting me of the new web site (visit it here) created to provide information about the the Nazareth Skate Park, which has its official grand opening on Saturday at 10:00 a.m."
I try to get events on the calendar, I don't recall ever posting a grand opening. The beauty of the calendar I use is the fact that anyone can add an event to it. Simply go to upcoming.org, join the newsovercoffee group, post an event, and send it to the group. No one can say they've been left out because I give them the ability to contribute.
6) Instead of a positive or any post about the skatepark dedication, you posted a blog the day before the ribbon cutting entitled "R-E-S-E-P-C-T." You indicate your post is the result, at least in part, of "recent conversations" on your site. That would be the skateboarding conversations because your blog had gone for weeks without comments prior to that.
It wasn't about skateboarding, just like the comment I made at the top of this wasn't about skateboarding. As I said, it seems some people have skateboarding so ingrained in their head at this point that everything is about skateboarding. It's not.
The conversations were on the site, by email, and in person with some neighbors. What really got me thinking about it was the lack of respect many people blatantly exhibit by walking and riding bikes right through other people's yards as shortcuts (I don't mean cutting a corner either, I mean down the length of one yard and diagonally across another). I see it almost every day. The time seemed right to write it.
7) Your attempt to relate some graffiti in Lower Nazareth to the skatepark is just plain absurd. There's just no rational way to justify that, although you try awful hard. Given the amount of controversy on your site and mine, I think your remark was subconsciously intended to add fuel to the fire.
Bernie you made the attempt to connect the two things. And for the record the graffiti was in Upper Nazareth. The comment I made was about spray paint and teen access to it. If I wanted to write a post to indict skateboarders for this I would have. If I wanted to ask people if they thought skateboarders were graffiti artists I would have. Fact is I only mentioned it struck me as unusual that a kid would have such ready access to spray paint.
8) You offer your advertising services to local businesses while skateboarders can't afford to pay you $50 per month and a $150 minimum. If you know that potential customer don't like skateboarders, you have an economic reason to lash out at them.
Are you serious? Now I'm lashing out at them? I gave the skate association a link on the sidebar and I praised the skateboarders for not taking Bowers bait when he locked the park. I also have said repeatedly I think it is a small number that give them all a bad reputation.
Call me biased, but from where I'm sitting the only person lashing out is you and it is coming right at me.
I know you can't stand the fact that I would offer local businesses an opportunity to purchase a paid link and tell people about it. I don't think it is wrong and clearly there aren't many people pounding down my door to get a paid link (look to your left - there is one to date). I personally think it is probably the most cost effective advertising they could buy (and yes I just made a shameless plug, any reader can email me if you're interested in buying one;-)
Making the argument that I'm attacking skateboarders to sell paid business links is venturing into the absurd.
Don't know why you can't look at the whole of the work and instead decide to pick at the parts that support your position, wish you would as it is only fair.
Ross,
I attempted to give you a detailed explanation, but did not think you would accept it.
1) My problem is precisely that - you took a quote from the mother, attributed it to the reporter, and flew off in the wrong direction, never to return. That's bias.
2) I know what you said in your original post. many people are not happy with the general lack of respect displayed by many of the skateboarders in town. The lack of respect is for both property and individuals. That piece was slanted. You conclude "many" skateboarders have "no" respect for property or individuals. You have no factual foundation for that observation. How many skateboarders are there? How many of them have no respect for property? How many have no respect for individuals? What do you mean by "many?" Three? Three hundred? That's bias.
3) You appear to acknowledge you have no obligation to try to understand why kids do what they do or to talk to them. Bias again.
4) You announced the skating ass'n web page but did not post the grand opening. In the ET alone, there were two news accounts about that. I find it odd you chose not to mention it, but chose instead to emphasize the web page. Bias?
5) I asked you to post the grand opening. I had no knowledge that I could post it myself, and don't think many of us know that. But along the theme of respect you've embraced, you could have shown me some. You could have had the courtesy to respond to my comment. Perhaps you could have told me I could do it myself. That would be fine. Bias? Maybe you're just pissed at me. If so, get in line.
6) At a time when all sorts of negative statements are thrown at skateboarders, you exhibit neutrality the day before the grand opening of the park by talking about the need for our youth to show R-E-S-P-E-C-T? Come on. That's bias.
7) It was not me, but you, who drew the editorial connection between the grafitti and the skatepark. I'm not saying the spray paint was hers, but it was on hand. You can explain that however you wish, but it's an insinuation, and an unfair one. It's biased.
8) The reality is you do offer a service to private businesses to link to their businesses for $50 per month. You're trying to make a few bucks. And since yours is a place blog, you've targeted Nazareth businesses. That is the path you've chosen. That economic reality makes me believe you would tend to favor a complaining business over a skateboarder. Unlike the MSM, where there is a wall between news and advertising, we bloggers lack the luxury. And my ethical complaint about your advertising is not that you do it, but that you chose to write a puff piece about one of the outfits that advertises with you. At that point, you're mixing reporting and advertising. It's wrong, and I thought you ended up agreeing with me on that point.
Ross, several of your readers suggest that you've been off base. It's not just me.
The Papier Boy notes it. Stilfx tells you this constant harping on r-e-s-p-e-c-t is getting old, unless I've misunderstood him. Anon notes it's really hard to make this connection to the skatepark.
I have no problem w/ Brad's post, but I do have a problem with your editorializing about it.
I will not continue with this back and forth as we are all busy and I accept your good faith in all of this. But I reamin convinced you are slanted against skateboarders and look for opportunities to denigrate them.
I am not pro-skateboarding. I am pro-kid. I'm sure you are, too. Thatr's why I hope you can relax over time about this.
Let's just look at item one, because I've tried to clarify my point three times and you refuse to accept it or explain how the two are the same.
Here is what was written, my comments in ():
The topic of skateboarding has recently become a sore spot for many parents of skaters, who feel their children have been unfairly targeted and cited by Nazareth police.
(The above paragraph was an introduction to the topic written by the reporter. I noted she used the term 'many parents' and wrote the article the night of the Council meeting as it appeared the next day. I questioned how many she spoke with or was personally aware of, because I saw her speaking with two. One was the woman whose son was cited and the other was Councilman Herbst's wife. For her to use many in this instance indicates to a reader that she was aware there were many through first hand knowledge).
Teri Romanishan spoke to the council Monday about her 15-year-old son Alex, who'd been given a $157 fine for skating on the basketball courts.
(Now the reporter moves into the specific instance of a parent who spoke at the council meeting and presented the parents perspective)
There are no signs in that area of the park that say ''no skateboarding,'' though there are many signs that ban animals and bicycles, Romanishan said. ''If daddy is teaching little Janie to ride her bike, they should take her bike away,'' just as they take away skaters' boards, she said.
(again, she continues to present the parent's perspective.)
But they don't, and that's discriminatory, she said, adding that she is one of many parents who feel their children are feeling unfairly singled out.
(HERE is where the reporter presents the parent's opinion that 'many parents' feel their children are being singled out. This is the parent's opinion, not the reporters, however, the statement at the start is the reporters and should have been fact checked. That was why I raised the question and made my point.)
End of citation from the article.
This one is pretty straight forward. Either both mentions of 'many parents' are attributable to the parent, or one is to the parent and one to the reporter.
Now if you want to argue that the first use of 'many parents' is clearly attributable to the parent and not the reporter, I'd be happy to argue that, because no where is it written to say 'a parent indicated that many parents...".
If you acknowledge that the first is of the reporter and the second of the parent, then the arguement that I am biased and turned this article on its head is false and I'd appreciate it if you'd stop saying I misrepresented the article and belittled both the parent and the reporter.
For goodness sake Bernie, give it a rest! You have turned this topic into a childish and petty rant against Ross.
I find nothing childish or petty about confronting bias. Nonnemaker wanted to know why I called him biased, and I answered him.
Bernie calling somebody bias...talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
I readily admit my bias. My blog is more in the commentary vein. I have no pro-skateboard bias, but am pro-kid. That's why I was so opposed the the municipal center expansion at Nazareth Hall Park. That's why I support the skatepark. That's why I coach kids. That's why I stood up to Nonnemaker when he insinutated the connection between the kids at the skatepark and graffiti in Upper Nazareth. I'm not saying the spray paint was hers, but it was on hand. You folks need to develop a little more tolerasnce, especially since these are our own children.
for goodness sake
its NUNNAMAKER!!!
please can you put aside the soap
box you have been utilizing to promote your pro-child position to further denigrate (your word mr O-Hair--sorry couldn't resist) ross's supposed position on skateboarders?
your posts have become tiresome--
now kiss and make up as usual---it seems to have taken longer this time around!
oops-NUNAMAKER
I agree with Bernie. When I drop mt kids off at the park, I have seen others kids calling them names. They're learning that kind of attitude from their parents. There is bias. And my kids only skate at home or in the park.
Ross,
I had my 14 year old read your initial post. Her impression, you pointed the finger in a way, whether you want to admit it or not. Your original post:
"I thought it was interesting in the articles that appeared in the Express-Times and the Morning Call on Tuesday, both noted one girl spray painted her car in protest of the skate park being closed.
Not exactly a common item one keeps in a vehicle - spare tire, flash light, spray paint.
And I'm not saying the spray paint was hers, but it was on hand. Anyone whose kid has spray paint ought to be asking questions."
does not mention the fact that the paints were different colors. And, the wording of your last paragraph, with disclaimer, gives the impression that you thought it could have been her (or her boyfriend).
I have heard the "I'm not saying, but...." line many times, and most often, in day to day conversations, it is used to say exactly what the person means. The "but" is nothing more than a CYA statement.
By intent or accident, the words you used in that initial post showed a bias. Otherwise, why would many of us have jumped on the bandwagon and you would not have spent so much time defending it.
I had no idea the girl who spraypainted her car had a boyfriend. I simply said it may not have been her spray paint, even though it was her car.
By on hand, I meant it appeared from the report to be available to the person without having to run out, buy it and then return to the park with the protest painted on the vehicle.
By "asking questions" I was not referring to the post Brad made in the sense that she should be questioned about graffiti, but to the fact that a teen had spray paint readily available, which was the point of my comment.
That's it.
Did no one else find it strange that there was spray paint on hand which enabled her to paint her vehicle for the cameras to take pictures of and reporters to write about?
Ross, you still miss my point, but I will leave it at that.
However, how do we know it was "paint" on her car? I notice many cars in this area with wording painted on them with paint that is easily removed.
Of course, that is people cheering on their sports teams or celebrating something else.
Maybe we should pull them into the question as well?
Double standard? I think so.
I never said to pull anyone into question, I said a parent should question if there kid has spray paint.
The newspapers both reported spray paint. I made my statement based on those reports.
One reader made a good point that I acknowledged and that was Paper Boy indicating the spray paint like decorate spray.
My point was in regard to spray paint not skaters or their friends or boyfriends.
I think Paper Boy had a good point and that could very well have been what it was. In truth I wasn't thinking about it when I posted the comment. I'm glad he mentioned it, as I said before.
alright guys,...... the spraypaint in nazareth isnt any gangs it is just kids having fun ...act like you never did something bad, come on now. and no its not the skaters because i know who everyones tag is and its not coming from the skaters ..
Mike, if you know who it is you have a responsibility to stop it.
Post a Comment