Journal #6 (Psychological Maltreatment)

     Source six was the book "Child Maltreatment" By Cindy and Robin Perrin. The book, especially chapter six, which deals with psychological maltreatment specifically, gives an insight of psychological maltreatment and how the fact that since it's such a new form of child abuse that it's hard to determine when it is occurring. Going into this book I expected to get an overall in-depth summary of what psychological maltreatment is, so that I could have the most complete understanding of the topic as possible before writing my paper.

     The chapter discusses the fact that psychological maltreatment is hard to determine in three ways. The first being the definition of psychological. "Psychological can be broadened due to the fact that negative psychological thoughts usually cannot occur without negative physical or verbal actions. Therefore, one must conclude that psychological maltreatment also includes physical or verbal maltreatment, simple because it is a prerequisite to the negative psychological thought." (Perrin, 2013) This is a mind altering theory to me. It makes complete since, right? You don't just come up with negative thoughts about yourself or others out of nowhere, right? So, was psychological maltreatment simply a responsive mechanism to physical and verbal abuse? I think not, because there is a form of psychological thinking that was not explained. Body language. Sometimes, when just looking at a person, I can feel how they feel, especially about me in some circumstances. This requires no physical or verbal stimulation, but I still contract negative thoughts about myself or others. The second and third problems coincide with one another, recognition and legal response. Recognizing psychological maltreatment is extremely sensitive because it happens within the child's mind. A child may not respond to the negative situations that it is in due to the fact that the child doesn't know what is going on. Psychological maltreatment may take months to develop and become apparent, which is problematic because most individuals wish to stop the negative actions of the parent as soon as they happen. But if the children themselves don't recognize it until months in, chances are that the public cannot stop it from happening. That is the same problem that the legal powers face. How do they specify that psychological maltreatment is occurring when they only have the child's self report and the parent's self report to go off of? Since humans notoriously lie, it is a very sensitive situation to deal with. However, I believe that it is really easy to tell how psychological maltreatment has taken place. And once again, body language is the answer. The way people project themselves is rarely inaccurate, so if one can read the body language of someone who has experienced psychological maltreatment, it is quite possible to recognize. 

     Going into my final source, I wanted to find a book that would not only explain everything that the articles I've read, but also give me new information as to why this form of child abuse is so difficult to define and understand. "Child Maltreatment" by Cindy L. Miller-Perrin and Robin D. Perrin, gave me just that. They explain in chapter six of their book just about everything that has been collected in child psychological maltreatment to date. After reading over this chapter, I'm now certain that psychological maltreatment is the most dangerous form of child abuse.

Journal 6

Michael Arnott

Exploratory Journal #6

            For my final exploratory journal, I read two articles that best answered some of my final questions such as the comparison between drug and gambling addiction as well as the changing information from the time Pete Rose was banned.  I also looked into whether or not Pete Rose was involved with baseball outside of the MLB since the time the previous article was written.  I came across “Gambling on the Brain,” a report written by Ferris Jabr, and “Pete Rose Gets a Taste of Baseball Again,” taken from the Associative Press.  The first article discusses gambling and how it shifted from being considered as a compulsory disorder into the category of addiction.  It was made official by the American Psychiatric Association when research concluded that gambling produced the same effects as drug addiction.  The release of dopamine when taking drugs is the same as winning in gambling.  It makes your body want to keep winning.  But when you keep winning, you get less excited and need to win more to satisfy the need to win.  This is where gambling can become a serious addiction.  As it gets worse, less activity occurs in the prefrontal cortex and the person is more likely to make rash decisions rather than weighing the risks.  These same occurrences are present when addicted to a drug.  Most of this research is fairly recent and it definitely was not present around the time that Pete Rose was caught gambling.  There is more treatment around for it since it is now considered a serious addiction rather than back in his era where is was a fault in personality.  In the second article, it explains Pete Rose’s first step back into baseball through guest-managing an Independent Atlantic League team, the Bluefish, for one game.  Rose claims it was “to show [I] could be a good ambassador for the game.”  But the article goes on to say that Rose would never full-time manage an independent league team due to the lack of income compared to his signing sessions and meet-and-greets.

            In McCarthy’s article, he claims that Rose blamed other’s, such as the MLB, for lack of help in dealing with his gambling problem.  Rose was not necessarily wrong.  The American Psychiatric Association classified gambling as an addiction on the same level as drugs and alcohol.  That means that the person with the addiction builds up a dependence on the dopamine that it released when they win.  This leads to a tolerance to dopamine and a need for more winning to satisfy their urge to feel good.  The MLB should have offered help for Rose as treatment through medication and therapy increase as more research comes out regarding it.  It makes sense with the claim that Rose began with betting on football and basketball before betting on baseball since he needed more and more to get his mental fix.  His betting on his team was part of his addiction as well as all the other teams he gambled on.  In turn, the MLB and the Hall of Fame should reconsider their ban on Pete Rose since modern information suggests that he was enveloped in an addiction he could not shake rather than performing an act of hubris.  McCarthy also mentions how Rose could have taken his love of baseball to alternative leagues instead of fighting and lying for years.  Rose finally heeded that advice when he stepped in as manager of an Independent Atlantic League team, the Bluefish, for one game.  Later, he explained that he would never manage an independent team due to the lack of money coming out of it, supporting my earlier claim that Rose was accustomed to a certain style of baseball.

            With the confirmed information that gambling is in the same category of drug addiction, I more firmly stand by my claim that the MLB should look into ways to help such problems instead of punishing them like they did in Pete Rose’s case.  The rules need to adapt with the new information that is coming out just as they adjusted when steroids broke onto the scene.  Except this time, they need to focus on what can be done to help instead of banning someone for life.  Pete’s addiction took over his life to the point where he was in debt to bookies despite being a star professional athlete and it eventually got him banned for life from the life he loved.  Seeing as how Pete Rose has apologized for his mistakes, I think that the MLB and the Hall of Fame should apologize for theirs for not fully understanding the situation they were dealt.  When I compare players that physically cheated through PEDs to a person with a gambling addiction, I favor the side with the mental dependency that is not easily controlled rather than those who falsely improve their skills.  Especially in the case of Rose being reinstated to baseball while admitted steroid-user Mark McGwire and others can still participate around the league.  In the previous source, I bring up the idea of Rose taking baby steps to get back into the game to show Bud Selig and the MLB his worth to the game.  He did just that.  He guest-managed an Independent Atlantic League team for one game as he was “trying to show he could be a good ambassador for the game” as he sparked a jolt in an otherwise humdrum team and league for that matter.  My previous idea appeared to also be right that Rose was accustomed to a certain style of baseball after having played professionally for years.  He claimed he would not full-time manage an independent team since the pay was so low.  He is used to the bigger scale ballgame where it means more.

            As I prepare to write the first draft for this topic, I plan to come up with a definitive claim.  Mine will involve Pete Rose eventually being reinstated into the MLB and gaining eligibility for the Hall of Fame but I need to come up with concrete reasons why.  I want to say, “Pete Rose should be reinstated to the MLB and the Hall of Fame due to his skill compared to that of any other player, the MLB not properly handling the ban, and his case compared to that of other baseball criminals, such as steroid users, despite having broken very clear rules that state gambling in baseball is strictly prohibited” but it is lengthy and seems like it might need to be narrowed down.

Journal 5

Michael Arnott

Exploratory Journal #5

            In his article “Betting on Pete Rose,” Colman McCarthy believes that if Pete Rose really had the love for the game that he claims he does, he should have done something with his fourteen years (at the time of the article) that did not have to do with MLB.  He points out that there are many other leagues, so far down as Little League that he could have participated in if he had the passion he talked about.  McCarthy reminds the reader that Rose still lied for fifteen years before admitting he was wrong, which he did half-heartedly.

            In my previous source, Morrow reports that Rose would like to be involved in the sport again at a professional level but Bud Selig, the commissioner, does not want to shift his stance on the ban.  McCarthy counters this by bringing up that Rose could have helped teams in other leagues such as the Independent Baseball League, Little League, as well as many leagues in other countries.  I think that it is a combination of the two.  Rose wanted to be involved in baseball activities but not just anywhere; he wanted to be involved in professional baseball, the game he came to know and love.  MLB baseball has a much different feel than, say, Independent League Baseball.  The crowds are bigger, the money is bigger (which would make sense for a man like Rose), and the environment is more electric.  Morrow also reports that Rose is just looking for a second chance making it seem as if he is apologetic and ready to turn over a new leaf.  But McCarthy reports that he was simply “sorry that it happened” without wanting to give a long apology for his actions.  Kennedy also paints Pete Rose as an honest man but McCarthy reminds us that he lied about gambling for fifteen years before admitting it, as well as going to jail for tax evasion.

            This source challenged most of the opinions I have been reading.  McCarthy gives the hard facts that Rose broke the rules, lied about it, and did not really do anything except for fight it until finally admitting he broke the rules.  He excludes everything about him as a ballplayer and only looks at the infractions against him.  In one of my previous journals, I brought up a first step to obtaining eligibility would be to reinstate Rose into professional baseball again.  But McCarthy brings up a valid point: Pete Rose could have gone into any of the other leagues if his love of the sport was really that great.  While I agree with this, I have one reserve about it.  Rose may have loved the sport but after twenty-six years of professional baseball, he grew accustomed to a certain style of playing: big crowds, big games, and big fame.  While that may be the case, I think maybe Rose should make the first step in redemption beyond an apology.  He can show Bud Selig and the rest of baseball that he has a love for the game by dedicating his time in other leagues and working his way up to gain the respect and forgiveness from the MLB.  The only problem I think would be the timeframe.  Rose is not getting any younger and his years are waning.  He may not have time to work his way up through the ranks, though he could have with all of his time out of the game.  At the same time, Rose is a veteran of professional baseball.  There is a lot more than just playing a game to deal with and he knows it more than anyone.  He could help young players adjust to the Major League level as well as fundamentally and mentally playing the game.  Rose is also quoted in this article as saying, “Baseball had no fancy rehab for gamblers like they do for drug addicts.” I brought up in a previous journal that if Rose had an addiction to gambling, he had a mental disease that needed to be treated not punished.  I stand by this claim.  If the MLB wanted to have solved the gambling problem, they could have found help for Pete Rose instead of punishing him and brushing the problem off to the side.  Granted, information about gambling addiction was not as advanced as we have it today so they may not have seen it as a legitimate addiction, but rather as an act of hubris.  But with all the information that is readily available about addiction, I think Rose’s case should be reconsidered.

            Heading into my final exploratory journal, some questions I want to answer are what was the knowledge of gambling addiction back in Rose’s era?  How do drug and gambling addictions compare?  Has Pete done any work in other baseball leagues since this article was written?

Journal 4

Michael Arnott

Exploratory Journal #4

            My fourth source is an article from the Philadelphia Daily News written by John Morrow named, “Pete Rose Tells About Gambling and PED Users.”  It is a description of Pete Rose talking to a crowd of people at Christ's Church of the Valley in Pennsylvania.  In it he talks about his life through baseball, his mistakes, his future regarding the Hall of Fame, and current views on PED (Performance Enhancing Drugs) users.  He explains why he bet on his team and apologizes for his actions.

            In this article, Rose says something that partially goes with what Kennedy has to say about whether or not Rose’s punishment fits the crime when there are steroid users in the sport today.  Rose points out that “other people get second chances: alcoholics, drug addicts, spousal beaters.  Not gamblers.”  If a situation arises in these categories in sports, a fine and/or suspension are given out as punishment for the first offense.  Rose was met with a lifetime ban from baseball for his first offense for a crime that seems less dangerous than the previously stated three categories.  Kennedy also wrote about how Bud Selig, the current commissioner of the MLB is not budging in his stance to keep Rose banned.  Rose states his poor luck since “Bart Giamatti (the commissioner at the time) suspended me and four days later he died.”  Giamatti’s two successors have held the ban firm though Rose believes Giamatti would have lifted the ban after a year.  Also going along with Kennedy’s argument about gambling vs. PED’s, Rose brings up that Mark McGwire, an admitted steroid user, is still working in the MLB for the Cardinals and Dodgers as a hitting coach, the exact aspect he cheated in.

            I have begun to think about Rose’s eligibility for the Hall of Fame and what needs to happen before that can happen.  He has a ban from all MLB-sanctioned events (with a couple exceptions), which keeps him from his passion.  The man was involved with baseball as a player and manager for twenty-six years before having it stripped from underneath him.  That is a whole life dedicated to baseball only to be told that he will not be accepted in the game he loves.  Offenders of other crimes such as drug problems, alcohol problems, and spousal beatings serve their punishment and are reinstated into the game so why should gambling be any different if not lesser punishment?  Rose understands the mistakes he’s made and he has done his penance for twenty-five years--a longer suspension than anyone has ever faced for a DUI, assault, or steroid use.  The first step to his Hall eligibility begins with his overall involvement in baseball.  Instead of punishing him for his mistakes, why not use his mistakes to teach others?  He could talk about his problems with gambling and how it set him into deep debt aside from lifetime banishment from baseball to help other that might have the same problem.  He could even help coach and develop younger players using his twenty-six years of professional baseball experience to build fundamentally better players who play the game through effort and hustle, the way Pete played the game.

            Going forward, I want to look at previous cases of alcohol/drug abuse and spousal abuse in baseball and the punishments inflicted upon the offenders, specifically in the Hall of Fame.  If they get a second chance, why does Pete not for a equal or lesser crime?  If Rose is considered to have a gambling addiction, how does that match up to an addiction to drugs or alcohol since they are both classified as addictions?  Did Pete Rose have an addiction to gambling or rather an addiction to baseball, or did they feed each other?

Journal 3

Michael Arnott

Exploratory Journal #3

            My third source was a economic explanation of Pete Rose’s gambling from April 8, 1987 through May 12, 1987 by economist Douglas Coate.  In it, he breaks down Rose’s gambling through three categories: the Reds (his own team), other teams within his division (National League teams), and teams in the other division that the Reds did not play (American League teams).  Coate also mentions that Rose bet on other pro sports as well as college sports and horse racing.  At the end of this time period, Rose had lost $4200 on his own team, $36,000 on other NL teams, and $7000 on AL teams as well as $20,000-$25,000 in transaction fees with a total of $450,000 in total transactions.

            As Rogers said, Pete Rose never bet against his own team.  He just bet for other teams, some that he competed against, and some that he did not.  I think he was so engulfed in the sport of gambling that it did not matter whether he won or lost.  He just enjoyed the potential of making money off of other’s results.  Kennedy lays out the argument that gambling can lead to influences in the manager’s decisions but in this report, Rose put a minimum of $2000 on his team as well as multiple other teams around the League, making the Reds just another piece of the pie, so to speak.  He could not affect the other games around the league so why would he do anything different for his team, whose main mission is to win.

I believe that Rose’s managerial decisions were not effected by the prospect of gambling since he had more money riding on other teams collectively.  I believe that the Reds were another team in the pool he decided to bet on where he let the results play out and collected his winnings accordingly.  Gambling was a pure sport for him and while his team was winning (as they had a 412-373 record while Rose was managing), he wanted to reap the benefits.  He ultimately did not and actually lost money on his team but Rose lost much more money betting on other teams which made the Reds just another team to bet on.  The other games would have random results (though educated guesses could be made on who would win) and I think it is fair to assume that his team was included in this, too, if not to a lesser extent with the fact that he bet on the Reds to win every game, an improbability in baseball.  Regardless, gambling is a game of chance and his chances were good because of his good baseball team which is all the reason enough to bet on them.

After reading the numbers and looking at the charts that lay out Rose’s gambling habits, I seem to find myself asking if Rose had an addiction to gambling.  It would be different if he only bet on his team because that would put more pressure on him to want to win games and win money but since it was spread out over the League so much, the pressure is eased since it is just money in a larger pool with less of a chance for major loss.  But Rose bet almost everyday on different teams, and in this report it only shows the baseball teams he bet on.  It mentions he bet on other pro and college sports as well as horseracing, which seems to me like he had a problem.  If he did have a problem with gambling, that is a mental disease with a dependency on gambling which raises my question: should MLB punish Rose for a mental disease or try to help him get past his problem while still giving him the recognition he deserves?