tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-59623877688785705142024-03-13T11:02:33.322-04:00Puerile Psyche<p>fighting ageism | promoting youth empowerment</p>
<p>"because adultism is puerile."</p>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.comBlogger114125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-72238033146891688382012-02-21T03:25:00.002-05:002012-02-21T03:25:53.715-05:00UpdateI realize it has been a long time since I posted anything, but perhaps that will change soon. I've been keeping busy this past year with other projects, but I may soon return to this one with some new perspective. If there's one thing that's true about growing up, it's that if your perspective hasn't changed, it only widens. That's what I feel has been happening.<br />
<br />
I thank everyone who has been commenting on all this backlog of postings.<br />
<br />
<br />Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-59963674161366589482011-08-14T04:21:00.003-04:002011-08-14T04:22:16.571-04:00Flash Mob GenerationIt's been a while, but I just have to get this out.<br />
<br />
The youth street riots in England show us what happens when government flat out ignores the needs of young people for too long. When government no longer seems to work for the people, regardless of age or social class, the people become disillusioned with it, and angry with it, and angry with the society that embraces it. The behavior of the rioters is reprehensible and by no means do I wish to endorse it, as there is no doubt it has nothing to do with legitimate protest. There's been a lot of speculation about the cause though, and a lot of accusations against indirect cultural influences, but no inciting incident or clear motivation can be tagged. This is simply because the uprisings are instead the inevitable product of years and years of pent-up social frustration with a civil society that has continuously sidelined the millennial generation.<br />
<br />
It comes with great shame to me, being a member of that generation, that they have resorted to this, but while I can't endorse their unbridled destructiveness, I can at least sympathize with the spark of frustration that caused it. I seem to remember a year or so prior to this unrest, the UK government unequivocally shouting down mass youth protests--legitimate, non-violent protests--against the government's insistence on shutting down student loans and increasing interest rates on them, all while tuition in the UK is <a href="http://tucone.com/2011/08/13/average-debts-for-uk-students-could-double-from-2012/">set to double</a> by next year, and all while youth unemployment is up to <a href="http://www.poverty.org.uk/35/index.shtml">20% in the UK</a>.<br />
<br />
The old guard in government, who rode through college in the age of state-paid, free tuition, effectively see nothing wrong with sending young people out into the world with debts reaching up to six figures--and while that is good news for the same "old guard" special interests (who never have to share any of the fiscal burden), it is bad news for young people who would have to make the sacrifice. So the young people fought, and the government refused to listen, and when the government no longer listens, the young people got frustrated.<br />
<br />
And they have a right to be frustrated, regardless of where they live. They have been given no reason to believe that government actually works for anyone other than the wealthy and the corporations, and it's because for decades the government really hasn't worked for anyone other than the wealthy and the corporations. With average citizens being unable to affect change against massive special interests who pay their way into politician's pockets, they lose faith in the system, they lose faith in democracy, and they lose faith in civil society. Once that happens, they constitute for themselves a civil disorder--and it may very well be a psychological release of pent-up energies, a joy ride of smashing and looting--but nevertheless, a riot.<br />
<br />
What shames me about the riots is the indiscriminate path of their destructiveness, affecting small business owners and other private property in particular. These local merchants and residents did not deserve being so much as touched, as they had nothing to do with the government being unresponsive to the needs of young people. The young should have been using their social media to a call for non-violent resistance and organize walk-outs and sit down strikes. All they accomplished in pursuing violence was to throw their oppressive government into overdrive. Thousands of arrests have been made, and youth curfews have spread all over the world (Philadelphia for example). Instead of dismantling civil society, young people should stop it from being able to function. The government has to be starved by its disaffected until it realizes why it needs them.<br />
<br />
If government no longer works for you, you ought to no longer work for it. It's called the social contract.Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-8325446788765639422011-03-14T13:31:00.006-04:002011-03-14T13:42:13.518-04:00Increase Youth Right to Work<div style="text-align: justify;">Missouri senator Cunningham wants to <a href="http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/7002/missouri_legislator_wants_to_increase_child_labor/">limit child labor laws in her state,</a> and the critics are already making it seem like she wants to eliminate them all together. It says nothing about "forcing" children to work (it <i>will</i> be an all-volunteer workforce), it says nothing about parental approval, it says nothing about allowing kids to work in dangerous environments like mines and quarries. All her proposed bill does is allow kids to work longer hours, and bars inspectors from checking up on the enforcement of child labor laws.<br />
<br />
Maybe it's because the law has that word "labor," in it, which makes it sound like kids are being forced into the "labor" workforce and will be typically hauling boulders up hills rather than taking your order at the drive through. Or maybe it's because any mention of child labor laws inevitably invokes the image of the 6 year old black and white factory workers, and the idea that any tinkering will land us back to how it was 200 years ago. Neither of these gut reactions are true. More often than not, child labor time restrictions are an archaic hindrance on the job site--arbitrary time laws like "can't work past 5" (or whatever the hours are), make it difficult for actors who may need to film at night, for example. That's not exploitation, because often the kid wants to, but gets pulled off at the cut off regardless.<br />
<br />
And if we're talking about exploitation, what makes it okay to "exploit" 14 year olds, but not 13s? What difference does a year make if we're talking about worker exploitation? That's a separate issue that's true for any employee of any age. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Here's a summary of the bill as it reads:</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><b>SB 222 – This act modifies the child labor laws. It eliminates the prohibition on employment of children under age fourteen. Restrictions on the number of hours and restrictions on when a child may work during the day are also removed. It also repeals the requirement that a child ages fourteen or fifteen obtain a work certificate or work permit in order to be employed. Children under sixteen will also be allowed to work in any capacity in a motel, resort or hotel where sleeping accommodations are furnished. It also removes the authority of the director of the Division of Labor Standards to inspect employers who employ children and to require them to keep certain records for children they employ. It also repeals the presumption that the presence of a child in a workplace is evidence of employment.</b></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's simply allowing teens to work more than they're presently permitted to and that they shouldn't have to be kicked off the job just because the government says so. It beats them hanging around malls or growing up thinking that life is going to be handed to them on a platter with a Platinum charge card, or growing up feeling unable to determine their own circumstances. Nobody is saying that 5 year olds should be employable (because nobody would employ them), but at present, if one agrees to weed the neighbor's garden, everything is stopping them for being paid for the work (legally).</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">And of course we'll hear from people who will correctly claim that kids who work longer hours become less focused on school, but of all the things that are distracting kids from school, is being productive really worse? Let's swear off this notion that if kids aren't working they can all just go join "clubs or something"--particularly in an economy where those kinds of activities are quickly being slashed regardless of enrollment. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Besides, you're not taking people's rights away by doing this, you're actually extending to them more rights. Although I do see that kids who are willing to work longer hours will outcompete more "traditional after school" -type workers, but this may be one of the first steps to giving youth the right to vote. The only thing I disagree with is the move to complicate inspections, which is a stretch.</div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-54632395577382832962011-02-23T02:48:00.001-05:002011-02-23T02:48:49.714-05:00Washing Out the Sand Lines<div style="text-align: justify;">I can only imagine the typical conversation between a defender of artificial age limits and a liberationist ending one way--with an enlightened ageist. Those who defend artificial age limits do so because their imagination hasn't evolved past 19th century assumption. As an experiment, if you just present them with this statement by educator and advocate John Holt, you're guaranteed to hear a particular nuanced set of responses and be able to test the limits of their reasoning.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><blockquote style="color: #eeeeee;"><b>"I propose...that the rights, privileges, duties of adult citizens be made available to any young person, of whatever age, who wants to make use of them." -John C. Holt, "Escape from Childhood"</b></blockquote><div style="text-align: justify;"> </div><div style="text-align: justify;">They will remark that children shouldn't have the right to vote, for example, because they lack the mental capacity for it. This wouldn't be such a bad argument if they were referring to the potential ways adults could scam children out of their votes, but this is not how they mean it. They mean it in the most simplistic way possible--that children shouldn't vote because they don't understand politics. The same goes for sex--children shouldn't have sex because they don't understand sexuality.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The liberationist will chide back with the rebuttal: what about a 17 year old one minute before midnight on the day of their 18th birthday (the year a child can vote in the United States)? Are they incapable of understanding politics right up to midnight on their 18th birthday? What causes them to be suddenly blessed with the ability and knowledge to vote? The same argument gets even more confusing with age of consent laws, where there is not just one, but hundreds of different age limits, where suddenly children are capable of having sex in one area, but a mile away across the border, the very similar children there are incapable. What manner of science could explain this phenomenon?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It will cause the ageist to scratch their head, possibly never having concluded that there's a difference between 2 year old children and 17 year old children that the law might have missed. In any case, the ageist will retort that they understand the confusion over the exactness and absolute nature of the "one minute before midnight" scenario, but will usually respond by saying, "it's not an exact science, but there has to be an age limit somewhere even if it doesn't match when a child is capable of voting." One should note that this already flies in the face of their previous rationale. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The liberationist will chide in immediately with an obvious rebuttal. If what the ageist said is true, that there in fact needs to be a set age even if it doesn't correspond to ability (contrary to the reason the ageist had given in the first case), then why does the age have to be 18? Why not move the age of majority in the US up to 20? Or how about 30, or 40? If we understand that the age limit is arbitrary, but also understand that it must exist anyways, why do we settle on 18 definitively?</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">The ageist will then come back with how 18 is closer to when a person is capable of understanding politics than 40, and will then normally pretend they agree with the liberationist by recalling particular teenagers who are far more politically astute than their own adult colleagues. They usually do this to show that they are not bigoted about young people, but it does nothing but add to the case the liberationist is making. It's simply the point in the argument when the ageist has run out of explanations, just before settling on the "it is the way it is" rationale, unknowingly forfeiting all their earlier assumptions.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">Age limitations have nothing to do with human aptitude. They do not legislate human aptitude. They are merely artificial limitations invented by humans to keep other humans from participating in areas of learning and experience they'd rather reserve for themselves. Lifting age limits on children would not impose the weight of the adult world onto them, and thus become its own form of oppression as critics may suggest. Children who do not have the means, the mind, the capability, the maturity, or the motivation, to make use of the rights newly bestowed on them, such as the right to vote, simply would not vote--just as adults do when they have neither the means, mind, capability, maturity, or motivation to vote. Society has already made it such that adults who are deemed incompetent for any reason are not permitted to bare the burdens and responsibilities that would come with competence--there is no reason to believe that the liberated five year old would be treated any differently than the incompetent adult when it comes to running their own affairs.</div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">In fact, what society fears is not that incapable children would be dumped with the pressures and responsibilities that come with human rights beyond their ability, it's that in granting them such rights, many more than previously expected may be found more capable than the adult world ever imagined could be. Adults would be in a real state of cognitive dissonance over their assumptions. While five year olds would be sure to fail a required driving permit written test, for instance, we may just find that fifteen year olds, rather than just sixteen year olds, are competent enough to pass it. Such a thing would be sure to send shock waves of fear through the hearts of adults who would like to maintain the millennia-old belief that they, modern men and women, are special among all living things. It would force them to conclude that they are not special just because they've reach some magic age of human fellowship, and that they spent a good many years squandering their ability in pursuit of a magic number.</div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /><!--Session data--><input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-61016268870103298442011-02-16T01:57:00.005-05:002011-02-23T02:48:36.435-05:00Glenn Beck is a Bigot<div style="text-align: justify;">Frankly, I don't care if you support the "Day of Rage" proposed for this coming March 12th or not. As far as I can tell, nobody can even find what <a href="http://www.opposingviews.com/i/glenn-beck-mocks-liberal-young-people-s-days-of-rage">Glenn Beck is talking about in this clip</a>, and I've done some searching and haven't turned up anything. If there is to be a day of rage in America though, it ought to be every day--every day this far right bigot continues to be on the air. He's a mouthpiece for the John Birch Society, that's all there is to it. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">So while I admit that I have no clue what he's talking about as far as any "day of rage" among America's youth, and can't even find information on it outside of Glenn Beck's websites and fanboy bloggers, what he says about America's youth here is absolutely without tact. He obviously doesn't have to worry about being a bigot, he's just playing to his core audience of senile boomers willing to believe the Communists are under the bed. And to think he calls young people stupid. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">He's a lost cause.</div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /><!--Session data--><input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-9829133980987046952010-12-23T01:54:00.005-05:002010-12-23T02:01:11.774-05:00Changing Education ParadigmsEveryone should watch this. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><object height="340" width="560"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/zDZFcDGpL4U?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/zDZFcDGpL4U?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="460" height="340"></embed></object></div><blockquote style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
<div style="color: #3d85c6; text-align: justify;"><b>"Our children are living in the most intensely stimulating period in the history of the earth. They are being besieged by information that calls their attention from every platform, computers, iPhones, advertising, and hundreds of television channels, and we are penalizing them now for getting distracted. From what? Boring stuff, at school." </b></div></blockquote><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">One can argue that changing the education paradigm like this caters too much to kids and makes them lose resilience, but then again, they're already losing resilience when we've resorted to medicating them ("anesthetizing them") just to keep them from getting distracted. Obviously something needs to change.</div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-70147059307269942962010-12-14T04:50:00.007-05:002010-12-14T04:57:17.902-05:00Youth Center and Police State<div style="text-align: justify;">UK Prime Minster David Cameron's "Big Society" is looking more like "Big Brother Society" every time we catch wind of one of these. Apparently, a youth can be investigated and even arrested by anti-terrorism forces <a href="http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/uk-are-you-aware-anti-terrorist-squad">for organizing a campaign to "save his youth center"</a> on Facebook according to UK police.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><b>A schoolboy trying to save his youth club was hauled from class after his plan to protest outside David Cameron's constituency office was spotted - by anti-terror police. In an astonishing over-reaction, 12-year-old Nicky Wishart was warned he faced arrest.<br />
<br />
"I couldn't believe it," he said. "The policeman asked me lots of questions about why we were having a protest and who would be there. "I said it was simply because we didn't want our youth centre to close - it's a fantastic place to go and there isn't much else for us to do round here." <br />
<br />
He was told he would be responsible for any "trouble" at the well-mannered picket on Friday night. Public-spirited Nicky, one of the PM's constituents in the Oxfordshire seat of Witney, said: "All this is because Mr Cameron is our local MP and it's a bit embarrassing for him."'</b></blockquote><br />
Two words, free speech. If government were a more effective utility, then it doesn't need to spy on a kid's Facebook account to begin with. <br />
<br />
<blockquote><b>"I was taken out of class - and the policeman said, 'Are you aware that the anti-terrorist squad are looking at your Facebook account?' He said that if anything got out of hand, they would arrest people. Then he said that I could get arrested for organising it. I was frightened and wished my mum was with me. Then the policeman asked, 'Does your mum know about this?' I said, 'Yes, of course, she supports it.' "But the policeman carried on, 'Are you sure your mum wants you out protesting at night?' He was trying to scare me off - but there was no way I wasn't going to go."</b></blockquote><br />
This last statement of his is very powerful. In a climate where we hear how young people and children are being brow-beaten into submission by the police state in order to learn why not to stick up too much against the system, we have the exact opposite happening from so many of them. Let's hope this trend continues, and we'll all have the brighter future the current leaders want to keep from us.<br />
<br />
<blockquote><b>But, as part of the Con-Dem cuts, Tory-run Oxfordshire County Council is axing £4million of funding for 20 clubs - including the one in Nicky's home village, Eynsham. The council claims volunteers might take over as part of Mr Cameron's "Big Society".</b></blockquote><br />
The money going into paying police to spy on kids' Facebook accounts set up to "save their youth centers" could be going to fund those youth centers to begin with, but I suppose the government wins either way.</div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-88247171598284575262010-11-24T01:23:00.001-05:002010-11-24T01:23:56.098-05:00TSA Molests Children<div style="text-align: justify;">Today I think for the first time I felt that "genuine sense of revulsion toward the abuser" that all of society seems to fall back on. I'm not usually one easily swayed by sensationalism, but this deeply disturbed me. I saw this child screaming and something just kicked inside. I stomped my foot on impulse and practically broke into tears. I am human after all. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><object height="344" width="425"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T6ByKOhAhsU?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T6ByKOhAhsU?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">There's something wrong with a society that is panicked over child molestation who will willingly sit back and not bat an eyelash at a child screaming "stop touching me!" and clamoring to get away as they're effectively "groped" in full view of their parents. In the natural world, when something preys upon the young of an animal, they're supposed to react, the child's evolutionary response to clamor to a parent, who they "expect" is going to protect them. But when said parent allows the predator to prey upon the child, they've effectively severed the parent/child protective bond. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">It's against nature, I say, to do this to children boarding a plane. I wouldn't be surprised if that kid shows all the signs of a victim of true sexual molestation following this episode. This child has done nothing wrong, and has essentially been violated against her will. I don't blame the parent, I don't blame this particular TSA worker. What is to blame is the system that has allowed this to flourish without reproach (except by the sensationalist media). For any service that can make the media justify its sensationalism must truly be a product of evil. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">A parent, or any adult who has purchased a ticket for a plane, can at least say "I agree to accept the pat down because I want to avail myself of your transportation services in return," and that is on the surface fine, seeing as it is a consensual interaction. There's the key word, <b>consent!</b> If without consent, the groping of a human being is indeed "molestation," then what has transpired here with this three year old IS nothing but. In her view, she simply rose up that morning, went wherever the adults told her, and was subsequently violated. </div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: justify;">And if it was sexual, and not a TSA search, though they yield the same result, people would suddenly care about what she felt as a consequence of this non-consensual violation. They'd officially ordain that child a "victim" and have her in therapy. They'd lynch mob the house of the offender in the twilight. They would feel the utter disgust I felt while watching this unfold, as should be their nature. But because it's a TSA search, it's business as usual. </div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /><!--Session data--><input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-16919488614492203742010-11-12T20:43:00.003-05:002010-11-12T20:51:25.083-05:00School Removes Bike FlagWhat a way to celebrate Veteran's Day here in the US-- a school once again overstepping its jurisdiction to render a student's free speech rights null. One can't help but feel the irony. <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><embed align="middle" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" bgcolor="#ffffff" devicefont="false" flashvars="&titleAvailable=true&playerAvailable=true&searchAvailable=false&shareFlag=N&singleURL=http://ktxl.vidcms.trb.com/alfresco/service/edge/content/1ece9d19-68c9-48e3-8ecb-3894f4a8f6ca&propName=ktxl.com&hostURL=http://www.fox40.com&swfPath=http://ktxl.vid.trb.com/player/&omAccount=tribglobal&omnitureServer=fox40.com" height="350" loop="true" menu="true" name="PaperVideoTest" play="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" quality="high" salign="l" scale="showall" src="http://ktxl.vid.trb.com/player/PaperVideoTest.swf" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="400" wmode="transparent"></embed></div><br />
"I took it off because I didn't want to get in any more trouble." That's quite a quote, the implications are staggering--compliance over freedom of expression for fear of retribution. How American are the American public schools again?<br />
<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /><!--Session data--><input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-85659980657499653032010-10-22T22:12:00.003-04:002010-10-22T22:14:00.079-04:00ODD Diagnosis Change?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"></div><div style="text-align: justify;">Recent articles suggest many things are going to change with the release of the DSM V (The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders), and much of it bound to affect young people. We've heard that things like <a href="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/06/070625133354.htm">video game addiction are on the table now</a> along with questionable changes to the interpretation of youth homosexuality, but the one that seems to capture the imaginations is this thing called Oppositional Defiant Disorder (ODD). <a href="http://offthegridnews.com/2010/10/08/is-free-thinking-a-mental-illness/">Some articles have gone so far to suggest</a> that the DSM V is going to make "free thinking a mental disorder," and thus render non-conformism and rebellious behaviors (especially in children and teens) as mental disorders.<br /><br />In actuality, ODD has been in the DSM for quite some time. In my copy of the DSM III (back at least to 1987), it's listed as 313.81 under Disruptive Behavior Disorders, with a differential diagnosis linking it to Conduct Disorder, so there's nothing "new" about it being listed as a disorder other than perhaps new (big-pharma-backed) research into it.<br /><br />One interesting note from this earlier version of the DSM hints at why Opposition Defiant Disorder shouldn't be confused for Conduct Disorder, though baring many of its features. This is due to the fact that ODD individuals appreciate the basic rights of others more and don't violate age-appropriate social norms as much as individuals with conduct disorder. From this, the basic idea (at least as it is presented in earlier drafts of the DSM) is that mild ODD (according to its own criteria for severity) only causes minimal or no impairment in school or social functioning...and therefore not be enough to make the diagnosis.<br /><br />So the idea, at least as it was at one time, was that the only way a child could be considered ODD was if their rebellious attitude caused them "impairment in their social functioning with peers or adults." If there was no impairment, then a child could be as rebellious and free thinking as their personalities lead them to be. In fact, it's well understood that an oppositional temperament is one of the varieties of human emotion observed right out of the womb, with some infants being more tolerant and others being more oppositional, more or less. The thinking is that temperament is genetically caused, and simply a fact of nature.<br /><br />I'm not sure what has happened in the definition of diagnosis for ODD, but if they have decided that "social functioning impairment" is not enough to qualify for diagnosis, then they probably went a step deeper and said "not only should the impairment be present, but the behavior itself as well." If that is the case, with the hope of squeezing more of these cases into the "treatable tent," then I think what we have is a deplorable situation which has effects on other disorders as well. "Behavior" whether it benefits the individual or not by itself shouldn't necessarily be labeled as a disorder, just those behaviors that are counterproductive to the individual.</div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-84732948195913820942010-10-07T13:01:00.009-04:002010-10-07T13:07:37.295-04:009 Year Old Sex Offender<div style="text-align: justify;">Next time you say, or hear someone say "all sex offenders should be shot," <a href="http://www.delawareliberal.net/2010/05/12/tornoes-toon-those-9-year-old-perverts/">just remember this</a>... children and teens <a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YpMlWq043gY/SrwuotPsTdI/AAAAAAAAApw/kJt9RcAkRGM/s1600/6a00d83451c45669e20120a5dede55970c-320wi.jpg">make up a majority of them</a>.<br /><br /><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YpMlWq043gY/TK39LqmgQOI/AAAAAAAABSU/4O8Z6kfkZ1Y/s1600/sex-offendersC-490x361.jpg"><img style="display: block; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 400px; height: 295px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_YpMlWq043gY/TK39LqmgQOI/AAAAAAAABSU/4O8Z6kfkZ1Y/s400/sex-offendersC-490x361.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5525350694709641442" border="0" /></a><blockquote style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">State Rep. Melanie George (D-Bear) has a bill that would allow Family Court judges to decide if children younger than 14 (mandated by the Adam Walsh Act) should be listed on the registry. Of course, she can’t get it out of committee because <span>legislators don’t want to be painted as soft on sex offenders</span> in lieu of the Earl Bradley case. </blockquote>Typical.<br /></div><br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-82886286743340050252010-09-28T00:23:00.010-04:002010-09-28T01:08:51.555-04:00Watery Eyes Cause Suspension<div style="text-align: justify;">A 16 year old walks into school in Trophy Club Texas and <a href="http://www.myfoxdfw.com/dpp/news/090910-school-suspends-boy-for-bloodshot-eyes">gets served with a suspension for having bloodshot and watery eyes</a>. Was it because of A: allergies? B: grieving the loss of his murdered father? C: smoking marijuana? If you're an administrator at the Byron Nelson High School, you answered C, and held him from returning to class for two hours until test results showed he was not high. No, in fact, the correct answer was B, that Kyler Robertson's father had been stabbed to his death that Sunday and the young man was obviously grieving.<br /><br />It's more popular to think of teenagers as potheads than it is to concede that they are actually grieving dead relatives, partly because culture has made all young people out to be out of control potheads and young people themselves have beat the "dead relative" excuse into the ground for decades. At first glance, it would seem to just be an honest mistake that should have been quickly fixed. The teen was coming in late with bloodshot eyes, we can understand a little bit of suspicion, at least enough to warrant a quick observation. Chances are, if his eyes were bloodshot and watery and he had been smoking pot, he would have smelled of the stuff. There are no indications that any odor was detected.<br /><br />Rational people would have shirked this off as a "typical teen" not getting enough sleep (with no odor present), or perhaps allergies, or something else. Even more rational people would have just asked him what was wrong with his eyes. Instead, they held him for two hours so that his mom could run him out to get tested, return with negative results, and <span style="font-style: italic;">still </span>suspended him for three days.<br /><blockquote><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">District spokeswoman Lesley Weaver would not discuss the case with FOX 4... </span></blockquote><br />They only never discuss cases with the media when they know they've made a mistake. And it is their mistake, that as far as I know, they haven't removed from his permanent school record. He has one now, not because of something he did, but for something they "thought" he was doing. His mother has to go through an appeals process in order to clear his name.<br /><br />And for the district spokesperson to make this more about the school's lack of ability to test rather than it's obvious lack judgment really adds insult to injury. Does she really want the school to be able to test every student coming in with bloodshot eyes? That still doesn't seem it would have been enough to keep them from slapping a suspension on his record.<br /><br />This is what happens when you turn a school into a prison. They make up their own law, execute and enforce their own law, all without due process, yet they have no authority to enforce law. Unless it is cleared, this blot on the record won't help him get into college, that's for sure.<br /></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-69821223931880687792010-08-19T11:43:00.005-04:002010-08-19T12:11:42.916-04:00Benefits of Teen Sex within Relationship<div style="text-align: justify;">You probably picture the teen who's having sex to be morally depraved and out of control, whose only potential outcome is pregnancy or STD infection (or perhaps both). Or maybe you don't, but if you do, it's probably because whenever you tune into a news story regarding teen sex, this is what you hear:<br /><br /><blockquote style="font-weight: bold;">[Casual teen sex partners] are more likely to experience problems in school, being suspended or expelled, being less likely to aspire to or expect to attend college, being less attached to school and more likely to earn lower grades, the study said.</blockquote><br />What mainstream society is only beginning to come to terms with is that it's not all doom and gloom when it comes to teens having sex with other teens. Often the reason that such eventualities persist is because of the draconian system of sexual repression teens have to pair their biology off of--the very system supposedly set up to prevent these issues. In fact, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/08/17/teen.sex.school/index.html">as this research has found</a>, if teens are allowed to carry out relationships with one another, regardless of whether they are sexual with one another, we might see more positive news for a change, like this:<br /><br /><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold;">The authors say students who have sex only with romantic partners have generally similar academic outcomes as students who abstain from sex.</span><br /></blockquote><br />Of course it seems the majority of the article described here talked about the consequences of non-romantic sexual activities, but they didn't let it obscure the point, which is that not all sex between teenagers is unhealthy or dangerous. Now I'm not naive enough to believe that if teen sex were more encouraged we'd see less negative results, but under a system that discourages all teen sex, even healthy expressions of it, we should expect nothing else.<br /><br /><blockquote style="font-weight: bold;">The authors said their findings raise some doubts about abstinence-only education programs that link all types of adolescent sex to a wide variety of problems for teens.</blockquote><br />Abstinence-only doesn't work.</div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-39869344599785910762010-08-01T00:30:00.007-04:002010-08-01T00:40:59.813-04:00Back to School?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YpMlWq043gY/TFT4icBHiXI/AAAAAAAABRc/xReIKVcli9w/s1600/product_image.php+imageid%3D6167.php%2520imageid%3D6167"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 173px; height: 175px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_YpMlWq043gY/TFT4icBHiXI/AAAAAAAABRc/xReIKVcli9w/s400/product_image.php+imageid%3D6167.php%2520imageid%3D6167" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5500294315446339954" border="0" /></a>Does it not frustrate anyone that they always seem to advertise back to school only a fourth or a half of the way through the summer? Everyone already knows why, it's because if they can't have parents spending money half way through the summer, then they're going to have to get them to spend money half way through September. People must be more willing to part with money in the summer.<br /><br />Five cent notebooks and binders aside, it makes no sense to me anyways, with the greater and greater emphasis on standardized testing and teaching to the tests, why kids these days would need the real money-making items, like "markers" and "scissors."<br /><br />Secondly, why are all these back to school adverts and paraphernalia always rendered in either child scrawl, play magnet letters, or cutesy A-B-C stylization? I was certain "back to school" meant that high-schoolers are going back to school too. But that's the only part of this that makes sense--they're not as important to this shopping season because all they're going to need are those 5 cent notebooks and binders.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-5292056257073951212010-06-16T17:55:00.009-04:002010-06-16T18:15:02.870-04:00Charged for Finding Lost Girl<div style="text-align: center;"><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" salign="l" flashvars="&titleAvailable=true&playerAvailable=true&searchAvailable=false&shareFlag=N&singleURL=http://orlandosentinel.vidcms.trb.com/alfresco/service/edge/content/f89b1e79-29f0-4afb-8867-a07ed86f4e1d&propName=orlandosentinel.com&hostURL=http://www.orlandosentinel.com&swfPath=http://orlandosentinel.vid.trb.com/player/&omAccount=tribglobal&omnitureServer=orlandosentinel.com" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" menu="true" name="PaperVideoTest" bgcolor="#ffffff" devicefont="false" wmode="transparent" scale="showall" loop="true" play="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" quality="high" src="http://orlandosentinel.vid.trb.com/player/PaperVideoTest.swf" width="450" align="middle" height="300"></embed><br /></div><br />Everyone needs to see this, because if we don't see it, our society will never learn. Here we have a 14 year old kid facing a charge for kidnapping because he (and his mom) <a href="http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/views/os-mike-thomas-juvenile-arrest-06151020100615,0,4905741.column">tried to help a lost three-year-old girl find her mother in a store</a>. Sure, taking the child outside the store was probably not the wisest move, but if he really was trying to kidnap the child, resuming his shopping itinerary after the incident would have been an even worse one. As it happens, he showed no resistance in handing the child over to her mother when they eventually did meet.<br /><br />He was promptly arrested and carried out of the store facing media crews who seemed to already have the story in mind before even asking the questions.<br /><br /><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">The Sentinel underplayed the story inside the local section: "A small child is safe and a teenager is in custody after an attempted abduction.''</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);"> In the public eye, Edwin was busted and convicted. And don't think his friends, neighbors and classmates don't know. But look at the evidence. We have the little girl's mother losing track of her daughter. We have Edwin's mother not taking the girl from Edwin and turning her over to a store employee. And we have Edwin in handcuffs.</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);"> I'm not sure the problem here is with the 14-year-old.</span></blockquote></div><br />This effectively signals the end of Samaritan-ism. We can all play Who Killed Cock Robin here, but in the end, everyone had a roll in creating a problem where there wasn't one, and ultimately, a youth that will never ever again try to help anyone, no matter what. And who could blame him?<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-82201393423648731852010-06-02T12:26:00.006-04:002010-06-02T12:46:24.663-04:00Two Kids a Week ChargedI thought I'd just share this report. This is the untold story of what a ridiculously high age of consent does to a society. It's more than likely twice as bad here across the pond, but let's have it out. AoC, let your works be seen.<br /><br /><blockquote style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="http://mightierthanvsword.blogspot.com/2010/05/229-kids-on-sex-charges.html">229 Kids on Sex Charges</a><br /><br />UP to two schoolkids are charged with sex offences against other children EVERY WEEK, a News of the World investigation reveals today. Shock new figures show that 229 suspects aged under 16 were hauled before courts over three years. The appalling scale of sex crimes among school-age children is clear from details obtained under freedom of information laws.<br /><br />---<br /><br />In that case Mr Justice Saunders slammed the system of dealing with children in sex offence hearings. He said: <span style="font-style: italic;">"I don't think anyone who has sat through this trial would think for a moment that the system that we employ is ideal. But I am not quite sure about what one does about it under the system we currently operate."</span><br /><br />Last night the NSPCC said: "These statistics show a large number of children are involved in criminal proceedings and we are dismayed that their needs are not being met. We need to remember that they are children. Young witnesses are regularly questioned in a way that's inappropriate for their age, while defendants struggle to deal with criminal proceedings they don't understand."<br /><br />Our statistics, based on the latest available figures from 2006-08, show an alarming number of youngsters being forced though harrowing court trials. Those convicted can be put on the sex offenders register. But other statistics show that of seven children aged between ten and 11 who were prosecuted for rape, NONE was found guilty.<br /><br />The Sexual Offences Act 2003 makes only a brief reference to sex activities between two kids. <span>It states that, for most crimes, anyone under 16 commits an offence if they do anything that is illegal for an 18-year-old.</span> In a magistrates' court a convicted child can face jail for up to six months, and in a higher court up to five years. </blockquote><br />Obviously, there are a lot of issues tied up in this. Ironically, their Sexual Offenses Act of 2003 sounds light-years better than the laws in many states here in the United States, where even young children can be tried as sex offenders simply for engaging in sexual play with one another. Some states have so-called "Romeo and Juliet" clauses, but many times those increase penalties for younger children and decrease penalties for older children and teens respectively--meaning, the younger the child is who commits the offense, the harsher the punishment.<br /><br />The fact of the matter is, it's costing taxpayers money to prosecute every minor who engages in sex play with another minor.<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-81049545328290237622010-05-31T04:49:00.014-04:002010-06-19T15:02:13.109-04:00Selling Sex, Denying Sexuality<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://www.thehypefactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Justin-Bieber-One-Less-Lonely-Girl-500x500.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 255px; height: 255px;" src="http://www.thehypefactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Justin-Bieber-One-Less-Lonely-Girl-500x500.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>They just keep putting words in odd locations around Justin Bieber to get all the pre-teen girls' eyes to gravitate to certain spots in the photos, and it's getting more obvious by the minute. You think this cover supposed to trigger the teen's buying reflex? Of course it is.<br /><br />Every couple of years adults scramble to turn some young person into a sex symbol so they can exploit them. That's the business. We can pretend it doesn't happen, or we can acknowledge that not only are children sexual, but we're actually profiting from it. Right now, it seems no teen is as exploited as Justin Bieber, and obviously so much of his look is an example of marketing at it's most calculated.<br /><br />Sometimes you have to really admire the gall of society to stick words at a boy's hind-level on the cover of a CD to entice girls to throw their allowances on it, and at the same time, categorically deny young people the legal ability to have a sexual interest in one another.<br /><br />Unless of course we were supposed to take that calculated placing to be something different, like a fart taking shape in the words "One Less Lonely Girl" trailing behind him--as if he's become such a sensation even just a fart could cure a girl's loneliness. Seriously, they keep putting words where they want the teen girls' eyes to look, and it gets harder to take any picture of him seriously.<br /><br />Update: <a href="http://www.thehypefactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/Justin-Bieber-Love-Me.jpg">an even more obvious example has been spotted</a>!<br /></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-78339092525361742022010-05-04T17:20:00.011-04:002010-05-05T00:11:43.539-04:00Ban Facebook, says Principal<div style="text-align: justify;">Principal Anthony Orsini, of the Benjamin Franklin Middle School in Ridgewood, N.J., has been making his case, urging parents to ban their children from using Facebook and all social networking websites. He's one of a growing number of disturbing public officials committed to advancing a school's jurisdiction over a child's every behavior from the standard eight-hour day to a 24 hour, round the clock, system of control and intimidation, and he's not bashful about it.<br /><br />Already the response has been partly predictable. Most people are beginning to think that all this Orwellian nonsense spewing forth from certain school officials these days (at least since the infamous <a href="http://puerilepsyche.blogspot.com/2010/03/webcamgate.html">Webcamgate</a>) has officially jumped the shark. Now they're entering the land of make-believe where they don't only want control of the students, but they want control of the students as individuals beyond school. They want to legislate how the child spends his or her time beyond school, and they want to accomplish it by intimidating parents to act as their agents of enforcement. And thankfully, people are just getting sick and tired of it.<br /><br />One of those people is creative adviser and writer <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-20003912-71.html">Chris Matyszczyk over on <span style="font-style: italic;">Technically Incorrect</span></a>:<br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);"><p>I have barely come to terms with the idea that someone at a school thought it appropriate, wise, or even sane to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10456128-71.html">spy on kids via Webcams</a> on school-issued laptops. Has technology really taken over human thought processes quite so much? </p> <p>So I temporarily lost the ability to spell my own name when I was confronted with the rather heartening news that a school principal has asked parents to get their kids away from Facebook and any other social-networking site.<br /></p><p>His words, <a href="http://wcbstv.com/technology/facebook.social.networking.2.1662565.html">obtained by WCBSTV</a>, clearly are as heartfelt as they are eye-shattering: "Please do the following: sit down with your child (and they are just children still), and tell them that they are not allowed to be a member of any social-networking site. Today!"</p> <p> Orsini asked parents to avail themselves of parental-control software. He asked them to check their kids' messages online. And he asked them to spank their children once a week with their laptops. Yes, of course I made the last one up, but if Orsini were in charge of the judicial system, one suspects that he would prefer the soft cell to the soft sell.</p> <p>Hark at this from his e-mail: "There is absolutely, positively no reason for any middle-school student to be a part of a social-networking site! None." </p> <p>Online gaming was not immune from Orsini's troubled tirade: "For online gaming, do not allow them to have the interactive communication devices. If they want to play <leo_highlight style="border-bottom: 2px solid rgb(255, 255, 150); background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% transparent; cursor: pointer; display: inline; -moz-background-inline-policy: -moz-initial;" id="leoHighlights_Underline_0" onclick="leoHighlightsHandleClick('leoHighlights_Underline_0')" onmouseover="leoHighlightsHandleMouseOver('leoHighlights_Underline_0')" onmouseout="leoHighlightsHandleMouseOut('leoHighlights_Underline_0')" leohighlights_keywords="call of duty" leohighlights_url="http%3A//thebrowserhighlighter.com/leonardo/highlights/keywords?keywords%3Dcall%20of%20duty">Call of Duty</leo_highlight> online with someone from Seattle, fine; they don't need to talk to the person."</p>He offered that kids should not be allowed to have computers in their bedroom. They should be in a public place where everyone can see what is going on. He would even prefer parents not to allow kids to recharge that family laptop in their own bedrooms.</blockquote></div><p style="text-align: justify;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;">Of course the reasoning behind all this? To prevent bullying. It's no secret that Facebook is often used as a tool by youth to bully others, and of course, that's shameful. But this is yet <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">another </span>example of the "knee-jerk reaction" to the problem. Restricting all young people's access to social networking sites (assuming such could even be accomplished) isn't going to solve the problem of cyber-bullying. You can't solve any problem by applying broad-stroked, swift, all-encompassing solutions. Bullying needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Parents need to be informed in the first instance of any bullying that the school becomes aware of, so that proper actions can be taken to prevent further abuse. <a href="http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/education/3468-anti-bullying-legislation-in-massachusetts">Recent anti-bullying legislation in Massachusetts</a> is paving the way for this more common sense approach.<br /><br />The knee-jerk approach is to outright ban a child's access to information and networking resources, and then sit back and assume that because you've implemented some restrictive regime that the problem has been solved. This will doom your plans to failure, assuming it were even possible to do such. Inside of school, the school has discretion over the child. Outside of school, the school should never think it has any authority over the behaviors of it's students.<span style="font-weight: bold;"> Children are individuals first, students second. Not the other way around. </span><br /><br />Instead, our friend Chris sees a more practical application for this principle's request and proposes one of his own:<br /></div><p style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204); text-align: justify;"></p><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><p style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">"Still, it will be interesting to see just how successful his attempt to bring sanity to his school of more than 700 kids will be. It is not easy to bring sanity to any middle-school student. So much is happening in their heads, hearts, and minds that it isn't surprising that their behavior is so combustible.</p> <p style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">Older folks, on the other hand, have no such excuse. How many of them are themselves now burning away their time and intelligence on Facebook and MySpace? How many of them are even trying to befriend their own kids on these sites? I wonder, therefore, whether Orsini's best advice about social networking might actually be more appropriate for adults than for kids.</p></blockquote></div>Exactly, another small mind trying to control a world it will never understand. If the principal is so worried, then why not teach the kids about the dangers he perceives?Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-74837353608104721432010-04-19T10:58:00.009-04:002010-04-19T11:40:04.384-04:00The Knee-Jerk Reaction<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://hindumommy.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/64_1_b.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 263px; height: 197px;" src="http://hindumommy.files.wordpress.com/2006/09/64_1_b.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>This is about the padded bras for seven year olds controversy, a bathing suit that has already been banned from sale in many localities. And while some are saying "<span style="font-style: italic;">good riddance to that female-repressing, pedophile-attracting piece of cloth</span>!" <a href="http://news.scotsman.com/opinion/Dani-Garavelli-Don39t-blame-the.6235079.jp">others, like in this opinion piece</a>, are exercising a bit of common sense.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">But this is the age of Mumsnet. And there's nothing the Mumsnet mob likes better than a bit of a moral panic, particularly if it can be linked to a downmarket chain store. Such is the website's sway at the moment, that its criticism of the bikini saw it lambasted by David Cameron and taken off the shelves in record time, with Primark offering to donate any profits made on it to a children's charity. Call me a sexual libertarian, but that does seem to be a bit of an overreaction and proof that – when it comes to children – we are prone to knee-jerk behaviour.</span></blockquote>I love coming across a word that so precisely fits what we see adults doing in society. If people are good at creating cutesy little labels for children and teens' silly little behaviors, then let's create a silly little label for the adults' silly little behaviors as well, we'll call it, <span style="font-style: italic;">pulling the knee-jerk</span>. And nothing could be a better representation of the knee-jerk than the overreaction as described above, but then again, who are we to interfere with such a generous and "from the heart" donation to a children's charity? Why does it seem that children's charities wait around to soak up people's guilt money from one moral panic to the next?<br /><blockquote style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">A particular bugbear is the way in which outfits which pander to a little girl's desire to be grown up are being presented as a virtual charter for paedophilia, even though there is no evidence of a link between so-called "sexy" clothing and the sexual abuse of minors. </blockquote>It's an age-old excuse, "we can't liberate children because then the monsters will get them," and it unfortunately seems to be the prevailing attitude despite it's ludicrousness. It's only obvious that adults just don't like seeing a mature child, it doesn't fit their social paradigm. Then this article really turns up the heat on the opposition and spits their own rhetoric right back in their face:<br /><blockquote><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">Suggesting that a mother shouldn't dress her daughter in a padded bra because it might attract unwanted attention is perilously close to telling a woman in a mini-skirt she is asking to be raped.</span></blockquote>You go girl!<br /><blockquote style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">The real issue with the premature sexualisation of girls is not the way it might affect how others see them, but the way it might affect how they see themselves.</blockquote>Of course this is the other side of the moral panic issue, and it's at this point the article begins devolving down it's own trail of tears to the land of moral-panic, but it's understandable, because unlike the child molester link, low self-esteem in girls is a real life issue. However, the so-called sexualization of children doesn't inevitably lead to low self esteem, and pinning the responsibility for shaping each girl's level of confidence on a clothing store is just being irresponsible.<br /><br />It's not the stores' responsibility to nurture the pro-social development of children. That is and always should be the parent's. We saw the same moral-panic reasoning with the "<span style="font-style: italic;">Boys are Stupid, Throw Rocks at Them</span>" shirts, which prompted a whole storm of knee-jerk reactions all around the country, and the same is happening all over again with these padded bras for seven year olds. You could almost set your watch by the accuracy of this endless social waltz.<br /><br />God forbid children grow up faster than we deem them too. God help us from the knee-jerk reaction.</div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-77483952993068819432010-04-05T04:17:00.014-04:002010-04-19T12:19:26.570-04:00Puberty Doesn't Make You Stupid<div style="text-align: justify;">Once again, professional journalists leave professionalism at the door to reinforce adult prejudices and upset young people. <span style="font-style: italic;">Time</span> has recently run an article called <a href="http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1973532,00.html?xid=newsletter-asia-weekly">Does Puberty Make You Stupid? Lessons from Mice</a>, about a recent study that seems to indicate that teens in the throes of puberty are not as good as older teens at basic puzzle tasks. The article isn't exactly clear at what kind of activity pubertal teens are so inept at, mixing research on pubescent mice and typical associations made about the so-called hapless nature of teens into one hodge-podge of speculation.<br /><br />Could this article have been written with less tact? Could it have possibly been written any more disrespectfully? Can't we call "stupid" here a judgment call? I hardly believe the research on mice puzzle solution times translates into "pubescent teens are stupid" as the thrust of this article seems to be suggesting. And one can justify an article angle of this type on the grounds that it's supposed to be humorous only if they're then prepared to take the litmus test--if we change "puberty" to "being black" is it still so funny? If not, then it's not justifiable.<br /><br /><blockquote style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">Up until 20 years ago, scientists believed that the human brain was largely mature by puberty. Apparently, they had failed to notice the irrational behavior and flaky thinking of teenagers. Now, of course, we know that the human brain continues to undergo serious restructuring well into the 20s. </blockquote></div><div id="TixyyLink" style="overflow: hidden; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none; border: medium none; text-align: justify;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;">The research may be onto something a little less pedestrian than this obvious pandering to the parents. You don't suppose the fact that teens are <span style="font-weight: bold;">treated like mice</span> has anything to do with the fact that their behaviors are so similar when it comes to puberty? Stick an adult in a cage and restrict their movements to the extent that teens are experiencing these days, and let's see an adult not begin to behave "flaky."<br /><br /><blockquote style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">Sophisticated brain-scan studies by Jay Giedd at the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) have shown dramatic changes throughout the teenage years as excess gray matter is pruned from the prefrontal cortex — the seat of higher-order thinking and making judgments (like not smoking weed right before your chemistry exam). Meanwhile, behavioral studies have shown what every parent already knows: teens have poor control over impulses and a tendency toward risk taking.</blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;">As a former psychology student, I can at least confirm that excess neuron proliferation and pruning happens throughout life. Synapses that are no longer being used are constantly dying off and being replaced by ones that are. While it is correct that teens are more risk-taking than adults, why does this always necessarily have to be a bad thing in the adult media? Do they want complacent youth who never question authority or take risks? Are not entrepreneurs risk takers? If teens are going to be greater risk takers, the expression of their risk taking--whether it inspires them become entrepreneurs or provokes them to drive offensively or do drugs has almost everything to do with how adults have raised them. If the teen is doing something to put themselves in jeopardy, don't blame their biology, blame the parents, blame society.<br /><br />But in a magazine whose readership is notably adults, don't expect that to happen any time soon.</div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-53860964820424010932010-03-26T17:15:00.008-04:002010-05-04T18:11:25.417-04:00Age Discrimination<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YpMlWq043gY/S60kwNzlbVI/AAAAAAAAA_k/-cbFU1mQE3g/s1600/capt.8e3e32d190cf43ffae9226b5a0b3cf9d-8e3e32d190cf43ffae9226b5a0b3cf9d-0.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 236px; height: 195px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_YpMlWq043gY/S60kwNzlbVI/AAAAAAAAA_k/-cbFU1mQE3g/s400/capt.8e3e32d190cf43ffae9226b5a0b3cf9d-8e3e32d190cf43ffae9226b5a0b3cf9d-0.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5453055134573882706" border="0" /></a>The real story of Colin Carlson is with his talent and ambitions, and no doubt remains to be written. At thirteen, he's pursuing two degrees at a university level, and plans on going for Ph.D.'s in ecology and evolutionary biology, as well as a degree in environmental law all by the time he's 22. And just like all trailblazers, <a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100325/ap_on_re_us/us_prodigy_study_abroad">he's already running into some tough opposition</a>.<br /><br />UConn, his school, has rejected his request to take a course which includes travel to South Africa as part of it's summer field work requirement. Though he's qualified in every way, and no one doubts he couldn't hold his own on site with the other students, it's his age that's holding him back. Now he's claiming he's being discriminated against because of his age. And though he doesn't want to have to fight for this opportunity, he's determined to see it through:<br /><br /><blockquote style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">"When people are drawing lines in the sand, you're going to have to cross them," he said. "I'm not going back."</blockquote><br />Of course he's talking about the arbitrary age limits that are encroaching on his ambitions. Now obviously most ordinary students aren't placed into the position that Colin is, and extraordinary young people are inevitably going to face the adult-defined legal restrictions, but even more ordinary students face many unnecessary legal restrictions on a daily basis. And even when legal restrictions are waivered (as his mother has offered to chaperone his voyage as well as sign away all the university's liability for him), extraordinary youths seem to inevitably run into adult thickheadedness. Obviously nobody wants to restrict a young person pursuing their goals, so long as those goals are along a preset scale of expectations.<br /><br />Let's hope, however this turns out, that Colin gets to go to South Africa.<br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"></div><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-90301474969265078422010-03-17T21:13:00.009-04:002010-03-17T23:17:27.427-04:00School Lunches: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YpMlWq043gY/S6GHZIpsbJI/AAAAAAAAA_I/n2jzhgVcmWE/s1600-h/IMAG0010-738848.jpg"><img style="float: right; margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; cursor: pointer; width: 286px; height: 191px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_YpMlWq043gY/S6GHZIpsbJI/AAAAAAAAA_I/n2jzhgVcmWE/s400/IMAG0010-738848.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5449785889983851666" border="0" /></a>The inedible school lunch is one of the most recognizable jokes in our culture, and yet it remains largely forgotten about by mainstream society despite the fact that kids have been cringing for decades. And it's easy to forget, because after all, those making the decisions (the adults) aren't the ones who will be staring down those endless trays of spongy pizzas, mystery meats, and soggy greens day in and day out.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />But one teacher is working to change that...by putting those lunches in the face of adults everyday for a change. <a href="http://fedupwithschoollunch.blogspot.com/">Mrs. Q over on The School Lunch Project</a> blog has committed to eating school lunches every day and posting her experiences with pictures. The results? Some good, some bad, some ugly.<br /><br />But think for a moment, how would you feel, as an adult, having to eat this food every day of your life? Or maybe you're still in school and actually do. Mrs. Q adds extensive commentary and analysis on this issue, and obviously the school lunch issue is very complex, but I'll attempt to simplify the basic reason why nothing much is changing:<br /><br />1. Nutritious = expensive... Tostitos = cheap<br />2. Good food = costly to prepare... Cheap food = easy to prepare<br />3. Bad tasting = well... adults don't have to eat it.<br /><br />A better alternative? Make sure you <a href="http://fedupwithschoollunch.blogspot.com/2010/02/school-lunch-wish-list.html">check out this post</a> where our brave teacher lays out a few guidelines on how to make school lunches better.<br /><br />This is why I brown-bagged it for 12 years.<br /></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-89996317838797007142010-03-14T14:22:00.006-04:002010-03-15T17:18:58.469-04:00I've Been Quoted!<div style="text-align: justify;">Once you've spilled a lot of e-ink, you begin noticing yourself popping up in very interesting places you never thought you'd be. Let me just say I'm flattered <a href="http://drrobertepstein.com/Teen20/reviews.html">to have been quoted</a> in the "review section" at the official site for <a href="http://teen20.com/">Dr. Robert Epstein's new book, <span style="font-style: italic;">Teen 2.0: Saving our Children and Families from the Torture of Adolescence</span></a>, from a post I made to this blog over two years ago concerning Epstein's research on the adolescent mind and an earlier edition. Since that time, I've kept a link to the <a href="http://puerilepsyche.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-adult-are-you-test-of-adultness.html">Epstein-Dumas Test of Adultness</a> up, which you can take online, because I find the research to be a fascinating glimpse behind the myth of adolescence.<br /><br />Unlike many researchers writing about teenagers these days, Epstein uses the word "torture" to mean the forces that unnecessarily restrict and infantilize young people rather than using it to mean the old storm and stress model often used to justify more controls. Also unlike many of his contemporaries who focus on the differences between adults and adolescents, he's done a great deal to promote the message that they're really not all that much different and that most of the restrictions against them are not only culturally based and unnecessary, but in some cases can be dangerous to their development.<br /><br />In anticipation of this book, it's also fascinating to peruse some of the reviewers also included on that page, particularly the words of Newt Gingrich, <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_45/b4107085289974.htm">who has in the past come out in support of "ending" adolescence</a>.<br /><blockquote style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);"><br />“Adolescence was invented in the nineteenth century to enable middle-class families to keep their children out of sweatshops. But it has degenerated into a process of enforced boredom and age segregation that has produced one of the most destructive social arrangements in human history..."</blockquote><br />If you're unfamiliar with Epstein's work, I invite you to check out his website or <a href="http://puerilepsyche.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-adult-are-you-test-of-adultness.html">view this blog post</a> of mine. In the meantime, <span style="font-style: italic;">Teen 2.0</span> is set to be released on April 14, 2010, which happens to be <a href="http://nationalyouthrightsday.org/">National Youth Rights Day</a>--talk about a fit scheduling.<br /></div><br /><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-57499273280309742392010-03-01T12:22:00.016-05:002010-03-01T20:55:36.196-05:00Webcamgate<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2010/02/20/PH2010022000683.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 278px; height: 184px;" src="http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2010/02/20/PH2010022000683.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>I was waiting for the dust to settle on this case because it's literally so earth-shattering that I didn't want to find myself jumping the gun (as I've done numerous times before). If you haven't heard about the case of the student class-action lawsuit against the PA Lower Merion School District, one so big it's been given it's own "-gate" by the media, then here's the run down.<br /><br /><a href="http://citypaper.net/blogs/clog/2010/02/18/dept-of-holy-shit-big-brother-is-watching-kids/">The Lower Merion School District has been accused of spying on it's student population</a> through webcams mounted in the district's official laptops. They're one of the first public school districts to give out laptops to their student population, but apparently didn't tell parents or students that these devices were being used to not only log everything the student writes or sees when using it, but even more disturbingly, to actually monitor what the student is doing at home while using it.<br /><br />If you listen to the school department heads, they've never used the remote monitoring for any other purpose than tracking down missing or stolen laptops, but the real firestorm of controversy over this comes from a student who apparently was facing disciplinary measures for engaging in inappropriate activity at home via a screenshot they were able to obtain from his laptop's webcam. Apparently <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/20/AR2010022000679.html">they mistook some candy on his desk to be drugs</a>, or thought he was dealing drugs, called him down for questioning with the screen shots in hand, and that's when they broke the news to him that they'd obtained their evidence through the school-issued laptop.<br /><br />Outraged, he and his parents filed a class-action suit against the school district and a judge has ordered the school department to shut down all use of its remote monitoring devices. Now the FBI is even looking into the case to see if federal wiretap or computer intrusion laws were violated. The school district admits that it's laptops came with devices used for covert monitoring, but denies any wrong doing.<br /><br />Isn't this unreal? Usually inflammatory comparisons are pointless in these kinds of cases, but this one I think has every right to be compared with George Orwell's <span style="font-style: italic;">1984</span>, particularly the use of the Telescreens that "both acted as transmitters and receivers" and hung so innocuously in every residence. One can't help but agree with this local blogger who writes:<br /><br /><blockquote style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);">But if this story is at all true … holy shit. Spying on kids, in their bedrooms? What if they, you know, decide to change clothing? It's one thing to track how students use school district property — if they're visiting hardcore porn sites or whatever — it's quite another to use a webcam to monitor and capture their daily activities, outside of school, in the supposed privacy of their own homes...</blockquote><br />This person goes on to say, "I can't imagine a more asinine invasion of students' privacy." And neither can I. And certainly this writer has some <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/17/school-used-student.html">interesting thoughts on the issue</a> as well that ring true:<br /><br /></div><p style="text-align: justify;" but="" when="" schools="" take="" that="" personal="" indiscriminately="" invading="" of="" punishing="" students="" who="" use="" proxies="" and="" other="" privacy="" tools="" to="" avoid="" official="" they="" send="" a="" much="" more="" powerful=""> </p><div style="text-align: justify;"><blockquote style="color: rgb(204, 204, 204);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Schools are in an absolute panic about kids divulging too much online, worried about pedos and marketers and embarrassing photos that will haunt you when you run for office or apply for a job in 10 years. They tell kids to treat their personal details as though they were precious. </span><b style="font-weight: bold;">[The only message they're sending kids is] your privacy is worthless and you shouldn't try to protect it</b><span style="font-weight: bold;">. </span></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />My thoughts exactly. Regardless of how this case turns out in the end, the very idea that school districts thought they could get away with this strikes a pretty powerful chord at the heart of exactly how far off the deep end society is heading in the pursuit of keeping kids safe or out of trouble. They've begun to act like the very threat they're supposedly trying to shelter the kids from. When you think of people watching your child online, you think of creeps who don't have your child's best interests at heart--you don't typically think of the child's school as <span style="font-style: italic;">one</span> of them.<br /><br />But maybe you should, because this isn't the only school district that seemed to be perfectly fine with this entire setup. Just last month a PBS Frontline documentary "Digital Nation" aired featuring a school administrator from the Intermediate School 339 in the Bronx <a href="http://www.boingboing.net/2010/02/25/school-administrator.html">bragging about his own laptop spying program (includes the video)</a>:<br /><br /><blockquote style="color: rgb(204, 204, 204);"><span style="font-weight: bold;">"They don't even realize we are watching," "I always like to mess with them and take a picture," and "9 times out of 10, they duck out of the way." He says the students "use it like it's a mirror" and he watches. He says 6th and 7th graders have their cameras activated.</span></blockquote><br />Now obviously this program seemed to be more about keeping students on task while inside of school--which I don't see much a problem with. While inside of school, using a school-issued laptop, the school has every right to monitor whether the kids are using them appropriately. What's disturbing here is that any mention of the students' privacy concerns are completely absent from the documentary. What happens when they take their laptops home? I am not the only one creeped out at the thought of some guy, a school administrator no less, leering at 6th graders over a laptop webcam mount. Once again, Cory over at Boing Boing gives a final, chilling word on the obvious double-standard at play here:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; color: rgb(204, 204, 204);"><blockquote>What kind of educator thinks that this is a good practice? Certainly no teacher's union I know would put up with principals and administrators putting this kind of surveillance into their lives.<br /><br />I don't know for sure, but I have a suspicion that being a kid today would absolutely suck.</blockquote></span><br />Remotely tapping into a computer to use its hardware to take videos, pictures or record audio is in fact wiretapping -- even if the computer is government owned. I am sure that many parents would not consent to the use of such laptops at home if they were made aware of the ability to carry out such monitoring. I certainly would not consent to usage of a laptop by my own child in my own home under those conditions if I had a kid--which is unfortunate, because a laptop can be a vital resource for many students.<br /></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5962387768878570514.post-29807152628874156712010-02-04T20:13:00.006-05:002010-02-04T20:40:22.155-05:00Lego Guns are Lethal<div style="text-align: justify;"><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/02/04/amd_plastic_gun.jpg"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer; width: 181px; height: 272px;" src="http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2010/02/04/amd_plastic_gun.jpg" alt="" border="0" /></a>Although this article doesn't give the school's rationale for <a href="http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2010/02/04/2010-02-04_big_trouble_over_this_tiny_toy_mom_fuming_at_a_lack_of_common_sense_as_son_buste.html">nearly suspending a boy for bringing in Lego gun</a>, on the surface it sounds like the perfect argument against Zero Tolerance. It's a non-issue, because the kid didn't actually end up facing any disciplinary actions (as far as we know), but in this day in age, that's more like saying the kid got lucky.<br /></div><div style="text-align: justify;"><br />It takes a leap of faith to believe anyone would lack so much common sense as to go as far as suspending the kid over simply bringing the two-inch toy in... now if he was going around pointing it at other students and saying "bang you're dead" or something, then we'd have some reason to go on, but this article seems to go out of its way to present him as a typical kid who became a victim of circumstances, and I have no doubts that he's anything but.<br /><br />In any likelihood, the parents are probably even more to blame for bringing this to the attention of the press over this momentary lack of common sense on the school's part. It seems to have been quickly corrected. Who's really making this an issue here? And if you still believe sanity exists in this world, you could argue that maybe he was causing such a disturbance that such a move was necessary for another reason entirely, but that would take some faith in the sanity of Zero Tolerance.<br /><br />All I can say is, suspending and expelling all the little Lego gun carriers in the country isn't going to stop school shooters.<br /></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden"><div id="refHTML"></div>Markhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14835018457629824500noreply@blogger.com0