Okay, well, first things first. Alex Koroknay-Palicz, our executive director, got profiled in the Washington Post, for those interested in the article (its quite decent) it can be found here. Now, having been here while the article was written, we were actually expecting something more about the organization and less about him, but hey, it was a pretty friendly write up.

The response to the article has been much less than friendly. For a good laugh at how ridiculous some people can be, I recommend viewing the comments. They can be found on the main website for the Washington Post, found here. And my god, they’re pretty nasty. They range in their virulence from accusing Alex of being a child molester, to calling him a grown up adolescent (isn’t that commonly known as an “adult” in most circles?) to just creating the most transparent of straw-man arguments. It’s pretty obvious that the vast majority of these people aren’t that bright, and in fact, some of their posts prove that in fact, people who are only 18 can write more coherently than people twice that age. But don’t take my word for it. I ask you all to join me on a wonderful odyssey of discovery, where really foolish people get to stick their foot in their mouths and we all get to mock them, I hope you enjoy it.

The first comment has some really bad attempts at sarcasm that come across as just heavy handed and inane:

“Now we could see 14-year olds puking their guts out into the fountain after a few hours of social drinking at one of the many pubs in [Dupont Circle], skeezy old men hitting on pubescent nymphets, and the entertaining sight of a 16-year old wrapping the family Lexus around a light pole every few nights. Groovy, man. Just like the 70’s…and that worked so well!”

Where to begin, where to begin? I don’t think we’ve ever advocated letting 14 year olds into bars, but don’t let stupid things like facts stand in the way of making a piss poor arguement! And skeezy men hitting on young “nymphets?” I didn’t know we issued a “pro-child molestation” position paper, but I guess I don’t know our positions as well as “tdiaz” the distinguished author of this mindless rant. And 16 year olds can already drive the family car, and if they do wrap it around a lightpost that’s like due more to inexperience behind the wheel than it is from being an idiot teenager (I know I personally was scared witless of banging up the family car and drove extra carefully, but experience helps a great deal). Either way, lowering the voting and drinking age and enfranchising youth is not going to open the flood-gates of hell and fill the streets with an army of young, drug-addled youth just waiting to bring society to its knees. A complete and utter strawman arguement, based on no logic, no evidence, and no thought.

Next:

“I am certain most of the young people contributing an exorbitant $10.00 monthly to the National Youth Rights Association are doing so because they think it will allow them to legally purchase alcohol, and they stop contributing when they realize it doesn’t…

When the drinking age was lowered to 18 in the 70s, the teen drunk driving rate got out of hand, 18-yr-olds were buying beer for 14-yr-olds, and the politicians noticed that 18- to 21-yr-olds were drinking but not voting.
Almost everyone I ever knew who agitated for underage drinking stopped caring when they turned 21.
Alex Koroknay-Palicz wanted to be emancipated from his parents when he was 14 because they wouldn’t let him have a refrigerator in his bedroom. Some day when he overhears a 17 year old girl whisper to her girlfriend that he’s a “creepy old guy,” I suspect Alex will give up on the NYRA and get a real job. I just hope he dates within his age range.”

Yeah, that’s it, we’re just doing it to get booze. In fact, check our store section, we also ship out bottles of cheap vodka and absinthe if you donate over $50 a year. Oh, and The Post got the dues wrong, it’s $10 a year, and that’s hardly exorbitant. It’s also voluntary, most of our members don’t pay it, not because they don’t care, but because even responsible youth have lots of bills to pay, especially if they’re paying their own car-insurance, or tuition, as many do (contrary to the stereo-type). Now, a fact check. Teen drunk driving has never just gone away due to a law. In fact, examining the data reveals that it did nothing but shift the drunk driving fatalities to another age demographic, instead of reduce them overall. In fact, it’s possible the amount of drunk driving over all increased.I Oh boy! Lots of lives saved by that measure huh? (this was published in a study that we link to in the downloads section of our website, feel free to read the whole thing, quite a revealing bit of research) Oh, and while we don’t advocate for a mini-fridge for all our members, it seems kinda silly that a parent would deny that to their child if he was willing to pay for it himself. And as for getting a real job? Alex seems to enjoy himself greatly, finds his job rewarding, and spends his free time with his friends, (who are, shockingly, around 23-25).

Next:

“Explain in further detail why this is a civil rights issue. Responsibility and wisdom only can come with age, time, and experience. Society the world over has decided that as parents, we decide what is in the best interest of our kids, and that they don’t know it all and haven’t lived long enough to make tough decisions. Simply put, this is YOUR personal crusade, Koroknay-Palicz, and you ought to come to terms with it.”

Why this is a civil rights issue? Seriously? Have you even read a history book? How is a subset of the population being denied basic rights on account of an arbitrary standard that has no basis in fact or logic not a civil rights issue? Wisdom comes with age? Come now, I would say wisdom comes with experience and further knowledge and understanding of self, but while that is generally coorelated to age, there is no causal relationship. A person who leads an unexamined life will be every bit as vapid and shallow at 35 as they were at 15. It’s only through introspection and a desire for growth that people change and mature. That often comes with time, but just as often does not. Why in the world should a mature 18 year old be denied basic rights if he’s more mature and responsible than someone twice his age? Why is he penalized. And how in the nine hells can you say a 20 year old who’s served in Iraq hasn’t “lived long enough to make tough decisions?” I suppose you could make the argument that an Army Corporal just isn’t mature enough to drink - just kill people and watch out for the well being of his fire team. But then you’d be a moron, which I suppose makes sense.

It Gets Better:

“Ageism against 18 year olds? Quel horreur! At least discrimination against the young goes away as they get older . Just wait until this young man turns 45 and faces ageism that doesn’t go away for the rest of your life no matter what he has accomplished or is capable of accomplishing just because he has a little gray hair. Now that’s something to worry about!”

YAY! More bad logic! This just gets better and better. First of all, age discrimination in the work force is bad. My father actually experiences this now as he is over 50, trying to find a job that pays well and rewards his experience. I can certainly say, without any reservation, that this practice of corporations is twisted, and honestly not in their best interest. BUT, and this is a large but, comparing that to stripping away the ability to make medical decisions, ability to control one’s body, ability to vote in elections, ability to decide if they want to be sent to a gulag for “re-education,” does not compare to my father not being able to change jobs whenever he wants to. If you turned 45 and the government took away your ability to vote and to choose medical treatment, I’d certainly be willing to listen to your complaints. Since the government does not do that, I have little sympathy for you. That and I dislike faulty comparisons, though it does make my job easier, for which I thank you.

Oh boy:

“This pied-piper needs a job and a more realistic cause.

Even where the kids have maturity, some of these rules are to protect you from the sleazy adults (Koroknay-Palicz). Just ran into too many of your kind before, I have a hard time believing this is anything more than your old self trying to hold onto childhood, not move the kids into adulthood…. “

Oh for crying out loud. Seriously? Are we really going the pedophile route? Aren’t we better than this? I guess not. Alright then, you sling mud, I’ll sling mud, sorry buddy, you brought this on yourself. The rules that protect kids from “sleazy adults” generally don’t deal with the people most likely to abuse them sexually. Do you know who those people are? Seeing as your ability to use the written word to communicate is a testament to the failings of the American education system, I will assume you don’t. The person most likely is that child’s mother. Second most likely? The father. Guess who else makes the top ten? That’s right! Blood relatives! And do laws protect children from these people? NO! They give these people almost complete control over youth thus making further victimization possible. Do you have kids buddy? If so, you’re infinitely more likely to be molesting them than Alex is. Hopefully child services will come by and take these poor, unfortunate souls away from you. Oh wait, you say you don’t? That I’m making claims on no evidence? That I’m just using statistics to extrapolate a likely, but theoretically untrue, statement? But wait… didn’t you just do that? Oh wait! You did! Only you didn’t have statistics on your side like I do. Heh, funny that. Idiot.

As much as I enjoy this, and I do. I really can’t get this indignant forever. There are a lot of really stupid people, who make incredibly ignorant arguments, and think they are the height of logical brilliance. They are not. And a casual appeal to rationality in a marginally mature individual reveals that quickly. I just hate how they’re allowed to make straw-man arguements and talk out of their asses with stereo-types and people don’t call them on it, while NYRA has to back everything up with 3 studies and a signed statement from Jesus Christ himself. Ageism much?

Comments(2)

There is so much wrong with this story, I hardly know where to begin. I guess I’ll start with a brief synopsis:

Megan Meier thought she had made a new friend in cyberspace when a cute teenage boy named Josh contacted her on MySpace and began exchanging messages with her.

Megan, a 13-year-old who suffered from depression and attention deficit disorder, corresponded with Josh for more than a month before he abruptly ended their friendship, telling her he had heard she was cruel.

The next day Megan committed suicide. Her family learned later that Josh never actually existed; he was created by members of a neighborhood family that included a former friend of Megan’s.

Now Megan’s parents hope the people who made the fraudulent profile on the social networking Web site will be prosecuted, and they are seeking legal changes to safeguard children on the Internet.

At first glance I figured this was one of your standard first amendment issues, where something horribly tragic happens and a grieving mother figures censoring the Internet is the best way to stop this from happening in the future. The canned response is that there is nothing special about the Internet that allows this to happen. People can succumb to hoaxes, teasing, and bullying through all communications mediums and I’m sure this isn’t the first girl in recorded history to kill herself over a broken heart (real or imagined). So censoring the Internet wouldn’t stop tragedies like this from happening in the future and would restrict the safe, lawful use of the Internet by the vast majority of users.

But that is such an expected response I get bored in saying it and probably wouldn’t bother to write up a blog entry for a matter that obvious. Then I read on.

Megan’s parents said she received a message from him on Oct. 15 of last year, essentially saying he didn’t want to be her friend anymore, that he had heard she wasn’t nice to her friends.

The next day, as Megan’s mother headed out the door to take another daughter to the orthodontist, she knew Megan was upset about Internet messages. She asked Megan to log off. Users on MySpace must be at least 14, though Megan was not when she opened her account. A MySpace spokeswoman did not return calls seeking comment.

Someone using Josh’s account was sending cruel messages. Then, Megan called her mother, saying electronic bulletins were being posted about her, saying things like, “Megan Meier is a slut. Megan Meier is fat.”

Megan’s mother, who monitored her daughter’s online communications, returned home and said she was shocked at the vulgar language her own daughter was sending. She told her daughter how upset she was about it.

Megan ran upstairs, and her father, Ron, tried to tell her everything would be fine. About 20 minutes later, she was found in her bedroom. She died the next day.

Whoa. First of all, as established earlier in the article Megan had struggled with depression and was on medication. So now, she is extremely upset over things being said about her online, and calls her mother for support, help, and comfort, but instead of providing that her mother yells at her for using inappropriate language? What the hell is wrong with this mother? I wish I was more shocked than I am, but I can picture this reaction from quite a lot of parents out there.

If she cares about her daughter’s well-being, why wouldn’t she seek to comfort her when she is going through this kind of turmoil? Especially when she has a history of depression. If the girl was feeling alone, depressed and had a poor image of herself (because of the things “Josh” was saying) yelling at her and making her feel worse about herself is the single dumbest response I can think of. Especially if she is turning to you for support and comfort.

Then Megan turns to her father for help, and while the article doesn’t go into it too much (no doubt the father isn’t going to admit to the entirety of what he said to his daughter), it sounds like he was dismissive of her. She hung herself less than 20 minutes later. I haven’t heard of a clearer cry for help and a clearer failure to provide that help to someone who is hurting. 20 minutes later. She went to her mom and got yelled at, she went to her dad and got dismissed, and then immediately went to kill herself. Fucking hell, this isn’t the fault of MySpace or of the Internet, if you are going to charge someone, charge her parents for neglect. I’m appalled.

Furthermore, if the mother monitors her daughter’s online communications, she should have known how seriously Megan regarded this “Josh” character and would have understood her devastation at having him turn on her like that. The reason parents give to spy on their kids’ online activity is to protect them. What on earth are you protecting your daughter from if you don’t spot something like this? While I certainly don’t support monitoring anyone’s online activity, this was clearly a case where doing so could have helped save a life. But her mother failed at that too. I guess all she cared about was whether her daughter was using bad language. Great job mom, way to look out for your daughter. Once again, an over-protective parent fails utterly at protecting kids from true dangers and just causes grief over insignificant things like language.
But wait, this story gets more horrific:

Her father said he found a message the next day from Josh, which he said law enforcement authorities have not been able to retrieve. It told the girl she was a bad person and the world would be better without her, he has said.

Another parent, who learned of the MySpace account from her own daughter who had access to the Josh profile, told Megan’s parents about the hoax in a counselor’s office about six weeks after Megan died.

That’s when they learned Josh was imaginary, they said.

The woman who created the fake profile has not been charged with a crime. She allegedly told the St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department she created Josh’s profile because she wanted to gain Megan’s confidence to know what Megan was saying about her own child online.

The mother from down the street told police that she, her daughter and another person all typed and monitored the communication between the fictitious boy and Megan.

Whoa again. This “Josh” who drove this poor girl to suicide was entirely made up. And made up by… (wait for it)….. an over-protective parent seeking to “protect” her daughter from the dangers of the Internet.

Let that sink in.

So two 13-year-old girls were being… 13-year-old girls and got into a bit of a spat. Instead of just letting them resolve things on their own, or handling things like adults the mother decides to be sneaky and spy not just on her own daughter, but the neighbor’s daughter as well.

I’m near speechless.

So either the mother learned all she needed to, and gathered all the dirt she wanted to on Megan, and decided to end it abruptly (and hurtfully) or the daughter, having this perfect window of opportunity presented to her by her mother decided to exact her revenge by hurting Megan by breaking off the imaginary relationship. Even if this hadn’t resulted in suicide, manipulating the emotions of Megan like this was such a cruel thing to do. More proof that catty, cruel, manipulative 13-year-old girls grow up to be catty, cruel, manipulative mothers. Or maybe it could be better said that catty, cruel, manipulative mothers raise their daughters to be catty, cruel, manipulative 13-year-olds.

Of course, catty, cruel, manipulative people of all ages (and genders) existed long before the Internet or MySpace. These two girls lived down the street from each other, so this was a real life feud that was just continued online. Nothing special about the Internet created or fostered this messed up situation. The one thing that did make the situation worse were two cruel, over-protective mothers.

Parents: leave your kids alone. Unless they come to you for help, then fucking help them, don’t yell at them. Both sets of parents should be brought up on charges and blamed for this tragedy. Not the fucking Internet.

Katrina is exactly right, people seek to protect youth for their own good, but it only exposes them to more danger. Instead of creating a fake profile to manipulate and spy on Megan, the other girl’s mom should have given her daughter some advice for dealing with the feud in a mature, reasonable way. Ya know, helped her by better preparing her to handle situations like this herself.

Instead she decided to set an excellent example for her daughter by being a catty, cruel, manipulative bitch and now we have one dead 13-year-old victim to show for it.

Comments(2)

All the child advocates out there, all the parents’ groups, all the public interest people… they have one supposed goal. They must protect children. They must help children. They must do all they can, even things the children might not like right now, for the children. Sure enough, there are people who may think NYRA goes against these rules. After all, they’re trying to prevent underage drinking and young drunk driving deaths, and here we are saying “lower the drinking age!” They’re trying to make parental controls and other such tools for technology, and here we are saying parents should trust their children and respect their privacy. Here they are trying to keep kids off drugs, and here we are decrying drug testing in school.

But there is a great misunderstanding here.

Youth rights supporters are not about endangering children and making idealistic statements about rights in spite of safety issues. We seek not to soothe the hysterical public with nice-sounding “solutions” to the dangers that lurk to harm kids. Rather, we seek to battle something that harms kids perhaps more than anything the aforementioned groups fight against. In fact, their battles only increase this great harm.

The greatest harm you can do to someone is to remove all means of that person protecting his/her own self, and society has been doing that to youth incessantly. How? By not only never telling them how to deal with many of the problems they face, but telling them only to avoid those situations altogether. Doing everything possible to keep them from being in compromising situations.

We don’t teach young people how to drink alcohol responsibly. We only tell them not to touch it until they are 21, and if they touch it beforehand, they are criminals who are destroying themselves. That’s interesting really. How are you protecting young people by making them criminals? Somehow I doubt protection is really the number one goal.

Young people are forbidden from most jobs. Why? To protect them from being exploited in the workplace apparently. Despite all the labor laws in effect, it is inconceivable to think of a 14-year-old working part time in an office making copies and filing some things, so he can learn to make his own money and maybe save for college. Better yet, working with adults, it would help his maturity and give him a real taste of what the working world is like. Instead, he is forbidden from this, restricted to high school where he is surrounded by his also-restricted peers, where the only adults he associates with are in a position of power over him. Yet apparently this is supposed to protect him? By cutting off any means he may have of earning his own money or learning about the adult world? By ensuring he will become an adult completely ignorant of what it is like and with little to no money?

Abstinence only education! Teaching kids that sex is bad and harmful and will always have negative consequences if had under 18. Not how to practice safe sex, but to preach that the only option is to avoid it until adulthood/marriage. Not a word of instruction about condoms, birth control, diaphragms, or the like. Only that if a teen were to have sex, it would always end up in unwanted pregnancy or sexually transmitted disease. As if these concepts are completely unheard of in the adult world, married or not. Protecting kids by withholding or denying them or preventing them from getting information on how to protect themselves? I just don’t see it.

Curfews. Don’t teach your daughter how to be safe when walking around at night. Just make it illegal for her to be outside, and you won’t have to worry about it. She doesn’t know how to protect herself from the dangers of the dark (caused by and aimed at all ages), but instead, we “protect” her ourselves by not letting her out at all, thus keeping her ignorant.

There’s also driving. Teach teens to protect themselves on the road? Here’s an idea! Let’s “protect” them ourselves by not letting them drive at all until they’re adults. Because 18 and over, car accidents are unheard of, right? Let’s convince ourselves that teens are innately incapable to protecting themselves and driving carefully, so we can step in and be the great protectors by forbidding them from doing it at all. Who cares if their learning is delayed or halted? Their safety is more important apparently.

I think you get the picture. That is what we are battling. If anything, we’re the only ones who genuinely want to protect kids. We want to enable them and teach them to protect themselves, and the way to do that is to not shelter them from inevitable dangers in their lives. That is not childhood. That is incarceration. “Childhood” should be about learning, trial and error while living in a setting where your errors do not cause irreparable harm. Yet if you are kept from learning until such a safety net is removed, how exactly are you being protected? Whose needs are really being served?

What do these situations have in common? I touched on it with the workplace thing. All these things mean that “children” are not “acting like adults”. Drinking, working, driving, and other such activities are considered “adult”. Somehow “being adult” is harmful to kids in and of itself. But… why exactly? Aren’t they going to be adults before long anyway? Wouldn’t being in these situations better prepare them for the lives they’ll eventually have? Why would we deny them this? Why do we keep them out of our “adult” world?

There are a couple of obvious reasons. The “child protectionist” types wouldn’t like to hear it, and would call you names for even suggesting it, but it’s true. The idea is to keep “children” away from adults, so that adults don’t have to deal with them. They don’t have to see them at work where they’d have to treat them as equals. They don’t have to share the road with someone they don’t believe is as entitled to the privilege of driving simply because of lack of life span. They don’t have to think of someone they’re convinced is an “innocent being” as having sex. They don’t have to see “children” outside late at night, a time that’s apparently supposed to be for “adults only”. In short, it all comes down to anti-youth bigotry.

Protecting children? Hardly. More like insecure adults trying to protect their egos. As if they had some constitutional right to feel superior to fellow citizens because they’ve lived longer, lived past a certain age. This is worth endangering the next generation in such callous, irresponsible ways? Sad thing is, so few people even care in the slightest about that.

Comments(1)