Why do we defend the rights of youth? Among the numerous reasons, we’ve had enough of the testimonials.

So many young people come to us with their accounts of their lives at home and school. To what many people would dismiss as dramatic teenage whining, we listen. Unlike everyone else in their lives, we take them seriously. Why would they be the liars, but their parents and teachers are necessarily telling the truth? Their ages? Obviously a poor factor there. What else? Oh, you mean age was the only reason? Well, in that case, your theory is faulty, so let’s go with that the young victims are truthful.

Each year, over 2,000 children and teens die at the hands of their parents, and 350,000 more are severely abused. Why don’t we hear about this? Because, God forbid, the media or politicians make any statements pointing out fault with the traditional family. Instead, they’d rather pretend the greatest dangers to a kid are that he watches Dragonball Z and plays Mortal Kombat, and conveniently ignore that his father beats him every night. And, of course, only the former will be called into blame when he shoots up his school someday.

Young guys get hauled off to spend the night in jail because they shoved their mothers, as the police have no interest in the abuse the mother was causing beforehand, and simply tell the young victim that she had every right to do it.

Girl is forced into a psychiatric ward because her parents insist she is crazy, and the ward takes their word for it rather than testing her. The reason she is having these issues, most likely the psychological torture her parents put her through for years, is unimportant to these people.

Corporal punishment remains a legal parenting tool, even for teens. People don’t want to believe parents would hit their kids for reasons other than discipline. They’ll pretend the girl getting brutal swats from a belt on a regular basis because she disagrees with her father’s political views doesn’t exist.

And the abuse only breeds more abuse. The abused grew up with this distorted idea of love, so this is what they give, as they become abusive spouses and parents themselves. They believe their children are theirs to do as they wish with, just as their own parents believed of them. And the casualties are numerous and societally overlooked.

Don’t forget the infamous behavior modification facilities. Parents can just ship their kids off to these places if they don’t like their behavior. The facilities institute “tough love” measures to “cure” teens of undesirable behavior, but most of these places are unregulated and utilize potentially deadly restraint practices, and brutal disciplinary measures. Dozens have died, and hundreds more come out psychologically damaged. Why must they endure this? They have no trial. Their parents merely signed a form, and off they went. But does the media care? No. They’re more interested in Barack Obama’s priest’s anti-American remarks than the suffering of innocent American teens.

So it’s up to us to make the change. Once we get the voting age lowered and empower youth to realize they are entitled to the same human rights as adults, that they do not have to live as oppressed children but as capable young citizens, then we can see some real change. Kids are abused because their abusers believe them to be inferior and subhuman, and no one cares enough to tell them otherwise. Kids are property, and they believe the extremely dangerous and lethal excuse that this is for their own good.

So next time you think youth don’t need rights or that their suffering is petty, you seriously need to take a closer look. Prepare to be appalled. Prepare to be unable to sleep at night knowing the prevalence, wondering what’s going on with the young voiceless residents in your neighbor’s house. This can’t continue.

Comments(1)

First, look at this news story.

It was early last month when Jane Hambleton of Fort Dodge found the bottle under the front seat of her 19-year-old son’s pride and joy.

Her next move was a call to The Des Moines Register’s classified advertising department:

OLDS 1999 Intrigue

“Totally uncool parents who obviously don’t love teenage son, selling his car. Only driven for 3 weeks before snoopy mom who needs to get a life found booze under front seat. $3,700/offer. Call meanest mom on the planet.”

The son soon found himself on foot. And the meanest mom on the planet became the target of accolades from across Iowa and beyond.

Hambleton, 48, a disc jockey, said she has fielded more than 70 telephone calls from emergency room technicians, nurses, school counselors and even a Georgia man, who wanted to congratulate her.

“The ad cost a fortune, but you know what? I’m telling people what happened here. I’m not just going to put the car for resale when there’s nothing wrong with it, except the driver made a dumb decision,” Hambleton said. “It’s overwhelming, the number of calls I’ve gotten from people saying, ‘Thank you, it’s nice to see a responsible parent.’ So far, there are no calls from anyone saying, ‘You’re really strict. You’re real overboard, lady.’ ”

Steven Hambleton, a freshman business major at Briar Cliff University in Sioux City, obviously was not one of the callers. And he didn’t feel much like talking when contacted Tuesday.

“I don’t think you can print” his response to the ad, his mother said. “He’s very, very unhappy.”

Jane Hambleton described her son as a great kid who does excellently in college and is active in church. But she’ll stick to her guns, even though Steven Hambleton said that the bottle of alcohol wasn’t his, and that someone else had left it in his (former) car.

For the record, Mom believes him.

But she and her husband set two rules when they bought the car at Thanksgiving: No booze, and always keep the car locked. The car sold within two weeks, but Hambleton said she will continue the ad for another week - just for the feedback.

“A couple in Hubbard bought it for their 19-year-old son,” she said. “I told the kid when they were leaving, ‘Do not have any booze in that car. And if you do, don’t hide it under the front seat.’ “

When you are finished vomiting, come on back here for commentary.

Basically some self-righteous mother decided to sell her 19-year-old son’s car because she found an alcohol bottle in it. If that weren’t enough, the ad she put in the newspaper to sell the car explicitly stated she was doing this to get back at him, that he had “violated her car rules” so she was punishing him.

So let’s review. No indication that he was actually drinking and driving. She saw something in his car she didn’t like and decided he wasn’t allowed to have it anymore, so she sold it, something he loves (and who can blame him, I love my car, too!) behind his back and without his consent. She found an alcohol bottle, so she decided to make his life hell.

If only it stopped there! Because of the little ad she put, explaining what she was doing and why, a lot of people decided to call her up and congratulate her! She was being this big bad “tough disciplinarian” on her (adult) son, so everyone thinks she’s some kind of hero. At first, I thought this was just a lot of media exaggeration, until I went to the article itself and saw the comments. I’m still having trouble keeping my lunch down after reading that.

So what does this mean? It means it is socially acceptable to publicly humiliate a teenager. I mean, what if this woman had done this to her husband instead of her son? Would you be congratulating her? Might be some, but there’d be a lot more people probably complaining to her that she had no right to do something like that to a “grown man”. That would probably not even be newsworthy. But humiliating your son gets you national commendations.

I mean, I can’t imagine how he feels right now. His mother betrayed him, stole and sold something he loved, and now the whole state and beyond is laughing at him and saying he deserved it, that his mother needed to be strict with him. Betrayed by a loved one, lost a major cherished possession, and publicly humiliated and called out.

And what for? Because there was a beer bottle in his car and he’s under 21? Has our society gotten so hysterical over the thought of anyone under 21 even being near alcohol that this sort of widespread mocking is called for? I mean, if he was actually drinking and driving, maybe, but it was not stated if he was in the article, and it would have said if he had, so I’m going to assume he is innocent of that.

This is the power parents have over their children, even ones over age of adulthood. It is appalling. It is inhuman. Worst of all, it is a disgusting perversion of the concept of love in our society. To love is to make someone miserable based on your own personal morals? Well, if that someone is under 21, then yes, I guess it is.

Comments(2)

This blog entry is partially a response to the e-mail below, and partially a general comment, so not everything is gonna be directly related to or in response to this quoted bit:

The Patriot Act is extremely mild compared to the many infringements on privacy that young people are subjected to. If you care about the right to privacy, consider the following.

The Patriot Act doesn’t require that individuals submit to random, suspicionless drug testing as many schools and indeed some parents are now requiring. Unlike drug testing at work, youth usually don’t have any choice whether to be at school or live with their parents.

The Patriot Act doesn’t allow authorities to search through an individual’s property without probable cause like schools do with lockers and parents do with everything.

The Patriot Act allows for increased use of wiretaps and monitoring of e-mail but nothing close to the kind of tracking software parents regularly place on their kid’s computers that tracks and records every keystroke and action taken with the computer. Every website, every word typed, every program used is recorded and sent to parents.

The Patriot Act may allow the government, in some cases, to look at what books you are checking out, but it doesn’t outright ban you from looking at or listening to certain books, movies, websites, magazines and music like age restrictions do.

While not part of the Patriot Act, no doubt you are alarmed by the increasing use of security cameras in public places watching our every move. That pales in comparison to the ways teens are tracked. Parents have taken to putting GPS tracking devices into backpacks and cars. Plus many cell phones now have GPS enabled on them and parents use those to track their kid’s movements. Furthermore there are computers parents install in cars that record every turn you make, how fast you go, how complete a stop you make, etc.

More directly, parents are even installing cameras in their kid’s bedrooms to monitor them at all times. Or removing their bedroom doors so they have no privacy whatsoever. This is all perfectly legal and happens all across the country.

As you of course know, the government (via schools) controls what clothes you wear, how you style your hair, whether you can have a cell phone or other electronic device, and what you can say or write in school. The Patriot Act doesn’t come close to that.

The war is indeed an important issue. But who is it that we are sending overseas to fight and die in that war? Young people. Young people who probably weren’t old enough to vote for the politicians that sent them to that war. Young people who risk their lives in the desert and are not treated as equals in this country or given the respect they deserve for making such a sacrifice. They return home and unlike most Americans can’t open a can of beer while watching a football game, or go out to a bar with a few buddies, or even attend many concerts. Over 645 young Americans have died in the desert while never being respected as equals in the nation that sent them there.

The infringements on the privacy of youth are more extreme than the Patriot Act ever was or will be, and affect far more people on a daily basis. After being raised as youth with no expectation of privacy is it any wonder people don’t value privacy as much when they get older and get into power? And while I’m not going to say that the drinking age is more important than the war, it directly relates to the war and is another injustice heaped upon young people that absolutely needs to be addressed.

Youth rights isn’t just some side project or a somehow a selfish, small issue that distracts from ‘bigger’ issues out in the world. I know you didn’t say that, and I’m not saying people should vote only on the basis of youth rights, but youth rights is a HUGE issue that deserves a lot more attention and respect than it currently gets - even from NYRA members. Cause if we don’t put youth rights first, who will?

Finally, if you (and this isn’t just directed to you) oppose the Patriot Act and the War and invasions on privacy and everything else, did you vote for candidates who opposed those policies? Were you able to or were you prevented from voting by the voting age? Who knows how different the country would be today if you and your peers were able to vote.

Youth rights is directly intertwined with all other issues you care about in society. It should never be put on the backburner, even in an election year.

If youth are free, then we all will be free.

Comments(0)

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)

Ladies and gentlemen, a straw poll if you’ll indulge me. How many people drive a car? How many critique their parents when their parents drive the car? How many people have parents who critique them when the roles are reversed? How many people have their parents install a GPS reciever that immediately sends an email to the parent’s email address whenever you drive faster than 70 miles per hour?

Last question made you stop and scratch your head I’d be willing to bet. Well obviously, you haven’t been following the news recently. When I first saw the headline, I thought “Oh cool! A way that I can actually fight an unfair speeding ticket? Sign me up!” And then I read this:

“He and Karen Kahn, Malone’s mother, stress that the goal of the GPS tracker is not to help the teen beat a ticket but to make him a safer driver.

The system sends out a data signal every 30 seconds that reports the car’s speed, location and direction. It’s designed so that if the teen driver ever hits 70 mph, his parents receive an e-mail alert.”

WHAT?! I’m sorry. I must have read that wrong. Hold on…

Nope, I was right. It’s weird, all those words make sense, but seeing them used together in a sentence like that is definitely a new experience.

So parents can now track your driving from the safety of your home computer? They know how fast you’re driving and where exactly you are at any given time? Sounds innocent right? “Only those who’ve done something wrong have anything to fear,” you might say. I suppose you may have a point there, except, the thing about living in America, the wonderful thing about it, is that we don’t do things that way. You’re allowed to do what you want and no one has a right to watch over you like Big Brother unless they have reason to think you’re breaking the law.

“But teenagers are untrustworthy and don’t listen to what parents say!” you might also say. You’re going to make the case that teenagers are less trustworthy than 35 year olds? While I don’t think there’s been any studies done on the subject, I’d be willing to bet teenagers lies about as often as the average person and can be trusted about as far. However, the average adult doesn’t need to answer for their actions nearly as often as the average teenager, so I think they can be forgiven for not always being forthcoming with their parents. Besides, they have as much obligation to be forthcoming to their parents as any adult would, when you’re 40, would you want your 80 year old mother to ask about your driving? Or install a GPS system in your car to make sure you stayed out of bad parts of town? You’d be rightly offended and feel disrespected.
The big issue here is trust. Parents should trust their kids enough to let them drive without an electronic watch dog. Could you imagine if all cars had this feature with the police monitoring and ticketing you every time you exceeded the speed limit in an area? There’d be a public outcry like you wouldn’t believe. Such a use would be unconstitutional (though I’d put money on Scalia and Thomas finding some reason to allow it) by any reasonable reading of the document however. Why? Because it’s a gross invasion of privacy. The fact that it would be unconstitutional for adults does not mean it’s okay for teenagers. It would be like having an alarm clock that sent your parents an email if you ever had sex without a condom (which I hear we’ll have in stores by Christmas, be on the lookout for web cams in the future, so your parents can analyze and critique your choice of positions).

The teenager in question, is rightly annoyed by it:

“A B-average student, Malone works part time to pay for gas, insurance and other car-related expenses. Should he lose in court, he also will be on the hook for the ticket, his parents said.

‘It sounds harsh, but when he got his car, we said it was going to be a cop magnet,’ Rude said.

Malone declined to be interviewed, but in an earlier story said he loathed the GPS system, which he considers an unnecessary invasion of his privacy.”

So he pays his own expenses, and for the priviledge of being allowed to do something he legally is free to do, he has to be under the microscope by his parents every time he’s out of the house. I pity him if he ever makes an unexpected detour to a CVS on the way home. Can you imagine that conversation with parents this paranoid?

“Son, I see at 8:34pm last evening you made a detour to the center of town from your normal route from John’s house to here. What were you doing?”

“Uh, I was thirsty, wanted to get a drink.”

“But if you had only waited .35 miles, you would have seen a 7-11 and been able to get a drink there.”

“They don’t sell the soda I like.”

“That neighborhood is too close to an area where a drug dealer was caught, were you buying drugs?”

“What?!”

“Turn out your pockets now. Rude! Go search his room, I’ll take the car.”

Oh no, imagine if he gets a girlfriend! He’ll have to account for every hour he’s gone, they’ll be able to see if he ever leaves her house.

Does anyone else find a program like this eerily reminiscent of the tele-screens from 1984? Or is it only creepy if the government does it? If parents do it it’s just good parenting? Any thoughts?

Comments(1)

First of all, let me say that it is ridiculous to have to defend a TV show that hasn’t even aired yet, but with the shrieking opposition to it (again from people who have never seen it) something needs to be said.

Kid Nation is a new show for CBS that is slated to begin airing on September 19. Yet a month before any episode has been seen, the show has attracted a fire storm of criticism. The premise of the show, as explained by Rob Capriccioso, is that

Forty children, aged between eight and 15, were to be chosen to run a New Mexico ghost town, learning through real-life experiences how to survive and make decisions with limited adult supervision. The young participants were to prepare their own food, design their own rules and create their own system of government.

Critics have sought out every possible angle from which to attack this show. Putting kids on TV like this is exploitation. Having cameras on them for 12 or 16 hours a day means they are working long hours and violating child labor laws. The show has exposed this children to neglect and abuse and there have been injuries on the set.

All of these are excuses and covers. The real issue here is that parents feel threatened over the very suggestion that young people can survive without them. No one has thus far discussed how successfully the kids were able to live in this town, I don’t think that really matters to anyone. The very fact that the question was asked is offensive to “Parent Nation”. Article I in Parent Nation’s constitution seems to be that young people will be controlled, sheltered, silenced, dictated to, and monitored in every conceivable way and at every possible opportunity. To suggest otherwise is high treason.

Newsweek says it best when it seeks out someone to blame for the obscenity that is Kid Nation:

“Kid Nation” is not the problem. The problem is parents. Not just the parents whose kids are on the show, but all parents who fuel an industry that has no respect for what it means to be a kid. The ones who will gather the family around the television to watch “Kid Nation” and reinforce the ridiculous notion that what is for adults—social responsibility, lawmaking, law enforcement, ribald jokes—should also be for kids.

Everyone who reinforces such a ridiculous notion that the artificial extension of childhood and the walled nursery youth are kept in until 18 are somehow wrong, or at best that there may be other options, is to blame. I am proud to be considered a part of such a problem. I hope I keep Joshua Alston up at night.

If the main issue here was exploitation or abuse or child labor then where was the outcry over Brat Camp? Brat Camp was another reality TV show that featured kids being filmed for long hours, so were they exploited or in violation of child labor laws? What about the abusive conditions and restraints the kids faced on that show? From the British version:

In last night’s episode a 15 year old English girl was shown being restrained by two adult staff members. This was done in both a sitting and in a face down, prone posture, whilst her wrists were held in a hyperflexed position, known colloquially as a “Gooseneck”, designed to promote compliance through the infliction of pain.

That is ok apparently since it was an injury inflicted by a “responsible adult” for “her own good”. As long as those two conditions are satisfied, Parent Nation is alright with it. The great tragedy with the “injury” on Kid Nation is that it wasn’t inflicted upon a young person by a responsible adult. Instead a girl was fixing dinner and a bit of grease splashed up from the pan and gave her minor burns. Predictably her mother is suing. There was also a report of a few individuals ingesting bleach, but it seems no one was hurt. If ingesting bleach was somehow an effective means to control kids, and it was administered for their own good by a responsible adult then I expect you wouldn’t see an outcry over that either.

Far worse injuries are seen in gym class or doing chores around the house but I don’t see any moral outrage about forcing kids to cut the lawn. Oh yea, a responsible adult forces them to cut the lawn, its ok.

The Newsweek article went so far as to compare this show to Lord of the Flies:

Obviously, somewhat by design, the premise of “Kid Nation” mirrors the book about kids forced to fashion a society on a deserted island. But Golding, the symbolist that he was, might look at the premiere of “Kid Nation” as the modern-day equivalent of the boulder that crushed poor Piggy: a hulking embodiment of how low popular culture can go, rolling toward unsuspecting children below.

Kinda a stark depiction of the show, ya think? Not to mention the fact that while crediting Golding with being a symbolist, Alston overlooks the fact that the book wasn’t an examination of the terrors that youth would devolve to if they weren’t under constant adult supervision and control, but the horrible nature that exists just below of the surface of all human beings regardless of age.

Of course Alston’s shallow interpretation of Lord of the Flies is all too common and I’ve heard it passed around often by youth rights opponents as an example of the danger posed by allowing youth to manage their own affairs. I guess the best way to see how many kids got crushed under boulders is to tune in and actually watch Kid Nation. I doubt it will be as scary as the critics think. But then again, could it really be any worse than the centuries of war, genocide, and oppression we’ve seen after letting adults manage their own affairs? Maybe a Kid Nation isn’t such a bad idea after all.

Supporting the Kid Nation Secession

Comments(1)

This act shall take effect following approval by the Mayor (or in the event of veto by the Mayor, action by the Council to override the veto), and shall remain in effect for no longer than 90 days, as provided for emergency acts of the Council of the District of Columbia in section 412(a) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, approved December 24, 1973 (87 Stat. 788; D.C. Official Code ‘ 1-204.12(a)).

Comments(0)

I feel as though the government is more concern about limiting the rights of teenagers throughout the country and Dc.The More important things for instant education and improving schools seems to be not a big issue.The laws the government make to improve things always never work.Crime rates are high so they think limiting the rights of teens is the best solution instead of training more police officers or putting them in areas they need to be.So what happens when there is a curfew and teenagers are ban from clubs and the crime rate is still high WHAT NEXT!!! is the question .I think these law makers need to think.Controling young adults life does not solve the issues and problems in society its just only cause problems and take away our freedom.Government might as well make a law saying that 21 and under the constitution does not apply to them because all our rights are being taken away one by one.Funny we can go to war for our country at the age of 18 but we cant go to clubs and enjoy ourselves.Now does that make sense?The question now is what is the age group are you considered an adult and able to decide when and where you can go somewhere without the government interfering.I thought it was 18 but i guess not.I just came to the conclusion that we do not have any rights or privacy in this country.

Comments(2)

There are a lot of pretty disgusting news stories out there proving more and more how little youth are regarded in society. This, however, has got to be one of the worst.

Divorced parents clash over 12-year-old son’s circumcision

A former Medford man who converted to Judaism wants his 12-year-old son to do the same. That requires circumcision — something the mother adamantly opposes.
The divorced couple has been battling over the issue for three years, including whether the boy wants to undergo the procedure. So far, Oregon courts have squarely sided with the father, who has custody.

Well, good for the dad for making a personal religious choice. How’s about, oh, letting his son make his own personal religious choice instead of just expecting him to fall like a domino when you snap your fingers? Oh, but you’ve got one problem. His mother doesn’t want it. You two play tug-of-war with your son’s foreskin, without seeming to seriously care what the boy himself has to say about it. You two fight over what he has to say. Shut up and let him speak. It’s HIS body, not yours!

That doesn’t surprise Kathy T. Graham, associate dean for academic affairs at Willamette University College of Law.
“The primary custodial parent is the one that makes the decisions about religion and education and about matters of child-rearing,” Graham said.
Other family law experts agree, but say the courts should at least look into the situation to make sure the surgery is in the best interests of the child.
“You’re talking about not just religious instruction or whether you’re going to send the child to parochial school or public school,” commented Lawrence D. Gorin, a Portland attorney. “This is a matter of permanent change of bodily structure. And it’s irreversible.”

That’s right! We’re not talking just a matter of education. We’re talking a medical procedure! We’re essentially talking about people who find a harmless piece on their child’s body and think “I don’t like it, take it off”, as if the kid were just a lifeless piece of meat. Sickening.
(more…)

Comments(1)