Tom from SSDP gave me a head’s up about an excellent op-ed in the New York Times today written by Anya Kamenetz. She basically makes the Epstein argument that we should create competency tests to grant rights to youth younger and in a more flexible fashion. Specifically she mentions voting, drinking, and credit card ownership, but it seems she is interested in the whole list of adult rights that youth are currently denied. I am very intrigued and supportive.

A snippet:

We should hasten the enfranchisement of this generation, born between 1980 and 1995, by lowering the voting age to 16.

Age thresholds are meant to bring an impartial data point to bear on insoluble moral questions: who can be legally executed, who can die in Iraq, who can operate the meat cutter at the local sub shop. But in a time when both youth and age are being extended, these dividing lines are increasingly inadequate.

Legal age requirements should never stand alone. They should be flexible and pragmatic and paired with educational and cognitive requirements for the exercise of legal maturity.

Great to see youth rights again splash across the NY Times editorial page. We were last there (unless I missed something) in September with Mike Male’s great op-ed about adult drug use. Ironically, Mike might have a problem with Anya’s op-ed actually. Beyond his general skepticism about competency tests in general (NYRA is neutral on them) I’m sure he’ll take issue with this bit:

Driving laws provide the best model for combining early beginnings and mandatory education. Many states have had success with a gradual phasing in of driving rights over a year or more, starting with a learner’s permit at age 16. The most restrictive of these programs are associated with a 38 percent reduction in fatal crashes among the youngest drivers, according to a study conducted by the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

According to Mike’s own study into the effectiveness of the graduated drivers licensing program in California he found that it actually hurt overall traffic safety. Most studies that rate the effectiveness of graduated driver’s license programs (and most all teen related stats) look only at teens and forget that teens are not an insular demographic. These studies focus exclusively on whether 16 and 17 year olds are helped by graduated driver’s licenses. Males was curious whether going through such a program actually made people better drivers once they exit the program and turn 18. What he found is quite interesting:

Is California’s teen-driver law — the nation’s strictest and touted by safety experts as a national model — really hazardous for the state’s teen drivers?

A study I conducted raises that possibility. Published in the National Safety Council’s Journal of Safety Research, it found, as did previous researchers, that California’s graduated licensing law was associated with fewer fatalities among 16-year-old drivers (down 20% through 2005). But that reduction was more than offset by the increased death rate — up 24% — of 18-year-olds, whose driving records researchers have neglected to study. The latest figures also indicate higher-than-expected fatalities among drivers aged 19, 20 and 21 who were licensed under the new law. The death rates of 17-year-olds changed little.

I e-mailed Males about Kamenetz’s op-ed, so I’m sure he’ll go educate her.

Kamenetz seems like a good ally to have though. I’ll be sure to add a link to Anya’s blog from One and Four and Age of Reason. Jason is putting together a youth rights meet up in NYC next month, maybe we can convince her to show up. I’ll open communications with her in a bit. Just need to find her e-mail.

Yay youth rights!

According to the most recent issue, it seems ASFAR’s ‘zine, Youth Truth is ceasing publication. After eight years it is sad to see it go, but truth be told, Youth Truth has been on life support for at least half of that time. It had become a one person endeavor (and it showed) filled mostly with news links. Even so, the publication quality was always impressively high and it was nice to see a solid youth rights publication (regardless of content) in print. NYRA has the full archive in print at our office and accessible online at the Youth Rights Network. Susan’s reasons for giving it up after all this time:

Its circulation is minuscule, its cost is prohibitive (for ASFAR’s budget anyway), its contributors have dwindled, and its editor is burned out.

The exact problems I identified six years ago and sought to solve with my suggestion that Youth Truth become a joint project for the movement as a whole and benefit from NYRA’s involvement, membership and support. An arrangement that most certainly would have saved the publication and made it far more relevant. ASFAR was stubborn however and decided not to take the offer and not to make any real changes to YT until the $2,000 a year price-tag (as of 2002 at least) became too much to bear. It is a shame.

But I’m not writing this to say “I told you so” or kick someone when they are down. I just think it is appropriate to mark the end of a publication that has been formative for the few hard core youth rights supporters who have read it and subscribed over the last eight years or so.

I also think some of Susan’s final words were worth noting and worth drawing attention to:

The realization that this is the last issue of Youth Truth, at least for awhile, has made me think about how to sum it all up for our readers, our supporters, our opponents, and the American public at large.

I keep thinking of a comedy sketch I remember from an early Saturday Night Live episode — I think it was performed by Gilda Radner, Lorraine Newman, and John Belushi. It took place in a medieval times, in a doctor’s consulting room that doubled as a barbershop, where a worried mother brought her ailing daughter for treatment. After reciting some mumbo-jumbo about the patient’s imbalance of bodily “humors,” the doctor prescribed the only treatment he knows: bleeding. As the girl’s condition declined throughout the skit, the doctor kept up the treatment. If she’s still sick, she must need more bleeding – what other answer could there be? After the inevitable outcome, at the end of the skit, the medieval doctor remained convinced he’d done all he could for the poor girl, and the mother dutifully paid the bill.

It’s human nature. We develop certain beliefs or ways of behaving in life and cling to them because they are all we know. We ignore evidence that contradicts what we think we know, and keep using the same techniques to solve all our problems, in all situations. When disastrous consequences ensue, instead of re-examining our old assumptions, we tend to conclude that we just didn’t use the same old strategies soon enough, or strongly enough… because to admit that there might be another, better way, we’d have to admit that we might have been doing the wrong thing all along.

With a few brief respites, we as a society have been pursuing the same ways of dealing with children for over a century now: tightening restrictions, punishing, demanding ever more conformity and obedience, infantilizing adolescents and even young adults.

And year after year, decade after decade, generation after generation, we still hear the same old complaints. Kids don’t appreciation, they don’t behave, they don’t learn. They spend too much time on frivolous pursuits. They have no work ethic, no respect. They don’t understand the value of a dollar. They’re impulsive. They don’t understand risk. They don’t look ahead to the future.

And year after year, decade after decade, generation after generation, adult society responds with more of the same.

Out adult population has all grown up in captivity; it is all they know. The cage in which we expect children to remain becomes even smaller, as we heap ever-harsher punishments onto their feeblest attempts to escape. Are we doomed to a never-ending battle between the desire of adults to control and the need of youth for freedom and self-determination?

Must we bleed the “patient” to death before we stop?

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.

Her:

what do you mean when you say you believe in America? What do you think are the common values that Americans share, and should promote and defend?

Me:

As for American values, I’d say liberty, equality, self-government/reliance, democracy, pulling yourself up by your boot straps, tolerance, independence, etc. Certainly America has stumbled many times along the way and a more cynical person may see all the bad things this country has done and stood for over the years, but this is a grand experiment the likes of which has never been attempted before. A people not united by religion, or heritage or anything else but ideals. We are the most diverse nation the world has ever seen, and while it has created tensions over the years, we have handled things far better than anyone else.

Her:

Liberty, equality, self-government/reliance, democracy, pulling yourself up by your boot straps, tolerance, independence, etc.? If only Americans actually did believe in these things… Some do, of course, but enough don’t that everything I ever believed in or liked about America has been damaged or destroyed over the past 8 years. I don’t just blame the president. He is in power because there are a lot of people in this country who actually support this war (it’s not that I’m against all war … I’d love to see us toss out the SPDC in Burma), people who are so anti-choice that they’d deny women in developing countries health-related aid money to keep them from owning their own reproductive health, people who want to rob homosexuals of their human rights. It’s insane. Our liberty and equality and democracy are being taken from us by the Americans who don’t believe in tolerance or independence (at least independence as in our right and ability to choose for ourselves), little by little, and those of us who care feel powerless to stop it.

Okay, that’s probably a little heavy. Sorry about that. I just feel particularly frustrated about this. I want to love America, but have been finding it very difficult lately. I hope I didn’t offend you. It wasn’t my intent.

But I also think it’s interesting what you chose to list as American values. I’m surprised that you can identify them so easily. There are a lot of collective national values that people grow up with, never questioning them, or even realizing that someone might believe in something different. As in the value of independence over interdependence (or individualism over community-based values). Or even equality vs., say, machismo culture. I used to work in study abroad at a university, and we would always talk to our students about this before they left the country. So many of them experienced severe culture shock as a result of clashing ingrained value systems … We just wanted to prepare them, and get them thinking about some assumed values and alternative ways of thinking.

I agree about our handling our diversity much better than anyone else has so far, but I feel like we’re on precarious ground there, too, especially as regards immigration policy. Tancredo actually has an ad out now that intimates that illegal immigrants rape children. Ridiculous.

Me:

Ah, a cynic.

I admit the last few years have been difficult and I wave the flag a little less fervently as I used to, but one needs to step outside of oneself and see the issues and the country and our history with fresh eyes I suppose. First of all, even with the Patriot Act and many other bullshit laws that have been passed recently I believe we live in one of, if not the, freest nation on earth. And I think some of these worst excesses will work themselves out and fade away in time. People are still a little panicked by 9/11. We are starting to come to our senses.

As for gay rights, things honestly aren’t that bad. The gay rights movement accomplished more in 20-30 years than other movements took a century to achieve. The huge change in public tolerance of homosexuality has made huge changes in my lifetime. Change is not easy to accept for anyone. I marvel over how quick it has gone, especially on such a sensitive subject, and how widely gains have been made. With the exception of wacko types like the God Hates Fags guy, even conservative preachers aren’t advocating stripping gays of basic rights like you see internationally. They oppose gay marriage, yes, but come on, look at where African Americans were at 30 years after the Civil War or 30 years after the Niagara Falls Conference. There is no reason but to feel optimistic.

I say this being the leader of a small, emerging youth civil rights movement. I know how deeply held prejudices are hard to just wash away. I know also that people who consider themselves defenders of liberal values and champions of tolerance and acceptance and equality are not immune to prejudice and bigotry. Reexamining our world view is not easy for anyone regardless of their political persuasion. I took a class in college called the Philosophy of Feminism. We were talking about hierarchy, equality, paternalism and all sorts of other advanced, forward thinking notions. I was excited to find people who ’spoke my language’ and pointed out all the similarities between the treatment of women and the treatment of youth, and they turned to me and said “What? Youth? Rights are for adults, not kids, what a ridiculous idea.” (paraphrased of course). Does that make them evil bigots? Are these feminists destroying America with their hate and intolerance? Are they anti-freedom, anti-tolerance or anti-equality? No. They are uninformed and cling to the preconceptions of the present even as they challenge those of the past. This will pass with time.

It is easy to see the world with an us vs. them mentality. You exhaust yourself attacking the bad ideas of ‘them’ and excuse the bad ideas of ‘us’. I can see how it can help you stay sane sometimes, but it isn’t any more coherent than ‘them’. If you don’t mind me challenging you, why is it any more acceptable to invade Burma than it was to invade Iraq? Did Burma attack us? No. They oppress their people, sure, but I bet Saddam was worse. You think we’d go in there as liberators, well that is exactly what Bush thought. But of course Iraq was a bad idea by ‘them’, invading Burma would be a reasonable policy by ‘us’.

This us vs. them mindset justifies much ill, and fosters an ends justifying the means mindset as well. In 1994 Democrats were in office and were terribly corrupt. Republicans told the country, “those Democrats are corrupt, send us to Washington to clean it up” and proceeded to become pretty corrupt pretty quickly themselves all the while telling themselves that they were only cutting this corner and that one to fight ‘them’ and the great problems and corruption the Democrats would create. Of course in their haste to fight ‘them’ they became even worse. Now the Democrats have come back and promise to set things straight. But I have little confidence they will be any different. Different targets, different enemies, a different ‘us’ and a different ‘them’, but the same problems. Trading gays for youth, trading Iraq for Burma, it doesn’t make much difference if core principles and values aren’t upheld.

All that could make me sound like the most cynical person of all. And I have admittedly become more cynical in recent years. But because I”m not in one camp or another and don’t buy into our us vs. them two-party system I see the good that both parties do and I see the bad that both parties do. I see things clearer than most and realize that overall we’re not so bad off. Both sides believe in the same core American values of liberty, equality, justice, etc. They just define them different and apply them in different situations limited by their own preconceptions, biases and blind spots.

The way out though isn’t about fighting ‘them’, it is about improving ‘us’. Recognizing our own hypocrisies and inconsistencies. Recognizing and reexamining our own prejudices. That is the only way forward. Fighting ‘them’ just further blinds us to our own errors. One thing I’ve learned is the people who are the most angry and frustrated are really the ones with the greatest flaws.

Something to think about.

This has been an interesting week. On Tuesday the Washington Post published the long awaited profile on me and youth rights. It has been in development since September and initially it was more a profile of the cause itself and the issues we work on. But a new editor came into power at the Post and decided to gut that angle and instead focus on me personally and my personal crusade for youth rights. Eh… not as nice as it could have been. Katrina has been keen to point out all the errors and problems with the article, but it is still incredibly important exposure for the cause. I’ve gotten many supportive e-mails from people, so this article is definitely to our benefit. Not all the response has been supportive of course, but Bryan does a damn good job straightening them out (as does Justin who ventured into the comment section of the Post). I’m grateful too for friends Adam and Jared posting quick responses to the article as well. Hell even Avi Hein had something to say (as only Avi could…).

Far and away the most interesting response to the article is a blog entry on Jezebel.com, a site devoted to celebrities, sex and fashion for women. Apparently my profile has risen near enough to celebrity status to be included on the site. Have I made it? Am I a celebrity? I read on.

In addition to introducing me and the article (much thanks!) the author, Moe, discusses whether she thinks I’m fuckable or not. And in a backhanded way she concludes that I am:

His president Stefan is more of a looker, but I’m choosing Alex for an occasional series I may decide to start tentatively titled “Dudes in the News Who Totally Remind Me Of The Type Of Dude I Would Fuck,” because I usually don’t date the looker

Thank you Moe, I’m blushing. You’re not bad yourself. The site, which appears quite popular, then attracted 77 comments of folks chiming in with their thoughts on youth rights, my life, and more entertaining subjects such as how I would be in bed and the attractiveness of NYRA staff members. Some of the more amusing ones:

I’m with Moe on this one, he’s totally fuckable, but not a keeper. “Huh, what’s that Alex? You want to be on top this time? No, I’m afraid you didn’t pass your competency test for that yet!”

And:

I think there should be a poll as to who can be considered the “looker” of the two. But, yes, Alex reminds me of the type of guy I would eff.

Plus:

1- Hotties!
2- Living on Ramen and driving the car you bought when you were 16 just means you’re poor - not creative.

Also- How the hell does he live in DC on 8k a month? I couldn’t afford to live there on my sad 35k salary. Nerd alert: At the rent he lists, he’s paying half his salary on the apt. There’s no way he’s living on 8k alone.

Also 2- Dude is sorta fuckable. I just imagine him being all “I’m really smart; let’s talk about teenagers” afterward.

A dissenter :

Ah, see that’s why I’d consider him unfuckable. He’d be ok for a quick shag if he wasn’t allowed to talk, but no orgasm is worth listening to someone stridently babble about a cause I couldn’t care less about.

Ah well, can’t win them all. There are plenty of other, far more negative comments about the issue and about whether I’m in this only so I can have sex with little girls. (uhh, no). But all the negative attacks don’t really dissuade me from thinking this is the coolest fucking blog entry ever. Talk about an ego boost, whew. For folks like Brad Pitt or something it might, after a while, get old to hear random girls have discussions about having sex with you, but I’m not quite to Brad Pitt celebrity level yet, so this is just incredibly incredibly incredibly fucking cool. Tom from SSDP agrees:

“this is hilarious man. you have finally surpassed SSDP in media superstardom, we can only dream about people blogging us like this”

I’ll trade ya for $100,000 or so of your budget.

Ah well, it was fun to read their comments, but I just couldn’t resist the temptation to make a personal appearance. So I made a comment:

Hey ladies,

Do I respond seriously to the criticisms made and thus confirm the “I’m really smart; let’s talk about teenagers” view, or just be funny & crude and confirm the immature pedophile view? Looks like I’m screwed either way, oh internet bloggers, you truly are the masters of the Catch-22. I guess I’ll just try both and let the chips fall where they may.

TITANIA1285, sorry to hear about your brother, that is exactly the kind of crap I’m talking about. Parents, and many commenters here, do everything in their power to make kids completely dependent on adults. So when those kids grow up they have no concept of how to live independently, make good choices or be responsible. So you see plenty of man-childs still living at home with mommy & daddy because they’ve never had to face tough choices on their own. Keeping children safe is important, but people grow from challenges, not being babied until they’re 20.

If you treat someone like they are immature and helpless, surprise, they are gonna become immature and helpless.

As for me, I may be poor, but I’m far from immature and helpless. I don’t look to handouts from my parents for support or financial help like many in my age bracket, or turn to the government for handouts like many in my income bracket. I do work other jobs and while I don’t live extravagantly, I’m comfortable, not in debt, and work hard. That is more that can be said for the millions of Americans (of all ages) out there overloaded with credit card debt and facing bankruptcy because they never learned to manage money. Say what you will about a shoe-string budget and tiny salary, but I’m a wizard with a check-book.

That being said, I enjoyed this post immensely. I am honored to be on Moe’s “Dudes in the News Who Totally Remind Me Of The Type Of Dude I Would Fuck” list. For the record, you’d easily make my list of “Blogger Chicks Who Totally Remind Me Of The Type Of Chick I Would Fuck And Call Back The Next Day” (I’m a gentleman), and I know this will come as a shock to many of my fans out there, there aren’t any girls under 18 on that list (or any other list of mine). This might be shocking, but I actually enjoy normal, healthy relationships with women my own age. I also think people might want to consider the idea that it’s possible to care about youth without having an… undue fondness for them. I also, for the record, do not own a van.

But if I did, oh damn, what a van it would be. I could put flames on the side and hang up my Spider-Man poster inside. Maybe I could keep a mini-fridge in the back and store some limes in there to help ward off scurvy. A guy can dream.

Anyhow… Moe, look me up next time you’re in DC.

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.

Anyone remember Choose Your Own Adventure books?

Check this out, it is hilarious.

Btw, if he signs with the Tigers we win the World Series.

A thread on the NYRA forum discussed recent comments Ann Coulter made about how everyone should become Christian and how (as she was talking to a Jewish host) Jews would be perfected by becoming Christian. Some responses:

It’s understood that what she was saying about her own religion was a philosophical interpretation. That’s all well and good. But she also said specifically, “Jews need to be perfected.” I don’t see how that isn’t anti-semitic.

—-

Ann Coulter is an ugly, batshit insane bitch. While I may not agree with people like Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh or Pat Buchanan, I can at least respect them and they are civil. On the other hand, Ann Coulter is raving nutcase.

—-

What she said was definitely anti-semitic. She is saying that Jews cannot be complete without being Christian. Like Jews are 4/5 of a person and the only way that they can become complete is to convert to Christianity.

Oh please.

There isn’t anything the slightest bit anti-semitic about what she said.

How do Orthodox Jews feel about non-practicing or reform Jews? I highly doubt they consider their beliefs (or lack of beliefs) to be an entirely acceptable and equal alternative to their own. I’ll go out on a limb and assume that those Orthodox that strive to keep all of God’s commandments consider themselves “perfected Jews” and everyone else as falling from the one true path.

Are they being anti-semitic too?

What then of Christianity, which represents the next set of God’s laws for his people (Jews) and everyone else? Admittedly, most Christians do a poor job of following the teachings of the Bible, and in my opinion Coulter’s brand of Christianity does a poorer job than most, but we seek to follow God’s commandments. What is wrong with that? And what is wrong with wishing that others seek to follow those commandments as well?

Is there something offensive about liberals who want everyone to vote for Democrats? Or anti-war protesters who want to convince people to believe the war is unjust? Or with us for supporting youth rights and wanting the world to support it too. We, like all people, believe our principles and beliefs are correct. We aren’t some cult that is just going to go off into a desert and live a youth rights life and write off the rest of the world. No, we want to make their lives better, and make the world better by “converting” everyone to the “Gospel” of youth rights. Yes, Jews too.

Are we anti-semitic for wanting to perfect Jews by convincing them of the rightness of youth rights?

Or has relativism and moral equivilency seeped into everyones brains so far there is no such thing as right or wrong, even with things you yourself believe in?

“Oh, you think kids should be beaten to death in gulag schools for their own good? Oh, well if that’s what you believe, ok, it would be improper and offensive of me to try and change your mind and dare to suggest that my beliefs are better than yours.”

You can call me all manner of foul names like anti-semite, but yes, I do believe Jews (and most Christians btw) would benefit from following the teachings of Jesus and the Bible. I also believe everyone would benefit from following the teachings of John Holt and Mike Males. I also believe that if the country agreed with me on the war and the economy and the death penalty and immigration and every other political issue that we’d all be better off. If I didn’t think that, then there is no reason to have political, social, philosophic or religious beliefs at all.

So, we should just accept Democrats, Republicans, Nazis, Communists and Islamic Terrorists as all equally valid philosophies that shouldn’t be convinced otherwise?

Personally I think that is the only really offensive point of view.

Then again, how would this work the other way around? Jews believe themselves to be God’s “Chosen People” (and I and most Christians do too of course), is that a racist, bigoted thing to say? Should we, the forces of pluralism and tolerance, demand that Judaism repudiate the notion that they are God’s chosen people in case non-Jews are offended by such an audacious claim? Are all Jews then, anti-Gentilites?

Iraq was a totalitarian state. Iran is an authoritarian state. You think Iran allows semi-free elections (albeit between mullah vetted candidates) which Iraq under Saddam did not do, cause the Mullahs have read Burke and Aristotle and believe in limited democracy? Nah, its cause theyre afraid if they dont allow enough room to vent, they will fall.

If unemployment raises significantly they will face some very serious dilemmas. That can be achieved with sanctions far lighter than those imposed on Iraq.

Most Iranians support having nuclear weapons, hardliners and reformers alike. If we impose sanctions or invade them it’ll just stir up patriotic fervor and unite all sides of the political spectrum in Iran into more radicalism and anti-Americanism/westernism.

Iran isn’t as ethnically/religiously divided and bitter as Iraq, it won’t devolve into civil war, they’ll unify against us. We should be doing what we can behind the scenes to support reform movements within Iran. The Mullahs aren’t as hands on as most people say, the democratically elected government has a lot of leeway. I’m sure that if the President didn’t have much of a desire to get nukes then Iran wouldn’t.

Actually there was a pretty strong reform movement just a few years ago. Sadly the United States decided it would be a good idea to conquer Iran’s neighbors, surround it militarily and include it in the axis of evil. So understandably that scared the crap out of Iran and they elected a hardliner who promised to protect them. Comparing the situation of its fellow axis of evil members, Iraq and North Korea the most obvious lesson to be learned is that Saddam’s greatest sin is that he didn’t actually have nukes, whereas we don’t dare invade North Korea since they have a nuclear deterrent. Obviously Iran wants to be safe from US invasion as well.

So what can be done now that everything is fucked up? Good question.

A few thoughts… Work with Iran on stitching Iraq back together (like that commission suggested). Develop some better relations that way. Elect someone new in ‘08 who doesn’t scare the bejeezus out of the world. Get our troops the heck out of Iraq (while somehow leaving it a successful, stable, and hopefully democratic country (yea, yea, waaay tougher than it looks)).

Maybe enact some very limited and specific sanctions on Iran only dealing with nuclear weapon systems and materials. But do everything through the UN. Do what we have to to get China & Russia on board. Take invasion off the table completely. Obviously it isn’t going to happen anyhow, we are too bogged down in Iraq, so why hold onto a toothless threat? Put a non-invasion pledge on the table and use it to negotiate concessions regarding nukes.

Beef up Radio Free Iran (if such a thing exists). Restore official relations with Iran, do some student exchanges, cultural understanding and let our relations thaw. Let Iranians see our softer side, teach them the value of real democracy and let things run their course. I firmly believe Iran isn’t as bad off as everyone makes them out to be. Any country where the opposition is brave enough to heckle and disrupt the President’s speech and the government is tolerant enough to not put those people to death or throw them into a dank cell for 50 years is an incredibly far cry from totalitarianism and wouldn’t measure up to the label of authoritarian either imho.

If all fails and they get close to getting nukes anyhow, well the fail safe is that Israel will just bomb them on their own. Let them take the heat, the main reason for opposing Iranian nukes is to protect Israel anyhow, so let them tend to their own defense instead of us always taking the heat for them. It isn’t like the Muslim world is going to hate them any worse than they already do. Plus, with the growing Sunni-Shi’ite divide, who knows, maybe some Arab countries will be relieved that Israel bombed Iran.

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