And yes, some of it is based in racism. Like my mother asking me if there were any white people in my neighborhood. Um, the only marauding gang of young men, black in this case, that I've encountered were the ones who pushed my car out of a snowdrift during the godawful blizzard we had in March.:)
Some of it is just based in irrational fear of "the city." There is no reason for my boyfriend's mother to believe there is a high likelihood of someone in a large group of people getting mugged in a city park on a Saturday afternoon, but well, it's "the city." And that kind of BS really pisses me off.
It isn't only racial minorities that people were trying to move away from, it was also religious minorities. For a while, being Jewish or even Catholic in a WASP neighborhood was every bit as "bad" as being black.
And even more than that, flight to the suburbs is an attempt to get away from that which is "different" from you, in whatever way you find that "difference" disturbing. Maybe you've got no problem living next door to black people, but gay couples freak you out. Etc. *shrug*
Celebration and such may fix the dependence on cars and similar environmental factors, but otherwise it's just adding to the problem. Then again, this country was founded on people who thought moving away from neighbors they didn't like would fix everything.:P
That said, Celebration et al aren't exactly fixing the problem. In fact, they're contributing to it.
I'm one of those urban-by-choice folks who feels incredibly strongly about the issue, but the problem I have with both the standard suburbs and "planned communities" like Celebration is they are carefully orchestrated to keep so-called "undesirables" out.
Now, if someone's breaking the law or creating a huge nuisance, I don't want to live with that either, and I'm going to call in the local law enforcement to deal with the issue. But speaking from personal experience, I've had very little in the way of problems since I moved to the city I now live in, in a supposedly "bad" neighborhood. I had much more trouble in the suburb I grew up in and in the college towns I went to school in.
The USA has a long history of thinking that moving someplace else will solve all your problems. Hell, it's how this country was founded.:P
The more intelligent response seems to me to be, wherever you live, to get to know your neighbors, set up some kind of Neighborhood Watch program, and realize that not everyone on your street is going to be the same color or religion or anything else as you. And just learn to deal with it! *sigh*
... there are three types of net-addicts out there (and yes, I've posted something similar to this before): those addicted to convenience, those addicted to information, and those addicted to fantasy.
The first type is the impatient I-want-it-NOW sort of person. Probably s/he's also got a cell phone and/or a pager, and gets real unhappy if the SO isn't in constant contact, or if the circle of friends isn't heard from at least twice a day. Mostly does things that s/he would be doing anyhow, but does 'em all online because it is (or seems) faster than more conventional methods. If the net connection goes down, they turn to the phone. If the phone is down, they might well drive out to see the people they maintain constant contact with.
The second type (and I am admittedly one of them) probably has an obscure interest or several, and definitely has a lot of intellectual curiosity. If their net connection dies, they might get a little twitchy at first, but will probably search out a large bookstore or some other non-Net source of info. (And hey, I've been offline for 15 days because I was at Pennsic. No Internet hookup there! Didn't bother me much, but now I have to clean out Ye Olde Inbox.)
The third type tends to be sort of the stereotypical net-junkie who lacks RL social skills. I also saw this a lot with gay and bi friends who were not comfortable being out of the closet IRL, and pagan friends who weren't comfortable with being out of the broom closet IRL. The 'net is a security blanket, and an excuse to avoid a reality perceived as unpleasant. They are the ones who are really lost if the plug gets pulled.
To my way of thinking, the third type is the most self-destructive (though occasionally, the first type has other problems like being a controlling and even abusive mate).
The main problem with type 2 net addicts like myself is that occasionally productivity goes out the window if we're off chasing after 17th century poetry or whatever (or reading/. for that matter). And of course it's not as clear-cut as all that; sometimes someone who started out as a type 1 or 2 ends up being a type 3, and sometimes type 3s end up finding local folks that they're comfortable with and revert to being one of the other types or even non-addicted.
I'm not a programmer, I'm a techincal writer. And I'm damn good at it. I may or may not go back to school for some programming "stuff" eventually (there is a nearby program in Computational Science that looks nifty and interesitng).
I'm not "hideous" looking, but I am also NOT AVAILABLE. I'm also young enough to be the daughter of the average staff engineer that I work with. And lemme tell ya, nobody has coddled me. I wouldn't put up with it.
I believe that a widespread lack of social graces would lead people to think that we're not as well rounded as other people
And precisely WHICH social graces would these be?
OK, here's where I'm coming from. I'm female, first of all, and I'm also bi, and from college onward I haven't had any real problems with getting a date (other than the occasional crushes on gay men and straight women, but that's neither here nor there). My boyfriend (student-geek-in-training) and I are about to celebrate our one-year anniversary at Pennsic.
I did get the "chance" to see "how the other half lives," and I don't like it. I don't call the truly BAD pick-up lines I've received in the past from less "geeky" sorts "social graces," I call them rude behavior. I also don't see a whole lot of "social grace" in an older guy taking an underage girl to the bar and getting her drunk in the hopes of "getting some" later.
Not to say that meaningless sex and/or sex with someone who is "just a friend" and/or one night stands are inherently bad (I've experienced all three). But from my experience, most tech-types that I've known don't want something superficial, and some of them haven't figured out how to invest the energy in something that won't be superficial. And I don't call picking up chicks and watching football "social grace." Far form it.
In my experience, "geeks" have MORE class, not less. A pickup line that actually worked on me was "Do you mind if I flirt with you for a little while?" I didn't mind, and we're still together. "Nice boots, wanna fuck?" would not have had the same effect.:P
*grin* That's why I'd be likely to do it if I was independently wealthy and didn't care how much money I was losing. I'd love to stay in business to be a thorn in their sides.
But that's just me, and I'm a bit annoyed lately because a local bookstore folded thanks to B&N, Borders, etc. Fortunately, Blue Sunday (all used books, lots of good stuff, and wonderful coffee) is alive and well in my area. I just wish they weren't all the way the heck out in the only-accessible-by-car suburbs. I'd love to open a similar business in the middle of the city:)
Hoping that other ISPs will follow suit IF they have spammers?
Seems to me that any ISP which doesn't have some sort of substantial and followed-up-on policy to discourage spammers (and some that do) is going to have spammers sending from their service from time to time.:P
I agree that it's a good thing that he is donating to charity, but a company that does something damaging and then makes a big show of donating to charity (or, as Kodak is doing here, of reminding people about past donations) just doesn't sit right with me, somehow.
Kodak's founder put a lot of money into establishing music programs and dental clinics -- a local dental school and a well-known music college both bear George Eastman's name.
However, at the moment, I'd say that most of the Rochester area is substantially pissed at Kodak's current business practices. We're all well aware that George Eastman was a nice guy for giving all tihs money to things that still benefit our city. But Eastman's been dead for a while now, and yet the current powers-that-be at Kodak can still point to his good works even as they continue to close plants and threaten large layoffs in the name of "good business practice."
Sorry, I know I'm ranting. The point is that no matter how "generous" you are with a fortune, getting that fortune by stepping on other people does a lot of damage. It's all well and good to see the "reformed" Scrooge, but perhaps Tiny Tim would have been a healthy child in the first place if Scrooge had paid his father a decent wage to begin with.
*chuckles* My mom (a civil servant) is talking about taking "early retirement" and in her case that means 55 years old! This guy from AOL retired at the age my mom had me. Scary.
If I were in a position to retire that early, I wouldn't stay retired for long. My boyfriend and I have been talking about opening a bookstore for a while now, and that would make it a lot easier to do (not to mention, we could stay in business even if the darn thing started to lose money).
But hey, I'm only partially a slacker -- enough to be wasting some of my workday on/. but not enough to wish I didn't have to work at all. I kind of like having a reason to get up in the morning, and it's not just for the money:)
This is part of the reason I'm partying with the Baron this New Year's. Lots of interesting weaponry is sure to be on hand.
Think swords. Battleaxes and crossbows are good, too. And make sure you look like you know how to use whatever it is you've got. Plenty of SCA-folk can tell you funny stories about stopping various would-be attackers and theives with medieval weaponry.
Hey, even in Pulp Fiction, a katana made a much cooler weapon than a chainsaw. *grin*
I used to work for a bank, and briefly for a medical school. I now work for the local gas and electric company. At all three of those places, the general understanding of where the potential problems are has been quite clear, and they are being worked on in a very sane and rational fashion. At least in my immediate area, the lights are unlikely to go out, the banks aren't going to "lose" your money, and the hospitals will be operational. I'm not worried. Anyone who lives in my area (Rochester, NY) who is worried about any of the above shouldn't be.
That said, here's the stuff I am worried about:
1. Rochester, NY is a pretty high-tech area, given the schools and industries that live there. It's no real wonder, then, that we're OK and not too given to panic. However, parts of the country that are not as technology-intensive or knowledgable might have problems.
2. If you think other parts of the US have it bad, Europe and Japan have serious Y2K problems. Especially Europe, from what I've read, since they were silly enough to try to do the Euro conversion last year instead of concentrating on Y2K.
3, Due to issue #2, as well as the sudden "bust" in demand for programmers once Y2K fixing season is over, the economy is likely to, in the long term, do Bad Things. I jokingly made a "Y2K food stockpile" last spring and was very grateful for it when I lost my job in June. I'm replenishing it for use in the event of a similar situation.
4. I am very concerned about the Crazy People. There seem to be several different sets of them: the fundies who are expecting either the Anti-Christ or the second coming of Jesus, the anti-technology sorts who are looking for an excuse to have everyone go back to the land, and the "darkside" sorts who are convinced that all of a sudden there is going to be a Shadowrun-like scenario and it will suddenly become possible to throw fireballs and there will be a Great War between law and chaos blahblahblah, are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
5. Due to the fundie version of the above, if enough of them can get into enough power based on all the hype, real damage could get done to religious and intellectual freedom in the United States. This is NOT something I want to deal with.
6. The nuts that head for the hills to avoid the "rioters." The opportunists who break into the houses of the nuts and start looting. My boyfriend tried to convince me to leave the city on 12/31/99 but I am not going to. I'm going to be at Baron Devon's New Years Eve Party with most of the rest of the local SCA group, and if the lights go out and all the other nasty stuff happens, we're well-equipped to deal with it. We've got candles, camping equipment, and weapons if necessary.:)
The problem is not so much violence which has, after all, been around as long as the human race (if not longer -- some animals are pretty violent).
The problem is the increasing need for instant gratification, without thinking about the consequences, whatever they might be. Kids learn "I want that -- gimme that!" at a very young age, and that mentality leads to more social problems than exposure to the Seven Dirty Words or to nudie pix ever will.:)
*nod* *sigh* I just had a very long discussion about this kind of stuff with a very good friend of mine. Post-Columbine, she started supporting restrictions that she would have found unacceptable before. I keep pointing out that THE WRONG THINGS are being restricted, and she says "so, should we restrict nothing?"
What bothers me is that this person is a lesbian and Jewish. She should know better than to side with most of the folks who are decrying the decadence of American culture these days, because the let's-blow-things-up violence in a kid's movie like SW:TPM, which is what is freaking her out, is NOT what they are really complaining about. Personally, I don't enjoy shooting myself in the foot.
I'm real militant on this issue because as an "out" bisexual and as a pagan, I know just how screwed I'm going to be if the Religious Reich ever gets its way. And when someone who shares those characteristics with me starts getting cozy with the perceived enemies-of-their-enemies, I get very upset because I know that they're going to be the next target of those who wish to censor and monitor. This is very much not a good thing. There is all sorts of potential for truly hideous abuse to go on here. *sigh* The posting of "... and then they came for me" elsewhere on comments for this article is far too relevant.:(
They may not be bothering with Dead stickers (a very silly thing to do in any case in an area with so many colleges), but the suburban cops are allegedly "bothering" those who "drive while black" in some areas. Big local news item these days.
But no, Rochester doesn't seem to be a bad area for most bumper stickers. Rainbow and other gay pride stickers are OK, and the "Pagan and Proud" birthday present that is going up on my car as soon as I find it again shouldn't be a problem. And of course, I'll be putting up an SCA or AEthelmearc Kingdom sticker soon too, because it's the easiest way to get friendly roadside assistance going to and from events. *grin*
Me, I wish they'd bother to pull over the pizza delivery guys who drive down Route 383 on the wrong side of the road and/or the bozos who hit and run cats on said road. (I live there. One week, I saw three different road kill cats on three different sections of NY383. I was upset. I have two cats who stay inside because I don't want them to be next. One of them got out once, though. Scared me.)
*sigh* That's always been the thing that bothers me. There's enough REAL problems going on, sometimes where you'd least expected it, that you'd think the cops would have better things to do than profile people who "look suspicious" to their all-too-often narrow minds. *grumble*
On the one hand, I'm not one to encourage needless paranoia. On the other hand, I don't like this.
I'm in a fairly militant mood these days for both personal reasons (as discussed on the Ticket Booth Tyranny thread) and political ones ( Damien Echols' Rule 37 appeal was denied, and I'm very pissed about it).
Post-Columbine, a friend of mine was given trouble for wearing a BEIGE trenchcoat. If the Powers That Be (or anyone else) start looking for a certain "profile," then anyone who has anything in common with that profile is screwed. Where I live, there have been a lot of recent stories concerning racial profiling. (Maybe THAT is why more African-Americans aren't on the net. *wry smile*)
But of course, it's not just race. If someone wants a scapegoat, it's easy to pick a likely-looking one. This goes on in schools, it goes on in law enforcement, and it goes on in politics.
I'm not over-cautious with personal info because I don't feel I have to hide things from people. However, I realize that if things in this country get really crazy, I'm going to be one of the first people that gets harassed for being a social deviant.
The FBI's probably got a file on me as it is, but as long as I'm not kicked out of my housing or prevented from getting a job or arrested for something I didn't do (or something I did do that shouldn't be illegal), I don't give a damn. However, I've got contacts, resources, and what-have-you; many of my fellow social deviants aren't quite so lucky.
So I fight for their right to keep their correspondence and personal details private. And since some of them talk to me over e-mail, I don't want anyone reading my e-mail either. Things that I do that are public or semi-public record (/. posts, my web page, petitions I've signed, that sort of thing) are obviously things that I don't mind having traced back to me. But there are a lot of people who can't or choose not to be as open as I am, and dammit, that's their right. (Even in the current atmosphere of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, for instance, I'm sure some homophobic military types would love to scan e-mail looking for anything that might suggest a soldier is gay. *sigh*)
Another big problem here is that people don't profile for actual criminals as often as they seem to for stereotypical criminals. Racial profiling is a major example of this -- black man driving nice car in suburbs, wonder how he got it? Drug money? Let's stop him. Etc. Satanic Panic based profiling is another biggie; there is no other reasonable explanation for why Damien Echols is on death row and his two friends are in prison serving life sentences. With net-based searches, we'd get the additional problem of "profiling" of anyone who, say, visited 2600's website.
I, personally, have nothing to hide, and haven't suffered much in the way of harassment. But damned if I'm going to make it easier for other people to have their lives ruined for no good reason.
All of the above working together, and yes this includes the kids, dammit! After all, who does it concern most, if not them?
With respect to the filtering/censorware debate, I will NOT support CyberSitter and the like. I *do* support programs like SafeSurf and RSACi. I know that my pages are likely to contain "adult" themes (case in point: Kindred Spirits, my Amber fanfic), but it's certainly no worse than the VC Andrews novels that were passed around by my 9th grade classmates and available in our school library. I don't think my pages, at least not those pages, are much of a threat to anyone who has read the original Amber series in the first place. (Die-hard storyline purists hate me, but that's beside the point.)
As far as R-rated movies go, I thought the original rating standard was "under 17 must have permission of parent or guardian." I could be wrong, but in practice, that was how many theaters operated, and it seems to me to be the most sensible practice. Parents could give kids permission to see certain R-rated movies or all R-rated moves, and that could be on file with the theater. Perhaps the kids would have to bring a "movie card" with their name on it like a video rental card, and would have to "sign" for tickets. For those who are under 17, and whose parents will allow them to see the movies, I think that is a reasonable compromise.
Unfortunately, I've dealt with enough unreasonable parents that I worry. The Baron of my SCA group is a high-school English teacher, and he was flat-out told to stop teaching a certain book because something ridiculous like two parents in the entire school system objected. Not only that, the book was then yanked from the school library. He had no chance to defend himself, no chance to even respond, he was just told "you upset a parent and you can't do that."
This is lunacy. Jennifer's parents have no right to tell Jason and Jessica what they can't read -- Jason and Jessica don't belong to Jennifer's parents. At best, Jennifer's parents have the right to control what Jennifer reads, and I'd say that that falls apart as soon as Jennifer's old enough to walk or bus to the library by herself, or at minimum as soon as Jennifer's got the spending money saved up to buy whatever book she wants at Borders or via amazon.com.
The same thing frightens me here that frightens me with censorware and other such things. The people who are going to be reasonable human beings and discuss things rationally with their kids aren't the people who are going to feel the need to use CyberSitter and its ilk. At most, they'll set up a RSACi or SafeSurf filter for their young kids, or just tell them to keep out of porn sites.
The ones who want this stuff are the nuts. Remember from a few years back the "child molestor" on AOL who turned out to be a 19-year-old guy who fell in love with the (IIRC) 16-year-old gay son of some very homophobic parents?
I don't know precisely how to fix it. But it would be a big help if people talked to their kids and actually LISTENED to them instead of kneejerk reacting to "bad things" (like assuming that someone's support of medical marijuana means that s/he is a stoner him/herself -- blah). And unfortunately, the ones who don't want to be open with their kids about anything are the ones who want the censorware and the carding at R-rated movies.
First of all, buddy, there's a difference between just "working" at a convenience store and being the shift manager (read: Buck-Stops-Here Person) for the store. ESPECIALLY the night shift manager.
Secondly, he's probably doing more actual WORK than either you or I are doing, considering that we're posting to/. Think about it.
And I didn't loan him ANY money... in fact, he sprang for pizza after we got him moved. All we put in was the time. Where the hell did I say I loaned him $20? I'm just bouncing back from being unemployed; it's not like I HAVE an extra $20 to loan anyone right now. Of course now, you probably think that I'm the loser, because I was out of work for 4 weeks. Never mind that it happened at the worst possible time, and the last two of those weeks were spent sitting by the phone because my temp agency "thought they had something" and then were suddenly told things like "our president says no contractors" by the client company.
The situation as a whole is much more complex than I have any business getting into here, but it sure as hell ain't "Clerks." And it's not like his parents were exactly going to spring for school, either.
I've MET his parents. They are scary and screwed up people. I honestly believe they kicked him out because they thought he was going to be the next Eric Harris and wanted nothing to do with him. After all, he wears a black trenchcoat and is in possession of an air rifle and a not-very-sharp katana.:P
I don't care if you pulled yourself up from abject poverty or if you were born with a silver foot in your mouth like George Bush -- not everyone is you. And you're STILL wrong.
Issue #1 is the original incident that Jon Katz witnessed, and others like it. In other words, not allowing kids to see movies they HAD the permission to see, but that the parent wasn't going to stay for. This could have easily become an issue in my life; Mom had no interest in The Crying Game (she likes romantic comedies to the exclusion of almost all else) but had absolutely no problem with her 15-year-old daughter watching it. Dad was actually interested in seeing it, but he's a workaholic who might not have found the time while still in the theaters. ("No, really, two tickets to see this R-rated movie, for me and my Dad. He'll be here any minute..." I'm sure THAT would've gone over well!)
Issue #2 is that ADULTS are getting screwed with here. If I'd had to put up with that nonsense when I was picking up opening-night tickets to Elizabeth for myself (21) and my boyfriend (20), I would have been quite irritated. To say the least.
Issue #3 is closed-minded parents who scream at their kids for wanting to see a movie that happens to be rated R rather than forming independent judgments. As per my previous rant, Father doesn't always Know Best. I was incredibly blessed to have a father who was relatively into the same sort of entertainment that I was (lots of deep symbolism, lots of satire, British humour is way up there, etc) and remembered to share it with me as soon as it would do anything other than completely go over my head.
Issue #3A is that teenagers in this country are, in general, guilty until proven innocent. That there link that I just posted is about a miscarriage of justice that pre-dates Columbine by nearly six years, and has yet to be rectified. As I've posted on yesterday's thread, there is a real problem with folks assuming that your basic "oddball" teenager is going to be Conducting Depraved Satanic Rituals and Committing Heinous Crimes for Satan.
Foolish hysteria like what we are now witnessing WRT movie theaters tends to have very nasty results. Read everything on that link if you don't believe me. Three guys about my age are in jail for a crime that occurred six years ago that they clearly did not commit; one of them is on Death Row. Every time I see someone using that lovely catch-all bogeyman "Satanism" as part of what kids shouldn't see, I cringe, because I remember the West Memphis Three case.
And thanks to Littleton, something like the WM3 case is much more likely to happen again. This is an outrage. Here's a clue: Quit treating teenagers like lobotomized children, and 99% of them won't act like they are! Hello??
New Year's Eve 1988/89. Just me, Mom, and Dad. Dad is blenderizing these yummy-looking things made out of champagne and orange sherbet, which I am staring longingly at. Dad smiles at me and says "Go ahead, have as much as you want!" Over the course of the night, I proceed to have three full glasses of the stuff.
Bear in mind that as this is going on I was 11 years old, just under 5' tall, and pretty skinny. But it tasted good...! The headache the next day was a "be more moderate next time" lesson.:)
True story, Part II:
As I've mentioned before, I went away to college quite young. One of my friends from MBC/PEG is an immigrant from Eastern Europe, and the laws are a bit different there. Her mom sent me a care package as a 16th birthday present that, much to my amusement, included a bottle of wine.
Dad took one look at the label and said, "I'd let you have it, but that's not very good wine. Want me to get you something better?"
*heh* My father is an awesome guy:)
As I got a bit older (though not technically "legal"), I developed my own "rules" for how to handle alcohol: It had to be something that tasted good to me anyway (not that this is difficult -- I can be talked into trying new things quite easily), I cut myself off after two drinks unless I was around people I trusted, and over time with said trusted people I learned where my "limits" were. Oh, and I did more than my share of the taking-keys-away drill.
The drinking age has always been this irritating little thorn in my side because most of my friends turned 21 waaaaaay before I did and many of them "dumped" me for the bar scene. My best friend (and now-housemate) was nearing 22 and pretty much over that when we first became close, and I was not quite 17 at that point. Via Jason and similar-aged friends, I could get all the alcohol I could possibly want.
What I couldn't do (except in this one place that was incredibly lax about carding, yet somehow not frequented by most of the college kids) is sit down with my friends and have a drink. One drink. And now I have a younger boyfriend who is still underage, so I still don't go out to bars -- haven't been in one since my birthday, in fact.:)
(And in an amusing bit of irony WRT this thread, half the time I don't even get carded in restaurants or grocery stores -- only in liquor stores themselves. And I just turned 21 last October! The aforementioned bar was the place I was taken for my birthday and THEY didn't card me, either! Then again, considering the huge crowd that turned up, and my "It's my birthday -- who's buying?" pin, they probably knew. *chuckles*)
Disclaimer: I actually don't drink very much these days. Wine or a cocktail with meals out if I'm in that sort of mood (which happens maybe once or twice a month), the odd Killian's or cider when hanging out with friends, and this lovely homebrew mead that my friend Michael makes, if he's willing to share some...:) Seriously, that's about it.
My boyfriend and I just spent last Saturday helping a friend of ours move for the second time in two months. The first time was when his parents kicked him out for not mowing the lawn.
He's 21. He is a night shift manager at a convenience store. They didn't understand that after coming home at 10 AM because the next guy didn't show till then, he needed to SLEEP before being expected to do anything useful.
But behind all that: He's a long-haired, black-trenchcoat-wearing, RPG-playing, pagan techno-geek. His dear old dad is a Bible-thumping, hellfire and brimstone fundie who has been screaming "SATANIST!" at him for several years now.
I had a similar run-in with my mother four and a half years ago when I came out to her as bisexual. And she's pretty liberal -- were I to have told her I'm a lesbian, that would have been fine. But obviously bisexual = screws anything that moves (um, NOT!)
Yet another friend of mine, one I looked upon as a kid-sister in college, was disowned by her parents for changing her major from a curriculum she was failing to one she understood. The real kicker here is, she's adopted. And they used that against her, no less. "Adopted kids tend to have mental problems because a stable mother wouldn't have given a child up for adoption, or even had sex before marriage" yaddayaddayadda.
And I won't even get into all the teenagers I've talked to in ISCA's support forum who are being physically and/or sexually abused by family members, or alternatively who are in the middle of a nasty custody battle between their parents where one side is accusing the other of same.
Walk a mile in the other folks' shoes, people. And while you're at it, try not to step in the "Father Always Knows Best" manure.
Sorry. This is just unusually immediate to me right now.
Seriously, folks. I can think of a lot of parents with kids my age or slightly younger who have nice, open, friendly relationships with them. Mom and I have pretty much mended our rift, and Dad's always been supportive of me regardless of what craziness I'm into -- everything from modeling school to student activism. He rocks.
And again, if the parents are giving permission, what the hell is wrong with a 15-16 year old kid belonging to the local Rocky cast? Beats hanging out on the streets, folks. But NOOOOO, RHPS is an R-rated movie, and all of a sudden won't let anyone under 17 in even WITH a parent. Bwah? I don't get it. This is completely inane.
Father doesn't necessarily know best; neither does Big Brother. Kids handle all kinds of stuff in everyday life that most of us would rather not think about or remember. How, praytell, is a string of cuss words or a naked breast or *gasp* a lesbian kiss scene going to do any further damage?:P
A local friend of mine (via the SCA) is a software test engineer at a large local company. She's also old enough to be my mom.
She can also code the pants off of any of my local contemporaries. And while she is single (giving weight to the argument that she could do this because she has no life), she finds the time to: sing in her church choir, participate quite actively in the SCA, make most of her own clothes ("everything but underwear, jeans, T-shirts, and shoes," she claims -- I think shoes are next on her list), and work a good bit on her woodcutting/furniture-building hobby.
She recently got recognized for 25 years of service at a company that is continually "downsizing" its people out of their jobs. (Anyone from my neck of the woods knows which company, and possibly even the lady in question.)
As you can see, I have a heck of a lot of respect and admiration for this woman. So do most of my friends my age. And she seems to like having us around, since she has no children of her own and likes passing on knowledge about everything from computers to drop-spindles.
Should the fool company she works for be ungrateful enough to downsize her, any place else would be incredibly lucky to have her. But they'd take one look at her (since she does not exactly look young), or see her "25 years of service," and ignore her in favor of new blood.
Indeed, that will be a sad day. *knocks on wood that The Company leaves her job alone*
Go check out the link from my previous post on this thread. Or try going here, and jumping to the website ratings and warnings section. I like the idea of filters like RSACi or SafeSurf, which have the ability to differentiate between a chicken breast recipe, a breastfeeding mother, naked breasts in a work of art, naked breasts in Playboy, and a man with a breast fetish doing X-rated things to them.:)
I don't know as much about CyberPatrol, but I do know that CyberSitter has done a lot of very stupid things: blocking an entire site for hosting a gay square dance page, making "mistress" a not-allowed word (webmistresses and listmistresses take note!), blocking any use of the phrase "Don't Buy CyberSitter," messing with TCP streams at a level that makes it possible for programs to break, and threatening/e-mailbombing folks who disagree with any of the above. Lovely way to run a business, folks.:P
When my new page is up (I'm moving off of GeoCities as soon as I have the time, energy, and a decent computer to get everything restructured), I'm rating with RSACi, SafeSurf, and VCR. I *know* I've got a lot of at-least-PG13 stuff on my pages, and forewarned is forearmed and all that, but by the same token, any kid old enough to read the original Chronicles of Amber is probably old enough to deal with the contents of my web site.:)
OK, so it doesn't have the work-stopping impact of an actual strike, but what college president wants to have himself and his policies painted in an embarassing light by the local media? That, and picketing the aforementioned prez's house on Christmas Eve... *grin*
There are plenty of ways to be disruptive and call attention to the problems without stopping work. I remember when I was younger and my father wore his "MVCC: Not a Happy Family" button to work every day for most of a YEAR, and was only too happy to explain it to anyone who asked....
That reminds me, did anyone else see an article recently that talked about how CyberSitter is now blocking net-commerce because some folks find themselves addicted to spending money online? It'd be hysterically funny if it wasn't so sad.:P
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think so. Try unjustified fear.
And yes, some of it is based in racism. Like my mother asking me if there were any white people in my neighborhood. Um, the only marauding gang of young men, black in this case, that I've encountered were the ones who pushed my car out of a snowdrift during the godawful blizzard we had in March.
Some of it is just based in irrational fear of "the city." There is no reason for my boyfriend's mother to believe there is a high likelihood of someone in a large group of people getting mugged in a city park on a Saturday afternoon, but well, it's "the city." And that kind of BS really pisses me off.
People scare too easily, what can I say?
It isn't only racial minorities that people were trying to move away from, it was also religious minorities. For a while, being Jewish or even Catholic in a WASP neighborhood was every bit as "bad" as being black.
And even more than that, flight to the suburbs is an attempt to get away from that which is "different" from you, in whatever way you find that "difference" disturbing. Maybe you've got no problem living next door to black people, but gay couples freak you out. Etc. *shrug*
Celebration and such may fix the dependence on cars and similar environmental factors, but otherwise it's just adding to the problem. Then again, this country was founded on people who thought moving away from neighbors they didn't like would fix everything.
That said, Celebration et al aren't exactly fixing the problem. In fact, they're contributing to it.
I'm one of those urban-by-choice folks who feels incredibly strongly about the issue, but the problem I have with both the standard suburbs and "planned communities" like Celebration is they are carefully orchestrated to keep so-called "undesirables" out.
Now, if someone's breaking the law or creating a huge nuisance, I don't want to live with that either, and I'm going to call in the local law enforcement to deal with the issue. But speaking from personal experience, I've had very little in the way of problems since I moved to the city I now live in, in a supposedly "bad" neighborhood. I had much more trouble in the suburb I grew up in and in the college towns I went to school in.
The USA has a long history of thinking that moving someplace else will solve all your problems. Hell, it's how this country was founded.
The more intelligent response seems to me to be, wherever you live, to get to know your neighbors, set up some kind of Neighborhood Watch program, and realize that not everyone on your street is going to be the same color or religion or anything else as you. And just learn to deal with it! *sigh*
... there are three types of net-addicts out there (and yes, I've posted something similar to this before): those addicted to convenience, those addicted to information, and those addicted to fantasy.
The first type is the impatient I-want-it-NOW sort of person. Probably s/he's also got a cell phone and/or a pager, and gets real unhappy if the SO isn't in constant contact, or if the circle of friends isn't heard from at least twice a day. Mostly does things that s/he would be doing anyhow, but does 'em all online because it is (or seems) faster than more conventional methods. If the net connection goes down, they turn to the phone. If the phone is down, they might well drive out to see the people they maintain constant contact with.
The second type (and I am admittedly one of them) probably has an obscure interest or several, and definitely has a lot of intellectual curiosity. If their net connection dies, they might get a little twitchy at first, but will probably search out a large bookstore or some other non-Net source of info. (And hey, I've been offline for 15 days because I was at Pennsic. No Internet hookup there! Didn't bother me much, but now I have to clean out Ye Olde Inbox.)
The third type tends to be sort of the stereotypical net-junkie who lacks RL social skills. I also saw this a lot with gay and bi friends who were not comfortable being out of the closet IRL, and pagan friends who weren't comfortable with being out of the broom closet IRL. The 'net is a security blanket, and an excuse to avoid a reality perceived as unpleasant. They are the ones who are really lost if the plug gets pulled.
To my way of thinking, the third type is the most self-destructive (though occasionally, the first type has other problems like being a controlling and even abusive mate).
The main problem with type 2 net addicts like myself is that occasionally productivity goes out the window if we're off chasing after 17th century poetry or whatever (or reading
:)
I'm not a programmer, I'm a techincal writer. And I'm damn good at it. I may or may not go back to school for some programming "stuff" eventually (there is a nearby program in Computational Science that looks nifty and interesitng).
I'm not "hideous" looking, but I am also NOT AVAILABLE. I'm also young enough to be the daughter of the average staff engineer that I work with. And lemme tell ya, nobody has coddled me. I wouldn't put up with it.
So there.
I believe that a widespread lack of social graces would lead people to think that we're not as well rounded as other people
And precisely WHICH social graces would these be?
OK, here's where I'm coming from. I'm female, first of all, and I'm also bi, and from college onward I haven't had any real problems with getting a date (other than the occasional crushes on gay men and straight women, but that's neither here nor there). My boyfriend (student-geek-in-training) and I are about to celebrate our one-year anniversary at Pennsic.
I did get the "chance" to see "how the other half lives," and I don't like it. I don't call the truly BAD pick-up lines I've received in the past from less "geeky" sorts "social graces," I call them rude behavior. I also don't see a whole lot of "social grace" in an older guy taking an underage girl to the bar and getting her drunk in the hopes of "getting some" later.
Not to say that meaningless sex and/or sex with someone who is "just a friend" and/or one night stands are inherently bad (I've experienced all three). But from my experience, most tech-types that I've known don't want something superficial, and some of them haven't figured out how to invest the energy in something that won't be superficial. And I don't call picking up chicks and watching football "social grace." Far form it.
In my experience, "geeks" have MORE class, not less. A pickup line that actually worked on me was "Do you mind if I flirt with you for a little while?" I didn't mind, and we're still together. "Nice boots, wanna fuck?" would not have had the same effect.
*grin* That's why I'd be likely to do it if I was independently wealthy and didn't care how much money I was losing. I'd love to stay in business to be a thorn in their sides.
But that's just me, and I'm a bit annoyed lately because a local bookstore folded thanks to B&N, Borders, etc. Fortunately, Blue Sunday (all used books, lots of good stuff, and wonderful coffee) is alive and well in my area. I just wish they weren't all the way the heck out in the only-accessible-by-car suburbs. I'd love to open a similar business in the middle of the city
Hoping that other ISPs will follow suit IF they have spammers?
Seems to me that any ISP which doesn't have some sort of substantial and followed-up-on policy to discourage spammers (and some that do) is going to have spammers sending from their service from time to time.
I agree that it's a good thing that he is donating to charity, but a company that does something damaging and then makes a big show of donating to charity (or, as Kodak is doing here, of reminding people about past donations) just doesn't sit right with me, somehow.
Kodak's founder put a lot of money into establishing music programs and dental clinics -- a local dental school and a well-known music college both bear George Eastman's name.
However, at the moment, I'd say that most of the Rochester area is substantially pissed at Kodak's current business practices. We're all well aware that George Eastman was a nice guy for giving all tihs money to things that still benefit our city. But Eastman's been dead for a while now, and yet the current powers-that-be at Kodak can still point to his good works even as they continue to close plants and threaten large layoffs in the name of "good business practice."
Sorry, I know I'm ranting. The point is that no matter how "generous" you are with a fortune, getting that fortune by stepping on other people does a lot of damage. It's all well and good to see the "reformed" Scrooge, but perhaps Tiny Tim would have been a healthy child in the first place if Scrooge had paid his father a decent wage to begin with.
*chuckles* My mom (a civil servant) is talking about taking "early retirement" and in her case that means 55 years old! This guy from AOL retired at the age my mom had me. Scary.
If I were in a position to retire that early, I wouldn't stay retired for long. My boyfriend and I have been talking about opening a bookstore for a while now, and that would make it a lot easier to do (not to mention, we could stay in business even if the darn thing started to lose money).
But hey, I'm only partially a slacker -- enough to be wasting some of my workday on
This is part of the reason I'm partying with the Baron this New Year's. Lots of interesting weaponry is sure to be on hand.
Think swords. Battleaxes and crossbows are good, too. And make sure you look like you know how to use whatever it is you've got. Plenty of SCA-folk can tell you funny stories about stopping various would-be attackers and theives with medieval weaponry.
Hey, even in Pulp Fiction, a katana made a much cooler weapon than a chainsaw. *grin*
Shock value is a Good Thing, sometimes.
I used to work for a bank, and briefly for a medical school. I now work for the local gas and electric company. At all three of those places, the general understanding of where the potential problems are has been quite clear, and they are being worked on in a very sane and rational fashion. At least in my immediate area, the lights are unlikely to go out, the banks aren't going to "lose" your money, and the hospitals will be operational. I'm not worried. Anyone who lives in my area (Rochester, NY) who is worried about any of the above shouldn't be.
That said, here's the stuff I am worried about:
1. Rochester, NY is a pretty high-tech area, given the schools and industries that live there. It's no real wonder, then, that we're OK and not too given to panic. However, parts of the country that are not as technology-intensive or knowledgable might have problems.
2. If you think other parts of the US have it bad, Europe and Japan have serious Y2K problems. Especially Europe, from what I've read, since they were silly enough to try to do the Euro conversion last year instead of concentrating on Y2K.
3, Due to issue #2, as well as the sudden "bust" in demand for programmers once Y2K fixing season is over, the economy is likely to, in the long term, do Bad Things. I jokingly made a "Y2K food stockpile" last spring and was very grateful for it when I lost my job in June. I'm replenishing it for use in the event of a similar situation.
4. I am very concerned about the Crazy People. There seem to be several different sets of them: the fundies who are expecting either the Anti-Christ or the second coming of Jesus, the anti-technology sorts who are looking for an excuse to have everyone go back to the land, and the "darkside" sorts who are convinced that all of a sudden there is going to be a Shadowrun-like scenario and it will suddenly become possible to throw fireballs and there will be a Great War between law and chaos blahblahblah, are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
5. Due to the fundie version of the above, if enough of them can get into enough power based on all the hype, real damage could get done to religious and intellectual freedom in the United States. This is NOT something I want to deal with.
6. The nuts that head for the hills to avoid the "rioters." The opportunists who break into the houses of the nuts and start looting. My boyfriend tried to convince me to leave the city on 12/31/99 but I am not going to. I'm going to be at Baron Devon's New Years Eve Party with most of the rest of the local SCA group, and if the lights go out and all the other nasty stuff happens, we're well-equipped to deal with it. We've got candles, camping equipment, and weapons if necessary.
The problem is not so much violence which has, after all, been around as long as the human race (if not longer -- some animals are pretty violent).
The problem is the increasing need for instant gratification, without thinking about the consequences, whatever they might be. Kids learn "I want that -- gimme that!" at a very young age, and that mentality leads to more social problems than exposure to the Seven Dirty Words or to nudie pix ever will.
*nod* *sigh* I just had a very long discussion about this kind of stuff with a very good friend of mine. Post-Columbine, she started supporting restrictions that she would have found unacceptable before. I keep pointing out that THE WRONG THINGS are being restricted, and she says "so, should we restrict nothing?"
:(
What bothers me is that this person is a lesbian and Jewish. She should know better than to side with most of the folks who are decrying the decadence of American culture these days, because the let's-blow-things-up violence in a kid's movie like SW:TPM, which is what is freaking her out, is NOT what they are really complaining about. Personally, I don't enjoy shooting myself in the foot.
I'm real militant on this issue because as an "out" bisexual and as a pagan, I know just how screwed I'm going to be if the Religious Reich ever gets its way. And when someone who shares those characteristics with me starts getting cozy with the perceived enemies-of-their-enemies, I get very upset because I know that they're going to be the next target of those who wish to censor and monitor. This is very much not a good thing. There is all sorts of potential for truly hideous abuse to go on here. *sigh* The posting of "... and then they came for me" elsewhere on comments for this article is far too relevant.
Fellow Rochesterian? Merry meet!
They may not be bothering with Dead stickers (a very silly thing to do in any case in an area with so many colleges), but the suburban cops are allegedly "bothering" those who "drive while black" in some areas. Big local news item these days.
But no, Rochester doesn't seem to be a bad area for most bumper stickers. Rainbow and other gay pride stickers are OK, and the "Pagan and Proud" birthday present that is going up on my car as soon as I find it again shouldn't be a problem. And of course, I'll be putting up an SCA or AEthelmearc Kingdom sticker soon too, because it's the easiest way to get friendly roadside assistance going to and from events. *grin*
Me, I wish they'd bother to pull over the pizza delivery guys who drive down Route 383 on the wrong side of the road and/or the bozos who hit and run cats on said road. (I live there. One week, I saw three different road kill cats on three different sections of NY383. I was upset. I have two cats who stay inside because I don't want them to be next. One of them got out once, though. Scared me.)
*sigh* That's always been the thing that bothers me. There's enough REAL problems going on, sometimes where you'd least expected it, that you'd think the cops would have better things to do than profile people who "look suspicious" to their all-too-often narrow minds. *grumble*
On the one hand, I'm not one to encourage needless paranoia. On the other hand, I don't like this.
I'm in a fairly militant mood these days for both personal reasons (as discussed on the Ticket Booth Tyranny thread) and political ones ( Damien Echols' Rule 37 appeal was denied, and I'm very pissed about it).
Post-Columbine, a friend of mine was given trouble for wearing a BEIGE trenchcoat. If the Powers That Be (or anyone else) start looking for a certain "profile," then anyone who has anything in common with that profile is screwed. Where I live, there have been a lot of recent stories concerning racial profiling. (Maybe THAT is why more African-Americans aren't on the net. *wry smile*)
But of course, it's not just race. If someone wants a scapegoat, it's easy to pick a likely-looking one. This goes on in schools, it goes on in law enforcement, and it goes on in politics.
I'm not over-cautious with personal info because I don't feel I have to hide things from people. However, I realize that if things in this country get really crazy, I'm going to be one of the first people that gets harassed for being a social deviant.
The FBI's probably got a file on me as it is, but as long as I'm not kicked out of my housing or prevented from getting a job or arrested for something I didn't do (or something I did do that shouldn't be illegal), I don't give a damn. However, I've got contacts, resources, and what-have-you; many of my fellow social deviants aren't quite so lucky.
So I fight for their right to keep their correspondence and personal details private. And since some of them talk to me over e-mail, I don't want anyone reading my e-mail either. Things that I do that are public or semi-public record (/. posts, my web page, petitions I've signed, that sort of thing) are obviously things that I don't mind having traced back to me. But there are a lot of people who can't or choose not to be as open as I am, and dammit, that's their right. (Even in the current atmosphere of Don't Ask, Don't Tell, for instance, I'm sure some homophobic military types would love to scan e-mail looking for anything that might suggest a soldier is gay. *sigh*)
Another big problem here is that people don't profile for actual criminals as often as they seem to for stereotypical criminals. Racial profiling is a major example of this -- black man driving nice car in suburbs, wonder how he got it? Drug money? Let's stop him. Etc. Satanic Panic based profiling is another biggie; there is no other reasonable explanation for why Damien Echols is on death row and his two friends are in prison serving life sentences. With net-based searches, we'd get the additional problem of "profiling" of anyone who, say, visited 2600's website.
I, personally, have nothing to hide, and haven't suffered much in the way of harassment. But damned if I'm going to make it easier for other people to have their lives ruined for no good reason.
All of the above working together, and yes this includes the kids, dammit! After all, who does it concern most, if not them?
With respect to the filtering/censorware debate, I will NOT support CyberSitter and the like. I *do* support programs like SafeSurf and RSACi. I know that my pages are likely to contain "adult" themes (case in point: Kindred Spirits, my Amber fanfic), but it's certainly no worse than the VC Andrews novels that were passed around by my 9th grade classmates and available in our school library. I don't think my pages, at least not those pages, are much of a threat to anyone who has read the original Amber series in the first place. (Die-hard storyline purists hate me, but that's beside the point.)
As far as R-rated movies go, I thought the original rating standard was "under 17 must have permission of parent or guardian." I could be wrong, but in practice, that was how many theaters operated, and it seems to me to be the most sensible practice. Parents could give kids permission to see certain R-rated movies or all R-rated moves, and that could be on file with the theater. Perhaps the kids would have to bring a "movie card" with their name on it like a video rental card, and would have to "sign" for tickets. For those who are under 17, and whose parents will allow them to see the movies, I think that is a reasonable compromise.
Unfortunately, I've dealt with enough unreasonable parents that I worry. The Baron of my SCA group is a high-school English teacher, and he was flat-out told to stop teaching a certain book because something ridiculous like two parents in the entire school system objected. Not only that, the book was then yanked from the school library. He had no chance to defend himself, no chance to even respond, he was just told "you upset a parent and you can't do that."
This is lunacy. Jennifer's parents have no right to tell Jason and Jessica what they can't read -- Jason and Jessica don't belong to Jennifer's parents. At best, Jennifer's parents have the right to control what Jennifer reads, and I'd say that that falls apart as soon as Jennifer's old enough to walk or bus to the library by herself, or at minimum as soon as Jennifer's got the spending money saved up to buy whatever book she wants at Borders or via amazon.com.
The same thing frightens me here that frightens me with censorware and other such things. The people who are going to be reasonable human beings and discuss things rationally with their kids aren't the people who are going to feel the need to use CyberSitter and its ilk. At most, they'll set up a RSACi or SafeSurf filter for their young kids, or just tell them to keep out of porn sites.
The ones who want this stuff are the nuts. Remember from a few years back the "child molestor" on AOL who turned out to be a 19-year-old guy who fell in love with the (IIRC) 16-year-old gay son of some very homophobic parents?
I don't know precisely how to fix it. But it would be a big help if people talked to their kids and actually LISTENED to them instead of kneejerk reacting to "bad things" (like assuming that someone's support of medical marijuana means that s/he is a stoner him/herself -- blah). And unfortunately, the ones who don't want to be open with their kids about anything are the ones who want the censorware and the carding at R-rated movies.
*rolls eyes*
First of all, buddy, there's a difference between just "working" at a convenience store and being the shift manager (read: Buck-Stops-Here Person) for the store. ESPECIALLY the night shift manager.
Secondly, he's probably doing more actual WORK than either you or I are doing, considering that we're posting to
And I didn't loan him ANY money
The situation as a whole is much more complex than I have any business getting into here, but it sure as hell ain't "Clerks." And it's not like his parents were exactly going to spring for school, either.
I've MET his parents. They are scary and screwed up people. I honestly believe they kicked him out because they thought he was going to be the next Eric Harris and wanted nothing to do with him. After all, he wears a black trenchcoat and is in possession of an air rifle and a not-very-sharp katana.
I don't care if you pulled yourself up from abject poverty or if you were born with a silver foot in your mouth like George Bush -- not everyone is you. And you're STILL wrong.
Issue #1 is the original incident that Jon Katz witnessed, and others like it. In other words, not allowing kids to see movies they HAD the permission to see, but that the parent wasn't going to stay for. This could have easily become an issue in my life; Mom had no interest in The Crying Game (she likes romantic comedies to the exclusion of almost all else) but had absolutely no problem with her 15-year-old daughter watching it. Dad was actually interested in seeing it, but he's a workaholic who might not have found the time while still in the theaters. ("No, really, two tickets to see this R-rated movie, for me and my Dad. He'll be here any minute
Issue #2 is that ADULTS are getting screwed with here. If I'd had to put up with that nonsense when I was picking up opening-night tickets to Elizabeth for myself (21) and my boyfriend (20), I would have been quite irritated. To say the least.
Issue #3 is closed-minded parents who scream at their kids for wanting to see a movie that happens to be rated R rather than forming independent judgments. As per my previous rant, Father doesn't always Know Best. I was incredibly blessed to have a father who was relatively into the same sort of entertainment that I was (lots of deep symbolism, lots of satire, British humour is way up there, etc) and remembered to share it with me as soon as it would do anything other than completely go over my head.
Issue #3A is that teenagers in this country are, in general, guilty until proven innocent. That there link that I just posted is about a miscarriage of justice that pre-dates Columbine by nearly six years, and has yet to be rectified. As I've posted on yesterday's thread, there is a real problem with folks assuming that your basic "oddball" teenager is going to be Conducting Depraved Satanic Rituals and Committing Heinous Crimes for Satan.
Foolish hysteria like what we are now witnessing WRT movie theaters tends to have very nasty results. Read everything on that link if you don't believe me. Three guys about my age are in jail for a crime that occurred six years ago that they clearly did not commit; one of them is on Death Row. Every time I see someone using that lovely catch-all bogeyman "Satanism" as part of what kids shouldn't see, I cringe, because I remember the West Memphis Three case.
And thanks to Littleton, something like the WM3 case is much more likely to happen again. This is an outrage. Here's a clue: Quit treating teenagers like lobotomized children, and 99% of them won't act like they are! Hello??
*sigh*
Heh, me too.
True story:
New Year's Eve 1988/89. Just me, Mom, and Dad. Dad is blenderizing these yummy-looking things made out of champagne and orange sherbet, which I am staring longingly at. Dad smiles at me and says "Go ahead, have as much as you want!" Over the course of the night, I proceed to have three full glasses of the stuff.
Bear in mind that as this is going on I was 11 years old, just under 5' tall, and pretty skinny. But it tasted good
True story, Part II:
As I've mentioned before, I went away to college quite young. One of my friends from MBC/PEG is an immigrant from Eastern Europe, and the laws are a bit different there. Her mom sent me a care package as a 16th birthday present that, much to my amusement, included a bottle of wine.
Dad took one look at the label and said, "I'd let you have it, but that's not very good wine. Want me to get you something better?"
*heh* My father is an awesome guy
As I got a bit older (though not technically "legal"), I developed my own "rules" for how to handle alcohol: It had to be something that tasted good to me anyway (not that this is difficult -- I can be talked into trying new things quite easily), I cut myself off after two drinks unless I was around people I trusted, and over time with said trusted people I learned where my "limits" were. Oh, and I did more than my share of the taking-keys-away drill.
The drinking age has always been this irritating little thorn in my side because most of my friends turned 21 waaaaaay before I did and many of them "dumped" me for the bar scene. My best friend (and now-housemate) was nearing 22 and pretty much over that when we first became close, and I was not quite 17 at that point. Via Jason and similar-aged friends, I could get all the alcohol I could possibly want.
What I couldn't do (except in this one place that was incredibly lax about carding, yet somehow not frequented by most of the college kids) is sit down with my friends and have a drink. One drink. And now I have a younger boyfriend who is still underage, so I still don't go out to bars -- haven't been in one since my birthday, in fact.
(And in an amusing bit of irony WRT this thread, half the time I don't even get carded in restaurants or grocery stores -- only in liquor stores themselves. And I just turned 21 last October! The aforementioned bar was the place I was taken for my birthday and THEY didn't card me, either! Then again, considering the huge crowd that turned up, and my "It's my birthday -- who's buying?" pin, they probably knew. *chuckles*)
Disclaimer: I actually don't drink very much these days. Wine or a cocktail with meals out if I'm in that sort of mood (which happens maybe once or twice a month), the odd Killian's or cider when hanging out with friends, and this lovely homebrew mead that my friend Michael makes, if he's willing to share some
My boyfriend and I just spent last Saturday helping a friend of ours move for the second time in two months. The first time was when his parents kicked him out for not mowing the lawn.
He's 21. He is a night shift manager at a convenience store. They didn't understand that after coming home at 10 AM because the next guy didn't show till then, he needed to SLEEP before being expected to do anything useful.
But behind all that: He's a long-haired, black-trenchcoat-wearing, RPG-playing, pagan techno-geek. His dear old dad is a Bible-thumping, hellfire and brimstone fundie who has been screaming "SATANIST!" at him for several years now.
I had a similar run-in with my mother four and a half years ago when I came out to her as bisexual. And she's pretty liberal -- were I to have told her I'm a lesbian, that would have been fine. But obviously bisexual = screws anything that moves (um, NOT!)
Yet another friend of mine, one I looked upon as a kid-sister in college, was disowned by her parents for changing her major from a curriculum she was failing to one she understood. The real kicker here is, she's adopted. And they used that against her, no less. "Adopted kids tend to have mental problems because a stable mother wouldn't have given a child up for adoption, or even had sex before marriage" yaddayaddayadda.
And I won't even get into all the teenagers I've talked to in ISCA's support forum who are being physically and/or sexually abused by family members, or alternatively who are in the middle of a nasty custody battle between their parents where one side is accusing the other of same.
Walk a mile in the other folks' shoes, people. And while you're at it, try not to step in the "Father Always Knows Best" manure.
Sorry. This is just unusually immediate to me right now.
Seriously, folks. I can think of a lot of parents with kids my age or slightly younger who have nice, open, friendly relationships with them. Mom and I have pretty much mended our rift, and Dad's always been supportive of me regardless of what craziness I'm into -- everything from modeling school to student activism. He rocks.
And again, if the parents are giving permission, what the hell is wrong with a 15-16 year old kid belonging to the local Rocky cast? Beats hanging out on the streets, folks. But NOOOOO, RHPS is an R-rated movie, and all of a sudden won't let anyone under 17 in even WITH a parent. Bwah? I don't get it. This is completely inane.
Father doesn't necessarily know best; neither does Big Brother. Kids handle all kinds of stuff in everyday life that most of us would rather not think about or remember. How, praytell, is a string of cuss words or a naked breast or *gasp* a lesbian kiss scene going to do any further damage?
"Respect your elders."
A local friend of mine (via the SCA) is a software test engineer at a large local company. She's also old enough to be my mom.
She can also code the pants off of any of my local contemporaries. And while she is single (giving weight to the argument that she could do this because she has no life), she finds the time to: sing in her church choir, participate quite actively in the SCA, make most of her own clothes ("everything but underwear, jeans, T-shirts, and shoes," she claims -- I think shoes are next on her list), and work a good bit on her woodcutting/furniture-building hobby.
She recently got recognized for 25 years of service at a company that is continually "downsizing" its people out of their jobs. (Anyone from my neck of the woods knows which company, and possibly even the lady in question.)
As you can see, I have a heck of a lot of respect and admiration for this woman. So do most of my friends my age. And she seems to like having us around, since she has no children of her own and likes passing on knowledge about everything from computers to drop-spindles.
Should the fool company she works for be ungrateful enough to downsize her, any place else would be incredibly lucky to have her. But they'd take one look at her (since she does not exactly look young), or see her "25 years of service," and ignore her in favor of new blood.
Indeed, that will be a sad day. *knocks on wood that The Company leaves her job alone*
Go check out the link from my previous post on this thread. Or try going here, and jumping to the website ratings and warnings section. I like the idea of filters like RSACi or SafeSurf, which have the ability to differentiate between a chicken breast recipe, a breastfeeding mother, naked breasts in a work of art, naked breasts in Playboy, and a man with a breast fetish doing X-rated things to them. :)
:P
:)
I don't know as much about CyberPatrol, but I do know that CyberSitter has done a lot of very stupid things: blocking an entire site for hosting a gay square dance page, making "mistress" a not-allowed word (webmistresses and listmistresses take note!), blocking any use of the phrase "Don't Buy CyberSitter," messing with TCP streams at a level that makes it possible for programs to break, and threatening/e-mailbombing folks who disagree with any of the above. Lovely way to run a business, folks.
When my new page is up (I'm moving off of GeoCities as soon as I have the time, energy, and a decent computer to get everything restructured), I'm rating with RSACi, SafeSurf, and VCR. I *know* I've got a lot of at-least-PG13 stuff on my pages, and forewarned is forearmed and all that, but by the same token, any kid old enough to read the original Chronicles of Amber is probably old enough to deal with the contents of my web site.
OK, so it doesn't have the work-stopping impact of an actual strike, but what college president wants to have himself and his policies painted in an embarassing light by the local media? That, and picketing the aforementioned prez's house on Christmas Eve ... *grin*
....
There are plenty of ways to be disruptive and call attention to the problems without stopping work. I remember when I was younger and my father wore his "MVCC: Not a Happy Family" button to work every day for most of a YEAR, and was only too happy to explain it to anyone who asked
Filtering software is in general a Bad Idea.
:P
That reminds me, did anyone else see an article recently that talked about how CyberSitter is now blocking net-commerce because some folks find themselves addicted to spending money online? It'd be hysterically funny if it wasn't so sad.