Do you guys think is was reasonable to end the program or do ya think it was just overreacting?
In other news, USPS to resume North Pole Santa letters. That's right folks. They have decided to resume the Christmas letter program thingy, but with an exception. Now the addresses and last names will be removed before the letter is given to the volunteers. children can still get their letters answered from the north pole but do you guys think this is just a bit too much overreacting?
Do you guys think is was reasonable to end the program or do ya think it was just overreacting?
Yes, it is overreacting. Pretty much anything where kids are involved sparks a massive overreaction nowadays, often to the kids' detriment.
A few years ago someone started a panic here about the dangers of pressure treated lumber (PTL). Even though the solution used does include toxic ingredients, they are very dillute and the lumber only poses a danger when burned. Despite the fact that not a single child had ever become ill from playground equipment made from PTL the city dismantled and junked all of it, essentially leaving kids with dozens of vacant lots to play in.
... essentially leaving kids with dozens of vacant lots to play in.
Another victory for children! Hooray!
I hope that they keep the program going, as it's important to the town. But I understand the concerns over information. I think instituting a method of blocking the addresses and full names is a good way to keep up with current concerns.
*shrug*
Does this crap never end?
Seriously... if you want to have the name and address of a child, it takes 25 seconds and a random phrase on Facebook or Hyves to get a whole list worth, matched to your preference.
This is just a stupid overreaction from people who shut down their brains years ago.
Does this crap never end?
Seriously... if you want to have the name and address of a child, it takes 25 seconds and a random phrase on Facebook or Hyves to get a whole list worth, matched to your preference.
This is just a stupid overreaction from people who shut down their brains years ago.
Sex Offender: I'll take 16. Blonde. Cheerleader.
*Searches*
Sex Offender: Hehehe
--A Few Days Later--
*Arrives at house*
Sex Offender: Why hello...You're not 16! Or a girl!
Sex Offender 2: Neither are you!
Moral of the story: There are no girls on the internet.
_/_/_/
Seriously though, that's overreacting. And what was he convicted of? Pinching a girl's butt in kindergarden?
Does this crap never end?
Seriously... if you want to have the name and address of a child, it takes 25 seconds and a random phrase on Facebook or Hyves to get a whole list worth, matched to your preference.
This is just a stupid overreaction from people who shut down their brains years ago.
Sex Offender: I'll take 16. Blonde. Cheerleader.
*Searches*
Sex Offender: Hehehe
--A Few Days Later--
*Arrives at house*
Sex Offender: Why hello...You're not 16! Or a girl!
Sex Offender 2: Neither are you!
Moral of the story: There are no girls on the internet.
_/_/_/
Seriously though, that's overreacting. And what was he convicted of? Pinching a girl's butt in kindergarden?
....
Is there something you need to tell the class PK?
If it were your kid getting a letter from a sex offender disguised as a letter from Santa, would you think this was still an overreaction?
Didn't think so.
And if I knew, I would care less, since said offender is on the other side of the world and there are more alarming things to worry about.
How many people replying to this thread have kids?
If it were your kid getting a letter from a sex offender disguised as a letter from Santa, would you think this was still an overreaction?
Didn't think so.
I don't have kids so my guess is that there is much I'm missing as far as feelin's and emotions about protecting one's child. I will say though that if they didn't find that the one dude was a sex offender then nobody would have known that it was a sex offender respondin'. So either there would have been nothin' to worry about cuz well there's nothin' to worry about, or ya be over protective and assume many in north pole alaska doin' this Charity thing is a ****. The dude would most likely write harmless Christmas letters to children just like everyone else is doin'. I doubt they'd write nasty stuff to all them kids although it is a possibility. If yer going to be worried about child predators then doesn't it make more sense to be worried about those in your own area that either have or haven't been convicted of being a child predator rather than mr. or mrs. anonymous many many miles away?
I like the response from the god of death. I also do think that pulling the whole program was a bit of an overreaction. I also do however think that they should have been implementing something to keep the identities of the children anonymous regardless of who was reading and responding to the letters. I'm a bit glad to see that it was reinstated, even though they're still letting people open up santa's letters.
If it were your kid getting a letter from a sex offender disguised as a letter from Santa [...]
... how would you know?
If it were your kid getting a letter from a sex offender disguised as a letter from Santa [...]
... how would you know?
psionics?
It's not an either-or situation. You can both protect your child at home, in their immediate life, and be concerned about who's reading their address on their letter to Santa.
I think the idea of redacting the address and full name of the child is a good one, for a few reasons, not just involving child molesters. But I prefer privacy in most things, so I admit that colors my response as well. Implementing it will cost money/time, but I don't think such an effort is wasted.
Once again, *shrug*
**** finds construct outlett for his/her destructive urges safely removed from potential victim, child gets delightful mail from mythological figurehead. Sounds win-win to me. It's like letting a germaphobe work in a clean room, turning a negative trait into something positive.
Oh, I agree. But nothing in that means that the **** needs to have the kid's home address.
As for the article EE posted, that's cool. I like fostering an independence in my child. Not quite the same thing as my opinion in this matter, though.
I also, however, don't include my name on the return address of my envelopes.
As for the article EE posted, that's cool. I like fostering an independence in my child. Not quite the same thing as my opinion in this matter, though.
From my reading, that article wasn't really about the independence of the kid. It was about the fears of the parent. Which does relate.
As for the article EE posted, that's cool. I like fostering an independence in my child. Not quite the same thing as my opinion in this matter, though.
From my reading, that article wasn't really about the independence of the kid. It was about the fears of the parent. Which does relate.
Meh, it goes both ways. She talks about how independent her son is becoming (with her help), and how she doesn't let herself be ruled by the fear of isolated incidents. I didn't say that it didn't relate, just that it wasn't quite the same thing as my opinion on the issue being discussed.
I totally agree that the original response was likely fostered by the same fears.
Link: lmgtfy.com/?q=saint+nicholas
How many people replying to this thread have kids?
If it were your kid getting a letter from a sex offender disguised as a letter from Santa, would you think this was still an overreaction?
Didn't think so.
I'd like to point out three things, here.
First, the article makes no mention of the guy being a ****. I'm not pro-sex-offender or anything, but there is no indication he had any interest in children. These two things are not synonymous.
Second, what happened to the idea of rehabilitation? For all we know the guy was completely "cured" and legitimately trying to turn his life around and bring joy to people as a form of therapy and restitution.
Third, the correct reaction to "Oh no, there's a registered sex offendor in our program" is not "shut the whole thing down down", it is "we'd better damn well improve out screening methods!" This guy is a registered sex offender. The whole point of the sex registry is so things like this can be avoided. The overreaction seems to me like an ass-covering bit of spin on the part of the Postal Service designed to make it seem as if they are actively protecting the kids in order to deflect attention away from the glaringly lax security protocols that let the guy through in the first place.
I'd like to point out three things, here.
First, the article makes no mention of the guy being a ****. I'm not pro-sex-offender or anything, but there is no indication he had any interest in children. These two things are not synonymous.
Second, what happened to the idea of rehabilitation? For all we know the guy was completely "cured" and legitimately trying to turn his life around and bring joy to people as a form of therapy and restitution.
Third, the correct reaction to "Oh no, there's a registered sex offendor in our program" is not "shut the whole thing down down", it is "we'd better damn well improve out screening methods!" This guy is a registered sex offender. The whole point of the sex registry is so things like this can be avoided. The overreaction seems to me like an ass-covering bit of spin on the part of the Postal Service designed to make it seem as if they are actively protecting the kids in order to deflect attention away from the glaringly lax security protocols that let the guy through in the first place.
Well played, clerk. Well played.
But yes, I completely agree with all 3 points there. I suspect they wanted to shut the thing down anyway, and needed a scapegoat. I mean, if the guy was legitimately a child molester (which as you, there is no mention of), then wouldn't it be easier to simply fire him, or find him another job that doesn't involve dealing with children?
I think honestly that more parents need to do things like that. You need to teach children Independence and how to Think For Themselves (not be selfish but think for yourself there is a HUGE difference) at an early age or else they grow up to become Drones.
Now, I understand that society -wants- Drones, but I don't. Maybe, if more parents raised their children like this, we wouldn't get as much Idiocy in Office as we get.
First, the article makes no mention of the guy being a ****. I'm not pro-sex-offender or anything, but there is no indication he had any interest in children. These two things are not synonymous.
Second, what happened to the idea of rehabilitation? For all we know the guy was completely "cured" and legitimately trying to turn his life around and bring joy to people as a form of therapy and restitution.
Third, the correct reaction to "Oh no, there's a registered sex offendor in our program" is not "shut the whole thing down down", it is "we'd better damn well improve out screening methods!" This guy is a registered sex offender. The whole point of the sex registry is so things like this can be avoided. The overreaction seems to me like an ass-covering bit of spin on the part of the Postal Service designed to make it seem as if they are actively protecting the kids in order to deflect attention away from the glaringly lax security protocols that let the guy through in the first place.
I agree completely on points 1 and 3. 2 I'm a little shaky about because 1) I don't know the nature of the crime and some activities are easier to rehabilitate than others, and 2) Call me jaded but I don't have a whole lot of faith in the ability of our justice system to rehabilitate criminals. Not saying it doesn't happen, but I won't count on it.
I think if this guy had been a ****, that would have been mentioned specifically, rather than the generic term "sex offender." In the great state of Wisconsin, there was a big news story when I was a kid about a guy (I believe he was 18 or 19) that had sex with his 17 year old girlfriend. He was convicted of statutory **** (he also married her and both sets of parents approved of the relationship). I know there was talk of getting a pardon or something, but I didn't follow the story very closely after that. However, that would make him a sex offender. I would still trust him around my kid (by which I mean as much as I trust anyone I'm not close friends with, which is to say not at all, but I wouldn't freak out because he handled mail from her, or even lived in the same neighborhood as us).
At 16, me and my then girlfriend (now wife) were both charged with third degree sexual assault (apparently rather than consensual sex, we were actually simultaneously assaulting each other). The charges were dropped, but we did get arrested for it, and I read of similar cases in which teenagers were actually convicted. Had I been convicted, I would have been a sex offender. Does that mean I'm going to pick out random addresses from the mail and go visit little kids? Of course not!
Anyway, my point here is that this is we don't have enough information to make a good judgment about this, and more than likely neither did the people who shut it down. Even had this person been a threat to children, you simply remove him and employ better safeguards in the future. Problem solved.
Gotta love the USA, where you can drive a car and shoot a gun at 16, but are a rapist for having sex with your girlfriend. You guys really need to get your priorities straight
For me, it's the laws for drinking alcohol. It's one of the most peculiar cultural differences I know of. Many Americans seem to think it's irresponsible to allow kids to drink alcohol when they're only 13, while at least some Danes think it's irresponsible to give anybody guns and cars before they have a chance to learn how to behave (somewhat) responsible while drunk
Down here in the Netherlands, you can start drinking at 16 (legally, anyway... most start even earlier) and it doesn't really make me happy. Most people at that age are still way too young to be drinking responsibly. I've seen the 'party' my little brother threw when he turned 16 where his friends basically a bottle of strong drink a person (all in that age category) and my parents had to drive home a few that were pretty much blacking out and vomiting everywhere while the rest went into 'town' (small village, really) to cause trouble everywhere.
So on that account; maybe it's better to not allow it too soon. (This is heavy drinking I'm talking about. If you want to give your kid a glass of wine during dinner because it's a special occasion, that should be allowed. Same way I don't mind parents taking their kids to the shooting range, but I do mind a 16 year old legally carrying around a gun while he's in town with his friends)
snip
The common perception here seems to be: Kids will get access to alcohol, one way or another, maybe not always when they're 13, but usually before turning 16. When people drink for the first time (drink as in 'have access to enough alcohol to get drunk and be allowed to mostly control their own consumption'), they'll almost inevitably overestimate how much they can drink, and underestimate how much they're affected. Or in other words, they will get very drunk, and maybe not even realise it. And, not having enough experience to know themselves when they're drunk (or just know that they're drunk in teh first place), they'll do stupid things.
So there is a choice to be made. Either you let your kids reach adulthood without any chance of serious drinking, and risk that they'll screw up the first time they're drunk, in a situation where it's dangerous for themselves and others (or risk that they'll drink early on anyway, but do it in a place where you can't keep an eye on them), or you get them drunk early while they're still young enough to be controlled, and in safe surroundings, and hope that by the time they're old enough to drive and go out alone, they'll be a bit more experienced in how alcohol affects them, and are therefore less likely to screw up.
I don't drink alcohol myself, and probably never will, but it wasn't for lack of trying on my parents' behalf. They talked about alcohol with me early, and allowed me to taste some, and when I became a teenager, they told me that if I ever wanted to try to get drunk, I was welcome to do it with them, and they'd provide alcohol. When I was around 15, and hadn't gotten drunk yet, they began to worry, and sometimes asked me to join them when they had friends over and had opened a couple of bottles of wine. I always declined, and they respected that, but they weren't thrilled about it.
My mother told me that they'd never judge me for getting drunk, but asked me to please do it somewhere safe. One of her biggest fears was that I would go somewhere else to drink, and then decide to walk home like I usually do, not realising how drunk I actually were, and then pass out in a ditch somewhere in January, and freeze to death without waking up. Considering all the accidents (and crimes) where drunk people are involved, I can't really blame her for wanting me to learn my own responses to alcohol before drinking it alone.
Anyway, kids can't buy alcohol in stores here before turning 16 either, and they can't buy alcohol in bars before 18 (not that most people care), but it's still expected for kids to start drinking before that, most often at parties arranged for young people, where alcohol is served. Then the kids get drunk, start vomiting and do stupid things, pass out, wake up the next morning with a huge headache and the memory of all the embarrassing things they did while drunk (and in case they don't remember, their friends will gleefully inform them about it), only to do the same thing the next weekend. However, after a while, a lot of them will start get tired of it, and start to drink more responsible, and the parents can relax again.
Granted, a lot of experts say it's not very healthy, and people seem to agree with them enough that Denmark no longer has the most drunk youth in the Nordic countries (that honour now goes to Finland, go figure), but considering the alcohol consumption of the adult population, it's simply not realistic to expect young people to abstain from it completely. Not to mention that a good deal of traditional Danish food can be hard to enjoy without alcohol on the side
Gotta love the USA, where you can drive a car and shoot a gun at 16, but are a rapist for having sex with your girlfriend. You guys really need to get your priorities straight
Well it sorta depends on the states and stuff cuz there are some states that don't want a gun in a 16 yr old's hands. Like it's reckless parenting or child endangerment or something. Or maybe it's just that guns are bad and we should get rid of them cuz if there were no guns anymore everyone would stop being angry and just start holding hands and hugging and stuff.
Here in the wacky state of California there is a law that allows for a person to turn 18 and still have sex with their boy/girl friend that is a year or two younger than they are. Basically put in place because of a bunch of vindictive parents. Ya know the kind that are like "we don't want our daughter dating you" kind of parents but they realize they can't do nothin' about it so they wait for the guy to turn 18 and basically right there on their 18th birthday they get charged as a sex offender or whatnot. Now one can be up to a couple years over 18 and be dating someone a couple years under 18 without having to be charged or something like that. Or is it up to a 2 year difference? Not exactly sure but there is a law that is to help protect these douchebag kids from douchebag parents, so that they're lives aren't ruined completely.
Gotta love the USA, where you can drive a car and shoot a gun at 16, but are a rapist for having sex with your girlfriend. You guys really need to get your priorities straight
I'd like to point out that as recently as 2003 I could have been arrested and put in jail for having sex with my boyfriend, depending on what state we're in.
But hey, things improve. Slowly, but it happens. Someone comes up with a bright idea ("A list of sex offenders!") and implements it, and then problems result ("Wait, we're getting idiot teenagers that photographed themselves naked and sent them to other idiot teenagers on the list?") and then slowly it gets fixed.
So yeah. Things are occasionally stupid. But they improve. Mostly.
Oh, and as to the question of "why 21"... if I recall correctly, prior to 1984 there was no federal minimum drinking age, and it varied by state. In 1984 congress passed a law/act (I can never get the terminology straight...) such that any state that allowed legal sale of alcohol to someone under 21 would be withheld some funding as a result. States quickly fell in line.
I believe, at some point prior to that, the legal drinking age was lowered to 18 in most states, as part of a response to the Vietnam War. The idea was "our boys are old enough to go and die in some bloody brutal war for you, but not old enough to drink like a man?" And I think that stuck until 1984. But I really couldn't say for certain on that.
Alcohol and age?…moving on. Non-issue. The state sets the ceiling. 21 is fine, has been, etc. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it. Plus, maturity is getting pushed back more and more, why risk it? I’m not so much concerned w/ the mental well-being and esteem of another privileged ego (read, “dependent”) w/ their cries of “unfair” and “BS” concerning alcohol & age as the safety of the other drivers on the road, savvy? You know the guy/girl that actually votes, pays taxes, and has kids that are counting on them. Opening up more fun/entertainment options for kids that have more now than they ever did is likely going to cost someone their work and family options later. Which is more important, a possibly fun night out, or John or Jane in traction for a few months until insurance won’t cover it anymore?
Also, biochemistry & random biological discoveries are getting crazier and crazier. We’re finding (and inventing!) more problems in our youth today and tossing in another wild independent variable (drugs/alcohol) sooner surely can’t be a good mix. Again, why risk it? However, I believe in personal freedom as long as it’s not infringing on anyone else’s, so, to that end, I would differ to John & Jane Doe if they wanted to let their teenage kid have some merlot @ dinner. The ball is, and still should be, in the parent’s court anyway as thousands of years, DNA, and common sense dictates. Screw that up, then yes, a visit to county often does wonders in terms of conditioned responses. ie) your new girl friend “Russel” will condition you to not act a fool, etc.etc.
Now, sex offenders…hmm. Nothing seems to offend like sex these days. Odd that something that will indenture a big smile, life mate, millions of dollars, reciprocal “indulgences”, and so forth, could kick start the 21st century w/ such heated debate, grandstanding, and rhetoric.
1) Boraxe’s 1st point: yes, in a nutshell, “sex offender” ≠ “****”, so yes, good eye. This leap to condemn/slander says more about the attacker than the offender in question which is pretty sad. @ ZB: shutting down the program is an overreaction so insecure ppl can feel better about themselves (and tell others too) at the expense of a time-honored tradition that’s as American as mom and apple pie, right? Or as American as obesity and foreign oil, take your pick. Scapegoat might be the real impetus as they need to trim the fat like everyone else in the new econ. That is, it’s a bit of a black eye to admit this, so perhaps this is just hurry up defense/recovery. IDK.
2nd point: re-habbed? Possibly, though the only real “cure”, ironically, is faster, cheaper, and far more guaranteed to work in the long term than years of therapy, conditioning, etc. Chemical castration. However, I don’t want to sound so draconian and apply that to all sex offenders, namely rapists where guilt is proven in no uncertain terms. I wouldn’t snip some poor guy just cuz’ he flashed an audience @ the park. Child molesters? That’s a tough one. Again, 100% proof, then we’ll talk, though likely I’m going to cast my lot w/ the surgeon, you know? Kill 2 birds w/ 1 stone (cut overcrowding/expense, insure it’ll never happen again). Still, anything is possible. Despite my rancor for sex-based crimes, I'm not w/out mercies for those that have paid their dues and work hard to insure the fire stays out. Btw, you guys should watch this Kevin Bacon movie, "The Woodsman" in light of this. Very illuminating.
3rd point: shutting the program down was a mistake, I agree. Instead of addressing the problem in a prompt, efficient manner, no, they decide to hamstring every Bobby & Suzy that just wanted the suspension of disbelief to write Santa and keep one of the rapidly shrinking childhood aspects of innocence and wonderment. Wtf? There is likely another agenda that is taking a back seat to this as it commands more authority and face time on the media. If they were really so damn righteous they wouldn’t kill the program for these kids, they’d go to the source: hiring/screening process, the “offender” in question, work up the food chain, not down. Still, when was the postal service known for managerial acumen & prudent decision-making?
@ Bone Naga: yes, finally, the voice of reason. Thanks.
You know how many happy couples were destroyed cuz’ of this kinda’ crap? This tells me, in a culture obsesses w/ buzzwords, labeling, etc., they really dropped the ball. Don’t call a sex offender a “sex offender”. No, (s)he is a rapist, a child molester, a voyeur, an expert of beastiality (ahem, “interspecies erotica”)…but I digress. Sex offender tells us very little, except, “You should not like/trust this individual, they’ve offended!” In this modern culture, everyone has a hair trigger and is offended constantly by aspects of society that were never intended to offend anyway. But woe to those not in-the-know (dig my phat rhymes feat. so-so beats), you’ll be crucified for these transgressions, despite being completely ignorant of the offense. You're just expected to know automatically ala needy g/f mindreaking abilities. Barring that, say nothing, do nothing, BE nothing for fear of offending someone's delicate sensibilities by ACCIDENT. Intent is different and should be addressed as such though. Words, being tools like guns, aren't being used responsibily anymore...watch what happens to freedom of speech by the time we'er reaching our golden years.
Anyway, rambling. Sorry. The wording isn’t honest. It’s pathetic, weak, and unhelpful. It tells us little to nothing, but more importantly, ruins potential futures via some backward laws or tidies over the real monsters (rapists, pedophiles, Californians, you know, bad ppl) as they’re now just “offenders”. Isn’t a murderer still a killer? No, these days he’s a “violent criminal”. In another cell block, another violent criminal is just that 16 yr old drunk (remember him from earlier) that got into a row @ the local bar that got out of hand. Read, “f’ed for life” now.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
Sadly, it says a lot for us now in that out “go-to” places when we hear these words isn’t what the words should conjure in our language centers. As for a lot of normal, decent ppl that wind up on registry lists that shouldn’t be. I guess you could boil most of this down to a D&D comparison if you can believe it. RAW vs. RAI of the law. Using the words of the law explicitly w/out much oversight, reason, or correct interpretation per the case itself (not ALL of them, ever) doesn’t just screw some nerdy guy’s elf warrior. No, it screws him IRL, his job, his family, his home, etc.
This whole debacle never needed to happen and is a testament to gross negligence & typical American soap boxing (moral arrogance), postal service inefficiency/incompetence, and some guy’s either genuine, altruistic motivations for kids, or, something more suspect…which is for the court’s to decide, not us. It’s just, here, now a days, mob rule is becoming more common.
Alcohol and age?…moving on. Non-issue. The state sets the ceiling. 21 is fine, has been, etc. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.
Personally, if I didn't trust people with alcohol, I wouldn't trust them to vote either. As for the actual topic, it's no big deal, though I can understand the parents not wishing a stranger to get the address of their child.
Alcohol and age?…moving on. Non-issue. The state sets the ceiling. 21 is fine, has been, etc. If it’s not broke, don’t fix it.
Personally, if I didn't trust people with alcohol, I wouldn't trust them to vote either. As for the actual topic, it's no big deal, though I can understand the parents not wishing a stranger to get the address of their child.
Hmm, well said. If you can't now your "limit", chances are you can't know the issues/canidate.
I wouldn't want a stranger to know my hypothetical kids' location, but there's more to this story than I know surely, hence, not really qualified to say accurately.
It’s just, here, now a days, mob rule is becoming more common.
Isn't that the definition of democracy?
It’s just, here, now a days, mob rule is becoming more common.
Isn't that the definition of democracy?
well yeah but the great usa is a republic, which means small mobs elect dumb representatives that form a mob at the capital. A bit different than a full on mob democracy.
ie) your new girl friend “Russel” will condition you to not act a fool, etc.etc.
Why do people keep saying stuff like this? Why not just call your congressman or state rep and convince him to cut out the middle men? Instead of police and lawyers and such, the goverment could just send out trained **** squads to meet up with anyone who appears to be stepping out of line! Woot!
Despite my rancor for sex-based crimes
What 'rancor for sex-based crimes'? You just implied that the main purpose of the US justice system is the facilitation of ass-****!
Why do people keep saying stuff like this? Why not just call your congressman or state rep and convince him to cut out the middle men? Instead of police and lawyers and such, the goverment could just send out trained **** squads to meet up with anyone who appears to be stepping out of line! Woot!
Nah. The education system is so poor here, the "trained" part is in serious question. They would just end up messing it up.
But hey, things improve. Slowly, but it happens. Someone comes up with a bright idea ("A list of sex offenders!") and implements it, and then problems result ("Wait, we're getting idiot teenagers that photographed themselves naked and sent them to other idiot teenagers on the list?") and then slowly it gets fixed.
In another one of those brilliant ass-backwards Ouroborus-like legal slipknots, a teenager who takes a nude photograph of themselves and sends it to anyone - even another teenager - can be charged with distributing child pornography.
But hey, things improve. Slowly, but it happens. Someone comes up with a bright idea ("A list of sex offenders!") and implements it, and then problems result ("Wait, we're getting idiot teenagers that photographed themselves naked and sent them to other idiot teenagers on the list?") and then slowly it gets fixed.
In another one of those brilliant ass-backwards Ouroborus-like legal slipknots, a teenager who takes a nude photograph of themselves and sends it to anyone - even another teenager - can be charged with distributing child pornography.
Yo have to pity the poor DA that's obligated to bring that kind of case to court. I mean, it's not their fault the law is a bit screwy, but they're the ones that end up having to push on wonky trials like that.
Regarding EE's link: at one school where I taught karate as an after-school programme, a six year old girl who was in said programme kept getting in trouble because... wait for it... she walked home by herself. It was down a short, well-travelled alleyway in the suburbs. Her parents were completely confused by the school administration on this, but the official school policy was that no children could walk home alone until a certain age. Even now I trust my three year old daughter to chop garlic with a sharp knife. Why? Because I showed her how after she begged me to let her help, then we both held the knife together while I made sure she was doing it safely. She can do it safely, and does it safely, every time. Kids can do this stuff if we take the time to teach them, and make sure they're learning the skills.
Where I am now, my wife sometimes comes into the house alone after picking up our daughter from pre-school. In such cases she's usually playing with her friends outside. There are a couple of neighbourhood kids who are about ten or so, and they like to play with our daughter. When I hung about to look after her one day, I think these kids thought I was being a little creepy. We now just let them take her, and they bring her back when it's their dinner time. I also see kids walking home from school by themselves (well, in groups, but there are no adults or older kids) who can't be more than five or so. Here in Japan, it seems a lot more sane in that respect.
And as for the letter thing... it is pretty ridiculous. I know that when I was a boy scout leader I had to go for a criminal record check, and it was free precisely because it was for a volunteer position. I mean, I was in Canada, but can't they do something similar in the US?
Gotta love the USA, where you can drive a car and shoot a gun at 16, but are a rapist for having sex with your girlfriend. You guys really need to get your priorities straight
You can shoot a gun at any age so long as you're observed by an adult. You cannot own a long gun (rifle, shotgun) until you're 18. You cannot purchase ammo for a long gun until you're 18. You cannot own a handgun until you're 21. You cannot purchase ammo for a handgun until you're 21. Considering you're allowed to enlist at 18 - and that means that you'll be firing a weapon at some point - it makes sense to me. The uneducated, reactionary stigma against handguns, however, does piss me off.
In a way, the no booze before 21 thing is stupid. You can, as I said, enlist to fight and die for your country at age 18. You can vote for the President at age 18. But beer? Yeah, that's over your head, champ. :P That said, I think the driving age should be pushed back. 16 is too damned young to drive a car. As far as the booze goes, I'd almost like to see it put at about 25 or so. As one_ton mentioned, the age of maturity is becoming older. Kids stay at home until they're 25 nowdays. With school being so expensive and taking so long, it's not that I blame them, of course. There's just a crapton to be said about the lessons learned from going it on your own in the actual world. It's very, very different than school of any level. And I feel ok saying that seeing as I stayed home until I was in my 20s myself. Now, even with all of that, it's silly to have a drinking age at all. I started drinking regularly at age 16. Cuz I could. All that age 21 stuff means is that you can't purchase booze directly from a store yourself and that you can't be in a bar. You can also go to jail if you break those laws or help another to do so. But that ain't stoppin' anybody.
Regarding the sex-offender<>**** thing, I remember hearing about a family where their car was keyed repeatedly and the neighbourhood parents hide their children when the certain family walks by. The reason? Daughter is registered sex offender. Because she gave a BJ to her boyfriend. But people just assume. Sad, sad indictment of our society.
It is astounding how stupid people can be. Does anyone remember the really bad El Niño we had back in the late 90s? A guy living in California named Al Niño started recieving death threats.
Yes, there really were people stupid enough to blame him for the bad weather thand threaten to kill him if he didn't stop.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~ George Carlin