Conference back40::soapbox

    
    	Also, a Duxbury couple is facing possible prosecution for the
    	same offense.
    

    Let`s face it, kids ARE GOING TO DRINK on prom night. I think these
    parents have a good chance of saving a life & keeping these kids out 
    of trouble. I was raised the 5th of 5 kids, so my parents were already
    broken in. I didn`t have to go out and party on the streets of town,
    because I could stay home and do it(and be safe). I was never arrested
    and I`m still alive. I think parents should be incouraged to supervise
    their children on prom night. And...what the hell...Let`em party.

    I think the drinking age should be 18.  I also think that parents know
    what is best for their children. A school principal has no place
    condoning illegal activities.  The law is the law. Personally, I like
    disobeying the law, but I wouldn't undermine parents by getting their
    kids loaded.  It sends the wrong message that "it's okay, as long as
    you don't do it by yourselves".  Now, these kids may have the
    impression that it is all okay to start drinking, and before long they
    get busted & lose their license. I got busted twice for "minor in
    possession". Johnny Law doesn't care if Principal Skinner says its
    okay.
    
    I think it's a conspiracy between the principal and the cops. :)_
    -ss

    
    This kind of reasoning is mind boggling to me.  Its the idea that our
    propensities will always win out and whether they are good propensities
    or bad propensities we should just set ourselves up with no
    restrictions so that they can all be expressed.  But lets make it safe
    for them to be expressed.  Heck why not just throw a sleep-over sexual
    instruction class, after all since they're going to do it anyway, and
    we've already provided then with condoms, now let's provide
    instruction.  
    
    
    

    
    	Instruction?
    
    	Half of these kids could teach us a few things about sex.
    

    Speaking of that... how old do you have to be to get bc pills and/or
    condoms without parental consent?

    16 Maybe? Again I say, They are going to do it. Why not teach them how
    to be responsible about it? I guess you will let your kids find out 
    about sex, condoms & birth control the hard way - by getting knocked-up
    or dying with AIDS.

    No, encourage abstinence.
    -ss

    Right. Lets see you go without for a week.

I "know someone" who, years ago, had their offspring request permission
to have a campout with a half-keg on prom night. The agreement was, nobody
gets in without handing over their keys and nobody leaves until after 8AM.

The keg was obtained, the guests began filtering in in the late evening,
post-prom. All car keys were collected. All cars were "tight-packed" as
they parked, to prevent any random extra_set_of_keys-holder from deciding
to pull a fast one.

The "guests" partied hearty into the early AM (2 AM or so). By then, the
keg was long gone, the lights went out, and the music went off.

The possibility exists that lustful, lascivious sex may have taken place
amongst some of the guests that night, one supposes. Just like it could 
have taken place in the back seat of a car out on a highway somewhere,
one supposes.

But, there were no fights, there were no automobile accidents, no outside
agitators, and, to the best of "my friend's" knowledge, there were no unwanted 
pregnancies as a result of the evening.

"My friend" felt pretty good about ensuring that over 70 graduating seniors
were able to make it through prom night without getting themselves killed.
One supposes that without this arrangement, there's better than an even chance
that the outcome could have differed.

    .9 
    
    Thatsa mouthful about yourself fella.  
    
    
    
    

    Take it from a guy who lost freinds to alcohol on the night before
    graduation - parents like these should be rewarded.

re:         <<< Note 741.12 by THEMAX::EPPERSON "themindcloudhaslifted" >>>

Agreed.

I graduated from HS at 18 in New York State when the legal age was 18. Plenty
of my classmates, myself included, were "legal" on prom night and graduation
night. We had a big class (close to 500), but lost two on prom night and four
on graduation night, out on the highway - nay - city streets.

No point in providing a safe atmosphere if kids are legal, right?

The point is that the legality hasn't spit to do with it. The issue is providing
a safe atmosphere when the risk factor is high.

    Very well said.

    If I was a teen, I'd never attend a charperoned party.
    -ss

    No-one in my graduation class in 1976 got drunk the night of
    graduation.  It was beautiful ceremony with a great reception, people
    were proud of their children and we were proud of our
    achievements. 
    
    Amazing how a little education with discipline can also keep an entire
    class dead-free for one party-night.
    
    
    
    
    
    

    I think I would be the parent that has to face the law, rather than see
    young kids end their lives trying to have a good time on a special
    night.                    

    .13
    
    That is right, 18 was legal age then too.  But guess what it was
    changed to 19 for the very reason you stated.
    
    

> But guess what it was changed to 19 for the very reason you stated.

Please try to be a bit more specific. To which "reason" do you refer?

>    Amazing how a little education with discipline can also keep an entire
>    class dead-free for one party-night.

No - not amazing at all, actually. But I always like the "whatever works"
principle, myself.

The goal is to keep the kids alive. If that's accomplished, anything else
seems to me to be quite irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Speaking as a heterosexual male conservative Republican anti-gun-control
pro-choice over-45 white atheist, that is.

>    Right. Lets see you go without for a week.


   I'm doing fine, thank you, after "going without" for 3.5 years, 
   and did just fine "going without" for the first 22 years of my life.



 Jim

    Is that by choice? I don`t know if I could hold off those "animal
    instincts" for that long. I guess I could, but I don`t want to think
    about it.
    

re: .-1

I hear this frequently but often wonder about it. I've always been of the
opinion that doin' it isn't worth it unless there's some sort of meaningful
relationship involved. Personally, I'm not the type that can develop meaningful
relationships with short frequencies. That's not to say that they can't
occur spontaneously, just that they don't happen through some sort of periodic
fermentation. I don't see much of a problem with waiting for a break in
the clouds, as it were, as opposed to jumping under the first available
umbrella.

    re -1
    
     If it's raining hard enough I'd jump under the first umbrella that
    I saw. But, since I have a girlfriend and we're living in sin, I have
    my own covered porch.
    
    -ss

>    Is that by choice? I don`t know if I could hold off those "animal
>    instincts" for that long. I guess I could, but I don`t want to think
>    about it.
    

     Yes, it is by choice and following what I believe to be Biblical
     teaching.  Oh, there are temptations and yes I think about "it" quite
     a bit, but frankly I'd prefer to give in to those "animal instincts"
     with someone with whom I was in love and she in love with me.  

    


 Jim

      Way to go Jim!!!
    

| <<< Note 741.8 by THEMAX::SMITH_S "Only users lose drugs" >>>

| No, encourage abstinence.

	I agree with the above. But encourage doesn't mean being stupid and not
letting the kids know that there are things out there that can harm them.

| <<< Note 741.16 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| Amazing how a little education with discipline can also keep an entire
| class dead-free for one party-night.

	Amazing that one would teach their kids to not drink, but not warn
their kids of the dangers that are out there.

| <<< Note 741.24 by THEMAX::SMITH_S "Only users lose drugs" >>>

| But, since I have a girlfriend and we're living in sin, I have my own covered 
| porch.

	Your own .8 makes you out to be a hypocrite.

The debate seems to have arrived at the point of questioning whether, parents 
should "teach" their kids how to drink. How do you do that?

My folks never taught me to drink, they just assumed that I had enough sense not
to drive home after a particular heavy night. Sure they did not really 
appreciatte it when I came home so drunk I could not walk, and just passed out
in the toilet. But I think I can honestly say I have turned into a mature
drinker, and can easly see when my friends are getting a little too merry, I 
will say so,and they respect my view because they know, that I am talking 
from experience.

I think the key thing is to say, "Yeah I drank when I was your age, it was not 
easy to get hold of when I was your age, but I have been there and done that, 
don't do anything you will regret." I know how annoyed I get when some guy is
making a fool out of himself when he is wasted, so I just don't do it myself.

By the way, I am only 19, and those are my views not my folks or anyone else's.
[Posted by WWW Notes gateway]

Talk, talk, talk.

If there is a law in place that stipulates that no one under the age of
21 years may be served liquor, and you serve liquor to a person who has
not attained that age,  you've broken the law. 

If you do it knowingly in a group situation, you've communicated to the
group that you believe it's okay to break the law. Fertile, absorptive
minds can conclude that you can therefore pick and choose which laws,
rules, policies etc you will honor.

"They're going to break the law and endanger themselves anyway, so I'll
help them" doesn't sound so swell to me.

JMHO,

Art

  re .31


 
There you go...




 Jim

    He should be canned, as allowing drinking for underage kids is illegal. 
    I understand that some kids will drink anyway (I was one of those
    kids), but this encourages it, IMO.  
    
    Now, if each kid got parent's permission to stay over and drink at this
    party, then I'd have no problem with it (it seems rather safe- meaning
    no one will be driving home and it is supervised).  How to insure
    that it is the actual parent that is giving consent is a problem not
    easily solved, however (kids are notoriously sneaky).
    
    
    -steve

    .9
    
    
    Okay.  How about several years...(since becoming a Christian). 
    
    It can be done if you have the proper mindset.

    I propose a compromise.  If they agree not to have sex or drink until we
    say they can, then we'll promise never to allow them to die in a war
    before they get a chance to drink and have sex.

   .35  Brilliant.  Colin for president.

    Me or the other one?

   .37  Yes, indeedy.

    re: .35
    
    Absolutely.  If they can vote and be drafted, they should be able
    to drink.  
    
    I was one of the "lucky" ones who got to drink for six months
    before they raised the drinking age from 18 to 20.  Do you think 
    that after those six months were up, those of us who were 18 said, 
    "Oh, my.  It's against the law now.  We must stop." Nay. Nay.  
    Kids are creative.  It's what I would consider a  "rite of 
    passage" for many kids in this country. I grew up in an age where
    "buyers" and "packie runs" were common Friday annd Saturday night
    activities.  Where every activity was an opportunity to drink 
    when you were in high school, including Catholic Youth Council dances.  
    We were lucky.  My parents were teetotalers and I *HAD* to go home sober.  
    I also had the car. I was a "designated driver" before designated 
    drivers were cool (1979) :-) :-).  I knew others who were not so lucky. 
    
    I don't think what they did was wrong as long as the parents 
    of the children attending the party knew there was alcohol there,
    and there was an adult chapperoning.  Some kids will drink, some
    won't.  But there won't be any drunk kids on the road killing other 
    innocent drivers, and that's where the bonus is in my book.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

>    I propose a compromise.  If they agree not to have sex or drink until we
>    say they can, then we'll promise never to allow them to die in a war
>    before they get a chance to drink and have sex.


     While I understand your sentiments in regards to war, I would put
     drinking and sex a bit lower on the priority scale of things to
     experience before death.




Jim

   .40  Lower than what?

    
    
    	I dunno Jim, I happen to like drinking and sex. I can do without
    the war. ;*)

                                                              f
    .39
                                     
        I don't want my loved ones driving to work at night with
        a lot of 18 year olds legally tanked up on the road.  I am
    	fed up with parents who are too preoccupied to take responsibility
        for handling their children and give them cart blanch to enjoy grown
        up games under the flag of "if they can vote and be drafted.....", 
        leaving other people to stand the consequences.
    
        And I am equally fed up with people who circumnavigate the law
        and fix it for children to drink on Prom night.  Alcohol is
        not a right of passage for anyone, neither is it a party favor;
        it's a drug that few adults can handle well, children in general 
        have even less success.
    
        The general run of 18 year olds do not show enough collective
        responsibility to be left to regulate their drinking capacity.
        Just try walking through any college dorm on a Friday night if
        you want proof of that.  
      
        It's dangerous enough on the roads with coke heads in BMS and
        other zombies who drive at night without adding tanked up children 
        to the equation.
           

    
    
    	re: .43
    
    	I have some very bad news for you. The kids are drinking anyway.
    
    

    
>    	I have some very bad news for you. The kids are drinking anyway.
 

   ...and kids are having sex so let's give them condoms

  ... andn kids are smoking so let's give them cigarettes
  
  ...and kids are killing each other, so let's give them guns and knives
  
  ...and kids are killing themselves so let's give them Kevorkian

  ...and kids are doing drugs, so let's give them drugs..



   
    

    Re .40:
    
    > . . . I would put drinking and sex a bit lower on the priority scale
    > of things to experience before death.
    
    That is undoubtedly one of the most irrational, perverse things I have
    ever read.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >       I don't want my loved ones driving to work at night with
    >        a lot of 18 year olds legally tanked up on the road.
    
    Then you should be delighted since nobody can be "legally tanked up on
    the road." Even if the legal drinking age were 18, there'd be no 18
    year old drivers "legally tanked up on the road." As for being
    illegally tanked up on the road, they are in violation of the law and
    should face the consequences.
    
    >    And I am equally fed up with people who circumnavigate the law
    >    and fix it for children to drink on Prom night.  Alcohol is
    >    not a right of passage for anyone, neither is it a party favor;
    >    it's a drug that few adults can handle well, children in general 
    >    have even less success.
    
     So the solution, in your eyes, is to completely prohibit all manner of
    alcohol consumption until the magic age of 21, then without so much as
    a by your leave open the doors to the alcohol cabinet and say "have at
    it"? It's precisely this all or nothing approach that engenders alcohol
    abuse. First we make it the forbidden fruit, then we give them
    unfettered access- with no means of teaching moderation prior to the
    time they are given full access to this particular legal drug. It's a
    recipe for disaster, promoted most vociferously by those who least
    understand causes and effects.
    
    >    It's dangerous enough on the roads with coke heads in BMS and
    >    other zombies who drive at night without adding tanked up children 
    >    to the equation.
    
     I take it you are in the "other zombies" category?

    Why's that?

    .43
    
    I didn't think I would ever agree with the author on anything, but find
    myself in total agreement with her opinions on this matter.  Using the
    argument that "they are going to do it anyway" is ridiculous.  You can
    extend that argument to any issue and very easily see how silly it is.
    
    As an example, how often do you see kids get nailed for shop lifting? 
    How many kids did you know that did it?  It's very similar to the
    drinking and sex issue.  It is very easy to say well they are going to
    do it, and it's sort od a rite of passage, so let's make shop lifting
    for teenagers OK.
    
    In addition, I doubt that all of the participants in this "approved"
    party were all graduating 18 year olds. I am sure that many of them
    had dates that were younger.  Alowing these kids to have an "approved"
    drinking party on prom night will do nothing to protect these same kids
    one week later or a month later.  These kids will have the false
    belief that it's OK to ignore a law you don't like and there are no
    consequenses.  Many of these kids will end up wrapped around a tree or
    a lampost and take out someone else with them.  In the worst case they
    will take out some innocent motorist or pedestrian just because they
    think it's Ok to drink when your under age.
    
    This is the worst case of wrongheaded thinking I can imagine.
      

    
    
    
>         <<< Note 741.45 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>
    
>   ...and kids are having sex so let's give them condoms
    
    	ok.
    
>  ... andn kids are smoking so let's give them cigarettes
    
    	Well, I say we make them pay for them, but that's just me. I
    suppose we could institute a tax to five free ciggies to teens. It
    could be the "tokes for teens tax". ;*) 
    
    	Seriously, I don't see the new laws stopping kids from smoking.
    Teen smoking is on the rise. I don't think we should "give" cigarettes
    to children, and in fact I support continued education about the
    dangers of smoking. However, this has nothing to do with keeping teen
    drivers off the streets on prom night.
    
>  ...and kids are killing each other, so let's give them guns and knives
    
    	Last I knew, the laws weren't stopping the kids from getting guns
    and knives either. I do think your trying to compare keeping drunk
    teens off the road to allowing teens to kill each other is a bit of a
    stretch tho'. You shouldn't note from the hip like that. :)
    
>  ...and kids are killing themselves so let's give them Kevorkian
>  ...and kids are doing drugs, so let's give them drugs..

    	Again, all this has nothing to do with keeping the kids safe for
    one night. 
    
    	I remember as a teen going out and buying cases of beer, smoking
    pot/cigarettes, etc and NEVER having a problem getting any of the
    above. I think the ONE thing that kept me out of trouble was the fact
    that a friends mother let us use her house to have our parties in. She
    was always out and basically told her daughter "you clean up the place
    when you're done and make sure nothing gets broken". It worked. We all
    took great pride in making sure we had that place spotless after every
    party (which was usually two or three times a week). :) A couple of us
    even went over and cut/split two trees that she had felled in her yard.
    
    	I say kudos to these people for making the best out of a hard
    situation.
    
    
    	jim 

    
      Southbridge is a real old-style central Mass town, with
     longstanding ethnic communities, very townie.  At one time,
     just about everybody who lived there worked "at the AO", or
     American Optical, at the time a large eyeglass manufacturer.
     Everybody knew everybody.  There's no wan elected school committee
     person could survive the controversy surrounding this action in
     such a place.  At the least, you would have to inform all the
     parents.  No matter what you may think about how to train your
     own kids, you have no business, particularly as an elected official,
     helping kids sneak around their parents.  Of course, when it comes
     out, his political career would be over, even for those who think
     serving non-driving teens no big deal.  It isn't appropriate for
     him to do this.
    
      And by the way, yes it is technically a crime for Demers, and yes
     he is liable for any and all damages.
    
      bb 

    
    	RE: .33 [Steve]
    
    	So it's not OK for 1 person to break the law, but it would have
    	been OK for 50-100 people to collectively break the law?
    

	Just a question - is it illegal for someone under age to drink
	alcohol on private property?

    People who are adults should be allowed to drink because they are
    adults, because this is supposed to be a free country, and because the
    government has no right to restrict the behavior of adults in this way.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
    	RE: Diane
    
    	I was wondering the same thing in regards to "parents giving
    	kids a small glass of wine with dinner".
    

    If the "magic age" is 21, why shouldn't it be 21 for all things?
    You say you don't trust an 18 year old with alcohol, but you trust
    them with the future of your country when you allow them to vote?
    You say you don't trust an 18 year old with alcohol, but you trust
    them with a rifle, a tank, or a hand grenade?  Hmm, makes perfect
    sense to me.  You trust an 18 year old to be responsible enough to 
    make an informed decision to marry or conceive a child, without
    parental consent,  but yet they can't inherit real property until 
    they are 21.  Does anyone else see something wrong here?
    
    Mary-Michael

    
      Back a few years, I'd take my son to do dangerous things, but
     I refused his request to take along a friend.
    
      Demers erred, whether his behavior was legal or not, whether
     it was a good idea or not.  He assumed a fiduciary (trust)
     position to which he was not entitled.  And worse yet, he usurped
     that power from his constituents.  He is not worthy of public
     office.
    
      bb

    At the very least, this sends an extremely inconsistent and confusing
    message to the kids who have been successfully indoctrinated (for
    better or worse) by the previous twelve years of education on alcohol
    abuse, anti-drinking, D.A.R.E., S.A.D.D., and other programs.
    
    If I was a high school kid who'd successfully "avoided temptation",
    I wouldn't know what to make of this mixed message.  It would certainly
    have the effect of undoing much of the conviction and credibility of
    what I'd been told all along.
    
    Chris

 re .46/.40




 "Johnny, I'm afraid you have an inoperable tumor on your brain"

 "How long do I have, Doc?"

 "About 6 months."

 "Gee..wow, there's so much I wanted to do in life"

 "Well, Johnny, make sure you get drunk and have sex first.."

>           <<< Note 741.57 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>

>     He assumed a fiduciary (trust)
>     position to which he was not entitled.  And worse yet, he usurped
>     that power from his constituents.

	Is it known, then, that parental consent was not required to
	attend this party?

    
    
    	good point di. I don't remember reading that the parents were not
    asked if their children could attend. I may have missed it tho'.
    
    	jim

    
      Hmm - you're right, as usual, Lady Di - .0 doesn't say.  To me,
     that's a critical point.
    
      Suppose they were HIS OWN kids.  Then, I'd say there's no wrongdoing
     here - he DOES have the fiduciary responsibility.  So unless it
     reveals some gross hypocracy (such as, claining during a campaign
     that he was a teetotaler), it shouldn't be an issue politically.
    
      Now suppose they WERE NOT his own kids, but the parents knew and
     approved.  This is more doubtful, and would probably be a public
     relations disaster, so he might have to resign as a practical matter,
     but otherwise, it's just a matter of votes.
    
      Finally, if he did this WITHOUT telling the parents, my comment
     stands.  He has let power go to his head in that case.
    
      bb

    Great, unsupervised teens with erections and a six-pack.  Yahoo.
    
    I think it's against the law to sell intoxicating beverages to a minor,
    and to provide intoxicating beverages to a minor on private property
    as well.  For example, I can't have a cult killing on private property,
    so the "private property" issue isn't in play.
    
    The whole law is wrong, and the way the issue is approached.  The whole
    situation sends out mixed messages to teens.  Parents should be
    teaching responsibility.
    
    On the enforcement side, people who drive while intoxicated/impared should
    be punished, regardless of age.  People who cause damage should be
    severely punished.
    
    Many of our laws breed contempt in the country, not respect.  Here's
    a fellow who should be respected for what he did, and he's gonna get
    pounded.
    
    MadMike

    
      re, .54.  From 1787 to 1917, there was no federal power to
     regulate alcoholic beverages.  In 1917, Amendment XVIII did
     not give the government a power.  Read it.  Instead, it prohibited
     alcohol outright, with no Congressional power to allow it.  In 1933,
     Amendment XXI repealed Amendment XVIII.  But paragraph 2 of that
     Amendment, still in force, says, "The transportation or importation
     into any State, Territory, or Possession of the United States for
     delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of
     the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."  This is the supreme law
     of our land.  States do indeed have the power to outlaw liquor,
     and some delegate that power to counties and towns.  There are legally
     dry places in the United States.
    
      bb

    Re .64:
    
    My note .54 does not say it is legal for adults to drink.  It says it
    SHOULD be legal for adults to drink because this is SUPPOSED to be a
    free country.
    
    
    Re .63:
                                                         
    Actually, the courts have ruled that cults can kill on private
    property, and it is protected as a religious activity by the first
    amendment.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
      Well, OK, edp, you present an argument that the government
     SHOULDN'T have a power, admitting that in fact currently, it does.
     Specific, enumerated, and adopted by supermajority as required.
    
      I don't agree with you.  Nor with your contention that the concept
     of a "free country" implies the government ought not to have such a
     power.  I think it should.  It is a principle of Ordered Liberty that
     the people can "provide for the general welfare", "insure domestic
     tranquillity", etc, even by using its police power to curtail your
     behavior.  I support this fundamental power of our society.
    
      As to "killing on private property", nope.  The "free exercise"
     clause means only that laws restricting your behavior must have a
     secular purpose.  Your religion does not protect you from them if so.
    
      bb

    
    .65
    
    I assume you mean animals??? 

    .52
    
    It is legal for kids to have an alcoholic drink at home, under parental
    supervision.  I see little difference between this and parental consent
    to drink elsewhere- as long as they are on private property.
    
    
    -steve

I don't know, but I'd suspect that having a drink with your parents is
okay in the sense of having wine with your dinner. This is different
from setting up a keg and setups for what's essentially a school
function (a prom, say).

Art

    Re .66:
    
    > . . . admitting . . .
    
    Why the hell do people always think things are black and white?  I
    clearly stated I did NOT make a statement of law.  That means I NEITHER
    stated it WAS or WAS NOT.  I admitted nothing in that regard.
    
    > I support this fundamental power of our society.

    It is silly to be arguing about fundamental powers when the issue is a
    specific power.  Further, has it ever been tested whether the
    government has a power to segregate adults and restrict them unequally?
    This has yet to be resolved at the federal level.  In Louisiana, the
    state Supreme Court ruled against this discrimination, and it was
    legal, a few months ago, for 18-year-olds to buy and consume alcohol. 
    That was still being dealt with in the courts last I heard.
    
    > As to "killing on private property", nope.
    
    As to killing on private property, yup.  It's done.  The court says it
    is legal.  I think it was in Florida that some towns, or maybe the
    state, tried to prohibit some killings that a cult was engaging in. 
    The courts ruled in favor of the cult.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Re .67:
    
    Shh!  You'll give it away!
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    >It is legal for kids to have an alcoholic drink at home, under parental
    >supervision.  
    
     Which state? Most states do not allow this.

 I was told that it was legal in NH (this was several years ago, so that 
 may have changed).




 Jim

    Perhaps EDP will cite the relevant RSA.

.47
    
    Don't be obtuse Levesque--I refuse to believe you can be as dim a bulb
    as your notes make you seem.  At 21 the majority of people have
    more sense than they do at 18--they have more sense at 35 but trying to
    extend the law from 21 to 35 is but a dream.   Your arguments do not
    hold water, they don't even hold an Irish mist.  Alcohol is a drug.
    If you are going to give 18 year olds alcohol then why not crack, or
    LSD?  
    
    This ties in with an earlier notes topic, parental responsibility.
    Unless they are functionally retarded, there are few parents who are
    not aware that some kids will get drunk on prom night.  Responsible
    parents help their kids keep away from that element and take the time
    to either drive them to and from the prom or hire a cab.  The majority
    of teenagers do not drink and don't want to be involved with out of
    control behaviour.  Why put their lives and my life on the line because
    there are a lot of dumb adults who think kids have the right to poison
    their bodies with booze.
    
    If someone has not learnt moderation by the time they are 21 there is a
    good chance they will never learn it.  At 18 they are still in the
    learning curve and, like you, have a lot to learn still.       
                                     

   i kinda like .76 better than .75, but it's close.

    .56
    
    No I don't trust them to do any of the things you list.  Neither do
    I trust them to have the maturity to marry and have children.  I don't
    think they should go to war at 18 either.  At 18 they are children.
    If in your eyes it's OK to marry at 18 then why not let them marry at
    15 or 14 or even 10.   

    I think EDP is refering to the sangria (sp?) cuban "cult".  They
    wanted to kill chickens and sheep.  A town in Florida said "nope".
    The "normal" churches got behind this little "cult" because, in the
    extreme, this would be an abuse for gov't to dictate how religious
    ceremonies are conducted.  The supreme court ruled in favor of the
    "cult", they can now kill chickens and stuff and get all messy.
    Whatever floats your boat.
    
    As far as gutting _people_, I think that's disallowed, private property
    or not.
    
    MadMike
    Dawson County Georgia.  Dry county. No filthy magazines either.
    We're fine people.  :^)

Santeria.  As far as I know, they don't use sangria in their rituals.
The town was Hialeah, home of flamingos (real ones, not plastic ones).

    re: .76
    
    I would have crawled under the carpet, died and/or stayed home
    rather than be seen having my parents drive me to the prom or
    pick me up afterwards. I would assume things haven't changed 
    THAT much in the ensuing 17 years :-)  These are not 12 year
    olds we're discussing here, these are teenagers, most of 
    whom can drive and/or own a car of their own.  We had a curfew,
    but we were capable of getting back and forth on our own.
    If you want them to become responsible adults, you really
    do need to give them a little responsibility along the way.
    
    Also, nicotine is a drug.  It is not regulated, but it is
    a drug, just like alcohol.  Shouldn't we control that too?
    To some extent we do, however you don't see all the bruhaha
    over nicotine that you do over alcohol. I guess it's ok
    for them to kill themselves and others around them in 20 or 40
    years from lung cancer, as long as we've protected them
    from underage drinking.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    
    

    
    .81
    
    Your use of nicotine as a drug is rather weak when arguing to allow
    children to drink.  First of all nicotine does not incapacitate the
    smoker.  Someone could smoke a pack of cigarettes over a couple hours
    and be fully functional, the same can not be said of alcohol use.  Also
    there is no direct one-for-one causal relationship between cigarette
    smoking and cancer.  If there was you would not see any old smokers. 
    They would all be dead before getting old.  It may be bad for your
    health, but so is a high fat diet, high cholesterol (sp), etc.  They
    all have negative effects on your health, and when someone wants to
    crack down on these then, feel free to atack smoking.  Also, there is
    even less proof of second hand smoke on health.  Lots of suppositions,
    little direct proof.
    
    Also, it wouldn't surprise to find out that this goofball wouldn't let
    the kids smoke in his house, but he let them drink.  And someone thinks
    this guy should get a medal - yeah a metal room with bars for
    contributing to the delinquency of minors.
    

    .80
    
    > Santeria.  As far as I know, they don't use sangria in their rituals.
    
    Isn't Doc a member of the Sangria cult ?

>		Someone could smoke a pack of cigarettes over a couple hours
>    and be fully functional

While I agree with you for the most part, Al, assuming the smoker is 
experienced, I can unequivocally state that someone inhaling tobacco smoke
for the first time in their lives, will not be "fully functional" after
even a couple of cigarettes, let alone a pack in a few hours.

I understand your point, but I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a car being
piloted by a 25-year old who'd just inhaled three cigarettes for the first
time in his/her life.

    re: .82
    
    Similarly there is no direct, one-to-one correlation between
    people who imbibe alcohol and people who have accidents after
    drinking.  Every person who drinks is not an alcoholic, does
    not get into an auto accident, and does not drink themselves
    into a coma.  There are actually some health benefits attributed
    to alcohol use (in small quantities).  You cannot say the same
    for cigarettes.  Lots of teenagers exposed to alcohol do not
    choose to drink, and lots more choose to drink responsibly.
    We obviously hear more about the failures. Bad news travels
    fast.  Sure, some people who drink have had a "night you'd
    rather not remember" (or for that matter a "night you wish you
    could remember"), everybody does a few stupid things in their
    lifetime (which may or may not be related to alcohol use).  The 
    difference between you and the other guy is not necessarily values, 
    upbringing or social status - it may simply be luck.  You didn't 
    get caught, he did.  Life is like that.
    
    I don't think that the guy should have served them alcohol 
    without their parents permission.  But if he did have their
    permission, I can't find fault with it.  If they are going
    to drink, let them drink a finite, controlled volume of
    alcohol in a supervised environment and sleep it off there
    rather than get behind the wheel of a car, endangering themselves
    and others.
    
    Oh, and finally, I've been in cars driven by people who needed
    a cigarette and didn't have one.  They don't drive real well.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    
    
    

    >At 21 the majority of people have
    >more sense than they do at 18--they have more sense at 35 but trying to
    >extend the law from 21 to 35 is but a dream.
    
     And your point is? 
     
    >    Unless they are functionally retarded, there are few parents who are
    >not aware that some kids will get drunk on prom night.  
    
     Some. As in a small percentage? :-) Riiiiiight. Sure. It's other
    people's kids, huh, Rosemary? 
    
    >The majority of teenagers do not drink 
     
     Bwahaha! You are a regular comedian. National studies have shown that
    85% of high school CHILDREN (as you are so fond of stressing) have been
    drunk. I'd bet if you surveyed parents you'd find that maybe 20%
    believed their own child had ever been drunk. Sounds to me that you're
    in the 65% that's in denial.
    
    >If someone has not learnt moderation by the time they are 21 there is a
    >good chance they will never learn it.  
    
     Sure, Rosemary. Whatever you say.
    
    >At 18 they are still in the
    >learning curve and, like you, have a lot to learn still.       
    
     Unlike you, who are incapable of learning anything contrary to your
    preconceptions about the way things are. Not to mention the fact that
    small minds are more easily filled.

    
    .80
    
    also home to a fine little race track.
    
    doc, disses Rosemary, film at 11:00

    Reply .85     >You cannot say the same for cigarettes.
    
    Um, er, not true.  Nicotine can be a very effective diet aid for some
    obese people; it can help them to get the weight off and keep it off.
    There is less risk of contracting Parkinson's disease among smokers.
    
    --Doug C.

    
      Um, tobacco is indeed regulated.  In Massachusetts, it is illegal
     to sell it to minors, and this law is sometimes enforced.
    
      For that matter, government has the power to regulate just about
     any substance in interstate commerce.  Milk, for example.
    
      bb

    .81
    Tobacco has avoided widespread regulation by the skin of its teeth.  
    If the Heart Lung Assoc. had anything to do with it it would be.  
    It is regulated for children.
    
    Why would you have "crawled under the carpet" if you had been seen
    driving with your parents on prom night?  It is a perfectly reasonable
    action for any responsible parent to take, and the lack of such
    supervision is behind many of the ills of American youth.  Stop putting
    children into adult roles, at 18 they are in many ways still children.
    They lack judgment and maturity, they lack experience. Sadly, the very
    people who should be guiding and protecting them are kicking them off 
    the cliff and saying fly whey they haven't had time to grow wings yet.
    
    The number of teenage suicides, drug taking and drunkenness should give 
    you some clue that American children are very much afraid and in need
    of help.

    .84
    
    Sure, and you get almost identical results in clinical trials if
    half the subjects take a placebo but all the population follows the
    same behaviour modification program.  Even with nicotine delivered as
    liquid snuff. 

    >Sadly, the very
    >people who should be guiding and protecting them are kicking them off 
    >the cliff and saying fly whey they haven't had time to grow wings yet.
    
     This, from one who suppports the current system of total prohibition
    of alcohol until the magic age of 21, then "off the cliff" with you,
    and BTW, I hope you somehow learned "moderation" (via osmosis, one
    assumes.) I guess consistency is too much to ask from you.

    
    .88
    
    <<< There is less risk of contracting Parkinson's disease among
    smokers.
    
    well that sure is a relief to know. At least I know I won't die of
    that. Lung cancer perhaps, but hey, we all have to die someday.

    My uncle, who has contracted Parkinson's disease, is a smoker. You
    aren't out of the woods yet, Battis.

    
      Oh, and by the way, bootleg cigarettes are a big business, there
     are federal agents on the track of the bootleggers, and the US
     does have tobacco inspectors.  You would be hard pressed to name
     ANY product in a US store not subject to federal regulation.  You
     can grow your own veggies, but just try putting out a roadside
     stand, and you will soon be visited by a government guy with forms
     to fill out.  As to substance abuse, it is common enough in both
     prescription drugs (vallium, ritalin, etc from the corner pusher),
     and in over-the-counter substances from glue to embalming fluid.
     And while these can be purchased without a prescription, their
     contents are also regulated.
    
      bb

 ZZZ    Santeria.  As far as I know, they don't use sangria in their rituals.
    
    Isn't this from a Bruce Springsteen song...
    
    "Rosalita jump a little lighter...Santeria, come sit by my fire...."
    
    (Sgt. Schultz Look..) Why would anybody want to jump over a lighter?

    re: .90
    
    If they lack "judgement, maturity and experience" then why in
    heaven's name are we letting them into the military?
    
    At 18 they are not children, they are young adults.  They 
    can drive a car and are considered emancipated.  They are
    tried as an adult if they commit a crime.  They can legally
    marry and have children.  They can hold down a job and work
    overtime.  They are allowed to purchase insurance, make a will
    and assign beneficiaries.  They can vote and help shape the
    future of our country.  They can be drafted in a war, get a 
    credit card and start a bank account and buy a pack of  cigarettes.  
    They can gamble in a casino.  These are not the games of children.  
    These are the tasks of young adults learning to be responsible.
    And if you ask most young adults, they are ready and eager to
    do these things.  They do not want to be held back by their
    parents.  
    
    There is a "limbo area" between 18 and 21 where you are only
    a pseudo-adult.  Perhaps you can consider this the "learning
    curve".  The only problem is that it only really works that
    way if you attend college.  If you work and live on your
    own, you wind up with all the responsibilities of an adult and
    none of the rights.  
    
    "Experience, maturity and juudgement" is mostly relative.  To someone 
    who is 70, I lack "experience, maturity and judgement" at 35. 
    I thought I owned the world at 18.  18 year olds look much
    younger today than they did when I was 18 :-).  But if you
    think about it, if you didn't have all that confidence, bravado
    and chutzpa at 18, if you knew what you know now, would YOU
    leave home :-) :-)?  Think of it as a survivial mechanism for
    parents :-)
    
    Kids drink.  A lot of kids drink.  Kids have sex.  A lot of
    kids have sex.  If I'm "throwing them off of a cliff" at 18,
    I'd kinda like to make sure I've given them a parachute.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    
     
    
    

Z    Stop putting children into adult roles, at 18 they are in many ways still
Z    children.  They lack judgment and maturity, they lack experience.
    
    Audie Murphy...an underaged 120 lb. boy who was rejected by the Navy,
    the Marines, the Air Force.  The Army disagreed.  He became the
    military's most decorated soldier.
    
    Beaurocrats are incapable of detecting character.
    
    -Jack 

    Correction:
    
    Only young men sign up for the draft.....   grrrrr
    
    Try to explain this to an 18 yr old. Kinda like TYDTWD

The military is a good place for many young adults who need guidance,
discipline, and character building ...

Doug.

    re: .100
    
    Why do people think that teaching some how to handle weapons
    and kill people builds character?  That accepting autthority without
    question and following orders without conscience are  qualities one
    should strive to attain?  And why does this only
    apply to government or municipal military service?  Tell someone 
    you're a survivalist and they don't think you're "building character."
    

    Speaking of survivalists, I saw an interesting piece on them on the
    learning channel.

    People singing praise choruses in a chapel with shotguns propped on
    their laps. Very very bizarre.

    i sawer that show.  what a bunch of weirdos.

    re: .102
    
    I saw that, which was what prompted my comments.  The show
    after that on Neo Nazis was interesting as well.
    
    If you think about it, though, the image of people singing
    hymns with shotguns on their laps was probably very
    prevalent during colonial times as well as in the Old West,
    and was not considered the least bizarre.
    
    

    Not a small bunch either. They are growing in numbers.

    i felt bad for the children.  being brought up
    in that "under siege" atmosphere.  what chance do
    they have to grow up as healthy individuals?  sad.

    An 18 year old is still somewhat pliable.  They are typically at the
    heighth of their physical condition and their reflexes are at top
    responses.
    
    These are the desirable characteristics of soldier.
    
    These do not require maturity to have them.
    
    Discipline is the replacement of maturity at this time.
    
    This argument of military eligibility should equal alcohol consumption
    is really missing the mark.
    
    
    

    
      Well, when you need a military force, there is no substitute
     except defeat and surrender.  Military forces take longer to
     build than you will be allowed by your enemy.
    
      Military success is not easy to achieve, and impossible to those
     who place no great value upon its peculiar requirements.  Many of
     the attributes which lead to success in ordinary times are VERY
     unsuccessful in war.  So, if you plan on defending yourself from
     enemies, you need a subculture that practices the counter-intuitive
     measures which you will need to perform very fast, in order to win.
    
      bb

    .108  Who was your note directed towards? :-)

    On D-Day in Europe on June 6th 1944, most of the troups were well
    trained but green. This was because the green troups were more likely
    to take risks and get off the beaches.
    
    Steve

    The LC program on survivalists was an old BBC program
    repackaged for the LC.   It dated from the 80's.  Typical
    BBC "look at the weird gun nuts, aren't we more sophisticated"
    propaganda.

    
      I forget, Nancy.  Somebody asked why we encourage young people
     to undergo military training, so I gave the standard rationale.
    
      When people are using complex machines to try to kill you, it is
     too late to try to formulate a strategy, or to train in effective
     countermeasures.  Trust me, I've been there.  You must be able to
     respond without thinking.
    
      bb

    propaganda?  what the survivalists say and do is weird
    in my book, no matter who tapes them saying and doing it.

    How do you know that show was representative?

    i can't meet every survivalist and sit down and discuss
    their innermost thoughts and feelings. but i believe i have
    an idea why they call themselves survivalists.  
    
    they're waiting eagerly for their own version of armegeddon,
    whether that be a race war, a nuke war, a haves-against-the
    have-nots-war, any kind of war will do.  Their whole manner 
    of living is one that celebrates an "under siege" mentality 
    and their us-against-them attitude is sickening.  mixed with 
    an adoration of firearms and a profession of christian "faith".
    like i said, i feel bad for the children.
    
      

   re: 101

    Why do people think that teaching some how to respect authority,
    practice discipline, to properly and saftely handle weapons,
    and strive to be their best doesn't build character?

    Why do people think that the military is all about accepting authority 
    without question and following orders without conscience? (Not to be 
    confused with respecting the chain of command).

    Why do people believe these issues only useful application is to 
    government or municipal military service?  

    Why do people believe the military is all about survivalists?

    Why do people believe that being a survivalist means you are somehow
    lacking in character?
   
    Doug.  

    Oph,
    
    During the time that program was made, we were still in the
    tail end of the cold war, with the main fear being the threat
    of a nuclear attack.  My dad was a local civil defense officer
    charged with operating and maintaining local shelters under
    the official gov't program called 'Protect & Survive" which was
    naturally publicised through Aunti Beeb, being a government
    TV channel.  Eventually, filmakers who gave us "Threads" or the
    "The Day After" showed the total futility of the notion of survival
    as an organised society.   
    
    The reality was that the survivalists probably would have the best
    chance of coming through (albeit a slim chance).  In retrospect, the
    "protect & survive" plan was weird and bizarre but it was the official
    line and the Gov't beleived that it was the best way to ensure not that
    people would survive, but that they would stay in control. Thus, it was
    politic to discredit any notion of independent survivalism.
    
    Colin
    
    

    colin, interesting background on the programme.  tanks.

> <<< Note 741.116 by BRITE::FYFE "Use it up, wear it out, make it do, or do without." >>>
>    Why do people believe the military is all about survivalists?
>    Why do people believe that being a survivalist means you are somehow
>    lacking in character?

Why do people believe being a survivalist means an obsession with guns,
Nazis, and Christianity? Oh, you saw it on the toob, so it must be true.

 Z   Why do people think that teaching some how to handle weapons
 Z   and kill people builds character?  That accepting autthority without
 Z   question and following orders without conscience are  qualities one
 Z   should strive to attain?
    
    MM, there is something to be said about young soldiers who are willing
    to die for their fellow Patriots.  
    
    -Jack
    

    <<< Note 741.119 by ASIC::RANDOLPH "Tom R. N1OOQ" >>>
    
    |Why do people believe being a survivalist means an obsession with
    |guns,Nazis, and Christianity? Oh, you saw it on the toob, so it must be
    |true.
    
    oh well, then.  care to enlighten me on the subject?  do they or do
    they not subscribe to the notion of being prepared for the final
    "showdown"?  whatever that might be.

    stupid idea - sponsering under age kids and booze = contributing
    to the delinquency of minor whether they can drive home or not.

> sponsering under age kids and booze = 
>		contributing to the delinquency of minor

Those between 18 and 21 aren't normally considered "minors" in any legal sense.

There is nothing about providing alcohol to members of this age group which
can legally be construed as "contributing to delinquency", even though it
may be illegal in some jursidictions.

And, while we're at it, "sponsOring".

    
    	The tobacco analogy isn't very good, since as far as I know it
    	isn't illegal for underage people to smoke ... it's just il-
    	legal for them to buy tobacco products.
    

    
    
    re: .115
    
>mixed with 
>    an adoration of firearms and a profession of christian "faith".
    
    	sounds normal to me. :*)
    
    
    jim

    RE survivalists:
    
    If you believe as many do that this country cannot keep going
    financially the way we have been w/o a financial collapse or
    hyperinflation etc, then a wise person would take some resonable amount
    of precautions to be able to handle difficult times. Do you keep a
    flashlight in your home? Why, because the local power Co cannot
    gaurantee to provide you power under all conditions at all times. 
    
    How many times do you see a person in the winter ask (during a freezing
    ice storm) to borrow someone elses spray deicer because they were too
    lazy or ill prepared to have some of their own. It is only a matter of
    degree. 
    
    A foolish person would not have any extra food in their house in case 
    of a severe winter storm. Remember the boy scouts, be prepared...
    
    
    Steve

   .126  You sound like one of those people who makes the stores
	 run out of milk, bread, and spring water.  Not to mention
	 batteries.

    No I have virtually all I need for quite a few days w/o running out to
    the store.
    
    How about you....?
    
    
    Steve

  Me?  I don't panic.

 How about paperclips?

    >>.126  You sound like one of those people who makes the stores
             run out of milk, bread, and spring water.  Not to mention
             batteries.<<
                                                              
    
    .127
    
    I doubt it.  Being well prepared means NOT having to run out to the
    stores and run them out of milk, bread, and spring water--wine, cheese
    and french bread maybe--at the first sign of a storm.
    
    

   .130  that's why i didn't say "staples", but so much for that. ;>

    I don't panic either. Don't have to I am prepared...
    I don't bug my neighbors because I am unprepared.
    I am warm in the winter
    I have food to eat for me and my family
    
    I ask again, what would you do; beg off of your neighbors, expect the 
    givmint to help you out?

>                <<< Note 741.133 by 43GMC::KEITH "Dr. Deuce" >>>
    
>    I ask again, what would you do; beg off of your neighbors, expect the 
>    givmint to help you out?

	No.  I work very hard all summer in the vegetable garden, which
	provides enough food to get through quite a number of storms.

Note 741.134           PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B"                        
    

>	No.  I work very hard all summer in the vegetable garden, which
>	provides enough food to get through quite a number of storms.

    
    In the winter?
    What about water?
    What about heat?
    What about this time of year at the beginning of growing season?

Teen drinking, people, teen drinking!

    Do you need to run them through the Krups Teen Grinder before you
    can drink them?

>                <<< Note 741.135 by 43GMC::KEITH "Dr. Deuce" >>>
    
>    In the winter?
>    What about water?
>    What about heat?
>    What about this time of year at the beginning of growing season?

	What I was responding to was your .126, where you were talking
	about getting through a severe winter storm.  I have enough
	food at home to get through several winter storms (still have
	lots of food from last year's vegetable garden).  But not because
	I went to the store and bought tons of stuff, with the survivalist
	mentality.  They don't sell heat at Market Basket anyways.

    
      By the way, my comments were directed to actual real military
     training by a government.
    
      I know nothing about survivalists, don't know any, and my impression
     is that they are mere parodies of real fighting units.
    
      bb

    re: .116
    
    First, I don't think it's about "respecting" authority, it's about
    bowing to authority.  It's a fine skill in wartime, not a real useful
    one in peacetime.  I don't believe it builds character.  
    
    The military *is* about accepting authority without question and
    following orders without conscience.  You can't very well have a 
    bunch of people arguing on a battlefield with bullets whizzing
    around.  In peacetime, however, it is not useful training and leads to
    people like Oliver North.
    
    People need to question authority.  People need to understand
    what is expected of them and have the ethics required to refuse
    if necessary.  That is what is required of an educated, enlightened
    society.  Blind obedience is not.
    
    The military is about using force to survive.  It's about countering
    agression with agression until one side is the undisputed winner.
    Sounds rather survivalist to me.  
    
    I personally don't believe that being a survivalist means a person
    is somehow lacking in character.  On the contrary, some of these
    people have a real sense of commitment to a cause, strong family ties,
    and strong values which are passed on to their children.  They've
    been broad-brushed as fanatics, and all are not fanatics.  What
    I was trying to say (obviously not terribly successfully) is that
    what is held up as an example of good behavior in the government
    is not seen in the same light when it is applied as a citizen,
    even though the same ideals are put to use in both cases.
    
    Mary-Michael
    

Well, for what it's worth, I don't consider those loonies running around in
the woods wearing camo to be survivalists. Several folks have already
described adequately my definition of the word... someone who tries to be
prepared for the unexpected, and in a broader sense, someone who tries to be
self-sufficient in as many ways as possible.

If you have a fire extinguisher, first aid kit, spare tire, candles,
flashlight, battery powered radio, a fire escape plan, know what to do in
case of tornado, etc, etc, then you've got the right mentality. Extend it,
and you will grow some of your own food, provide your own winter heat source,
have a well for water, maybe even generate your own electric power.

In our current rented house, we have a couple of problems... No heat source
other than the oil furnace means no heat if the power goes out for a couple
of days. City water means we're dependent on them, which we found out last
winter to be a bad situation. No water for 3 days. Our new house won't have
these problems. We both can't see how folks can live any other way... Maybe
we're control freaks or whatever, but we feel like we're on the edge of a
crumbly cliff at the moment.

    
>    First, I don't think it's about "respecting" authority, it's about
>    bowing to authority.  It's a fine skill in wartime, not a real useful
>    one in peacetime.  I don't believe it builds character.  
>    
>    The military *is* about accepting authority without question and
>    following orders without conscience.  You can't very well have a 

    Yes and no ... a platoon told to go out on patrol goes ... once out
    there, in Vietnam for example, you had a bunch of 18-20 year olds
    trying to reach objectives using their experience, smarts, initiative,
    and leadership.  The general back at HQ isn't helping them a heck of a
    lot during a firefight on the line; it's their ability to think, plan,
    react, and lots of luck.  While I'm no fan of war or the military
    skills learned in the military (the non-killing ones) go a long way to
    being a successful person.


>    The military is about using force to survive.  It's about countering
>    aggression with aggression until one side is the undisputed winner.
>    Sounds rather survivalist to me.  

    Have you read "The Art of War"?  It's a book about war that could be a
    book for managing any situation with a competitor.  Wars are usually
    won with superior planning, logistics, tactics, and weapon building
    capability.  Good management wins wars; poor management loses them even
    with superior weapons and forces.
              
    Greg
                                             

  >  First, I don't think it's about "respecting" authority, it's about
  >  bowing to authority.  It's a fine skill in wartime, not a real useful
  >  one in peacetime.  I don't believe it builds character.  
  
  Any chance you might rethink this position?

    re: .143
    
    No.  You and I do not agree about the role (or lack thereof)
    of the military in peacetime.  If you do not agree with what
    your CO has ordered you to do, there are not a lot of ways to
    refuse which do not involve court martial or time in the brigg.
    Respect and authority are infused in a recruit through immersion
    thereby insuring a breaking both of the spirit and of the will to 
    resist.  I don't particularly think it's a great thing to do to
    an 18 year old.  If it was a religious cult instead of a American
    military force no one else would care much for it either.  While
    I don't deny that there are some who benefit from this type of
    treatment, there are others (like Timothy McVey) who never should
    have been taught to handle a weapon.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    
    
     

    Ever hear of that New fellow who refused to wear the Un uniform?
    
    RE Military tactics and killing: did anyone go to jail (ala Lt Cally in
    Vietnam) for shooting Randy Weaber's wife to death?
    
    I remember reading that a disproportunate # of ex-Marines (of those who
    served in the mil) are CEO's  (mid 80's data)

    .145
    
    There was a program on NPR about My Lai a few weeks ago.  I was a bit
    surprised that dozens of soldiers were implicated, and some were very 
    nearly shot on the spot by a couple of Air Cav Hueys that witnessed the
    event.  Unles I misheard it cally was the only one charged and got
    three to five years for twenty murders.  Doesn't sound too harsh.
    

    >People need to question authority.  People need to understand what is
    >expected of them and have the ethics required to refuse if necessary. 
    >That is what is required of an educated, enlightened society.  Blind
    >obedience is not.
    
    What do you consider a guideline for which authority to question and
    how then do you question authority?
    
    

    re: .147
    
    There is no authority above question.  Authority which is appropriate
    will stand up to questioning, and should even encourage it.  
    Inappropriate authority will insist that questioning weakens 
    authority.
    
    Questioning invites the opportunity to learn.  A healthy intellect 
    is the best weapon against poverty, hunger, intolerance and
    violence.  All authority should have a published goal, a set of
    ethics and a code of behavior.  The code of behavior should be
    blind to position and influence.  All persons in positions of 
    authority should be required to take a minimum of 6 course credits 
    per year in a theoretical field (psychics, philosophy, divinity, etc.)
    and complete 40 hours of community service.  
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    
    

re .148:

Question Authority (and the Authorities will question you!)

    .148
    
    How would you train children in this philosophy of questioning
    authority?
    
    Give some practical examples if you will.  

    Re .150:
    
    > How would you train children in this philosophy of questioning
    > authority?

    Buy them a subscription to _Zillions_.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

re: .144

   Of all the people I've known in military service, not one of them
   has been broken of will or spirit. In fact, quite the contrary is true.

   They are also excellent problem solvers with disciplined approaches
   to accomplishing their goals. They understand the value of and how to
   work in teams to accomplish a goal, and they understand more about 
   responsibility, both personal and societal, than most other folks I know.

>   If you do not agree with what your CO has ordered you to do, there are 
>   not a lot of ways to refuse which do not involve court martial or time 
>   in the brigg.

    How is this different from real life? Don't want to do your job and you
    get fired. If you do your job, but address the problems encounter through
    the chain of command, you excel. Respecting the chain of command is not
    the same as bowing to its will.

>    While I don't deny that there are some who benefit from this type of
>    treatment, there are others (like Timothy McVey) who never should
>    have been taught to handle a weapon.

    How is McVey's military training related to bombing a building? Any farmer
    could have built that bomb. BTW: Do you know anything about his service 
    record?

    Doug.

  Teen Drinking at Supervised Parties, People..Teen drinking at supervised
  Parties!

    I still say that a supervised party is a contradiction of words.
    -ss

    re: .150
    
    The most important principle is a sound education.  Philosophy, 
    world history, world religion, art history, music appreciation, 
    world literature, Latin, Greek, mathematics and ethics.  An 
    age-appropriate reading list is mandatory, as are essays, 
    creative writing and field trips to museums. 
    
    Children should also be taught that their education is a gift to
    them from the community and they should be encourage to give
    back to that community through community service each year.
    
    Wars, governments and cultures should be discussed.  Alternatives
    should be formulated and debated by the class.  Different
    government types should be studied and emulated in the classroom
    to give students an understanding of the compromises required
    to run a country.  Public speaking should be a requirement.
    You cannot stand up for your rights if you are afraid to
    speak in front of others.  Agriculture should also be
    taught, it is important to understand how actions affect
    the earth.  Parents of the children should be encouraged
    to speak to the class about how their religion shapes their
    lives, thus exposing them to different religions and giving
    them an understanding of the importance of spirituality (this
    includes atheism).  Emphasis should always be on asking questions. 
    If you do not pose a question, you cannot learn.
    
    You can't guarantee that everyone will question authority. But
    you may be able to get well-rounded, compassionate individuals
    who will strive to make this world a better place for everyone.
    
    Mary-Michael

    .155
    
    In theory this sounds really good.  Now can you give me a practical
    situation in which a 6 year old would question authority appropriately?

    refusing to get into a car with a strange adult?

    Classroom environment. :-)  

   .157  you are so bright!  this cancels out the moon thing and that other
	 thing.

>    refusing to get into a car with a strange adult?


   is a strange adult an authority figure?

He is if he's a priestly pedophile.

    |is a strange adult an authority figure?
    
    to a six-year-old, all adults are authority figures.

    re: .156
    
    Sure.  Six year olds by nature are great at questioning
    authority :-).  The only problem is the authority they
    question most often is yours :-) :-).  It is possible,
    given that the timing is right, to turn a question into
    an opportunity to learn, such that things like "why do I
    have to go to bed?" turn into a trip to the library the next
    day to find some material on the importance of sleep to
    the human body, or "why do we go to church every Sunday?"
    turns into a discussion of why your religion is important
    to you.  "Why are there poor people?" can turn into a trip
    to a shelter with outgrown toys and clothes, or a food 
    pantry with some extra canned goods.  Keep in mind that
    these suggestions come from someone with no children :-) :-)
    and that the timing may not always be great for a lengthy answer,
    ie, discussing fire while your grabbing their hand way from the stove
    is not practical.  However, a discussion of burns and their
    severity and basic First Aid afterwards might be.
    
    Mary-Michael
    
    
    
    

    Those questions are not really questioning authority.  They are normal
    learning situations that all kids would go through.
    
    I'm talking about a classroom environment where there are rules
    enforced by an authority outside of Mom and Dad.
    
    When would it be appropriate for this 6 year old to question authority? 
    Is it in your opinion good for the 6 year old to question authority
    when it comes to raising their hand before speaking?  What about
    permission to leave the classroom?  Or what if the teacher has a rule
    that they must sharpen their pencils in the morning and aren't allowed
    to the balance of the day [requirement two pencils]?
    
    How do we teach a 6 year old when it is okay to question authority and
    when it is not?
    
    

    |I'm talking about a classroom environment where there are rules
    |enforced by an authority outside of Mom and Dad.
    
    When I was in school, this statement was the farthest thing from the
    truth. 

    
    	Yeah, it's tough when both of your parents teach at your school.
    

    re: .164
    
    Well, I wouldn't consider not raising one's hand or talking
    out of turn questioning authority.  I'd consider that a lack
    of common courtesy.  Children should learn common courtesy.
    It is rapidly becoming a lost art in our society.
    
    I can come up with two examples from my own childhood.  
    I had bladder and kidney problems as a child which caused
    me to need access to the restroom more frequently than most
    of the other kids.  I had a couple of nuns who would not let
    me leave the classroom.  I left anyway.  When it was brought to
    my mother's attention that I had disobeyed my teachers, she gave 
    the nun hell, gave the principal hell, and said it had better not 
    happen again.  It didn't :-).  And she also gave me a very good
    piece of advice that I continue to practice to this day, 
    "Use your head."
    
    I am left handed.  As a matter of fact, I turn the paper
    nearly upside-down to write on it.  As you can imagine,
    this did not go over well in a Catholic school :-) They tried
    to switch me over.  I refused.  It was the way God made me
    and I didn't see anything particularly wrong with it. Off the
    note went to my mother.  A note returned.  "Mary is left-handed.
    God made her that way, and we think it's a fine idea."  Sometimes, 
    my mother was good  :-) :-)
    
    You should question authority if someone wants you to do something
    that you don't think is right, like steal something from a store,
    or cheat at a sport, or hurt another person, even if the person
    who asks you to do it is an adult you trust.  You should question
    authority if someone wants to touch you somewhere or in some way
    you are not comfortable with.  You should question authority if
    someone asks you to get in a car with them, even if they tell
    you they are a police officer.  
    
    Mary-Michael

    	I must agree with that one. There are times when authority asks you
    to do things that you yourself feel is wrong. With that in mind DON'T
    DO IT!  
    
    	I have to put up with this everyday. People tell me I should cut my
    hair so I can get farther in life. I keep it long so that I can one day
    change some peoples mind about long hair. It feels right to me and I
    have learned that if you feel good about something do not let anyone
    change you except yourself.
    
    -BG

Then again, you need to keep in mind that the day may come when you aren't
physically able to continue making the long hair statement.

That's somewhat superfluous to this conversation, one supposes, but I thought 
it might be germane to note that it's a somewhat transient connection.

    	I was just trying to say to stick up for what you belive in.
    
    -BG

Surely.

Now, take yourself down the road 25 or 30 years when your hair mayn't
be as luxurious.

Is "standing up for long hair rights" likely to be as big an issue for
you when you might be bald, or a rug carrier, or otherwise different
regarding your hairstyle from what might be your fashion today?

Certainly it could be. But the chance is equal that under such circumstances 
one could conclude that the long-hair-support issue was much less critical.

People change regarding what they feel their priorities are on some things.
In some cases, the changes are more radical (more fundamental things are
viewed differently). In other cases the changes are more subtle.

    	I see your point. At this point in my life though I feel that even
    if I did go bald or whatever that I would still stick up for people who
    have long hair or any other difference that people might find
    "unacceptable"
    
    -BG

         A good idea, but it works only in theory. 

    Only if you let just be theory.
    
    -BG

    Enough rhetoric already...

    	piss off
    
    -BG

    Mary:
    
    In questioning authority (which I do quite a bit of) and the teachings
    in school, do you favor 'teaching peace'?
    
    Dianne:
    
    You grow vegetables so you are a survivalist? Is it a matter of
    degrees?
    
    Steve

    Re .164:
    
    > Is it in your opinion good for the 6 year old to question authority
    > when it comes to raising their hand before speaking?
    
    Absolutely.  The way you ask these questions gives the impression that
    you think asking constitutes denial.  But that's nonsense.  Questions
    SOLICIT INFORMATION.  In this case, the answer is that raising hands is
    more orderly, because it allows the teacher to select one person at a
    time to speak.  It gets disorganized and hard to understand when more
    than one person speaks.  If the teacher has difficulty explaining this
    with words that a child understands, then a practical demonstration
    should illuminate the concept.  It is perfectly okay to ask WHY the
    rule exists.
    
    > What about permission to leave the classroom?
    
    Yes, it is good to ask.
    
    > Or what if the teacher has a rule that they must sharpen their pencils
    > in the morning and aren't allowed to the balance of the day
    > [requirement two pencils]?
    
    Yes, it is good to ask.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    .167
    
    See 723.3.  That was all me ol' dad ever said in any circumstances.

>                <<< Note 741.178 by 43GMC::KEITH "Dr. Deuce" >>>
    
>    Dianne:
    
>    You grow vegetables so you are a survivalist? Is it a matter of
>    degrees?

	It's Diane, and no, I grow vegetables because I get a charge out
	of watching things grow and you can't beat the taste of fresh
	vegetables.  That it may, at some point, help me survive
	a severe winter storm is gravy. ;>

    So Diane:
    
    By your own reasioning if someone collects guns etc because "[they] get
    a charge out of..." "and they just happen to..."
    they are not a survivalist. Is that correct?
    
    Steve
    
    I am looking for a defination of a survivalist

>                <<< Note 741.182 by 43GMC::KEITH "Dr. Deuce" >>>

>    By your own reasioning if someone collects guns etc because "[they] get
>    a charge out of..." "and they just happen to..."
>    they are not a survivalist. Is that correct?

	Well, no, I can't say that's correct, because it's not definitive
	enough to be correct or incorrect.  Some people might collect guns
	because they think certain guns are beautiful pieces of work (which
	is the only reason I'd collect them), but that doesn't preclude
	them being survivalists.  Definition-wise, a survivalist is someone
	who takes measures to ensure personal or group survival, whether
	it be after a catastrophic event or in the case of attack, robbery,
	etc. (according to the dictionary).

    
      Apparently, there was another case in Massachusetts recently.
     Teenage drinking party, parent's house, 3 boys decided to take
     out the canoe, somebody drowned.
    
      The cops decided not to arrest the parents because there was no
     evidence they bought the booze or condoned the teens.  Otherwise,
     they would be in the klink.
    
      bb

    .184
    
    Two of the boys in the canoe drowned.  The third insists that although
    there had been alcohol consumed, that was absolutely NOT the cause of
    the accident.  (The obvious question is, does "diminished capacity"
    come into play?)

    Mary,
    
    That was a good note and I happen to agree with the circumstances you
    gave in which questioning authority would be good.  Let me ask you a
    question though about your own childhood experience.  What was your
    attitude towards the nuns when you left to go to the bathroom?  How
    would you describe it?  
    
    Nancy

RE Note 741.183  PENUTS::DDESMAISONS 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>	Well, no, I can't say that's correct, because it's not definitive
>	enough to be correct or incorrect.  Some people might collect guns
>	because they think certain guns are beautiful pieces of work (which
>	is the only reason I'd collect them), but that doesn't preclude
>	them being survivalists.  
    
    How about if they enjoy hunting or target shooting besides collecting
    because they are rare, beautiful, gain value, etc?
    
    >    Definition-wise, a survivalist is someone
>	who takes measures to ensure personal or group survival, whether
>	it be after a catastrophic event or in the case of attack, robbery,
>	etc. (according to the dictionary).

    Then someone who takes measures such as buying a flashlight, or
    generator in case of a hurricane or tornado is a survivalist  by your
    defination. How about the tornado 'root cellar'. Everyone who buys
    mace, peper spray etc is one too?
    
    Steve

    
    
    	Steve, don't beat up Di too badly here. She's quoting a dictionary
    for definition of survivalist (I believe...right Di?). 
    
    jim

>                <<< Note 741.187 by 43GMC::KEITH "Dr. Deuce" >>>
    
>    How about if they enjoy hunting or target shooting besides collecting
>    because they are rare, beautiful, gain value, etc?

     What about it?  I don't know what you're getting at here.  There could
     be numerous reasons for someone to want to collect guns.  So what?
     
>    Then someone who takes measures such as buying a flashlight, or
>    generator in case of a hurricane or tornado is a survivalist  by your
>    defination. 

     I don't know why you're calling it _my_ definition.  I told you that
     was how my dictionary defined it.  According to that definition, 
     someone who takes the measures you've listed could be considered
     a survivalist.  Your point is...?

    It would probably help if you Muricans didn`t have bars so spread out
    that you need a car to drive just to get there.
    
    So I think the answer is to totally re-design the infrastructure of
    towns and housing,then the problem would be alleviated.
    
    ho,ho.
    
    
    

    My point is that people throw "labels" around without thinking about
    them or what they mean. Remember, "label jars not people..." from the
    PC people.
    
    If people really had to think about what they were really saying about
    themselves by the labels that they accept to use, they might not use
    them.
    
    End of my discussion
    
    Steve

    
       I spoke too soon (but so did the cop spokesperson).  They have
     decided to file a complaint against the parents in the drinking
     canoe episode which resulted in two drownings.  Word is that the
     parents may have condoned the drinking, but that is not confirmed.
    
       bb
    

    
    >>>the drinking canoe episode
    
    a drinking canoe???  
    
    
    
    

Drinking Canoe?

I've run across some who seemed as though they might have bathed in it,
but drinking it?

    re: .192
    
    	More evidence of the great crime wave - no wonder we need more
        cops and prisons. Hideous criminals like these folks were pretty
    	common when I was in High School, but I suppose the police were
    	more concerned with minor offenses like rapes, murders and
    	robberies back then. It's a good thing priorities have changed -
    	now we lock up parents who condone drinking, drug users,
    	'deadbeat dads' and other nasties.
    
    			Robert.

    >   I spoke too soon (but so did the cop spokesperson).  They have
    > decided to file a complaint against the parents in the drinking
    > canoe episode which resulted in two drownings.  
    
     Apparently tip a brew preceeded tippecanoe.

    Wasn't it a drunken canoe that crashed into the bridge in Boston?

    that would be canuck, colin.

    Ah, my mistake.

    
    canuck, canoe and tyler too.

    Stupid move.    When I was a teenager I didn't need any super vision
    while drinking at parties - my vision was usually good enough to
    see what I was looking at!
    
    

    Sounds like you _did_ have super vision. I'll bet you had a sissy
    bladder though.

    Depends if my eye balls were floating...
    

    It seems to me that once a person reaches a certain age, ie old enough
    to vote, or join the military, the governing bodies have determined
    that the person is old enough to make a concious desicion about some
    very important things. Therefore, an adult should not be needed to
    condone or condemn the actions that these people have performed. All
    this man did was to provide a safe haven for a class of graduating
    teenagers, why should it have been his responsibility to make sure that
    there was no drinking going on, it's not very hard to hide pint of
    liquor in a tuxedo. Sure kids are going to drink, as I did when I was
    young, but if I was drinking at a party and the cops showed up, and I
    happened to have a beer in my hand, and got thrown into a cruiser and
    taken downtown, it was my fault alone and I suffered the consequenses.
    It's the same thing as not trying 16 yearold as an adult for murder
    because he wasn't old enough to know right from wrong. Kids today are
    alot smarter than we think. 

    I just picked up the latest Celine Dion CD "Falling into you"
    
    It is quite nice. She has a beautiful voice and most all the songs are
    very good. WARNING: Many are meloncolly (sp badly) and may affect you.
    The last one I believe is about a child who dies of (my guess) Cystic 
    Fibrosis.
    
    Steve

 And the relationship of that entry to the topic is...

    Since when does that matter???

    It's meloncollie.  

>    Since when does that matter???


     It doesn't of course, but I was rather suprised to read that particular
     reply in this topic, which had been idle for a while.  But, that's just
     me I suppose.




 Jim

    I've been pulled over by the police after downing a few-and nothing is
    more sobering than seeing those lights come on behind you.
    -ss

    Being that ripe ol' age of 22.  I don't know if I would have gone to a
    drinking party with parental supervision.  But with only 4 years
    difference, I say that people like that are saint's!  Keeping drunk
    kids off the road is the best thing they could have done and that any
    one facing charges for loving and caring for their saftey is ridiculus!
    Way up north here, this topic would'nt be happening.  The drinking age
    in Ontario is 19, 5 minutes from here in Hull, Quebec the drinking age
    is 18.  Accually we probably would have a similar topic, but it would
    be along the lines of:  Why did'nt some parents organize a gathering
    spot where all car keys would be collected and no one alowed to leave
    untill tomorrow?  Instead of them drinking in a bar and killing
    themselves on the way home?
    

    re -1
    How nice it is to be under 21 in Canada.
    -ss

    re.all
    
    I don't think there should be any legal age-limits on alcohol usage. It
    only makes it more exciting to do....
    
    Here in the Netherlands there is no age for drinking alcohol. If
    parents raise their kids well, they should know for their own wether
    they should drink or not....
    
    Martijn van Pommeren

    Yabbut, doesn't everybody walk around naked in the Netherlands?
    
    We must consider the source.

    Yep, they do... It's GREAT !!!

    
    	In 95% of the cases, I seriously doubt it.
    

    re .214
    
    Guess where I am going on holiday!!!!!!

To a teen party?

    re.218
    
    I am going to a teen party where they all walk around naked.

    And drink alcohol, right ??
    
    Oh wait a sec, it's the other 20-year-old guy.....

    re:.  220
    
    Not yet, I am still in my last 84 days of teenagerism.

    re.-1
    
    Whoa another 84 days.... Congrats. you're younger !!! :~(
    
    
    Happy Birthday already then.....
    
    M.

    re:-1
    
    Does that mean I am the youngest MCS support Specialist corporate?

    I dunno,
    
    Maybe there are some younger ones, who don't know how to work the notes
    yet.....