children How many times have you heard someone talk about how stupid the youth of today look? Whether it's an odd hair color, baggy clothes, or the proliferation of visible tattoos and piercings, older generations seem to have forgotten one of our mantras: Don't judge a book by its cover. Many seem to have gone one step further and applied "stupid" not only to the outward appearance of today's youth, but also to their mental abilities and belief sets. We need to stop and think what sort of message we're sending to our children by saying these things about them. The longer someone hears something negative, the more likely they are to believe it. Are we setting the next generation up for failure by our refusal to look past youth culture?
Think back to your own childhood. Did you grow up in the 50s? Remember how appalled the grown-ups were with Elvis Presley and how they said rock and roll wouldn't last? What about the 60s? Were the adults as a whole thrilled about mini skirts and go-go boots and long hair on guys? Or maybe the 70s fits you better, with its war protests and mainstreaming of the hippie culture. But how did your parents react to your new extracurricular activities? Let's not forget the 80s, with big hair, ripped jeans, and valley girls. Parents were up in arms about the negative effects of video games and music lyrics on their children.
Hindsight is 20/20, and we can all look back and see a bit of ridiculousness in our styles and trends. But did our desire to stretch our boundaries and assert our independence make us stupid? In the 50s, we legally ended segregation in schools. In the 60s our space program allowed us to reach heights never before possible. The 70s brought us floppy discs and microchips and test tube babies. Even the "me" decade of the 80s had its gems in medical advances, DNA research, and higher percentages of women with college degrees. These positives came from the same people who were criticized as teens and young adults for their stupid styles, trends, music, and hobbies.Were you one of those people? Next time you have a disparaging opinion about the youth of today, hold your tongue and think about what it was like to be the youth of yesterday.
The youth of today aren't that much different than we were in previous decades. They have hopes and dreams not only for themselves, but for the world as a whole. They have ideals and morals that may not always match our own, but different does not have to equal bad. Until recently I had a poor opinion of today's teenagers. But now I have a teenager of my own, and through my teenager I have met many others. There are certain things about the youth culture of today that I can't stand, to be honest with you. They have big stretched out earlobes, asymmetrical haircuts, facial piercings, listen to dark music, they're loud and boisterous, and spend way too much time on the internet. But after looking past those things and actually getting to know these kids, I have found that they are hopeful, aspiring, proactive, optimistic, and dare I say, intelligent. We aren't giving them enough credit. They are more aware of the world around them and how they can positively affect it than any other generation I've personally known. They don't just want to help themselves, they want to help each other. There will always be exceptions, but don't assign the exceptions to the entire group.
I'm excited about the next generation, and I think they have a lot to teach us. Will you be willing to learn from someone who wears a nose ring and has bed head all day on purpose? If not, you may be missing out on something profound.
whettspot
Youth Gone Wild
Give me death or give me death
Consider this: Your dear friend has grown very old and is in the final stages of life. He suffers from diabetes and severe arthritis, he's gone completely blind and has lost most of his hearing, and he has so many tumors in his digestive system that he can no longer eat anything without vomiting most of it back up. You hate to let go because he's been there for you over the course of many years, yet you can't stand to see him suffer through so much pain. You are thinking only of him and his well-being when you decide to put him out of his misery, and you do the only thing you know to do: you have him killed by lethal injection. Should you go to jail for assisting in a death? What if this best friend was named Fido, had four legs and a tail, and communicated only by barking or growling?
Consider this situation: A healthy man lies on a gurney. He is surrounded by people who are there specifically to see him. A member of the medical staff on hand gives him an injection, and he quietly goes to sleep. A few minutes later he is dead as a result of the drug that was injected. What if that man was your husband, or your father, or your son? Would you sue the medical staff for malpractice? What if that man was the mastermind of a mass murder, or a terrorist act? Would you celebrate his death?
Lastly, think of this: A woman lies in a hospital bed, where she's been for fifteen years. She is blind, can't speak or walk or eat, or even respond to outside stimuli, but she can breathe on her own. A decision has been made to remove any life support she receives and allow her to die. Since her body still breathes without assistance, "life support" means her feeding tube. Over the next two weeks she continues to live, without food, without water, without medication. Her body is slowly starving and dehydrating, and her loved ones have to watch helplessly. They are told that she can feel no pain but since the woman cannot communicate, they have no way of knowing for sure.
What I can say without a doubt is that if I were to refuse to give my pet food and water, I could be arrested for animal cruelty. If prisoners on death row were refused nourishment and hydration, the captors would be reprimanded, possibly even convicted themselves, for using cruel and unusual punishment. But if a person wishes to not be kept alive in the event that they are unable to care for themselves any longer, the only option is to be starved and dehydrated until their body ceases to function. How is this humane?
Physician assisted suicide is a controversial topic, and is only legal in one state (Oregon). Dr. Jack Kevorkian is still serving time in prison for his role in the voluntary deaths of over 100 people. Some will argue that doctors should be prolonging life, not cutting it short. But what about quality of life? Is it right for doctors to keep a person alive if they are no longer truly living, such as in the case of the woman who was in a persistent vegetative state for fifteen years? And when it comes to the right to die, is it ethical to deprive someone of food and water as a means of death? Why is that method more ethical than a lethal injection?
If a person of sound mind confers with his or her attorney, has proper legal papers drawn up, signed, notarized, and distributed amongst family members, friends, and medical staff, they can legally be allowed to die naturally and refuse the use of life sustaining systems in the event that their body cannot function on its own. Why then, can a person not request to die quickly by lethal injection, given those same criteria? Under the proper circumstances - a terminal disease that is incurable or past the point of viable treatment, or a critical injury from which one cannot recover - it should be allowed. We aren't talking about angsty teenagers who wish death upon themselves after a dramatic break-up with their beau or rift with their best friend. We're not talking about those who suffer from a mental disorder that may affect their decision-making abilities and will to live. We're talking about healthy-minded adults who simply want to live each day to the fullest and have some control over the quality of their lives in their final hours.
If you're still unsure, here's a quick quiz:
Which way would you prefer to die?
a) Starve to death
b) Dehydration
c) From an incurable disease or injury that inflicts days, even months or years of suffering before slowly ceasing to function
d) Quietly in my sleep
We're kind enough to give pets and convicted murderers that last option. Why not common citizens?
Consider this situation: A healthy man lies on a gurney. He is surrounded by people who are there specifically to see him. A member of the medical staff on hand gives him an injection, and he quietly goes to sleep. A few minutes later he is dead as a result of the drug that was injected. What if that man was your husband, or your father, or your son? Would you sue the medical staff for malpractice? What if that man was the mastermind of a mass murder, or a terrorist act? Would you celebrate his death?
Lastly, think of this: A woman lies in a hospital bed, where she's been for fifteen years. She is blind, can't speak or walk or eat, or even respond to outside stimuli, but she can breathe on her own. A decision has been made to remove any life support she receives and allow her to die. Since her body still breathes without assistance, "life support" means her feeding tube. Over the next two weeks she continues to live, without food, without water, without medication. Her body is slowly starving and dehydrating, and her loved ones have to watch helplessly. They are told that she can feel no pain but since the woman cannot communicate, they have no way of knowing for sure.
What I can say without a doubt is that if I were to refuse to give my pet food and water, I could be arrested for animal cruelty. If prisoners on death row were refused nourishment and hydration, the captors would be reprimanded, possibly even convicted themselves, for using cruel and unusual punishment. But if a person wishes to not be kept alive in the event that they are unable to care for themselves any longer, the only option is to be starved and dehydrated until their body ceases to function. How is this humane?
Physician assisted suicide is a controversial topic, and is only legal in one state (Oregon). Dr. Jack Kevorkian is still serving time in prison for his role in the voluntary deaths of over 100 people. Some will argue that doctors should be prolonging life, not cutting it short. But what about quality of life? Is it right for doctors to keep a person alive if they are no longer truly living, such as in the case of the woman who was in a persistent vegetative state for fifteen years? And when it comes to the right to die, is it ethical to deprive someone of food and water as a means of death? Why is that method more ethical than a lethal injection?
If a person of sound mind confers with his or her attorney, has proper legal papers drawn up, signed, notarized, and distributed amongst family members, friends, and medical staff, they can legally be allowed to die naturally and refuse the use of life sustaining systems in the event that their body cannot function on its own. Why then, can a person not request to die quickly by lethal injection, given those same criteria? Under the proper circumstances - a terminal disease that is incurable or past the point of viable treatment, or a critical injury from which one cannot recover - it should be allowed. We aren't talking about angsty teenagers who wish death upon themselves after a dramatic break-up with their beau or rift with their best friend. We're not talking about those who suffer from a mental disorder that may affect their decision-making abilities and will to live. We're talking about healthy-minded adults who simply want to live each day to the fullest and have some control over the quality of their lives in their final hours.
If you're still unsure, here's a quick quiz:
Which way would you prefer to die?
a) Starve to death
b) Dehydration
c) From an incurable disease or injury that inflicts days, even months or years of suffering before slowly ceasing to function
d) Quietly in my sleep
We're kind enough to give pets and convicted murderers that last option. Why not common citizens?
Merry Christmas Veruca
Did you get a PS3 this year? If you did, you're one of the few, the proud, and the stupid. Due to what I've come to call the "Cabbage Patch Effect," (aptly named after the first toy craze I can remember) demand for the video game systems far outweighed supply, and people have been injured amongst the masses attempting to get their hands on the sparse units available. The frenzy starts several days before, when people start setting up camp on the cold hard sidewalks outside stores, awaiting the exact minute when the consoles become available. Media outlets show up, driving the hype to a new level and encouraging more people to participate in the insanity. When the sale is finally given the green light, usually at midnight on the date of release, the tired, frustrated, and often malodorous wanna-be gamers push, pull, elbow, shove, trample, punch, and even shoot at each other in order to be one of the first to own new gaming system.
So what do those few people get for all their troubles? A bug-ridden, overpriced, first-issue gaming system that doesn't have many games developed for it yet. This year we've seen a new kind of "bug" with the Nintendo Wii systems. The motion detection game controller allows people to step even further into the games than ever before. Playing baseball? Swing the remote like a bat to make the game respond. Fishing? Cast your line with the controller and the game mimics your movements. Drawbacks? If you become too engrossed into the game and a bit overzealous with your movements, the wrist strap can break, sending the remote sailing across the room. Several people have been left with broken household items, injuries, and even shattered their television sets. Although Nintendo has taken steps to correct the issue, it makes one wonder if it was really worth all that trouble. (See Wii Have a Problem for stories and photos of the damage.)
Those who didn't manage to get their new toys at the store, there's always eBay. But hot items generally sell for a ridiculously inflated price, which is a further testament to the idiocy prevalent in society today. And beware of sellers who like to take advantage of the hype or you may end up paying $500 for an empty box. (Side note: I have a low tolerance for stupidity. If you don't take your time and fully read the description of the item on the auction block, then you are a moron and you deserve an empty box. Whoever started that trend is brilliant, and I wish I'd thought of it.)
In this day of instant gratification, people don't want to wait for anything. A little bit of common sense will tell you that after the Christmas rush is over, the systems will be more widely available. A few months after that, the major bugs will have come to light and later releases won't have the issues seen in earlier versions. By the time summer rolls around and students on break have more time to spend playing games, the choice in available games will be greater. And by next Christmas, when people have focused on the next "must-have" toy or item, the price on these consoles will drop a considerable amount. Especially in these cases, there's a lot to be said for restraint and patience. Save your money, your trouble, your television, and possibly your life, and just buy a new game for last year's model instead. What have you got to lose by waiting?
Don't forget what happened to dear Veruca Salt and her "I want it NOW" mantra. It rarely pays off in the end.
So what do those few people get for all their troubles? A bug-ridden, overpriced, first-issue gaming system that doesn't have many games developed for it yet. This year we've seen a new kind of "bug" with the Nintendo Wii systems. The motion detection game controller allows people to step even further into the games than ever before. Playing baseball? Swing the remote like a bat to make the game respond. Fishing? Cast your line with the controller and the game mimics your movements. Drawbacks? If you become too engrossed into the game and a bit overzealous with your movements, the wrist strap can break, sending the remote sailing across the room. Several people have been left with broken household items, injuries, and even shattered their television sets. Although Nintendo has taken steps to correct the issue, it makes one wonder if it was really worth all that trouble. (See Wii Have a Problem for stories and photos of the damage.)
Those who didn't manage to get their new toys at the store, there's always eBay. But hot items generally sell for a ridiculously inflated price, which is a further testament to the idiocy prevalent in society today. And beware of sellers who like to take advantage of the hype or you may end up paying $500 for an empty box. (Side note: I have a low tolerance for stupidity. If you don't take your time and fully read the description of the item on the auction block, then you are a moron and you deserve an empty box. Whoever started that trend is brilliant, and I wish I'd thought of it.)
In this day of instant gratification, people don't want to wait for anything. A little bit of common sense will tell you that after the Christmas rush is over, the systems will be more widely available. A few months after that, the major bugs will have come to light and later releases won't have the issues seen in earlier versions. By the time summer rolls around and students on break have more time to spend playing games, the choice in available games will be greater. And by next Christmas, when people have focused on the next "must-have" toy or item, the price on these consoles will drop a considerable amount. Especially in these cases, there's a lot to be said for restraint and patience. Save your money, your trouble, your television, and possibly your life, and just buy a new game for last year's model instead. What have you got to lose by waiting?
Don't forget what happened to dear Veruca Salt and her "I want it NOW" mantra. It rarely pays off in the end.
No replies - reply
Red rover, red rover, when will this feud be over?
Does anyone else feel that the fight between Rosie and Trump is a bit reminiscent of junior high school? Maybe we should put them in a gym and see if a rousing dodge ball match can settle the dispute. But given a second thought, the idea of Ro and Do in gym shorts is nothing short of repulsive. Can that idea!
First of all, can we at least admit that Miss USA is a BEAUTY PAGEANT? Enough of this "scholarship" and "representative" nonsense. I've been the recipient of a few scholarships in my time, and none of them involved a swimsuit competition. And let's face it, Miss USA isn't representative of me or anyone I know. She's no more special than a pretty face and a sweet bikini briefly flashing across the camera during an MTV Spring Break special. If you want to participate in a contest that judges you primarily on your outward appearance, be my guest. But at least have the cajones to call it what it is. BEAUTY PAGEANT.
Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't each Miss USA contestant required to sign a contract outlining what's expected of her should she win? It would be interesting to read that contract and discover exactly what's expected of these young women. I'd lay money that "Girls Gone Wild" behavior isn't encouraged.
Personally I don't give a rat what she does. As previously mentioned, I don't consider her representative of myself or my peers, and her behavior has no direct impact on my own life. However, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that if I sign a contract, and I break the terms of said contract, I'm probably not going to get excused by Donald Trump (or anyone else) and given a second chance. More likely, I'd be firmly reminded of the terms of the contract, and then receive an appropriate penalty. What did Miss USA receive? Thirty days in the hole and a creepy hug from the lecherous Trump. (Story continued below picture...)
For those who are defending her with the excuse that "she's not the only person" to ever engage in such activities, let me ask you this: Should we stop punishing criminals since they aren't alone in their lawlessness? Her crimes weren't violent, but she still broke the law by engaging in underage drinking. And we have yet to hear official results on any drug tests she may be subject to.
And lastly, a few words for Mr. Trump. We all know Rosie is outspoken, and we've known it for a long time. I don't always agree with her, but she has just as much right to speak her mind as the rest of us do. You've always been skilled at making yourself look like an ass, but this time we can see that you not only look like one, but you actually are one. Your name-calling, frivolously litigious, homophobic, threatening, ridiculously juvenile comments are akin to the playground intimidator we all knew in 4th grade. (And you think she's the bully? Pot. Kettle. Black.) If you hadn't counter-protested so much, this would've been on the back burner by now. Maybe Rosie was correct in her assumption that this was a publicity stunt. You're certainly doing nothing to refute that allegation. In fact, I'd venture to say that you're only strengthening the case against you.
Here's a bit of friendly advice. Take a Valium, have a shot of Crown Royal, do some yoga, whatever it takes to loosen up. You're taking this WAAAAAY too seriously. Oh yeah, and lay off the spray-on tanner. Trust me, it's not working for you.
First of all, can we at least admit that Miss USA is a BEAUTY PAGEANT? Enough of this "scholarship" and "representative" nonsense. I've been the recipient of a few scholarships in my time, and none of them involved a swimsuit competition. And let's face it, Miss USA isn't representative of me or anyone I know. She's no more special than a pretty face and a sweet bikini briefly flashing across the camera during an MTV Spring Break special. If you want to participate in a contest that judges you primarily on your outward appearance, be my guest. But at least have the cajones to call it what it is. BEAUTY PAGEANT.
Secondly, and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't each Miss USA contestant required to sign a contract outlining what's expected of her should she win? It would be interesting to read that contract and discover exactly what's expected of these young women. I'd lay money that "Girls Gone Wild" behavior isn't encouraged.
Personally I don't give a rat what she does. As previously mentioned, I don't consider her representative of myself or my peers, and her behavior has no direct impact on my own life. However, I can say with a fair amount of certainty that if I sign a contract, and I break the terms of said contract, I'm probably not going to get excused by Donald Trump (or anyone else) and given a second chance. More likely, I'd be firmly reminded of the terms of the contract, and then receive an appropriate penalty. What did Miss USA receive? Thirty days in the hole and a creepy hug from the lecherous Trump. (Story continued below picture...)
For those who are defending her with the excuse that "she's not the only person" to ever engage in such activities, let me ask you this: Should we stop punishing criminals since they aren't alone in their lawlessness? Her crimes weren't violent, but she still broke the law by engaging in underage drinking. And we have yet to hear official results on any drug tests she may be subject to.
And lastly, a few words for Mr. Trump. We all know Rosie is outspoken, and we've known it for a long time. I don't always agree with her, but she has just as much right to speak her mind as the rest of us do. You've always been skilled at making yourself look like an ass, but this time we can see that you not only look like one, but you actually are one. Your name-calling, frivolously litigious, homophobic, threatening, ridiculously juvenile comments are akin to the playground intimidator we all knew in 4th grade. (And you think she's the bully? Pot. Kettle. Black.) If you hadn't counter-protested so much, this would've been on the back burner by now. Maybe Rosie was correct in her assumption that this was a publicity stunt. You're certainly doing nothing to refute that allegation. In fact, I'd venture to say that you're only strengthening the case against you.
Here's a bit of friendly advice. Take a Valium, have a shot of Crown Royal, do some yoga, whatever it takes to loosen up. You're taking this WAAAAAY too seriously. Oh yeah, and lay off the spray-on tanner. Trust me, it's not working for you.
Profile
Calendar
