Folks, why do some of you make this job so time consuming at times? There is NO reason to single out individuals within an indivdual state and sterotyping them because of the state they live in when they may be an exception. None at all.... it is that kind of posting, actually many times flaming, that leads to what could be postive construcive threads being closed or deleted. We already have had to delete toooo many such posts.
Please, try to discuss these topics maturely..... hmmmmm.... and not grossly stereotype; generalize, etc. Thanks.
p.s. It really makes it more pleasant for everyone.
Actually.. I think this LINK belongs here.. So here it is. Note that each statement is very nearly, if not, a very apt description of today's Youth in many cases.
then note the author and when the statement was authored
Nothin adds excitment like something that is none of your business John is Near Kenwood TS-2000 housed in a 2005 Damon Intruder 377
grant135b wrote: ......It's "different" only if you think it is.
You forgot to add that this was just your opinion.
I stand by what I quoted: To all that are 40 years old plus and are trying to compare today's kids and their lives to yourself and your life can't. Not fairly anyway. Comparing today's times to your childhood times is like comparing apples to oranges......Right or wrong these are just my thoughts and opinions.
Your post was almost exclusively about violence, and I agree that violence has always been around, even in the Leave-It-To-Beaver world of the 50's. Communication capability is what makes it seem so much more prominent these days, IMHO.
On the other hand, I doubt that there would be research confirming that drug use, for example, was anywhere near as prominent when we grew up. Just my thoughts.
The fast lane that kids travel in these days, however, in academics, technology, personal freedoms, peer pressure, and so many other things make any real comparison worthless. Things are different, and not just because I might think so.
Judging by your response, I think you may have missed several of the points I was making.
Yes, it's partly my observation-based "opinion", and partly verifiable statistical fact. There's a difference between opinion based on emotion or media scare tactics, and that based on years of training and relevant professional experience.
As for drug use in days gone by, I recommend a little reading of history to put things in perspective. Drug use has always been widespread, so much so that by the late 1800s and early 1900s there was a clamor by the public for the government to do something about it in the form of laws, regulations, and the establishment of enforcement agencies. Prior to that time, drugs of all types were legal and openly sold and used, even as ingredients in consumer products available to everyone, children included. Ever wonder how Coca-Cola got its name?
And yes, my post was almost exclusively about violence because the point I was making (directly relative to the subject of this thread) is that many parents use fear of crime as an excuse to not let their kids outside, which keeps the kids from getting sufficient exercise, and which helps shape the kids' view that being outside and walking places is somehow dangerous or abnormal. I know that for a fact, because I've had many parents tell me over the years at homeowners association meetings, block watch training sessions, and during conversations I would have with them in the neighborhoods I patrolled, that they were afraid to let their kids outside because of what they had heard or seen on TV. Some of them also seemed reluctant to believe it was mostly a matter of perception rather than reality, which I guess is a natural reaction when someone presents information which doesn't conform to one's deeply held world-view. I say the same thing now that I said then - it's quite appropriate to use common sense and a bit of caution when it comes to safety and security, but don't get so carried away with thinking "things are so much different now" that you don't let your kids have a healthy, active childhood.
I guess every generation tends to think "times have changed" and "kids today are different". I remember my parents and grandparents telling me the same thing, and I guess to them the 1960s WERE different than the 1940s or the 1920s. However, upon deeper reflection, I think most people would agree that such things are simply a matter of perception, and are a function of getting older and being more aware of what "could" happen, as opposed to the callowness and relatively blissful ignorance of youth.
The poster above with the quotes from centuries past has a point about things not really changing, other than warped perceptions about the way things supposedly "used to be". I remember seeing a documentary about a woman who lived in Massachusetts in the late 1700s. She survived to a ripe old age (80s, maybe?), and for many years was one of the midwives in that area, called upon many times day and night to help deliver babies in and around her town. She kept a diary for several decades, and it was interesting to hear her complaints about young people in those days (disrespectful, know-it-all attitudes, slothfulness, pregnancies out of wedlock, etc), and her observations of ne'er-do-wells and miscreants in the local area and her perception of the danger posed by them (what we would call "crime"). It was amazing how little those things have changed since then. First person accounts from days gone by certainly help put today in perspective, at least to those open to the possibility.
* This post was
edited 05/26/08 06:45pm by grant135b *
grant135b wrote: Judging by your response, I think you may have missed several of the points I was making.
As for drug use in days gone by, I recommend a little reading of history to put things in perspective. Drug use has always been widespread, so much so that by the late 1800s and early 1900s there was a clamor by the public for the government to do something about it in the form of laws, regulations, and the establishment of enforcement agencies. Prior to that time, drugs of all types were legal and openly sold and used, even as ingredients in consumer products available to everyone, children included. Ever wonder how Coca-Cola got its name?
And yes, my post was almost exclusively about violence because the point I was making (directly relative to the subject of this thread) is that many parents use fear of crime as an excuse to not let their kids outside, which keeps the kids from getting sufficient exercise, and which helps shape the kids' view that being outside and walking places is somehow dangerous or abnormal...but don't get so carried away with thinking "things are so much different now" that you don't let your kids have a healthy, active childhood.
You yourself say that your post was almost exclusively about violence. Mine was not. You write well, but you and I are not speaking of the same "differences" in society today for children.
Your information about drugs in history is nothing new, nor is the Coca Cola story. However, if you are trying to minimize the increased danger of drugs to kids today, I and many parents will take issue with that, policeman or not.
The parents I know are not afraid to let their children outside. A point of mine that you may have missed is that those days of Kick the Can, and other outdoor games are being replaced by "different" priorities.
And that change is not entirely bad.
Again, you and I are not discussing the same thing. The OP questioned whether kids today are out of shape or lazy--I don't think they are. It's as simple as that.
grant135b wrote: bicycle. And have you ever been around when school is starting or ending for the day? You'll see a traffic jam of parents there to make sure their kids don't have to walk any further than to an air conditioned or heated car (or a 6,000 lb.+ SUV) even on perfectly nice days, and even though they live within easy walking distance of the school (i.e. less than 1.5 miles). They'll tell you
It ticks me off to see the number of kids dropped off/picked up at public schools these days. One school near my house has a line of cars out into the street at the beginning/end of the day.
Probably 95% of these kids could take school bus that the parent's taxes already pay for. Folks complain about the cost of gas, but voluntarily drive their kids to school and use up gasfor no good reason.
It is even worse for high school. I read news stories all the time with parents and teenagers talking about carpooling to high school to save money on gas. I know it isn't cool, but they have this big yellow limo that takes students to school at no cost.
I don't know about today, but when I went to school in the 1980s the school bus had to drive by every stop every day even when the students at that stop never rode the bus all year.
whimstock wrote: You yourself say that your post was almost exclusively about violence. Mine was not. You write well, but you and I are not speaking of the same "differences" in society today for children.
Your information about drugs in history is nothing new, nor is the Coca Cola story. However, if you are trying to minimize the increased danger of drugs to kids today, I and many parents will take issue with that, policeman or not.
The parents I know are not afraid to let their children outside. A point of mine that you may have missed is that those days of Kick the Can, and other outdoor games are being replaced by "different" priorities.
And that change is not entirely bad.
Again, you and I are not discussing the same thing. The OP questioned whether kids today are out of shape or lazy--I don't think they are. It's as simple as that.
Then why keep beating a dead horse? So you don't think kids today are out of shape or lazy. None of them. All are in shape, and none are lazy. Got it. Make your point and move on, and I'll do the same.
If we're "not discussing the same thing" - and I would agree since I still have no idea what your points are in relation to mine other than the afore mentioned - then one might wonder what your purpose is in responding to my posts.
Unless you have some information that proves I somehow imagined my observations and experiences relevant to the question in the original post, then I'm not sure what your argument is (nor do I care at this point). Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps some parents aren't overprotective, that they don't have a warped sense of danger posed by letting their kids go out to play or walk to school. Maybe they were lying when they told me that they were afraid to let their kids walk to school. Perhaps kids don't learn their attitudes from their parents, and there are no parents who sometimes don't set a good example for their kids in the area of physical fitness. I realize these are far-out, cutting edge, abstract concepts, so I could be all wrong, or maybe I imagined the whole thing. Whatever.
Minimize the "increased danger"? Wow. What a strange interpretation of my words, not to mention reality.
Let's just agree to disagree (or whatever) and move on.
belfert wrote: It ticks me off to see the number of kids dropped off/picked up at public schools these days. One school near my house has a line of cars out into the street at the beginning/end of the day.
Probably 95% of these kids could take school bus that the parent's taxes already pay for. Folks complain about the cost of gas, but voluntarily drive their kids to school and use up gasfor no good reason.
Around here, if even a small percentage of car riders started riding the buses, the county wouldn't be able to afford it. The buses are near capacity already, and the county is having a tough time dealing with the high cost of fuel. I don't know how they'd come up with the funds to cover the cost of the extra buses, drivers and fuel that would be needed if most of the car riders started taking buses. They have a very tough time getting enough bus drivers anyway.
I realize that bus ridership varies considerably from area to area. I am only stating what I see in my own neighborhood.
Plus, some kids here are on the bus for close to an hour each way, when it takes about fifteen minutes to drive to school. Given what's expected of middle/high school kids today in terms of homework, losing that 45 minutes or so in the afternoon takes away about all the free time they have.
(Note: We homeschool, so use no fuel to get to/from school. I'm simply presenting another side of the issue.)
Me and the DH
Two boys and two dogs (and two cats who prefer to stay home)
2008 Forest River Georgetown 350DS (bunkhouse model)
2001 Honda CR-V
I moved my neice out of a changing neighbor hood in the inner city that she couldn't ride her bike to school anymore because it was no longer a safe thing to do.
I bought her Mom a really nice home in another state in a a nice cozy rural town 1 block from the local school.
She calls me up crying the first day of school.......apparently NO CHILD can walk or ride their bike to school, not even the kid that lives directly across from the school! I was livid, so off to the school.
Apparantly, it is for their SAFETY, in rural towns there are no sidewalks and no shoulders on the road just ditches, so for safety reasons all children must ride the bus.
So much for my niece getting her exercise walking and/or riding her bike to school.
Well, at least she now lives in a grass roots town and hopefully she will take away what a small local country town can offer her, instead of what 'might have been' in a changing inner city environment
31 ft Four Winds
Chevy Tracker 4x4 Blue Ox We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned,
so as to have the life that is waiting for us.
Pawz4me wrote: Around here, if even a small percentage of car riders started riding the buses, the county wouldn't be able to afford it. The buses are near capacity already, and the county is having a tough time dealing with the high cost of fuel. I don't know how they'd come up with the funds to cover the cost of the extra buses, drivers and fuel that would be needed if most of the car riders started taking buses. They have a very tough time getting enough bus drivers anyway.
I assume in your area they must require signing up to get bus service then? Unless things have changed locally everyone gets bussed automatically if they live far enough away. The stops are probably no more than 1 mile apart at most so skipping stops won't save much.
I'm in a first ring suburb which is different from a rural area. Everyone who lives far enough can take the bus.
belfert wrote: I assume in your area they must require signing up to get bus service then? Unless things have changed locally everyone gets bussed automatically if they live far enough away.
No, no signing up is needed. Every child is entitled to bus transportation.
But if they all chose to get to/from school that way, we would need many more buses and many more drivers, as the existing buses I see are already full.
There is NO reason to single out individuals within an indivdual state and sterotyping them because of the state they live in when they may be an exception. None at all.... it is that kind of posting, actually many times flaming, that leads to what could be postive construcive threads being closed or deleted. We already have had to delete toooo many such posts.
Offline
Just my thoughts. 
