Not a Free Country

Disclaimer: This is a rant.  It will probably be long, and it will definitely cover multiple subjects.  They will all have a common theme: Why the US is no longer a free country.


First let's talk about children.  Specifically, let's discuss "free range children."  Evidently some parents let their children roam further without supervision than other parents are comfortable with.  And, those other parents take offense at this!  Now, I totally understand throwing people in jail and taking their kids away, when they are starving their kids, beating them, or otherwise actively abusing or neglecting them.  There are some things all children are entitled to.  One of them is learning to do things on their own.  No one has any business criticizing a parent for how they choose to do this, unless there is a very high probability of serious harm.  Here is a news flash for anyone reading this who just said, "But without supervision, the child could be kidnapped."  This happens only extremely rarely!  For comparison, 22% of children in the US live in poverty.  Poverty has repeatedly proven to cause serious harm to children.  Letting your kids go a mile to park and back several times a week has an extremely low incident of harm (fractions of a percent), and most of the time, the harm done is very far from serious.  All laws and social media attacks on these parents do is take away their freedom to teach their children responsibility in the best way they know how.

So, here is all of my advice to all of those entitled idiots who get involved in Twitter and Facebook attacks of any parent who let's their kid stray more than a few feet from the house without constant supervision: If you really care about the well being of kids that much, get off of Twitter and Facebook, and spend some of your time and money helping the 22% that are definitely being harmed by being in poverty.  If you cannot bother to do that much, then please, shut up!


Now let's talk about putting kids in jail.  In fact, let's talk about putting kids in jail for breaking school rules and some non-criminal legal violations.  Evidently (I did not know this), while it is a crime for a non-minor to provide a minor with alcohol, it is not a crime for a minor to drink alcohol.  It is illegal, but it is not a criminal offense.  Naturally, this explains why so many minors in the US end up getting put in jail with actual criminals for drinking.  Recently, a Virginia youth who happens to be autistic was charged with assaulting a police officer.  What was the officer doing?  He was detaining the boy illegally, for breaking a school rule.  Further, the rule broken was an unofficial rule that applied only to the boy.  The school made a rule that this boy was not allowed to leave his classroom until all other students had exited.  When he chose not to follow this rule, the school administrators asked the police officer to step in.  The police officer did so (despite the fact that no laws had been broken and there was no reasonable suspicion that a law had or would be broken) by attempting to force the boy to go to the principal's office.  The boy attempted to escape, and the officer tackled him (wait, who is getting charged with assault here) and arrested him.  By all counts, the officer was illegally detaining the boy, and then the officer assaulted the boy when he attempted to escape the illegal detention.  Now, let me ask you one question: Since when do schools get to legislate laws?  Is this how it works in a free country?  We put people in jail for doing things that are not strictly crimes, and we allow schools to legislate highly specific laws without even documenting them.  Right, and then we protect the police officers that enforce these "laws" and press charges against the victims.  This does not sound like a free country to me!


Now I want to discuss one that is not related to children (at least, not directly).  Did you know that if a well dressed man in a business suit decides to take a quick nap on a bench in the park during his lunch break, nobody cares!  If that one does not surprise you, maybe this one will: If a man wearing dirty clothing that is not quite his size tries to do the same thing, he will be fined or even arrested!  Since when do police in a free country treat people differently based on how they are dressed?  I mean, think about it.  The guy with the nice suit is doing the exact same thing, but because he has nicer clothing, he does not get in trouble.  The fact is that in most cities where this happens, taking a nap on a park bench is not illegal.  Homeless people don't get charged with "sleeping on a park bench illegally."  They get charged with "disorderly conduct," which happens to be disorderly only because they are homeless and cannot afford clean, well fitted clothing.

Now, I understand the concern.  No one wants their beautiful park to be tainted with a bunch of dirty, poorly dressed bums (if you just nodded your head to that sentence, shame on you, you horrible unfeeling bigot).  If that is the case, then fix it.  No, I don't mean fix it by discriminating even more against American citizens with the same legal rights as you that happen to have fallen upon hard times.  I mean, buy them nicer clothes, help them find jobs, help them rent an apartment, or at least write your appropriate government representative a letter explaining how they have a moral responsibility to make sure that poor American citizens are not starving on the streets.  If you want your park and your city streets to be beautiful, without people wearing old, dirty clothes, do something real about it.  If all of the bums have nice clothes (which are not that expensive, you miserly scrooge), then you won't have to look at old, dirty clothes every time you walk by them.  If all of the homeless people have homes, then you won't have to see them sleeping on the park benches.  If everyone has sufficient food, then you won't have to see the lines outside the soup kitchens or the people handing out food to all of the bums in the park.  You can fix it!  Even if you don't have much money (who am kidding: if you have the time to complain and worry about this, you have enough money to help), you can still write letters to your mayor, your city council (heck, attend the meetings in person), you state legislature, your state governor, your Congressmen, and even the President.  Instead of trying to push all of the homeless people out of your city (which, just for the record, will make you a murderer in my eyes, because they will probably starve or die of exposure out there), doing something real about it.  Freedom is not just for the rich.  The US is supposed to be a free country for everyone.  As long as we are discriminating against the poor, the US is not a free country.


Alright, that is about it for now.  I could discuss a lot more topics, but I am tired, and I have run out of steam.  Maybe another day I will read a bunch of articles that remind me of how entitled and deliberately blind the middle and upper classes in the US are, and then maybe I will rant again.  Thanks for listening, and please take my advice.  Instead of buying that new yacht, think about all of the homeless people making your city ugly, and go out and buy them all a new set of clothes (and, it will be way cheaper than the yacht).

Tech for Teens

We will not be buying smart phones for our children.  We will also not be allowing them unsupervised use of technology.  In addition, we are teaching them good manners and responsibility.

The question of whether parents should buy cell phones for their teens has been a hot topic off and on over the last decade and a half.  Many parents see a high potential for abuse and a low value to giving teens mobile communication devices.  Their arguments seem to be justified by the fact that cell phones have become a major distraction to students in class, and they are almost exclusively used for socialization.  The other side of the argument claims that the socialization itself has a very high value.  They also claim that teens need to be able to contact parents at any time for personal safety.  Both sides have some truth to their arguments, however, as cell phones have begun to proliferate among teens, we have gained a great deal of additional data.

Over the last 6 months, I have read at least 6 articles on how mobile communication devices are used by teens for bullying, revealing private information, and even for distributing child pornography (typically images of other under-aged students).  This has become very common.  Recently, yet another anonymous communication app has been condemned for its use in high school bullying and distribution of child pornography intended to defame its subjects.  This is a huge problem.  In fact, it has gotten so big that the FBI has gotten involved in multiple cases, and Apple even temporarily took one of these apps off of their app store, while the creators made some changes to make bullying and other illegal uses more difficult.  Some parent groups are even petitioning Apple to remove the app permanently.

Here is what I get out of this: The average teen is not responsible enough to trust with a smart phone.  I don't care if the justification is personal safety; a teen who deliberately compromises the safety of others with a mobile communication device should not possess it.  The problem, however, is not the teens themselves.  The people who are responsible for the behavior of those teens should bear a large portion of the responsibility.  Parents have the final say in whether a child younger than 18 years old possesses anything, including a smart phone.  Those parents have a moral and legal responsibility to provide oversight.  Before buying or allowing a teen to buy a mobile communication device, parents need to seriously assess the maturity of that child.  If that child is not mature enough to handle the responsibility, the parents should forbid the device, and they should enforce that decision.  When parents do not do this, and someone else is harmed by their child's poor choices, the parents should be charged with neglect, and they should be held responsible for the crimes committed due to that negligence.  The default should not be permission.  The default should be not to give a teen a cell phone.  Truly responsible parents should not give their teens mobile communication devices unless those teens have shown an unusually good level of responsibility and civility.  If your teen still calls people names or is heavily involved in teen drama, you can be certain that a smart phone will become a weapon for harming others in the hands of your teen.

Parental oversight is essential in the appropriate and legal use of technology.  Parents should not be allowing their teens to use these tools unsupervised.  Parents who do allow their teens to use communication technology without direct supervision should check histories, texts, and any other logs to make sure their teen is using the technology responsibly.  Parents should also forbid the use of anonymous communication that does not store logs.  Is this an invasion of privacy?  No!  Parents have a legal responsibility for the behavior of their minor children.  Part of this responsibility includes prying to make sure their children are not doing things that will harm others or themselves.  So long as a parent is a legal guardian of a child, that child legally owns nothing.  Even if the child pays for with money he or she earned, the property belongs to the parent until legal guardianship ends.  This means that a parent has every right to confiscate a cell phone that is being misused.  In fact, a parent has a responsibility to do so.  Teens are going through a period of brain development that leaves them especially vulnerable to making poor choices.  Part of the responsibility of parents is to help get their teens through this time without making choices that will cause substantial harm to themselves or to others.

Looking at the outdated arguments that are still used to justify permitting or forbidding cell phones for teens, here is my conclusion:  Cell phones are a major distraction in school (not just classes).  They do have the potential to help with social things, however, their potential to cause massive social harm is extremely high in the hands of a person that does not yet have well developed reasoning skills.  Personal safety is the only argument in favor of permission with any strength behind it.  There are, however, alternatives.  "Stupid phones" are still readily available.  Our plan is to buy a TracFone (or some similar pre-paid phone) model that only does calls (and perhaps texts) for our children.  When they go out somewhere that we think a phone would be a good idea, they will be issued a phone (we may need more than one, as our children are close together in age).  When they return, they will give the phone back, and we will log the time spent.  If any time was spent on calls to anyone but us, the child will be grounded.  This will not be a social phone.  It will be for communication with parents exclusively (though, emergency provisions, like 911 calls, will also be permissible).  The phone will not be a smart phone, and if we can manage it, it will not have internet access at all.  If our children want to buy cell phones with their own money (and pay their own subscription fees), we will only permit it once they are 16 years old, on the condition that we are to review all histories each day, and then only once we have evaluated their capacity for responsible use of the device.  Some might consider this policy restrictive and invasive.  Perhaps it is.  As a parent, with a responsibility to both my children and general society, this is my job.  If you are a parent, this is your job as well.

This epidemic of electronic bullying and crime by teens is ultimately the responsibility of their parents.  I sincerely hope to see FBI investigations on this problem end with massive fines for the parents who are ultimately responsible for allowing their teens to harm others.  A parent who, through negligence, allows their teen to perpetrate this sort of crime is a failure as a parent.  I do recognize that some teens will be sneaky and circumvent even the most strict parenting (and I do not condemn parents who are a victim of this), but when parents allow their minor children to harm others or themselves without even trying to be responsible, they are just plain bad parents.

What this comes down to is that the group against giving teens cell phones was right.  The potential for harm is far greater than the minor social advantages.  I am sure there are some teens responsible enough to have their own cells phones.  Ultimately, this should be up to the judgment of the parents.  Understand, however, that going easy on this judgment to appease your teen may turn out to be a massive parental failure to both your teen and to society as a whole.

(And, if parents will not step up and take responsibility for this problem, I will become a strong proponent of requiring licenses, at least for teens, to possess mobile communication devices.  And, as a supporter of free exchange of information, I really do not want to do that.  I am already opposed to allowing students to have cell phones in public schools.)