Corrupting Kids The ACLU Way
Posted on August 6, 2005
The ACLU is always looking for new targets members. With the reversal of support from the media (who aren’t writing such nice stories about them anymore), the retaliatory measures the Congress is contemplating (pulling the plug on the money machine), and a number of center leaning liberals who are beginning to come out against them - the ACLU target pool membership pool is getting harder to fill. At least by those adults who are beginning to figure out that when the FBI comes knocking on your door it isn’t a social visit. Heck, even the ACLU members (big ones, as in MO) are jumping boat. So that takes us back to the dilemma the ACLU has - how to get new fools members to sign up. Even the Muslims aren’t endorsing the efforts of the ACLU to help them get a Koran into the courtroom. What to do? What to do?
New targets members don’t have to be adults - heck no. Why not get the kids on board? They are already giving away scholarships to good little future targets ACLU’ers, why not get a flurry of kid size litigation going and really impress the impressionable youth with how their future civil rights are assured with the ACLU as their big buddy in the world? How best to handle this?
Show the kids that laws and authority are not to be respected. In Thomas Township, Michigan four teens were subjected to a Breathalyzer test by law enforcement while at a party last year. The ACLU has filed on behalf of the four in Federal Court citing that that their rights have been violated. The particular law in this state is that minors can be subjected to the test if it is suspected that they are drinking. They have the right to refuse or pay a $100 fine. Katie Platte was 19 last year when she and her friends were faced with the test. Katie said, “”I don’t think it’s fair for young people to have to choose between a $100 fine and an invasion of privacy,” said Platte, who said she was not drinking at the time. “With this, you’re guilty until proven innocent.”
If she wasn’t drunk, she had nothing to worry about. There was no cause for her to sue, except she doesn’t like authority and laws that interfere with her party time. But her new best friends, the ACLU are there to show her exactly how to show the law and her state, who really is boss. Katie isn’t aware that the old fogies making the laws have her best interests at heart - that they want the kids in their state safe. Katie is a typical self-centered young girl of the “give me”, “give me” generation. When you don’t get your way, you pout, throw a temper tantrum, and if you do it well enough - you usually get your way. Katie and crew are easy marks membership material for the ACLU.
Teach kids that terrorist threats are appropriate in the right setting. When you tell somebody you are going to hurt them and hurt them bad to rap music, it is freedom of speech says the ACLU in their lawsuit against Riverside Beaver County School District in Pennsylvania. The ACLU’s new
targetcandidate for membership is a fourteen year old named Anthony Latour. Latour was removed from class by local authorities and charged with making terroristic threats and harassment because he named another student in a rap called “Massacre.” The young rap fan was expelled from school after posting lyrics on the Internet. The ACLU is suing to have Latour reinstated by the beginning of the fall session.
The ACLU loves musically challenged talented kids. Especially, when it can make them some money. Make a threat - on a bet. Get a charge - ain’t it large? The ACLU will save the day - pave the way. Can you hear it - oh yeah…
If they won’t enlist your help - help the ones that hurt them. Instead of going after the kids directly, punish them for not being card carrying Jr. members by assisting the ones that scare and will hurt them the most. The pedophiles. Flagler Beach Commissioner Ron Vath says, “”People are afraid. They are just afraid, and a lot of people with young children have come up to me.” Why? Because in this small beach front community there are 70 registered sex offenders. The children can’t go out to play in the parks because they are afraid. And the ACLU is there to continue their terror. Presently considering litigation against the community, the ACLU is citing the excess in area that the community is pushing the state sex offender and predator law to by placing their city limits at 2500 feet, rather than the 1,000 feet limit that the pedophiles have to refrain from where children gather, such as schools and playgrounds by state standards. City Attorney Charles Cino said, “It’s a small city with parks on the north end and the south end, so it would be hard for (a sex offender) to find anywhere to live. It’s one of those things the commission is going to have to look at.”
Yes, that’s right this isn’t a law that has gone into effect - it is a PROPOSED ban. Just the same, the ACLU is all over it. And why not? A card carrying pedophile can be worth his weight in gold. So for now, forget the kiddies that are too young - they’ll get over being scared when they get a few years older and the ACLU will be waiting to reel them in then.
Thanks Indepundit
» Filed Under Child Exploitation
Trackback URL
Comments
45 Responses to “Corrupting Kids The ACLU Way”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
Very good post Kathy!
“If she wasn’t drunk, she had nothing to worry about. There was no cause for her to sue, except she doesn’t like authority and laws that interfere with her party time.”
Maybe she doesn’t want to be subject to an unchallengeable 100 fine just on a cop’s suspicion.
Blowing is free as far as I know in this country - lots of people do it all the time.
“If she wasn’t drunk, she had nothing to worry about. There was no cause for her to sue, except she doesn’t like authority and laws that interfere with her party time.”
If that’s cool with you then, I’d like to search your house. If you’ve got nothing to hide, what’s the big deal? And if you disagree, you’ll need to pay me not to do it, and I’ll take you to court anyway.
As for the other stuff, even though it’s really awful, just because you don’t like what someone says doesn’t mean they’re not entitled to say it. Isn’t that what they say about free speech: If you believe in freedom of speech, you must believe in the freedom of that speech which you like least. And, if you don’t, then you’re not a free speech proponent. It’s pretty simple.
And the pedophiles . . . . It’s a dumb group to defend, but they served their time — if you still think that they’re a threat, why didn’t you keep them in jail for longer? Instead of punishing them long after they served their time by saying where they could and couldn’t go. I’m a proponent of a longer jail sentence or a true reform, rather than a law that sets some stupid and arbitrary limits to how many feet than can be away from where kids gather. Obviously, people don’t feel safe. How is an extra 1500 feet going to make any difference at all?
“And the pedophiles . . . . It’s a dumb group to defend, but they served their time – if you still think that they’re a threat, why didn’t you keep them in jail for longer?”
Another thing about pushing pedophiles out of town: it doesn’t jsut punish them, but it pushes them on the rest of us.
Give me a break Laurence with this whole robust freedom of speech whining. I get so tired of hearing that same arguement over and over. NO, to believe in freedom of speech you don’t have to believe in the worste speech either.
The lefties are always whining about hate speech. They obviously believe in limits to free speech. It has been ruled that you can not scream fire in a crowded theater. There are many examples. In this example some punk kid has threatened another ones life. With all the crap thats been going on in our schools today…all the shootings. You mean to tell me, that a teaching body should have done nothing about this?
Please tell me also how a breathalizer equates to searching your house. These are merely safety precautions trying to protect the kids. Don’t start spouting education is what they need crap. Cuz we all know they hear it everyday to not drink and drive, and brush it off with a “that’ll never happen to me” attitude. I’m pretty libertarian on a lot of issues like helmet laws, and seatbelt laws, but random searches, and breathalizers are consitutional, and they are meant for our safety. The ACLU will lose on this case.
As far as the pedophiles go…I agree with you. Lock em away for life!
“These are merely safety precautions trying to protect the kids”
I’m merely suggesting safety precautions to protect america. Home seardches are just part of that.
What’s the big deal? If you’ve got nothing to hide, than it shouldn’t be a big deal to you.
It’s an unlawful invasion of privacy, and you’re justifying it because you’re happy not having underaged kids drink. Seems like you’re saying that it’s okay to shake people down when you assume because of their age that they’re probably breaking a law. Just by virtue of that single fact. That’s not freedom. It’s a police state. Guilty before proven innocent. Either you pay the fine, or you’re searched.
“The lefties are always whining about hate speech. They obviously believe in limits to free speech.”
Those people don’t believe in free speech either. It’s not a binary argument: either your with the left, or you’re with the right. People should be free to SAY whatever they want. SAYING things freely is the most cherished principle of this country. It’s the first thing the founding fathers chose to base our country on. When you start advocating things like “you shouldn’t be able to say this” or that “people who suggest this should be locked away,” there’s definitely an issue.
I’m not willing to trust my freedom of speech to a bunch of politicians. Who are they to decide what I can say and not say? I already disagree with most of them on most things. Maybe they’ll decide that I can’t talk about my views because they’re “immoral” or “bad for the public.” Why are you so trusting of our government to make those decisions?
“but random searches, and breathalizers are consitutional, and they are meant for our safety. The ACLU will lose on this case.”
I don’t think so. They don’t seem effective at stopping anything. But we’ll see who previals. Let’s let our legal system do the job it’s been doing quite well for the past ~225 years.
“The lefties are always whining about hate speech. They obviously believe in limits to free speech.”
Not the ACLU.
Not the ACLU? The organization that suggested to slap RICO on pro life protesters?
“Not the ACLU? The organization that suggested to slap RICO on pro life protesters?”
They’ve been against speech codes for a while now.
“If that’s cool with you then, I’d like to search your house. If you’ve got nothing to hide, what’s the big deal? And if you disagree, you’ll need to pay me not to do it, and I’ll take you to court anyway.”
Not likely to happen - I doubt you are evenly remotely connected to law enforcement - 1st instance of blowing air.
“It’s an unlawful invasion of privacy, and you’re justifying it because you’re happy not having underaged kids drink.”
These underage kids were at a party - the cops were called. No longer an invasion of privacy, they had probably cause to request the kids to take the test. It was justifiable as with any police call to a home party complaint with underage minors in attendence. It didn’t say these 4 kids were walking down the street at 9am having just left McDonalds with happy meals in their hands. That would be an unwarranted invasion of privacy - commenting without reading is blowing hot air.
“Another thing about pushing pedophiles out of town: it doesn’t jsut punish them, but it pushes them on the rest of us.” - now that is a self centered statement if I’ve ever heard one. Let it be someone elses problem. No solution there - just more blowing of hot air.
“These underage kids were at a party - the cops were called. No longer an invasion of privacy, they had probably cause to request the kids to take the test.”
Because they were at a party they had probably cause. That’s definitely guilty until proven innocent. That sort of rationalization can give you just cause to do a lot of things, can’t it?
If you’ve got a lot of muslims in a certain part of town who are engaged as a group building “something” do you now have just cause to search them?
I dunno, it sounds like another slippery slope that sounds pretty convenient, but basically creates an untennable legal violation of the 4th ammendment.
“Not likely to happen - I doubt you are evenly remotely connected to law enforcement - 1st instance of blowing air.”
This was hyperbole. You’re obviously familiar.
“This was hyperbole. You’re obviously familiar.”
Obviously, I was inflicted with it by reading your comments.
I don’t mean to be warm and fuzzy, but thanks for keeping up the dialogue with me. Other blogs would just ban me — I appreciate the back and forth.
LOL Laurence - I do not control the banning at this site. Jay has a higher tolerence level for comments of the type you made prior to the “warm and fuzzy” one - why not try your luck with commenting at my site and see how long it lasts?
I prefer the dialog
Laurence…
“If you believe in freedom of speech, you must believe in the freedom of that speech which you like least. And, if you don’t, then you’re not a free speech proponent. It’s pretty simple.”
I believe in the Constitutional version of ‘Free speech’. The one that allows you to speak your mind concerning your religious and political beliefs, without fear of persecution or imprisonment, yet knowing that you must be RESPONSIBLE using that freedom. Yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is an example.
Today, with ‘relativism’ running rampant, people actually believe they should be free to spout whatever illegal, filthy, foul, perverted, twisted, warped, devious crap that runs through their minds.
I don’t see that type of freedom in the Framer’s intent, do you?
I don’t ban people unless they start spouting profanity and name calling. I’m all for a good debate.
It was probable cause. The cop’s were called to the party, and alcohol was present. The kid’s were underage.
If a bunch of Muslims were “making something”, and the cops were called, and they knock on the door, and see a bunch of bombs…they’ve got probable cause.
If the cops are called with a tip to a crack house, they get the search warrant, and bust the freakin doors in.
“Today, with ‘relativism’ running rampant, people actually believe they should be free to spout whatever illegal, filthy, foul, perverted, twisted, warped, devious crap that runs through their minds.”
I think what’s undefined (and in my opinion should remain so) is: illegal, filthy, foul, perverted, twisted, warped, devious crap. And you may claim that it’s clear to you, but you know one man’s ceiling is another man’s floor. There may be obvious examples that put people in danger (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theatre), but those a very few and very far between. I don’t like anything that tells me what I can and can’t say.
“It was probable cause. The cop’s were called to the party, and alcohol was present. The kid’s were underage.”
It wasn’t clear to me from the article that the police could have known that there was alchol at the party beforehand — nor that the kids were underage. I guess, in order to really carry on, I’d need to know more information about this specific case.
Thanks Jay and Loboinok - for backing me up and watching my back door. Unlike some. I have a life and give it a higher priority than any politically issue (not moral issue) on the face of this earth.
Laurence was invited to my blog he chose not to attend. He knew what the outcome would be.
He is a lowlife dweeb. All show and blow but no go.
Typical of trolls that blow a lot of hot air (which I said in the first place), but no solution to the problem - as Laurence, these trolls just likes to make continuous comments.
Ignorance is not an excuse which is what Laurance is saying is his excuse. He said
“didn’t read that…” Give me a break.
Hey Laurence - you didn’t make a comment at my blog - could it be that you know I would call you for what you are? A deadbeat and a scam who sucks the company he works for, for the time he spends on the internet?
If not, call my bluff…
Laurence, One persons floor is another one’s ceiling? LOL! When’s the last time you saw someone walking on the ceiling?
“When’s the last time you saw someone walking on the ceiling?”
Remember who you are talking to Jay
“I think” No, you don’t!… “what’s undefined (and in my opinion should remain so) is: illegal, filthy, foul, perverted, twisted, warped, devious crap.”
If you don’t know any better than that… I don’t give a flip what your opinion is!
“And you may claim that it’s clear to you”
I’m not claiming anything…I’m flat-out telling you what it is. If you aren’t smart enough to get it, that is your problem.
“I’m not claiming anything…I’m flat-out telling you what it is. If you aren’t smart enough to get it, that is your problem.”
So, please elucidate in language that you’d be comfortable framing a law in — that you’d be comfortable having enforced against your fellow citizens by a bunch of politicians.
“Hey Laurence - you didn’t make a comment at my blog”
Because I see the way you treat people who disagree with your point of view — and I’d rather not subject myself to it willingly. Jay has been perfectly civil and I like the discussion here. Sorry.
I love the double standards and how you try to justify your rationale. Please. What is good for one is good for all. If “kids” are going to be subjected to breathalyzers after a party than so should “adults” after the office Christmas party, when they leave a bar, restaurant, etc. I find it ironic that you accuse the ACLU of pushing messages upon kids, when at the same time, disagreeing with what the ACLU pushes another message upon kids. Sorry, this isn’t the land of the free, I know better, so do what I say, but ignore me when I do as I told you not to. HA-HA-HA
“What is good for one is good for all. If “kids” are going to be subjected to breathalyzers after a party than so should “adults” after the office Christmas party, when they leave a bar, restaurant, etc”
the public has different interests in breathalizing drivers than when it breathalizes non-drivers.
Two issues, 1, being an invasion of privacy.
2, if you are an adult at 18 and can join the military to play with nuclear weapons, they why can’t you drink? Not to mention that you can’t buy a house until your 21 either. Why???
2, “if you are an adult at 18 and can join the military to play with nuclear weapons, they why can’t you drink? Not to mention that you can’t buy a house until your 21 either. Why???”
With rights come responibility. It was always believed that it would take at least 18 years for one to learn the responsibility to excercise their rights. It was the parent’s responsibility to teach their children and at 18 they would be emancipated and all rights conferred.
Do you think 14 and 15 year-olds should be issued a Driver’s License just because they want it, without first learning the laws and responsibilities first?
That is why they are treated differently in our courts system.
Are you telling me that people in the military have more responsibility? Have you been to Jacksonville, NC on a Friday night?
If you can buy a car at 18, why not a house? What is the difference?
Why try 17 year olds as adults? Yes, they are still tried for the same crimes, but they have different sentences. Why? As you just said, they don’t have the responsibility of an 18-year-old.
The system is inefficient and full of double standards. How can one find responsibility, when it is the American way to abuse loop holes and find some way of suing and blaming others?
Point, it doesn’t matter at what age you are considered an adult with responsibility because you have already been trained into a certain thought process. The age isn’t the issue, but the mixed messages being sent by parents, society, and the government.
We both know age shouldn’t be the ultimate requirement as we both know one’s level of education is the issue. We shouldn’t place an age on rights as by turning 18 or 21, nothing changes other than your age. Are you trying to tell me that a 21-year-old and 1-hour is more responsible than a 20 year old, 364 days, and 23 hours? We both know the answer, so why place an age on it? If people we just brought up with alcohol as part of their lives like in Europe, there wouldn’t be an alcohol pandemic surrounding high school and college kids. Why is that so hard to understand? “Kids” see the fun their parents have with alcohol, so why not experience it for themselves? This same argument is applicable to a number of issues including sex. We dump capital into these issues to fine these age groups and their parents, when education throughout their lives would solve the problem. Of course, this change will take time and we shouldn’t just suddenly remove all age restrictions, but I think you get the point. The double standards within society are what lead to these issues certainly not the ACLU. You can’t blame an organization on sending the messages you accuse them of sending, when you are the problem and not the solution. The ACLU is upholding the rights of the people.
Your right CL - let’s not put age restriction on kids it’s wrong to have double standards - let’s let them start drinking wine from their sippy cups, let them have no curfews, let them backtalk and be disrespectful to authority of any kind, let them drive as soon as they can reach the pedals, try them as adults when they kill at any age, give them all the credit that they can get, let them vote as soon as they can read the ballot, and just well take and enable them to make adult decisions like having their parents committed for disciplining them as soon as they can fill out the forms, and let them join the army and play soldier FOR REAL instead of with plastic toys and paintball guns.
Let’s do exactly that, you’ve got the perfect solution to curb the population growth in this country.
“Wine in sippy cups.” Get real, but guess what a teaspoonful wouldn’t hurt. Reminds me of communion. Have your children received communion? I guess you and the priest should be arrested for supplying alcohol to a minor. Oh, it’s okay in a religious setting. Another double standard.
I want consistency! If you are an adult at 18, then you are an adult at 18. Which is the age you can be tried as an adult, fight for your country, drink alcohol and buy a house. For the record, I had to wait to by my first house. There are many artists, professional athletes, and others that have to wait as well. Why?
You never answer questions, but take my arguments to the extreme, but that is your nature, either your way or the highway.
I grew up around alcohol and had sips of beer every now and then at family functions. Somewhere in my teens was I given a beer. 16 I believe. Guess what I didn’t do in high school and college (neither did my sister) abuse alcohol.
Like I’ve always said, I loved it in college when a new year began. Catholic schoolgirls out of the reach on the nuns and their parents. You get the point.
We know driving is a privilege that comes with responsibility. You can get you driver’s license in FL at 15. That’s a year earlier than the rest of the country. Do they have more crashes? I doubt it.
Kids voting and heading to war? Please. Again, you take every argument to the extreme. There are very political students in high school who know more about politics than I do. Why can’t they vote? Obviously those still holding crayons shouldn’t be able to vote. Use some discretion. Boy am I glad that you’re not my mom.
People mature at different ages and age shouldn’t be the only factor in deciding who can do what.
This is my second reply. The first has appeared to disappear.
If you are an adult at 18 then you are an adult at 18 and should be tried as an adult, buy a house, drink alcohol, and join the military.
Sipping alcohol through out one’s life will lead to less abuse in the future. After all, communion is wine. Shall we arrest parents and the priest for contributing to the delinquency of and supplying alcohol to a minor?
Some “kids” know more about politics than I do. Why can’t they vote? Their vote could be more meaningful than those who just vote along party lines.
Driving is a privilege, as we know. There are responsible “kids” at 16 and some that aren’t. Why place an age requirement on the privilege? Maybe those with a 2.0 or better in school should be allowed to drive. Why not start at 15 like FL?
The bottom line is responsibility not age. Age shouldn’t be the sole determining factor in eligibility for various privileges. Get rid of double standards!
How about the double standard of your doing all your commenting from work CL? You can complain about your boss taking off from work to take her kid to the doctor as being frivolous, yet you spend hours here writing diatribes on company time - time taken away from your IT job. I guess as long as the double standard isn’t pointed at you, it is OK. Which makes you a hypocrite deluxe.
First of all, there is no policy keeping us off the net. 2nd, I do my job above and beyond what is expected, not to mention that I also share in the work of others. So if I have time to fight for a good cause, then sobeit.
Typical Stop fashion to attack the commenter and not the issue. How dare you attack me of being off topic. There is a little more hypocrisy for you.
Oh, check the IP, this is from home.
New
targetsmembers don’t have to be adults - heck no. Why not get the kids on board?Except that, in your first example, the “kid” you quoted is an adult. Ms. Platte was 19 years old at the time of the incident in question.
Katie isn’t aware that the old fogies making the laws have her best interests at heart
This reminds me of the following quote from C.S. Lewis:
Of all tyrannies a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.
Katie is a typical self-centered young girl of the “give me”, “give me” generation.
If Ms. Platte wasn’t drinking, she could have taken the test with no consequence. Instead, she chose to risk a $100 fine in order to fight an unjust law. If Ms. Platte was drinking, she could have gone to Ontario to drink. (No part of Michigan is more than a few hours drive from Ontario.) Instead, she chose to stay and fight injustice, and risk prosecution, here at home rather than running away to Canada. Either way, Ms. Platte is an admirable young woman.
CL - bragging never got anybody anywhere.
Jason - I just do a you (from your post on my site) and repeat myself…
How you came up with your version of the story Jason is mind boggling. First she took the breathalyzer test - that’s why she is suing - remember the part about presumed guilt? Second, due to my age she is a kid. I’ve got kids older than her AND younger, so I can call her a kid if I want to. Third, any kid that wasn’t spoiled rotten would accept that under the circumstances it would probably not be best to argue with the law (kids+party+cops) and to just go with the flow and crack it up to a learning experience. Fourth - yeah real smart, let’s party a few hours away and then drive home. Like I said mind boggling.
While you are holding out for the “robber barons to sleep” I bet your little liberal heart would just fall out your chest and demand justification from the system (which you obviously don’t care much about), if you were the one unfortunate to be caught and victimized in the baron’s active period. AND you would probably scream to anybody that would listen that the system let you down, didn’t protect your rights, and should reimburse you for the transgression on top of it. Give me a break…
Kathy, why let them out in the first place. Why not keep “kids” home until the turn 18? Read up about operant conditioning. Negative Punishment (taking away their rights) is hard to control and rarely gets you the results you are after. Control isn’t the best approach to the issues, education and experience is. Why is it that society rewards those with more education and experience and not control?
Ah, cl back to work I see.
Funny I have never heard of positive punishment. Isn’t punishment always negative? At least it was when I was a psych major.
Possibly you don’t have a clear understanding of operant conditioning or “A process of behavior modification in which the likelihood of a specific behavior is increased or decreased through positive or negative reinforcement each time the behavior is exhibited, so that the subject comes to associate the pleasure or displeasure of the reinforcement with the behavior.” REINFORCEMENT is not punishment. Examples of reinforcement would be (positive) praise for a behavior or (negative) ignoring the behavior.
As far as your last question goes it didn’t make any sense at all because kids with no sense of self control (which is a learned behavior from example and positive/negative reinforcement) are usually the ones not prone to being educated or rewarded by society, so here is my answer
(end of negative reinforcement).
Since we are again taking personal shots; what grade did you receive psych major?
The technical term for “an event started” or “an item presented” is positive, since it’s something that’s added to the environment.
The technical term for “an event ended” or “an item taken away” is negative, since it’s something that’s subtracted from the environment.
Anything that increases a behavior - makes it occur more frequently, makes it stronger, or makes it more likely to occur - is termed a reinforcer. Often, a person will perceive “starting Something Good” or “ending Something Bad” as something worth pursuing, and they will repeat the behaviors that seem to cause these consequences. These consequences will increase the behaviors that lead to them they are reinforcers. These are consequences the person will work to attain, so they strengthen the behavior.
Anything that decreases a behavior - makes it occur less frequently, makes it weaker, or makes it less likely to occur - is termed a punisher. Often, a person will perceive “ending Something Good” or “starting Something Bad” as something worth avoiding, and they will not repeat the behaviors that seem to cause these consequences. These consequences will decrease the behaviors that lead to them they are punishers.
Applying these terms to the Four Possible Consequences, you get:
Something Good can start or be presented, so behavior increases = Positive Reinforcement (R+)
Something Good can end or be taken away, so behavior decreases = Negative Punishment (P-)
Something Bad can start or be presented, so behavior decreases = Positive Punishment (P+)
Something Bad can end or be taken away, so behavior increases = Negative Reinforcement (R-)
My last question made perfect sense and you answered it, “because kids with no sense of self control (which is a learned behavior from example and positive/negative reinforcement) are usually the ones not prone to being educated or rewarded by society.” These kids are out of control because they lack education. Thanks again Kathy. cl from work, but I am entitled to two 15 minute breaks and an hour lunch, I guess this 5 minutes will come from one of those.
CL - I’m going to back up a bit since you are so adament you are the superior being here and above all reproach.
Your early statement -
“First of all, there is no policy keeping us off the net. 2nd, I do my job above and beyond what is expected, not to mention that I also share in the work of others. So if I have time to fight for a good cause, then sobeit.” and “cl from work, but I am entitled to two 15 minute breaks and an hour lunch, I guess this 5 minutes will come from one of those.”
Policies of the agency you are commenting from for computer use:
III. Provisions Governing Internet and E-mail Usage
A. Appropriate Use of the Internet and E-mail
While on the job or while using a state-owned or state provided computing systems, all users are expected to use the Internet and E-mail responsibly and professionally. The unit head (i.e., Division Engineer, Resident Engineer, Unit Manager, etc.) will ensure that all users are informed of the administrative procedure for the use of the E-mail, Internet and other communication tools. Any user identified as a security risk will be denied access to the Internet and E-mail.
Acceptable usage of computing systems is defined by the following rules:
1. The use of all telecommunication and computer systems and resources must be in support of NCDOT activity and consistent with NCDOT objectives. Accessing other state agencies’ web pages (i.e., OSP, Retirement, etc.) is allowable.
2. All computing systems and resources (including, but not limited to the Internet, E-mail, etc.) and all communication and information transmitted by, received from, or stored in NCDOT computer systems are property of NCDOT. These communications are to be used for job-related purposes.
3. Transmission of any material in violation of any state or federal law is prohibited. This includes, but is not limited to, threatening or obscene material.
4. Usage of any computing system or resource for commercial activities, private business, or for product advertisement is prohibited.
5. Usage of any computing system or resource for political lobbying is prohibited.
6. Usage of any computing system or resource to create, process or disseminate information such as “hate” mail, harassing or discriminatory remarks, pornography and/or other inappropriate information is prohibited.
At the bottom the policy form says right before you sign the dotted line “All permanent and temporary employees, including contractors, who use the NCDOT’s Internet access and E-mail systems must read and sign this document.”
Gee, I guess a superior being may not be superior to the rules he is employed by…I bet your employers would agree.
LOL. I love how I affect your life. Looking at you becoming more and
more educated. You have failed to realize that the policy applies to
company time. The legislation, earlier this year, tried to apply to
policy to computer use in general, but it violated our rights. How is
that for irony?
I love how you continue to attack me personally, and not what I write.
What is the method behind your madness? Are you conceding to my
opinions or merely trying to discredit me through personal attacks?
Talk about political, when you can’t beat your enemy them attack them
personally. As an adult, you would think that you would know better.
This is exactly what is wrong with the country, not to mention that
this is the way politicians behave when elections roll around. Look
at the message you are sending to the younger generations, thanks
again for your candor. LOL. Check the IP, now I’m in Brazil, quick trip on my time. I wonder where I will be tomorrow? Point, make this an issue about the issue and not me.
Actually, CL you have shown me alot. When it comes down to knowing what a person is dealing with your dialogue through your transmissions has been very revealing. Thanks for sharing.
How you came up with your version of the story Jason is mind boggling. First she took the breathalyzer test…
Upon further reading about the case, it appears you’re right. I stand corrected. Ms. Platte did take the test and she was not drinking. However, I still believe that people like Ms. Platte, who stand up against injustice deserve our respect and gratitude. Your attack on her was completely unwarranted.
I’ve got kids older than her AND younger, so I can call her a kid if I want to.
OK, let’s go back to something you wrote in your original post, about Ms. Platt’s, and your children’s, generation:
…typical self-centered young girl of the “give me”, “give me” generation. When you don’t get your way, you pout, throw a temper tantrum…
I feel sorry for your children, that their mother holds them in such low regard.
…any kid that wasn’t spoiled rotten would accept that under the circumstances it would probably not be best to argue with the law (kids+party+cops) and to just go with the flow and crack it up to a learning experience.
Ms. Platte did comply with the officers’ orders. She is suing to make sure that such injustice does not befall other young Michiganders.
Fourth - yeah real smart, let’s party a few hours away and then drive home. Like I said mind boggling.
When I was in college, my friends went to Windsor all the time. We always designated a driver. It was a lot safer than risking an M1 conviction back in Ohio, though we did that on occasion too.
While you are holding out for the “robber barons to sleep” I bet your little liberal heart would just fall out your chest and demand justification from the system (which you obviously don’t care much about), if you were the one unfortunate to be caught and victimized in the baron’s active period. AND you would probably scream to anybody that would listen that the system let you down, didn’t protect your rights, and should reimburse you for the transgression on top of it. Give me a break…
I don’t think you got Mr. Lewis’ point. He wasn’t arguing that robber barons are good. His point was that, as bad as robber barons are, the nanny statists we have now might be worse. I tend to agree with him.
News on every hour. http://www.bignews.com