Something doesn’t add up here…

Normally, if I make a post for commentary, it’s on a site article or blog post. This time, it’s on a response at Yahoo Answers.

On YA, a girl asked why people say not to become teen parents when many claim to have beat the odds and become successful. Most of the answers explain why and then, there’s this:

Why not? If you have a strong relationship, stable income, and the ability to finish school, there is no problem. I mean it. I’m planning my second child at eighteen. I’m a high school senior taking all AP and Honors classes. We live in a nice four bedroom home. I’m married to my daughter’s father. My daughter is a smart, happy, and healthy two year old. She’s learning English, Spanish, and Japanese. She can sing her ABC’s and count to ten in all three languages. We are a happy family with a flourishing business. We had income even when I was fifteen and he was sixteen. We’re smart and know how to bring in money (yes, legally). Why does that bug people? We are causing no harm to anyone. We aren’t harming our daughter either. We aren’t taking in benefits and instead pay sales, business, and income tax. We are productive, normal members of society.

The whole “go to college, buy a house, travel” thing is bullsh*t in my opinion because it’s not a requirement before an adult chooses to have children. Only 27% of Americans have a college degree. Only 60% own homes. 68% of children are growing up in a single parent household. 71% of pregnancies to woman 20-29 are unplanned.

In my opinion, if you can make it work, go ahead. It was our choice to be young parents. We planned out the rest of our lives when we were young. So far everything has worked as planned. I still want to study to become a doctor, he just recently opened up his shop. Our daughter is always ahead on her milestones. The expectations should be the same for both adults and teens. Age isn’t enough to determine if a couple can handle children or not.

Now, I realize I don’t know much, but this doesn’t sound very plausible to me for a few reasons.

  1. She is supposedly 18 years old and her husband is a year older than her, but she claims to live in a four-bedroom house. Who would sell a house to a couple that young, especially when one of them is still in high school? Doesn’t that mean there’s a chance she was sold the house before she reached the age of majority? Is that even legal?
  2. She claims she and her husband have a flourishing business and they had income even when she was sixteen and he was fifteen. Tell me, how can teenagers run a business?
  3. This might be irrelevant, but where on Earth were this girl’s parents? I would love to know how they were able to allow their teenage daughter to run an actual business before she was even a legal adult.
  4. She says she wants to study to become a doctor and her husband recently opened a shop. Unless he runs that shop from inside their home or takes their child to work with him, I’m assuming this kid is in daycare. She’s planning for a second kid. Unless she’s going to go to medical school part-time (is that possible?), who’s going to watch that second kid if her husband is working? Unless her or his parents are doing it for them.

Fired For Saving A Life

Yep, you read that right. Where does the stupidity end?

A lifeguard in Florida was fired for trying to save a drowning man’s life. The reason is the man was outside of his patrol zone, in an unprotected area, and the lifeguard’s employer is not paid to patrol that zone. Money over morals. Lovely.

By the time the lifeguard arrived, the man had already been pull ashore by other beachgoers.

I’m guessing there is a strict rule about vacating your patrol zone and I can understand that. But it’s not like the guard left to go have drink! He was doing what he was trained to do! Another person on the beach pointed the man drowning out to the lifeguard and he, without a second thought, went to help him. Sometimes, rules need to have exceptions.

As many of the comments point out, what if the lifeguard had refused to leave his post to try to help?  Or what if the guy had drowned? No doubt the company would be sued and the lifeguard would’ve been fired anyway! Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

I sincerely hope this man finds another job and an employer with more than half a brain! As one of the commentators on the article so eloquently put it:

Real heroes are people who can see what need doing and do it without getting permission first.

I couldn’t agree more.

Not Driving Is A Disgrace?

According to this Yahoo article, most of Generation Y doesn’t want to drive. Interesting.

Many of the comments are slamming them down, calling them lazy, unmotivated, immature and so on and so forth. Apparently, these people have never heard of car accidents and drunk driving.

Many of them are also saying things like “I guess Gen Y will have to walk” as if that’s a bad thing. Umm, as much as people complain that “kids today” don’t get enough exercise, I’d think being willing to walk is a good thing. Or does that only apply until you are eligible to attain a driver’s license?

I know there are areas where walking or biking is unsafe or inconvenient and there is little to no public transportation. If you have a job that requires you to go long distances, driving is a life-saver. But that’s not the case for everyone.

Personally, I hate cars. Too small (slight claustrophobia), too hot and I get motion sickness if I spend too long in a car. Plus, when it’s nice out, I’d rather go for a walk than a drive. It’s easier to enjoy the sun and breeze.

I posted a comment on the article and some idiot replied with this:

Step outside your little box sometime…there a great big world happening out there and it is passing you by! Not learning how to drive is IGNORANT!

Here’s a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black. Maybe this person should step out their little box sometime and see that the world has more than one lifestyle. There are people who don’t eat meat (vegetarians), people who rely on solar energy to power their houses and people who don’t drive. I fit into the third category. Even if I had my license, I wouldn’t drive because I don’t want to, just as I won’t be having children because I don’t want to.

The feeling I got from most of the comments that slammed those without licenses is that their car is their entire life…which I find sad. If you need a car to live, fine, but if your life is so dependent on your car that you think anyone who refuses to drive is an immature basement dweller in their parents’ home, you have issues. Really, build a bridge and get over it.

If I ever decide to own a car, it’ll likely just be used for long state trips, if I ever take one. Other than that, it’ll probably just sit in the driveway and collect dust.

Anonymous No More

It looks like New York doesn’t have much respect for the privacy of its citizens. Or at least, Senator Thomas F. O’Mara doesn’t.

Sen. O’Mara wants to pass a bill that would forbid internet users in New York from being anonymous when posting online. To sum it all up, the bill would require that any anonymous post online is subject to (read: must be) removal if the poster refuses to post and verify their legal name, IP addresses and current home address. Stalkers, you may come out of hiding now.

There are so many things obviously wrong with this proposal that I don’t even feel it’s necessary to say them. But I must point out one thing that irked me from the article:

Anonymity is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, the United States was founded, in part, thanks to Thomas Paine’s anonymously written, pro-revolution pamphlet Common Sense. On the other hand, 12-year-olds who post anonymously on the internet can be rather unpleasant and cause real problems by cyberbullying. Whether you think the good outweighs the bad, this news is troubling indeed: A far-reaching bill introduced in the New York State Senate could end the practice of posting online once and for all.

The part that annoys me is highlighted in bold. This has nothing to do with bullying, whatsoever. Yes, it’s true that immature teens and preteens do abuse (what should be) their internet privileges, but that’s the fault of the parents who allow them online without monitoring with they do, not the government for not passing such a law sooner. In my opinion, if a kid can’t be trusted to use the internet responsibly, they shouldn’t be allowed to use it until they’re 18 or older anyway (I’ve been using the internet alone since I was 10, but I knew better). However, that’s a topic for another time.

The point is this bill is not only intrusive, but also poses a threat to all internet users. When I read the article at first, it sounded like the choice was up to website administrators, but that is not the case. They must remove the comment upon requested and since there are jerks and trolls online, it will happen. I consider the danger of a 12-year-old being stalked and kidnapped a much greater risk than an immature 12-year-old creating nasty comments and emails.

This is why we don’t give idiots too much power. Or power at all.

Sources:

Yahoo: New York Senate bill seeks to end anonymous internet posting
Geekosystem: Ludicrous Bill In New York State Senate Endeavors To End All Anonymous Posting On The Internet
Tecca, original source: New York Senate bill seeks to end anonymous internet posting