In a piece titled Further Civic Paranoia, the Weekly Dig writes:
On Friday January 26th, the Mayor’s Office of Consumer Affairs and Licensing issued a directive to all venues operating underage events in the city of Boston. It states that venues operating underage events must have their events over by 11pm, and can not have a secondary event after the fact. Events lasting later than 11pm must be 21+.(emphasis mine)
For example Harpers Ferry, which celebrates its 30th year of hassle-free entertainment today, now has to make the choice: ditch the high school battle of the bands, or the now 21+ WBCN Rumble – because Boston says ya can’t do both, son.
I called the Mayor’s Office of Consumer Affairs and Licensing to ask about this, but the person who answered the phone wasn’t even able to confirm for me what the new regulation is – just that there is a new regulation regarding underage events. “The Director isn’t in right now.” I pointed out how displeased I am that Boston issued such a significant new regulation without even making basic information about it available to people who call, then called the Mayor’s office to register my displeasure.
Why are they doing this? Neither office I called could tell me, but the Dig says,
“According to a spokeswoman at the Mayor’s Office, these letters were hand delivered in response to growing concerns about safety and violence at events where underage persons are admitted.”
Brilliant. Aside from the galling notion of treating 18+ people as “underage” (sure, they’re not allowed to drink alcohol, but they can vote and serve in the military and hold jobs), how’s this going to prevent problems? As one Dig commenter put it,
Thank God. Now all the underage kids can finally just spend their Saturday evenings at home playing Scrabble with their parents like they’ve always wanted. Crime and mayhem will be totally eliminated. Good thinking, Boston; way to make sure all the underage drinking happens in places where it is totally impossible to monitor or control.
“Problem” teens are going to hold their own basement parties without supervision, which will spread problems around the city and make them harder to handle. And guess what? When they’re not at a club that’s protecting its liquor license, they will be able to drink, with nobody trying to stop them.
In the meantime, the city continues its assault on the arts community.
The Mayor’s office reacted very defensively when I mentioned, during my phone call, that Boston artists are already feeling unwelcome and last week’s overreaction to the Mooninites exacerbated that – that was the only time the guy on the phone interrupted me, and he really sounded defensive and aggressively insecure about it. It’s something they don’t want to hear, clearly, but it’s true: Boston is growing increasingly unwelcoming to musicians, artists, and performers of all sorts.
Paranoia. Overreaction. Hostility to the arts. Alienation of youth. Clamping down on fun, freedom, and culture. Stop Boston’s downward slide:
- Mayor’s office:
617-635-4500, Mayor@cityofboston.gov
Mayor’s Office of Consumer Affairs and Licensing: 617-635-3834
[ Edit: potroast posted the text of Boston’s new directive ]
Sounds like a step in the right direction.
<
p>
Let’s face it – these kids shouldn’t be out past 11 pm anyway. A kid that is out past 11 pm is probably up to no good.
<
p>
I think even this bunch of crazy liberals would have their 16 and 17 year olds in before 11
<
p>
Just because some one disagrees with you they are a “troll?”
You respond to people who call you a “crazy liberal”? That’s “just” disagreeing? That’s an opening to civil discourse?
The point is that it is not a personal attack. Moreover, the person is making a point with which a lot of people agree: teenagers should not be out of their homes after X time, period. That’s a point worth discussing.
But Bob, that point was already inherent in the proposed policy, and the poster did not discuss it so much as repeat it and urge it on us as a sign of liberal craziness.
<
p>
There were no new perspectives, no new facts, no “you believe this but you shouldn’t, here’s why”, just parroting (apologies to your pet, DaveMB) and namecalling. If this were a poll on the question, well, maybe that’s a contribution to the discussion. (Mark RRRM down for curfews.) Otherwise, it’s just baiting.
Personally, I think the observation that some people feel there should be a curfew for teenagers is (a) not implicit in the policy, and (b) worthy of discussion. This is especially true since some communities in our great country have, in fact, imposed such daft (in MHO) regulations, and because it usefully highlights the radicalism of some factions of the Republican machine.
“Teenagers should not be out of their homes after X time”
<
p>
Bob, I think you are forgetting that these are adults we are speaking about. They have every right to be out as long as they want; even to die for their country.
<
p>
1985 was the year I graduated from high school, and right about then a movie called “Footloose” was out starring Kevin Bacon. It was about a small town trying to inflict its traditions and control over the children by making it illegal to dance within the town’s jurisdiction. Do you know what the kids did? They left.
<
p>
I understand that the Mayor is trying to quell violence, but this is not the answer. Inhibiting the freedoms of all in answer to the wildness of the few is not the American way.
Back under your bridge, troll!
The Rock Radio comment was perfectly legitimate and did not violate the Rules of the Road. The commenter may not like liberals, but the attack was not personal. Your comment, on the other hand, was completely un-constructive and personal. If you have an argument to make on the merits, please make it.
From The Urban Dictionary, a troll is:
<
p>
“One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument”
<
p>
The commenter looks like he is trying to sabotage discussion on the issue of whether the Boston regulation is appropriate or sane by instead turning it into an argument over whether 16-20 year-olds should be permitted out past 11 PM at all. If he wishes to start a debate about curfews, he can make his own posting on the subject, and I would not call him a troll. If he wants to say something substantive about the issue at hand, even a point of disagreement, I would not call him a troll. Instead, he uses the deliberately provocative and ad-hominem phrase “crazy liberals” and the blanket statement “A kid that is out past 11 pm is probably up to no good.” with no support for his argument, all while attempting to expand and change the subject of discussion. I cannot see how his comment is anything other than a troll.
Explain why you’re opposed to curfews. Who cares if it’s not exactly the subject of the post. It does highlight the radical nature of many regressive Republicans, and thus serves to further marginalize the fast-fading appeal of that wing of their Party.
“The Rock Radio comment was perfectly legitimate and did not violate the Rules of the Road. The commenter may not like liberals, but the attack was not personal. Your comment, on the other hand, was completely un-constructive and personal. If you have an argument to make on the merits, please make it.”
<
p>
Bob you are the last person I would expect to come to my defense.
<
p>
But it’s OK
I have been persecuted before.
You’re welcome to post here, just please keep your comments civil and not personal. Moving forward: do you really think that all teenagers should be at home by 11.00 PM? What about the ones fighting in Iraq? And if the ones fighting in Iraq are old enough to die for us, shouldn’t we at least consider the possibility that they should be allowed to go to a nightclub provided they follow all of the other existing laws we have? What can possibly be wrong with the latter, especially in the context of the former.
16 and 17 year olds should not be on the streets past 11 pm. I would not let my 16 or 17 year old out that late. In fact I would not allow them out past 10 pm.
<
p>
18 and 19 year olds are another story because they have reached the age of majority. They can vote, they can volunteer for the military, and they can see rated X movies. So yeah I think it is OK for them to be out at 11 PM.
<
p>
But 16 and 17 year olds – NO
<
p>
I will attach a copy of my comments that started the beef –
<
p>
“I think even this bunch of crazy liberals would have their 16 and 17 year olds in before 11”
<
p>
It’s an interesting subject also that we have graduated rights based on age: 14 to work, 16 to drive, 18 to fight, 21 to drink, 35 to be President.
So saying that even crazy liberals must want to have 16 and 17 year olds in before 11pm is just a straw man argument.
<
p>
No one was suggesting that and it was just an attempt by Mr Republican to make Cos’s post appear unreasonable.
It’s a sign of weakness to run from the debate.
The comment wasn’t worthy of deletion, though there are times when it is obvious a person isn’t here to counter with a compelling argument, they are just here to get their rocks of by lashing out at us cwazy liberals.
<
p>
My Porcupine is an excellent example of a Republican who can uplift this site by making us think harder about what we believe. Mr Rocky Republcan..hmm I don’t know. Someone who thinks “Rush Limbaugh is the man” – I don’t think he’ll be making me think too hard.
I cannot fathom what benefit this regulation might provide, and it’s going to hurt a lot of venues and events. This appears to be a unilateral move by the mayor’s office; does the City Council need to move on this?
Are we heading back to the Boston which banned Ulysses? The city that made itself a national laughingstock for prudish self-righteousness? Teenagers who want to enjoy themselves should be allowed to do so provided their behavior does not harm others and follows existing laws. The state should not be in the business of enforcing curfews: that is a responsibility for parents. Moreover, young people should have legal places to go so that they don’t need to resort to hanging out on street corners and disturbing the neighbors. Finally, I find it ironic, although perhaps not surprising, that our esteemed fellow commentor Republican favors maximal intrusiveness and regulation — that’s the Republican Party of the neo-cons and Christian fundamentalists, not the Republican Party of liberty.
Only a few years ago, Massachusetts commissioned a study that calculated the enormous returns it earned on its investments in the arts. It was really impressive, and it gave you the sense that the state really appreciated the value of a vibrant urban culture.
<
p>
Now, however, Boston seems to have a different agenda–serving the needs of aging Boomers who want to still feel “hip” in their $1.1 million college-city condos without the inconvenience of putting up with all those damn kids. The idea is that the young should willingly serve as background props for old and middle-aged people who want to relive the ’60s, but nothing more.
<
p>
When I first moved here, a native told me that Boston used to be like, in his words, “a bunch of old women.” This new git-offa-my-lawn move, combined with the high-pitched shrieking of last week’s LiteBriteGate, suggest the city is going back to its roots.
Never ceases to amaze me that people defame old women when the gov’t acts prudish. It is inevitably men who are the decision-making majority, as is the case with this under-21 restriction of clubs (Mayor Menino). Bunches of old women everywhere deserve an appology.
might be of help.
Please explain.
What would you do if we spoke a language with gendered nouns? You’d be exhausted.
I was just curious to see whether he could explain it without attacking me. Seems not. You either. Cheers.
It’s hard to avoid it.
can you get a good condo for just $1.1 million? is there some new discount development with bad starbucks access?
Since you seem to want discussion-elevating Republican comments, let me play devil’s advocate.
<
p>
Is there evidence that having the 18-21 crowd stay out late is necessary for a vibrant arts community? If we want young folks staying up late consuming art, won’t the 21-35 crowd suffice? After all the 21-35 year olds can pay for alcohol and have more money so that they will be more vibrant contributors to the economy? Shouldn’t the 18-21 year olds be home, after all, not playing Scrabble with their parents but reading James Joyce and Vladimir Nabokov and listening to Ligeti’s Le Grande Macabre?
<
p>
Further, 18-21 year olds, as a group, lack the impulse control even of people in their early twenties. The first comment on the linked post begins
That obviously indicates poor impulse control.
<
p>
Isn’t it possible that imposing something like a curfew could significantly reduce policing costs? If local government is strapped, could this be a useful cost savings?
<
p>
don’t have a lot of friends in bands!
<
p>
Or club venue owners. If they didn’t make money on these events, they wouldn’t have them. And a lot of the smaller venues need the cash–without it, some may close. There goes part of your arts community.
I said play Republican. I didn’t say I agreed with any of the above.
Just responding in shorthand.
I would have thought you would have had more talking points, framing, and references to belt-wielding authoritative parents.
It’s a new role for me.
This whole idea came from the Mayors office …. No?
..the Mayor is a Democrat.
<
p>
I don’t think he can even say “Republican”.
Right but my comments have to be understood in the context of the debate about trolling that is all over this thread and has moved off into another posting by Cos.
Why are you playing Republican?
<
p>
This is the “brain child” of the mayor’s office….who is a Democrat. Yes, I said it. This came from the Mayors office. Just wanted to point that out to you.
<
p>
smile 🙂
<
p>
This whole idea came from the Mayors office.
<
p>
The Mayor is a Democrat.
<
p>
Smile 🙂
That just doesn’t make sense, as Cos points out.
<
p>
An 18 year old can be up any of the 24 hours in a day, 7 days a week, with a rifle in his hand, shooting at other human beings. We as a society believe that he’s responsible enough to do that.
<
p>
An 18 year old can be in public any of the 24 hours in a day, 7 days a week, operating a 6,000 pound motor vehicle, driving 65 mph around other human beings. We as a society believe that he’s responsible enough to do that.
<
p>
An 18 year old can be employed any of the 24 hours in a day, 7 days a week, operating a 10,000 pound forklift, a razor sharp cutting tool, or a 50 psi cardboard baler. We as a society believe that he’s responsible enough to do that.
<
p>
An 18 year old can be in public on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in even-yeared Novembers, operating a voting machine, influencing the very government that represents all 300 million Americans. We as a society believe that he’s responsible enough to do that.
<
p>
But, we don’t believe that he’s responsible enough to be in his home town out on the town after 11:00 pm if there’s alcohol present. Apparently, city hall doesn’t believe that he’s responsible enough for that.
<
p>
I wonder if this applies to late games at Fenway Park (in the unusual event that th 7th inning isn’t over before 11 pm). I wonder if this applies to The Garden games or concerts. I wonder if this applies to restaurants that are serving food and alcohol after 11:00 pm, like all those surrounding major venue sites like Fenway, The Garden, etc.
An 18 year old can sit at a bar and drink a beer…$h!t…we have to correct that one.
It’s when people are busy and doing things that they don’t get in trouble.
<
p>
When they’re bored and not doing things is when the shit hits the fan.
<
p>
Haven’t we gone through enough history to know this by now? When will the idiocy end?
<
p>
If anything, we should be expanding hours of these events and encouraging more of them. Get people off the streets and have enough fun events that suddenly being troublesome isn’t as fun as it used to be.
I don’t understand this. Is this the same city that complains about a shrinking tax/worker base and ageing population? They’re about to lose a House seat in the next Census, and what do they do? Antagonize exactly the bloc that they should be working to attract: the college set, the out-of-towners coming in for education and job opportunities, as well as the local kids looking to stay on.
I’m a Berkshire boy considering some 495-belt schools for college, and this sort of announcement doesn’t exactly make me leap for joy. And I don’t even drink. It’s not the law, it’s the principle. The city is basically telling us to go shove it with this sort of overreactionary BS. For the last time – if you want to curb underage drinking, you have to meet it head-on. Root Causes, people. I’m tired of watching these pols try to shine their political shoes by launching these kind of chest-thumping “morality crusades”, when in fact they’re just pushing us under the carpet. Again. Out of sight, out of mind, apparently.
If you want to curb underage drinking, lower the age limit. That’s the ONLY way.
<
p>
Look at Europe for a culture that allows most people to drink at most ages and is doesn’t have the same kind of drinking problem we have.
<
p>
If someone can get drafted, they can drink too – as far as I’m concerned.
Charlie Rangel got it thru. You didn’t hear?
When was this? Links, pleeze?
I thought we did lower the drinking age in this country. My parents told me it was a disaster and that is why it is back up to 21. So only mature college kids on spring break could drink alcohol.
And, yes, there was probably a higher incident of drunk driving, etc. However, that tries to cure the disease by addressing the symptoms. The disease isn’t 18 and 19 year olds drinking, the problem was people drinking and driving.
<
p>
Stiffer penalties, more education and of course a few carrots could have solved the problem. Again, I refer people to Europe – where drinking and driving isn’t as bad, despite the fact that they allow 16 year olds to order drinks on their own.
<
p>
Furthermore, you need to also look at this question as a simple matter of liberty. Are 18 year olds legal adults? How do you bar legal adults from certain basic rights based on their age? Even if the results weren’t pleasant, sometimes things just come down to a matter of liberty.
“the problem was people drinking and driving.”
<
p>
“My mother’s era could drink – And, yes, there was probably a higher incident of drunk driving, etc.”
<
p>
I rest my case
<
p>
)
If you want to curb unemployment, lower the minimum wage.
<
p>
Regardless of my opinions on the drinking age, the argument that the “ONLY” way to reduce violations of a regulation is to eliminate the regulation seems a bit, well, unreasonable.
French kids are brought up with a sip of wine after every meal. Their parents set the example for them to follow in terms of safe alcohol use. In this way, they’re raised in a culture of responible tolerance, and it becamoes a perfectly normal activity – “la paradoxe francaise”.
Whereas here in America, we still have this Puritanical undercurrent of squeaky-clean moral ideals that don’t take into account the reality of people’s lives. Thus drug and alcohol culture with American youth is clandestine, which pushes it underground, and makes it more dangerous and more suseptible to misuse. We have no mentors in responsible substance use, so the norm at parties is to drink ’till you pass out, because that’s how we see it done. This is the smae problem with attitudes regarding marijuana use, except that there is a felony attached (WTF?!).
I agree that blithely lowering the drinking age probably isn’t the best solution, but there needs to be a sea change in thought regarding this issue, or else it simply won’t get better.
It was a failed experiment. (though I wasn’t complaining at the time)
Not only was there more problem drinking, it reached a younger age group more easily. Buying at 15 or 16 was very easy.
“it reached a younger age group more easily. Buying at 15 or 16 was very easy.”
<
p>
That was exactly what I was told. 15 and 16 year olds.
I’m not so sure, really. While the professional advocates constantly push the same few numbers, the studies have actually been been all over the board–a few actually showing huge increases in auto accidents after the age was raised.
<
p>
In any case, we have now reached a point of ridiculousness, where giving your kid a glass of Passover wine is illegal.
I remember Barney Frank spoke at my high school back when he was a new congressman, and he took questions, and one of them was “How come 18 year olds have to register for the draft and fight in wars but the drinking age is 21?” And his answer was “Well, do you want a drunken army?”
No matter what you think the merits are of this policy (of which there are none), the most outrageous thing about ti is the shady, secretive and uneven way it is apparently being implemented.
<
p>
No hearings, no statements on the City website, and no explanation as to what venues this applies to. I mean, one would assume they aren’t banning under 21 year olds from concerts at the Garden, right? Why not?
<
p>
If the Mayor is behind this idea, why are they hiding it?
I just requested a copy of the directive. I was transferred around and finally have been asked to fill out a form which says at the bottom “The Mayors’ Office will respond to requests to inspect records within 10 days. Thank You”
<
p>
Why make a policy change which they are implementing so hard to see and understand? Hmmm..could it be because this violates the rules and procedures the City is supposed to follow when making such changes?
<
p>
This is government at its worst, using regulatory powers to implement silly policies without any input or discussion from the public.
<
p>
Won’t somone relieve us of this boob Mayor? No vision other than another luxury high rise, an ugly 1000 foot office tower and a CVS on every corner.
<
p>
Enough of Menino already. Enough.
Because you’re absolutely right – except about the tower. Growth is important too – and the fairly well-paying jobs that would come along with another skyscraper (plus, I think it’ll be pretty).
<
p>
Menino has outserved his usefulness, though – it’s time for a fresh perspective and new ideas in Boston as far as this outsider is concerned.
But the rendering I’ve seen for that tower reflects Menino entirely. It looks stale and like something that could go up in any City anywhere in the world. Nothing distinctive, nothing inventive. Just another tower.
<
p>
Creativity in this city is being crushed by so many forces – economic, regulatory and cultural, that after a brief period when Boston seemed to be shaking its staleness, it now seems to be determined to go back to being the dusty old cobweb covered chair in the attic that everyone remembers but no one wants to sit on anymore.
but: this post is supposed to have 26 comments attached to it, yet I can only see 9. Were the rest deleted?
<
p>
I’m not having the same problem with any of the other posts on BMG, so I’m guessing that the comments here were removed. Either that or I’m missing something very obvious. If that’s the case, I apologize for the brain cramp.
It appears as if one of the comments got so many zero ratings that it was blown away!
<
p>
Poof! Just like that!
By my rough count, 17 out of 34 comments are MIA, or at least I can’t view them. I’ve seen some harsh ratings given out on BMG before, but never enough to vaporize half of the comments!
He was troll rated in oblivion and all the reponses to his comment went with his.
<
p>
You’ll notice a remaining comment of his above. He’s the one who’s signature cleverly misspells Obama as Osama.
<
p>
Funny, huh?
They were gone and now back? Is this site like Kos where troll rated comments become invisible to most users?
So now you can at least see the discussion. This comment rating system needs some work. Some people might not like being called “crazy liberals” but the comment was not in violation of our Rules of the Road and should not have been deleted. Indeed, it spawned an interesting discussion. We don’t want BMG to become like FreeRepublic or DailyKos where there isn’t any interesting discussion, just the drone of the like-minded and already-convinced.
He made a ridiculous comment for the purpose of diverting discussion, and he succeeded – anyone who looks for the discussion on this post will now first see a load of back & forth under his comment before they see anything else. He’s not “violating rules of the road”, he’s trolling, and doing so successfully. The 0 rating served its purpose well, community consensus removed the unhelpful distraction and let us focus on fruitful discussion… and then you undid it. Please please please change that 6 to a 0, I beg of you!
<
p>
(and then please delete this comment, and perhaps yours above it, if you can – we’re just contribution to the distraction)
If you don’t want to respect the rules on this one. I don’t think the discussion at the beginning of this thread was trolling — although it was provocative. More generally, I think the principle that some people shouldn’t be heard just because you disagree with what they have to say is (a) weak as a matter of strategy, and (b) counter-productive as a matter of practice. All that strategy will succeed in doing is turning BMG into a place like FreeRepublic or DailyKos (and note I use them interchangeably): a frenzied pack of like-minded people talking to themselves and deleting and shit-storming anyone they disagree with.
Take a moment to think.
<
p>
First, the comment disappeared because 6 people rated it 0 and not one person rated it anything else until you did so deliberately to undelete it. So this isn’t just some whim of mine.
<
p>
Secondly, I find your insinuation that this has anything to do with “disagree(ing) with what they have to say” insulting and offensive. And I mean that very sincerely. You’re also 100% wrong, but you could’ve been wrong without being arrogantly personally offensive in the process.
<
p>
Thirdly, it seems to me you don’t understand what trolling is or how it affects blog discussions, and your logic doesn’t hold: your actions here are of the type that’s likely to turn BMG bad. The quality of comments on this particular post would’ve been much improved if you hadn’t jumped to the troll’s defense and caused that thread to expand.
<
p>
I blog in many places, and I have some blogs of my own, but that’s not relevant to this discussion. I want BMG to be as good as it can be and I’m going to continue working for that, as I have been since its first year. Your reaction strikes me as turf-protection, as if you’re lashing back at someone who challenged your authority, but I did not. I made a request, and I made it for sound reasons. We weren’t debating who’s in charge here, that’s something you brought up out of the blue to deflect the topic.
<
p>
This whole thing saddens me, but I am glad to see that comment thread gone again. Rather than battling for turf with me (since I don’t care about it at all), think about what your actions do for the quality of the blog.
of Bob “inviting” Cos to leave/start another blog because Cos doesn’t seem to adhere to Bob’s desire for diversity of commentary?
<
p>
Inviting people to rather euphemistically start their own blogs is hardly a way to indicate tolerance of diverse thinking.
<
p>
Just sayin’.
<
p>
BTW, I’ll add this, as well, even though I’m repeating myself: the idiotic comments of people like the troll Cos is complaining about damage the quality of this blog, not enhance it. There really is no chance that this site will become an “echo chamber” given the spectrum of Democratic/liberal thinking in Massachusetts, so I believe your fears are unfounded. Indeed, the fact that you would invite Cos to leave in order to preserve that other nitwit is astounding. Being “blue” in Massachusetts isn’t monolithic and the diversity of opinion here, on some days, is wide and thoughtful without the spitballs.
<
p>
With rare exceptions, the conservative voices on this sight are noncontributory and crass. If you value that as a means by which you can avoid becoming an “echo chamber,” well, you don’t understand what it means, then, to maintain a blog of quality and intellectual exchange.
<
p>
And that’s why some of your older voices here aren’t heard as often as they used to be.
<
p>
Whatever.
Moon over Alabama, spawned by Billmon’s blog, has an extremely high level of commentary and all from liberals and leftists.
I just want him to respect the rules on this blog. I didn’t think the comment was trolling. More to the point, it didn’t violate the Rules of the Road.
why just one response to my “playing Republican” comment? In other words, if we really want to take whatever 3RM said seriously, then let’s try real hard to make serious questions out of it answer them. 3RM didn’t. Nor, really, did you, IMHO.
<
p>
Also, the power of DailyKos is its amazing diaries. The flood of comments that pours into that site is a problem we could only hope to have.
I didn’t delete any, and I don’t think anyone else did either. I show about 35 comments. Could you only see nine as well KBusch?
Just before you gave 3RM a six, his comment and every comment generated by it were deleted.
Hmmmm.
If suddenly half of Boston’s college population has an 11 pm curfew, how many businesses are going to be perturbed.
<
p>
If I served 2 tours in Iraq and came to back to Boston and they told me that I have an 11 pm limit on events, I’d probably be wondering what country I possibly just went overseas to fight for, because this kind of foolishness is incomprehensible.
skip the glorification of the military, please. As sad as I am to say this, American soldiers just aren’t fighting for America (not that that’s their fault). Our sovereignty was never threatened by Iraq – pre or post Saddam Hussien.
<
p>
Most importanlty, people who didn’t sign up deserve to stay out late at night too =)
What part of that response “needs work?”
<
p>
I presented an idea – that we don’t need to glorify the military in something that has nothing to do with the military.
<
p>
Then I expounded beyond that idea, suggesting that our presence in Iraq has nothing to do with ‘protecting America,’ – but I divorced any of that responsibility from the troops, because it all belongs to Bush, Cheney, DC politicians, et al. However, I was stating fact, at least in relation to the situation in Iraq.
<
p>
Lastly, I made an important point: far more people are effected by this than people in the military – and none of them deserve to be sent home at 11pm merely because they’re 18 or 19 instead of 21.
<
p>
Feel free, if you disagree with me, to say why.
Mayor Menino has long used the 18-21 crowd as a punching bag and political scapegoat for many of the city’s problems.
<
p>
Forgot to prepare the BPD for the chaos that strikes many major cities in the immediate aftermath of a World Series or Super Bowl win? Its those damn colleges that refuse to chain these kids into their rooms. We need new regulations forceing them to do so!
<
p>
Someone killed by a drunk driver? Damn those colleges! The driver was 50, and had been convicted 15 times before? Its those college kids, I tell you!
<
p>
Growing violence problem? Well, if these kids didn’t wear that “no snitch” t-shirt then all would be well.
<
p>
Dramatic and embarassing over-reaction by political leaders (note: not the bmb squad or the police) to viral marketing? Ban the Aqua Hungry Teen movies!
<
p>
College kids aren’t local and don’t vote, so they can be conveniently blamed for everything. It is surprising to me that the guy who governs the city is never held accountable for the city’s f-ups.
<
p>
I guess it was a couple years ago now, but I remember seeing a bunch of kids walking back to Kenmore from some 18+ show with all the tell-tale signs of being on ecstacy. Maybe that was getting out of hand? Or is that already passe?
Expensive, dangerous, illegal and dificult to obtain safely nowadays – and there’s nothing there that other drugs can’t provide for ya (Well, I guess it’s w/o the telltale pot fumes…).
Betcha’ the rules will go back if the clubs start making some “contributions” to the City and the City Fathers (& Mothers)! The whole thing sounds like just another shakedown. (“For the Public Good, Doncha’ know!) As the response to the “Attack of the Lite-Brites” was good for $2M, how much can be gleaned from the clubs?
<
p>
The new regulation will be strictly enforced by the Boston Police. Pity they can’t put the zeal into finding murderers and thieves.
…and sue the city. Freedom of association and whatnot. Adults can’t be persecuted like this. Take the city to court!