...by making them walk everywhere, opposed to driving. Okay so that was just a way to tie a thread title into the thread. Anyway, I saw this today, about the WVa. Gov's proposal to instate a system where non-performing students and school bullies, collectively referred to as "Troubled teens" could lose their driving privileges.

Unfortunately, the article doesn't speak to the specifics of the proposal. I foresee those against the idea of being afraid that the system could be abused, and "good kids" will lose their right to drive. I for one don't think a law should be ignored because some innocent people might get caught in it (there's people in jail for murder who never killed anyone, should we just do away with murder?). To me the more important question is "How will this system be carried out, and how much room for abuse will there be?".

I'll have to do some digging to see if I can find any more information on the proposal itself (What constitutes a "troubled teen" specifically, who has the power to revoke the license, how will kids be reported, etc.).

But I do agree with the following statement:

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

It would work--being able to drive to school rather than ride the bus was a mark of honor in my high school in WV. Taking that away from a kid would be quite a demotion--the cool guy with the cool wheels now has to ride the bus.

__________________
-----
Todd (Bowie, MD, US, North America, Earth, Sol System, Vega region, Local Bubble, Orion arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo A Cluster, Virgo supercluster, the universe in which spock is clean shaven)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

personal page: http://blog.astrosketches.info

the cool guy with the cool wheels now has to ride the bus.


And punch the head of the small nerdy kid on the seat in front

__________________
But you're sure the astronauts are lying; you just don't seem to know what they're lying about: Jayutah


I are Learnding.

Pretty much...

We need to back off- quit coddling.

No wonder kids snap and go Columbine.
Because we Don't Allow them to snap.

Back when I had a bully- I got to the point where enough was enough.
I beat him up.

I got detention from school and a 'congratulatory taken out to dinner' by my grandparents.

Who was the ratty little runt who snitched on him out in the first place, and thus clearly deserves it

__________________
Talent develops in quiet places, character in the full current of human life.
- Goethe

Jump in with both feet!
- Me, indulging my inner eight-year-old

*** *** ***

"Are you a mad-hatter that just types what he wishes, or have you actually any physics training?"
Occam's Ghost to Grant Hutchison.

I think you're missing the point of the proposal. It's not to necessarily keep kids from having to deal with their problems, but it's to discipline the unexplainable, to try to correct their behavior before they become life-time criminals.

In other words, it's not about protecting kids from bullies, it's about finding an effective way to punish bullies for their inappropriate behavior.

ETA: Well, that's what I hope the point of the proposal is. I haven't gotten a chance to investigate because for once I'm actually busy at work. But I think it's a great plan if you're targeting chronic troublemakers, but not if you're also punishing good kids for a single isolated incident.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

Until it's YOU, right?

Non-passing students? That's sounds a little wide of a field. Even just the idea of lumping "bullies"(itself very vague) in the same boat as "troubled"(a vague and flexible euphemism the NSDAP itself would love!) is foolish to say the least, but for the current state of reasoning around the nation, sadly it's par for the course.

Besides, just based on some of the posts in this forum, quite a few posters could well be considered "troubled". Should we take their licenses away too?

Some 70 years ago, Victor Klemperer made some very keen observations about language and the cult of misuse it can be exploited for. Take a look someday, you might not like what you recognize.

The governor's motives may be sound, but he(like alot of people around here) has way too much faith in a process like that working efficiently, soundly and without corruption and abuse...and in Fazor's area of nonconcern, not punishing the wrong people.

You really want to do some good, start with the senior citizens and all you have to do is test them. Test 'em every year or two...no testy...no licensey! Frankly society will be alot better off with a great amount of seniors off the road than a handful of bullies.

__________________
random youtube observation #83:
Nana Mouskouri without glasses is like peanut butter without jelly, like yin without yang, spic without span...

RAH, RAH. Hit'em where it makes a difference.
It used to be a detention or suspension meant some serious consequences from the parents. But; that was in some galaxy far far away or in days of yore, or whatever...

We just had a situation here.
Cleveland Teacher Attacked, Hospitalized With Serious Injuries
This morning, they said they don't know if there are going to be charges. (I just hope that means they are still collecting evidence)
Somebody like that probably just things oooh excused absence, I don't need to forge an excuse.

And if you watch the video of the incident (not much to see) notice how many people are actually laughing.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

So; I agree with your thoughts about vagueness and abuse, but that doesn't mean "drop it". That means to me, we need to do a bit more planning and better wording to make sure it fits the conditions we are trying to control.

My criteria is, how many people get away with the problem vs how many people are wrongly punished. You are always going to get both, and you always need to make some sort of balance.

The issue here is teens. It may be related (because of licenses) but it has no bearing on the problem or the solution.

__________________
Numbers are not case sensitive. (me)

"You really want to do some good, start with the senior citizens and all you have to do is test them. Test 'em every year or two...no testy...no licensey! Frankly society will be alot better off with a great amount of seniors off the road than a handful of bullies."

ah but more accidents are caused by people under 25 than by senior citizens! Getting bullies off the road would almost surely make things safer. I tend to think driving for a minor is a privilege, not a right, and have no problem with requiring passing grades and decent behavior in school as a requirement for the privilege--one purpose of school is to teach good behavior, after all, and this would only help.

__________________
-----
Todd (Bowie, MD, US, North America, Earth, Sol System, Vega region, Local Bubble, Orion arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, Virgo A Cluster, Virgo supercluster, the universe in which spock is clean shaven)

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.

personal page: http://blog.astrosketches.info

Well, that's way off topic, as this proposal has little-to-nothing to do with driving ability, and is aimed at more effective punishment for minors. (That being said, I agree with you 100%)

Soylent, Keep in mind that the vagueness is coming form the article, not the proposition. We have to look at the specifics. What I meant was, just because there's a percieved chance that some straight-A never-absent kid might get labled as a bully, it doesn't mean to throw out the whole idea. We need to look at the specifics (if customers would stop making me actually earn my paycheck today, I could do that) before we say it's too vague.

edit: I initially attributed the above quote to the wrong poster. My apologies tdvance. Corrected

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

In my high school, what we had was not so much bullies (that was an elementary school/junior high problem) but gang members. I don't think most of them could afford cars. We rode city buses, too; high school students didn't get school buses but city bus passes. And that meant the Los Angeles city transit. I could go practically anywhere I wanted to for free because of how far my house was from my school. Though I did still bum rides when I could, but that wasn't often, because I lived so far away from most of my classmates.

__________________
Gillian

"Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

"You can't erase icing."

"I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

But balance is not very likely when one starts with harsh penalties for vaguely defined tresspasses.
Yes. You're both correct. However I would just quickly ask, and this touches on tdvance's post as well...if you consider it a "privilige" for teens, why is it not also a "privilige" for seniors? Or anyone, for that matter? The problem to me here starts with the idea of it as a privilige for only a certain group.

I believe, and I am unanimous in this (apologies to Mrs Slocombe!), past-it senior drivers are a bigger problem in society than a perceived need for creating draconian (and easily abused)efforts to help some folks who can't put a few bullies in their place. I'm thinking there must not be alot on a West Virginia governor's plate for one to have the time for this kind of sillyness. Is there some kind of "Bully State of Emergency" in that state?

My point in mentioning the "Remove Dangerous Seniors from Our Roads" Initiative was just a two cents(didn't there used to be a 'cents' symbol on typewriters?) comment that this was people directing too much effort in (from my perspective)the wrong direction. Unless, of course, the average school in the Mountain State is suffering ala CLASS OF 1984.

Now as for bullies(as defined in my experiences and those of others in my circles) ...taking away(or preventing, depending on age)driving priviliges is only going to make them bitter. And bullies are already generally bitter folks. I'm afraid anyone who thinks this approach would foster some kind of contrition or rehabilitation may have watched too much HIGHWAY TO HEAVEN in their lifetime. I want to believe in the strength of such an approach, but time in public school has taught me otherwise. Unless, of course, bullies today are much more introspective than then were some time back. From my recall of high school, plenty of "bullies" rode the bus through their senior year(however many they had!). Mode of transportation was of little consequence to them, just a pool of prey. They didn't care who they were bullying-bus passengers, chaps in the parking lot or just fellow bully car-poolers. Which I guess makes them equal opportunity thugs. Plus, us underclass lambs on the bus were at least guaranteed a chance at a contact high with each passage!

That's why I feel the collateral cost of potential abuse and the punishing of folks who are clearly outside the moral crosshairs of the Governor is NOT worth the effort. It's a kneejerk solution that has too many loose ends. I think Gillian makes a good point. Resourceful bullies can work around it way too easily. I doubt the measure would do the "damage" they think it will to the bully demographic.

But as you correctly point out Fazor, this is without seeing the specifics of the measure, only the hasty summary by the media.

apology note: After 7 years of "Patriot" Acts and other vaguely defined enabling acts, I'm just a little sensitive to overreaching measures. Especially ones that sinisterly twist language.

__________________
random youtube observation #83:
Nana Mouskouri without glasses is like peanut butter without jelly, like yin without yang, spic without span...

Gillian brings up a good point, in that using license revokation as punishment would not be equally effective in all areas.

I live in the 'burbs(ish) and around here, most kids over 16 have their license/have cars (or at least access to their parent's cars). One of the hurdles might be the fact that not everyone has a license. If license revokation is the main deterent for juvinile delinquance, then how can you equally apply deterence to a demographic where some have a license and some don't?

I still like the idea...although more community-service style punishments might be even better. They can be equally upheld regardless of licnese status, they are euqually-or-more-embarassing to teens (depending on the imposed service), and can actually benefit the community.

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

It's all just so pretty...
Like Star Trek.


Haven't you folks dealt with enough HB's and CT'ists enough by now to know that some skulls are so thick that only a good pounding gets through them.

So perhapse we should expand the judical power of gavel-usage?

__________________
I'm like one of those idiot savants...well, except for the savant part.

If the judge hands the victim of bullying the gavel and says, "Go to it, son" I'm all for it.

Exactly my point. And I have said it before, it's hard to define acceptable behavior through drawing lines, because we've seen the effects of zero tolerance.

But; I think our discussions keep confusing penalty for conviction. No matter what the punishment is, we still need some way of making the determination of guilt. This punishment is not until that guilt has been determined, so it is no longer a question of punishing the innocent. It is now just a question of harshness and effectiveness.