Herald Times Reporter, Manitowoc. Dec. 5, 2011
Continue to monitor teen sexting
A study released Monday in the journal Pediatrics concerning the practice of teen sexting is reassuring - to a point.
The study by University of New Hampshire psychology professor and research assistant Kimberly Mitchell shows that only 1 percent of kids ages 10 to 17 have shared sexually explicit images of themselves online or via cell phone. That is much lower than previously suspected of that age group.
The study did not focus on those in their 20s, who according to previous studies showed considerably higher sexting participation.
The "it's-no-big-deal" conclusion some are drawing from the latest study of teen sexting, however, is dangerous. Parents and other guardians should not drop their guard based solely on its results, and must continue to monitor potential sexting behavior.
Dr. Michael Rich, director of the Center on Media and Child Health at Children's Hospital Boston, is right when he says that exploring sexuality is normal behavior for teens. He adds that taking pictures of themselves and others is one way "just to find out what it is like."
Also true, but there are pictures and there are pictures. It is one thing to send a photo of yourself or another that is tasteful, quite another to send one that is too revealing, demeaning and distasteful.
Most teens are smart enough to know the difference, but sometimes ignore that knowledge and act impulsively in sending online or posting such photos to social media sites.
Parents and other guardians also must guard against the "it can't happen here" mindset. Even though the new study shows it doesn't happen often, sexting does happen. There appears to be little commonality among those who engage in the practice, other than a familiarity with the technology and media that can make it happen.
In other words, anybody could be sexting. Keep the radar on and make sure it is monitored.
Relatively few sexting cases reach the point where police or prosecutors become involved, according to a companion study. That is not a surprise, given that the practice appears relatively rare.
We agree with Dr. Victor Strasburger, an adolescent medicine expert at the University of New Mexico, who said parents, schools and even law enforcement authorities should place more emphasis on teaching teens to be responsible with new technology.
Kids need to be told "that when you put things online and even when you send them via cell phone, they're potentially there forever," he said.
Even adults can - and should - learn that lesson.
___
Leader-Telegram, Eau Claire. Dec. 5, 2011
Deficit reduction: Pay now or later, but no free lunch
As an election year - which could include a gubernatorial recall - nears, one of the flaming debates is to what extent politicians are responsible for job creation.
What makes this issue more intriguing in Wisconsin is President Barack Obama is a Democrat and Gov. Scott Walker is a Republican. So the hard-line liberals would prefer to see the national jobless rate go down and the state rate go up, and hard-line conservatives would prefer just the opposite. Meanwhile, clear-thinking Americans want both rates to go down no matter who is in charge.
Those seething at Walker for eliminating collective bargaining rights for most public employees are paying particular attention to the state jobless rate because Walker made jobs the benchmark of his governorship: He set a goal of 250,000 new private sector jobs by January 2015 (the end of his term should he be allowed to complete it). The state Department of Revenue forecasts job growth of 134,000 during that period.
Budget decisions by Walker are at the heart of a national debate. Is it possible to grow the economy and cut deficits at the same time? Democrats calling for further "stimulus" say no, while Republicans say we've dug too big a deficit hole and it's time to stop digging.
Attacking a deficit with more deficits is a short-term winner politically but a long-term catastrophe. We're seeing that unfold in Europe, and eventually we will see it here if we don't do something about it. But Walker has his own dilemma because the $3 billion budget deficit he closed in his first budget isn't $3 billion released into the economy; it's $3 billion contracted to cover our long-standing "structural deficit," a practice carried on under governors of both parties.
If he gets the chance, Walker's second budget should be less painful, because barring a further economic meltdown the 2013-15 biennium won't start with a $3 billion hole because we're going through belt-tightening to erase it. For now, however, it's impossible to cut $3 billion from our state's economy without pain, whether that means higher tuition, benefit cuts to public employees, new or higher fees, and fewer or less frequent public services.
The protests in Wisconsin the past nine months would look like a church picnic compared with what would happen if the federal government ever implemented the kind of major deficit reduction needed to get its house in order.
In the just-ended fiscal year, the federal government spent $1.3 trillion more than it collected. Consider that the state's just-filled $3 billion hole amounts to roughly $526 per Wisconsinite, while the $1.3 trillion federal deficit is about $4,235 per American. And that's just to cover the one-year deficit; it doesn't even begin to pay down the cumulative $15 trillion national debt.
No matter how you try it, spending and saving at the same time is no small task.
___
Beloit Daily News. Dec. 3, 2011
Be careful erecting barriers to free expression
Most Americans are familiar, at least somewhat, with the initial two clauses of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; ..."
Likewise, most readers of this newspaper know that we are fierce defenders of the First Amendment, from which all other American rights flow, in our view. Without the right to information unfiltered by self-serving government sources and to speak one's mind at will, needing no one's permission to do so, liberty surely would be a chimera.
People are less familiar with the First Amendment's final clause: "... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
That's the right to dissent, to gather with like-minded Americans to protest any given condition or policy or law.
The question now before Wisconsin comes down to this: Is free speech really free?
Not according to administration policy rolled out this week in Madison. The policy would require persons wishing to gather and rally - defined as four or more individuals for indoor activities - inside state buildings or on the grounds to receive permission and a permit from the government. Additionally, it could hold demonstrators responsible to pay costs for any security, repairs or other maintenance assessments, and mandate carrying liability insurance. Would-be protesters also could be required to come up with an advance payment.
Surely, it's no coincidence this action follows massive rallies early in the year, inside and outside the Capitol, to protest Gov. Scott Walker's labor reforms. Costs for security and cleanup were significant, and plenty of taxpayers objected to that.
But where's the line between reasonable oversight of large gatherings and instituting policies that, in practice, undermine First Amendment rights? This is tricky territory. Officials should tread very, very lightly.
Free speech experts are dubious. As a Marquette Law School professor told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "I'm a little skeptical about charging people to express their First Amendment opinion. You can't really put a price tag on the First Amendment."
Imagine, for example, what might have happened during the civil rights movement if Dr. Martin Luther King had been handed a bill from the government every time he wanted to lead a march or hold a demonstration.
Or, if six- or seven-figure charges had been levied every time anti-war activists gathered during the Vietnam disputes.
Or, more recently, if Tea Party gatherings around the country resulted in organizers being slapped with big invoices.
For a moment - and, these days, we know how hard this is - we ask readers to set aside whatever allegiances they have in the ongoing political conflicts. Focus instead on the right of all Americans to express themselves and "peaceably to assemble" in furtherance of a cause, whatever that cause may be.
Like a poll tax, in reality, could be a deliberate barrier to voting, so too could hanging a pricetag on dissent be used as an intentional barrier to impede protest. That should rattle the cage of every liberty-loving American.
That's not to say government has no business establishing some order amid the chaos of protest. For example, the 24-7 occupation of the Capitol in Madison was excessive. It contributed to damage to the premises, and it inconvenienced and restricted access for others just trying to exercise their own rights to free movement in the people's house. It is reasonable to limit the ability of demonstrators to set up housekeeping in a public building. Likewise, causing deliberate damage or defacing public property is a crime, punishable under the law, including requiring restitution.
But, otherwise, government should not try to claim authority through permitting-power to decide what is permissible in the course of peaceable dissent, or to threaten rally organizers with costs that may discourage the exercise of assembly rights.
Democracy can be chaotic, messy, loud, rude, annoying and even disrespectful of commonly held values and views. That's because free people can be chaotic, messy, loud, rude, annoying and sometimes disrespectful.
Franklin said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
It all comes down to the First Amendment clause's key word - "peaceably ..."
Dissent is a cornerstone of liberty. Violence and vandalism are crimes. For those looking to draw a bright line, there it is.
Constitutional rights should not depend on one's ability to pay a government toll.
___
La Crosse Tribune. Dec. 4, 2011
We need soldiers' leadership at home
One of the most significant and far-reaching government programs of the 20th century was the GI Bill. The bill gave returning World War II veterans an opportunity for higher education - 2.2 million attended college and 5.6 million took vocational training.
The result of that higher education was a new middle class in America. Not only did it spark an economic prosperity in our country with residual effects still felt today, it resulted in 14 Nobel Prize winners, two dozen Pulitzer Prize winners, a dozen senators, three Supreme Court justices, three U.S. presidents and more than a quarter-million teachers, along with more than 150,000 scientists and doctors.
It was a stimulus plan that grew our economy and our nation in both prosperity and potential. The estimated $10 billion that the program cost - the equivalent of $50 billion today - returned $350 billion to the economy as soldiers increased their earning power through education in ways that would have never been possible before the war.
Today, the Post-9/11 GI Bill gives some of the same opportunity to the nearly 2 million service men and women who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. As of December 2010 the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs had paid out more than $7 billion in program benefits to about 425,000 veterans or their families.
It goes without saying that we owe our veterans much more than any government program. It's the least we can do to repay the great debt we owe them.
With the conflict in Iraq officially over and with the hope that we can soon say the same about Afghanistan, the veterans are coming home. Locally, Viterbo University, University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and Western Technical College have more than 1,700 veterans attending classes, with more than 1,400 at Western alone.
Recognizing some of the special needs of veterans and to make their integration into higher education successful is critical. Thankfully we have a local example at UW-L that will soon be a national model.
Daryl Thomas, president of the UW-L Student Veteran Association, has been instrumental in starting a program and a group that meets weekly to give veterans a social outlet and a sense of belonging in the campus and in the community. The work of Thomas and others will soon be part of a best practices manual for the Student Veterans of America.
The legacy of the GI Bill and our greatest generation was the leadership impact this group had on our country. Out of the sour lemon of war we have the chance to make that lemonade again.
___
Print- •
-
Share
-
Share this item
Send this to a friend
-
Grab the link
Copy and paste the link:
-
Blog about it
Blog about this page.
- Close
-
Share this item
- •
-
Post a Comment
- •
Favorite- •
-
Report error
-
Error report or correction
- Close
-
- •
- Views: 308
<!--
-->