I can't believe we made it.

[RonD1120 58]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyAGE8Y7ojc&feature=share

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[wmw999 2,121]

Interestingly enough, much of that generation was raised with Dr. Spock's famed Baby and Child Care, which was first written in 1946. The postwar generation was the generation of the anti-war protesters, the freedom walkers, and new math too.

No generation has the corner on the ideal raising of children; if nothing else, conditions change. I deplore the current trend towards cocooning which leaves each child isolated in their own little air-conditioned fenced-yard castle, playing nintendo (or whatever). We drank cokes, but 1 or 2 a week, not 8-10 a day.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Interestingly enough, much of that generation was raised with Dr. Spock's famed Baby and Child Care, which was first written in 1946. The postwar generation was the generation of the anti-war protesters, the freedom walkers, and new math too.

No generation has the corner on the ideal raising of children; if nothing else, conditions change. I deplore the current trend towards cocooning which leaves each child isolated in their own little air-conditioned fenced-yard castle, playing nintendo (or whatever). We drank cokes, but 1 or 2 a week, not 8-10 a day.

Wendy P.

I heard an interesting remark from an author on the radio the other day. She said, "Playgrounds should be reasonably safe, not as safe as possible."

Her concept and I suppose the theme of her book is that kids don't go outside to play because it is not any fun. Risk and danger is what creates the fun in a playground.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

I heard an interesting remark from an author on the radio the other day. She said, "Playgrounds should be reasonably safe, not as safe as possible."

Her concept and I suppose the theme of her book is that kids don't go outside to play because it is not any fun. Risk and danger is what creates the fun in a playground.

I think that playgrounds actually do fit the description "Playgrounds should be reasonably safe, not as safe as possible." As safe as possible would not include any swings, slides, climbing structures, anything kids could fall off of, etc. I don't know of any such playgrounds. Do you? Do you consider ground cover such as chipped rubber that reduces (not eliminates) the chance that a fall will result in broken bones to be unreasonable? Do you consider replacing metal slides that get hot enough in summer to cause 2nd degree burns with slides made from materials that don't get as hot to be unreasonable? Personally, I think that a slide that can actually be used in the summer (May to September here) to be more fun than one that gives the experience of sliding down a hot iron.

I disagree with the whole premise that the "nanny state" is somehow responsible for the fact that kids spend less time outside, getting exercise as they play. In my town, the parks department worked with a team of 1,500 volunteers (yes, that many, including me) to build a great playground, called "World of Wonder" (photo here), in a local park. The playground has tons of climbing castles, slides, swings, a Fireman's pole, swinging bridges, etc, all potentially dangerous. Every weekend, the playground is full of kids. Curiously, the structures are made of plastic "wood" that doesn't cause splinters, the slides are plastic and can be used in the hottest weather without scalding, and the ground cover is impact-adsorbing rubber or wood chips. None of that seems to deter kids from having a good time. Maybe we should have used broken glass instead of rubber, to teach them not to fall or that sometimes people get hurt, but somehow I suspect the playground wouldn't be used as much.

The park also has a skate park, designed by the Tony Hawk foundation. Here's a description from the web site" "The park features two main components including a bowl five to 10 feet in depth and approximately 4,500 square feet in size. The second component is a street course including ramps, grinding edges, rails, steps, and other unique features. This skate park is constructed entirely of either poured-in-place concrete or shotcrete and has a unique steel coping around the edges for grinding." This facility is also constantly in use. Does this sound like the kind of thing a "nanny state" determined to coddle people at all costs would provide for use by kids?

For sure, kids spend a lot less time outdoors these days, and as a result they are on average in poorer shape. Why might this be the case?

For one thing, the 24/7 news media has fed a mythology that kids left unattended for even a minute are likely (almost certain) to be kidnapped, molested in horrible ways, and killed. Many parents feel it is irresponsible to let their kids out of the house. Does the government mandate that the news media give such overwhelming coverage to every incident involving kids? No, but capitalism does. Such stories attract attention, and attention brings advertizing dollars.

For sure, there have been changes to playgrounds, swimming pools, etc. Mostly, such places have become less common and less easy to access. Why? I think there are two main reasons. First, lawyers and the "lawsuit=winning the lottery" mentality so prevalent in American society often makes it unacceptably risky or expensive (in terms of insurance premiums) to offer such facilities. It is difficult to find a public swimming pool with a diving board these days, because of liability insurance. Never mind that >95% of "diving accidents" involve diving from the side of the pool, and diving boards actually make pools safer by giving an alternative to diving from the side. You can't have a swimming pool without sides, but you can appear to be "safety-conscious" by "discouraging diving" by removing diving boards. Same for certain playground structures, such as the old "geodesic domes" we used to climb on. Does the "nanny state" demand that lawyers encourage people to treat every "boo-boo" as a winning lottery ticket? No, that's just good old-fashioned American greed.

Another factor is the tax-cutting fervor that makes it very difficult for most communities to offer anything more than the most basic services. Parks, playgrounds, libraries, swimming pools: all are luxuries that are the first to get cut. Tea party types don't want to pay for anything that doesn't cater to the over 60 crowd, and libertarians don't think any such services should be publicly available at all. If you want a playground for your kids, build it yourself in your own yard!

A really big factor is that there are many activities that compete with playgrounds for kid's attention. In my youth, there were no X-boxes, computer games, etc, and TV was black and white and had 3 or 4 channels. Did the "nanny state" force private industry to develop all those video games? For that matter, did they force industry to develop computers to play those games on? Did they force broadcasters to develop channels devoted entirely to cartoons? No, that was pure Capitalism. Good old-fashioned profit motive.

One last thing to mention, when I was a kid I went everywhere on my bicycle. Getting my first bike enlarged my world to an extent that was matched only when I got my drivers license. Riding a bike had some risk, and I remember kids who were hit by cars, but that was pretty rare. I still ride a bike, but it's very obvious that there is a lot more traffic on the road these days. In my town, virtually every road is carrying more traffic than they were actually designed to handle. Riding a bicycle in heavy traffic is not an appropriate activity for 8 or 9-year-olds. At the same time, government budgets don't allow for constructing bike paths. For kids, bicycles are no longer a ticket to freedom in most cities. They might be able to persuade a parent to drive them, in which case they still aren't getting exercise. More likely, they will just stay home and play video games. How is that the fault of the "nanny state"? If anything, the "nanny state" should provide safe bike paths, but that would take money, which is poison to Republicans, Libertarians, tea partiers, etc.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Do you consider ground cover such as chipped rubber that reduces (not eliminates) the chance that a fall will result in broken bones to be unreasonable?

I read an article not too long ago arguing that kids get hurt more regularly in rubber crumb or wood chip floored playgrounds than in concrete floored ones - reasoning being that the illusion of safety causes kids to do more dangerous stuff than they would if they knew a fall would always hurt. Remarkably similar to Bill Booth's idea of risk homeostasis in skydiving.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Riding a bicycle in heavy traffic is not an appropriate activity for 8 or 9-year-olds.

Are you sure you haven't surrendered to the parental hysteria you repeatedly refer to elsewhere?

Traffic on major thoroughfares and highways has definitely increased, but neighborhoods where kids would be riding haven't changed.

Parents (adults in general) do remain pretty clueless about cycling. Nothing sadder than seeing them direct their kids to ride on the sidewalks, wearing that mandated helmet that is so loose that it does nothing but muss up the hair. That is a great risk to the health of the children.

Detached bike paths are well suited for the < 10 year old riders who aren't going far or fast, but in general they're a safety risk to cyclists, not a boon. They don't have to be, but the majority of them are so poorly designed that they are.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Traffic on major thoroughfares and highways has definitely increased, but neighborhoods where kids would be riding haven't changed.

Depends on the neighborhood I suppose. The last place I lived, traffic on the main streets was bad enough that people started cutting through the neighborhoods/residential roads. The road I lived on was hilly and twisting, with a 25 mph speed limit and no sidewalks, and especially in the mornings people would fly through at 45-50 mph. Anyway, I wasn't really referring to kids biking a block or two to their friend's house, but traveling miles to the movie theater/park/school/whatever,and it's hard to do that and not contend with major thoroughfares.

I agree that sidewalks are no place for bikes, and the "bike lanes" that consist of a line painted on the side of the road are little better. In Georgia, it is actually illegal to ride on the sidewalk, as drivers exiting parking lots aren't looking for traffic on the sidewalk.

I was actually referring to real roads specifically for bicycles. In Ottawa Ontario a rails-to-trails program, and the availability of large tracts of parkland along the Ottawa and Rideau Rivers, allowed the city to develop bike paths that are completely independent from car traffic. Where the two intersect, there is either a traffic light or an underpass for the bike lane. I could ride from my house out in the suburbs all the way to the downtown, a distance of about 15 miles, and never share the road with a car once I got off the residential roads and onto the bike path. I could also ride all the way to Gatineau Park across the Ottawa river, a distance of about 25 miles, all on dedicated bike paths except for the bridge across the river, where bikes had their own lane (no motorized vehicles allowed). One consequence of this system is that thousands of people who work downtown ride bikes instead of driving their cars in the spring/summer/fall. In the winter, the paths are heavily used by cross-country skiers, and a lot of people use that mode of transport to get to work.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[jrouse 0]

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyAGE8Y7ojc&feature=share

Thats the greatest video ever!

Lovin every second of it!

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyAGE8Y7ojc&feature=share

Thats the greatest video ever!

That's the greatest BS I've ever seen.

Why not going back few steps more? Into the stone age, perhaps?

Jeez, there still are oldies living in the past.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Traffic on major thoroughfares and highways has definitely increased, but neighborhoods where kids would be riding haven't changed.

Depends on the neighborhood I suppose. The last place I lived, traffic on the main streets was bad enough that people started cutting through the neighborhoods/residential roads. The road I lived on was hilly and twisting, with a 25 mph speed limit and no sidewalks, and especially in the mornings people would fly through at 45-50 mph. Anyway, I wasn't really referring to kids biking a block or two to their friend's house, but traveling miles to the movie theater/park/school/whatever,and it's hard to do that and not contend with major thoroughfares.

The growing tendency to short cut through some neighborhoods is well taken. That can be really bad, has lead to the installation of a lot of speed bumps.

But I grew up in my teen years in Huntington Beach, which had a half mile grid system where all the main roads had bike lanes and 45mph speed limits. No issues here.

Quote

I was actually referring to real roads specifically for bicycles.

So was I. I generally prefer bike lanes (or just a wide shoulder to these, generically speaking.

When geography is kind, bike paths can be great. The Bay Area has several coastal routes that allow for long uninterrupted stretches. But like some many, it is really a multiuse path and that leads to sections that are fairly congested with hikers/walkers, many of which aren't really thinking. Even when there are multiple lanes for walking versus biking, they'll use both. Regardless, the cyclist is accountable to ensure collisions do not occur.

And then you have the other sorts of paths, that may be a right of way like canals or power lines, but cross streets every .1 - .5 miles, and quite often are uncontrolled intersections. Those are dangerous if you ride aggressively, and exhausting/annoying if you ride cautiously. Those are especially bad for children who lack experience in dealing with traffic. Traffic lights can mitigate the risk, but stopping that frequently makes it undesirable.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Interestingly enough, much of that generation was raised with Dr. Spock's famed Baby and Child Care, which was first written in 1946. The postwar generation was the generation of the anti-war protesters, the freedom walkers, and new math too.

No generation has the corner on the ideal raising of children; if nothing else, conditions change. I deplore the current trend towards cocooning which leaves each child isolated in their own little air-conditioned fenced-yard castle, playing nintendo (or whatever). We drank cokes, but 1 or 2 a week, not 8-10 a day.

Wendy P.

Actually a lot of kids of my generation DID get serious injuries, WERE killed on bikes, DID lose eyes, hearing ... on account of doing stupid stuff. Many lost fingers/hands playing with fireworks. This video is just looking through rose colored glasses.

But yes, we weren't overweight and we did spend a lot of time playing outdoors.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jclalor 12]

You kind of remind me of these guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

[skinnay 0]

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyAGE8Y7ojc&feature=share

Don't forget you also looked like a bunch of pussies to the generation before you.

They also thought the world had gone to shit when women could vote and blacks could drink from a white person's water fountain.

Like the generation before you, you will die off and the generations to come will be embarrassed for your ignorance.

[ryoder 1,382]

Quote

You kind of remind me of these guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

I just knew someone would bring that up.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyAGE8Y7ojc&feature=share

Don't forget you also looked like a bunch of pussies to the generation before you.

They also thought the world had gone to shit when women could vote and blacks could drink from a white person's water fountain.

Those statements were not true in my growing up experience. I was born in 1942. My family held strong midwestern values.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[likearock 1]

Quote

Quote

You kind of remind me of these guys.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe1a1wHxTyo

I just knew someone would bring that up.

Priceless!

[billvon 2,396]

>Those statements were not true in my growing up experience. I was born in 1942.
>My family held strong midwestern values.

Of course you thought that.

If you had been born in 1842, those same strong family values would have included helping hardworking farmers catch their runaway slaves and keeping women in their place.

Your great-grandkids will be born into a world where discrimination against blacks, women and gays isn't acceptable. People who ask "why should we allow gays to marry?" will be looked at the same way people who ask "why should we allow blacks to marry whites?" are today.

Which one of those value sets is "correct?"

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

>Those statements were not true in my growing up experience. I was born in 1942.
>My family held strong midwestern values.

Of course you thought that.

If you had been born in 1842, those same strong family values would have included helping hardworking farmers catch their runaway slaves and keeping women in their place.

Your great-grandkids will be born into a world where discrimination against blacks, women and gays isn't acceptable. People who ask "why should we allow gays to marry?" will be looked at the same way people who ask "why should we allow blacks to marry whites?" are today.

Which one of those value sets is "correct?"

I have ceased caring. We are doomed. Lets just try to make a BASE jump off the fiscal cliff.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[champu 1]

Quote

>Those statements were not true in my growing up experience. I was born in 1942.
>My family held strong midwestern values.

Of course you thought that.

If you had been born in 1842, those same strong family values would have included helping hardworking farmers catch their runaway slaves and keeping women in their place.

Your great-grandkids will be born into a world where discrimination against blacks, women and gays isn't acceptable. People who ask "why should we allow gays to marry?" will be looked at the same way people who ask "why should we allow blacks to marry whites?" are today.

Which one of those value sets is "correct?"

skinnay's comment may have rendered any relation to the original post null, but are you comparing a piece that laments the emergence of a litigious society and childhood obesity with someone being bitter over women and minority rights advances? (I doubt you are, but this thread took kind of a wild turn there.)

Change can be good, as in some of the examples you list, but there's nothing wrong with critically examining change once in a while. Sometimes paraphrased as, "Keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out."

[billvon 2,396]

>but are you comparing a piece that laments the emergence of a litigious society and
>childhood obesity with someone being bitter over women and minority rights advances?

No, just pointing out that what "family values" means evolves, and in general that evolution is a good thing.