🚀 go-pugleaf

----- Original Message -----
From: klaatu <klaatu@clark.net>
Newsgroups: va.general,dc.general,md.general,balt.general
Sent: Friday, October 08, 1999 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: Virginia's Internet Law Challenged


> "Keith A. Glass" wrote:
> > >most have neither the time nor the resources to fill the parental role
well
> >
> > Which really means, they shouldn't have bothered to become parents in
> > the first place, but then I've always been in favor of the basic
> > policy of "Stupid People Shouldn't Breed". . . where by "Stupid", I
> > mean that they aren't up to the responsibilities of the job . .
>
> Um, Keith, I would like to point out to you that modern society has
> continued to develop an economic squeeze to the point where it's almost
> essential that both partners work full-time outside of the home. Not much
> time is left for parenting in many families of non-high income. This may
in
> fact be one of the reasons we're seeing such a boom in home-based
businesses
> and a more-relaxed zoning policy; there's really not much reason for a
woman
> to work if, for instance, she has to give up most of her salary to
> child-care facilities. If she's winding up with little to show for her
work,
> AND isn't getting much chance to raise her own kids, she might as well
make
> just a little less and be able to at least raise her own kids instead of
> leaving it up to corporations, the State or some religious organization.

Funny, my neighborhood is full of stay-at-home mothers.  My wife stays at
home. Modern society may be pushing the siren call to acquire stuff to the
point that many are not sated unless both work, but many of us reject that.

Especially after doing the math: genuine, quality child care makes a working
mother's effective wage, after taxes and child-care, low enough to make you
wonder why they work in the first case: in many cases, it's a wash or even a
negative. .

> And of course if someone's staying home, there's possibly going to be some
> way to create some income, probably it turns out to be more that could
have
> been retained after the expenses of working outside of the home. But I
> digress.

Hence my wife doing occaisonal Photoshop gigs out of the house. . .

> > >While I don't support the specifics of any "government nannying"
> > >laws that have been put forward, I do support at the least the spirit
that
> > >the children should not be disadvantaged because their parents are not
> > >doing their duty.
> >
> > And why are such children disadvantaged by unsupervised Net access ??
>
> Well... ordinarily they'd be not much more disadvantaged than by
> unsupervised TV access. But there's that little thing with the
> "mouse-napping" where people are writing meta-tags so that legitimate
> search-engine results steer people to XXX pages, etc. Hey, I have nothing
> against kids learning early-on about reproduction and sex, but I've run
> across some pages via mouse-napping that even I thought were well beyond
the
> bounds of what I could stomach, I'd hate to think of a kid seeing them.

Hence, one shouldsupervise their children's net access. . .we do, yes, it
takes time,
but if you're going to have kids, it REQUIRES time be put in. . .

> The ultimate solution is, of course, better supervision.

But not by Uncle Sam or your friendly local Governor. . .

--
**Keith A. Glass, MCP, Manassas, VA, USA**Filker / Punster / Techno-JOAT at
large**
**Assimilated by the Borg, but Saved by the Code of the Penguin **