So is no one else finding anything a bit wrong with 4 adult women literally displaying, framing and gesturing to their (admittedly clothed) sexual organs to a crowd of adolescent kids? I don't want to be "that guy" though.

It just made me think of something like getting a bunch of chippendales for 14 year old girls. They don't have to strip, just dance as provocatively as these women are.. i guess it's morally ok if it's classified as music rather than stripping though.

>> ^bmacs27:

@kceaton1
It isn't clear that the cause is entirely genetic. There is strong evidence that environmental factors (e.g. in utero hormone exposure) seem to play a role. I think it's safest to say it is somehow neurological in nature, however all neurological development is an extremely complicated interplay of environment and genetic predispositions. The fact is we don't understand the neurological underpinnings of attraction well enough to say how exactly it develops, and therefore what factors contribute.
There is almost certainly a genetic component however.


Well I know this; there is a certain amount of wiggle room for sure otherwise we wouldn't have fetishes galore (that would be your psychology/brain/sub-conscious screwing up your natural instincts). Those can't ALL be necessarily genetic in nature. Yes, I understand the hormone issue, but to me that is an entirely separate subject that doesn't really apply. BUT, it is terribly interesting. But, certain types of visual cortex information and recognition has to start getting built into the system that is linked to your natural predisposition for sexual reproduction--some of that HAS TO happen even while you're In Utero and of course in adolescence. Now what all turns on and changes here is a slight mystery and MAY determine your sexuality, but it was determined a long time ago via genetics when the event would turn on and what would turn on. If it can change, this doesn't matter as it will still fire on cure, it's just that they have to figure it out first. Same thing goes for gender identity disorder. Same issues to some extent, but some things have been even more~enhanced.

It's what you find pleasing to the eye, these things start getting encoded and built into the brain as soon as the brain is being created (atleast the instinctual element, babies like symmetry and hate non-symmetry, usually, that type of encoding). But you're right on the other stuff, I just meant they "may" have something to worry about in the "testing" department in the future; were the U.S. becomes the China of gay children `In Utero`, if you know what I mean--could get ugly and laws may need to be passed...

Hopefully I didn't make things more confusing.
This is PART, JUST PART of the Pandora's Box a test would bring about...

>> ^crotchflame:

God I love this movie...


... yea I watched it last night, surely under rated. No one I know has even heard of it, to the extent of recollection that is. They may have watched it before but the name does not solidify it seems.

It really is a fun time to watch with adolescent friends/family.

Here is a link to the movie if you wish to watch it on the inter webs.

http://www.putlocker.com/file/F3AA702511889228

+ Continue as free user + is all you have to click to get it going.

Sorry for the reeeaaally long post @marinara but I was trying to be brief:

1. "Zimmerman was not part of any REGISTERED neighborhood watch group."

Zimmerman did indeed say that he was "captain" of his neighborhood watch, and I can't find any proof that he wasn't, do you know why? Because there is no documentation regarding his neighborhood watch program, because it was unregistered and existed only in the heads of two or three people. And, might I add, it was certainly not "official".

When a person forms a neighborhood watch, it might be important to take into account the community that they live in. What if the community doesn't want a neighborhood watch program? What if they do, but they feel they don't want you representing them, as some people in Zimmerman's community clearly felt?

The fact is that Zimmmerman's self-appointed title carried no legitimacy at all. If my friend Cletus and I want to call ourselves the neighborhood watch, we can. I can call myself "secretary treasurer" and he can call himself "supreme overlord". But it has no more meaning than when my friend Nick and I get together and call ourselves a "fourteenth level archer", and "Nargok, the dwarven battlemage" (respectively). Only, in the case of the neighborhood watch titles, one must consider the community they are attempting to represent. This is why most watch programs (like the one you linked to) register themselves with the National Sheriff's Association, or some other organization.

2. "Oh and I documented a procedure for neighborhood watches to arrest people and a simple google search will correct you of the idea that the watch should not carry guns."

What you documented on the "City of Oxnard, Police Department" website was that citizen watch volunteers (who are registered) are encouraged to make arrests when they have seen a crime being committed, in particular, when they see someone committing the crime of vandalism. All US citizens have the right to make a citizen's arrest, but no one has the right to arrest or detain anyone for "suspicious behavior", even if that person is walking down the street wearing a hoodie, and looking skeptically at the person following them.

As to the gun, the same Oxnard website you linked to, on the same page, advises that no one carry a weapon at all, except for a heavy-duty flashlight that might be used to defend one's self in an emergency. Unfortunately, a Google search relating to neighborhood watch organizations carrying guns is inundated with articles and polls regarding this tragic case. The fox news polls indicate that a minority of people questioned think neighborhood watch members should carry guns, but those people do not reflect the views of any actual organization (that exists outside of its member's heads) that I know of.

I'd like to refer you to the response to the NY Times from Curtis Sliwa, founder of the Guardian Angels. The Angels are one of the most prolific watch organizations in history, with chapters all over the world. They were founded in the late seventies in NYC when the areas they patrolled were considered wastelands. Despite several attempts on the founder's life, and the loss of a few of its members over the years, they still do not advise carrying guns.

3. "...why do you insist on saying martin was an unarmed child? This is absurd."

I say it for two reasons: the first is that Martin was unarmed. There are no eyewitness reports, or even statements from Zimmerman that I've heard, that indicate that Martin attempted to use his bag of Skittles or his can of iced-tea as a weapon. The second reason I say it is that according to the US legal system, Martin was still a child at the time of his death. If he were in the "Child Protective Services' program, he wouldn't have gotten out until he was eighteen, which is the age that US citizens officially become adults (unless they're insane). Some children are tried as adults in the US, but child-victims are never represented as adults.

I understand if you think it's more appropriate to refer to Martin as a teenager, or possibly an adolescent, or even a young adult. But I don't think so, and I'll tell you why: I'm thirty-one years old. I'm not much older by comparison, but when I see a seventeen-year-old kid, I rarely think to myself, "he's got everything figured out". In fact, I rarely think that about most adults. Sure, I think most kids are smarter than people give them credit for, but I don't think Martin was mature enough to know the law and develop an appropriate response to being pursued for no reason by a man armed with a gun. And the US legal system hasn't made a determination in his case yet anyway.

Devon NHS children's services set for privatisation

Outcome of tendering process for core services for vulnerable families could provide foretaste of NHS break-up, critics fear Core children's health services in Devon may be about to be privatised in a move that critics have warned is a foretaste of the breaking up of the NHS that will take place when the government's health and social care bill becomes law.

The Guardian has learned that NHS Devon and Devon county council have shortlisted bids led by two private, profit-making companies – Serco and Virgin Care – to provide frontline services for children across the county, including some of the most sensitive care for highly vulnerable children and families, such as some child protection services, treatment for mentally ill children and adolescents, therapy and respite care for those with disabilities, health visiting, and palliative nursing for dying children.

Also on the shortlist for the £130m three-year NHS contract is Devon Partnership NHS trust, bidding along with Barnardo's and other local charities. But a source close to the process, which is now in its fourth and final stage, has told the Guardian that one of the two commercial companies' bids looks likely to win the tender.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/mar/15/devon-nhs-childrens-services-privatisation

At that age my sister was the same in pictures. Self absorbed "wtf" bullshit mentality.
...stupid adolescent kids.

Well, despite your condescending tone, you at least have a quote and make a valid point. Nice work.

I'll try to wrap my tiny brain around these life-shattering ideas. I'm not sure how well I'll do after how soundly you made fun of my education, or lack thereof. I thought I had a pretty good public school education. Thank you for showing me the light, that I was obviously the victim of liberal elites who spent too much time getting us to read and think rather than indoctrinating us. We didn't focus too much on what religion early Americans subscribed to, we just learned what they did. They called this "history." Maybe I'll come to an epiphany and find that I too want to write a revisionist history showing how all the founding fathers were really ancient pre-neo-cons, who went on religious crusades to oust any shred of diversion from the One True Faith from this, God's greatest country of all time. Amen.

But, until I get to that, might as well spout my hippie babble…

First, I'm not going to do your little workbook assignment. I grant, and did grant in my previous posts, that many of the founders could be considered "Christians." I'll also grant that Washington, Jefferson and Adams all went to church regularly and, at the birth of our country, "going to church" was a common social activity.

In this way, religion was woven into the fabric of American society. This is why, in my previous posts, I never said that all the founders were deists or non-believers, but that they understood deism and let it inform their understanding of their own, personal religion. More importantly, they let deism inform how they set up American government.

It would be incredulous if I had suggested that these men outright rejected Christianity. They did not, nor is it the purpose of the establishment clause to reject any religious sect (the establishment clause, and Santorum's misinterpretation of it, you'll remember, is the main subject of this comment thread).

As I said, you cite some valid evidence that the concept of god has always been a part of our government. But, you also haphazardly claim long-dead men to be zealous Christians when there are plenty of primary source documents to suggest they were not. I'm saving my big quote for something that has to do with the establishment clause directly, so you'll have to do your own homework if you want to find the many instances where all of the men you reference criticize organized religion. They are there, and if you like, we can have a quote war in later posts.

Here's my long quote response to you, more on topic than yours, I think:

"Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem."
-TJ 1802

I think this gets to the heart of the matter better than you or I ever could. For you, it shows that Jefferson wasn't shy about using religious rhetoric and proclaiming that he believed enough in Christianity to appeal to this group of clergymen on their home turf.

For me, it shows exactly (though more aptly worded than I could pull off) the point I and others have been making in this comment thread. Not that the founders were without religion, but that they realized the danger of letting religious "opinions" guide legislative policy. It speaks volumes of their intellect that these men, even when living in a society where being religiously aligned was the norm, even having attended seminary and church on a regular basis, still sought fit to vote against aligning their new country to any one religious sect.

This is why some of us get bent out of shape when Santorum proves his ignorance on this issue. He may understand the establishment clause, but if so, he presents his position as an appeal to ultra-religious citizens. When he addresses arguments against his stance, he interprets them as "a religious person cannot participate in government."

I'll say it again: Religious citizens have just as much right to participate in government as anyone else. But, their opinions, if they are to be considered in an official capacity, must stand on their own merit. Laws are not just if their only basis is: Jesus says so.

You're a smart guy, right? You have all that fancy schooling. So, tell me you get this.

Finally, if you would, please expand on your comment: "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

I'm curious on who you consider "moral and religious" and what we should do with those heathens who aren't.



>> ^shinyblurry:

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
John Adams
As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.
Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:
1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?
2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?
"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.
and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.
Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.
Go: Washington"
3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?
4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?
5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?
6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?
7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?
>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

I'm sorry to tell you but you're a victim of poor public education. The government was never intended to be secular, it was intended to represent the people it served, people who were and still are predominantly Christian.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Adams

As far as Deism goes, go ahead and make your case. I'll just warn you that the evidence is not in your favor. Most of the founders were Christians, some of them even attended seminary.

Before you reply, try answering these questions if you can:

1) Why did the first session of congress open with a 3 hour prayer and bible study?

2) Why did George Washington make this proclamation honoring the constitution?

"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington"

3) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he attend church every sunday..in the house of representitives?

4) If Jefferson intended for church and state to be seperate, why did he sign a treaty appointing federal funds to Christian missionaries to build a church and evangelize?

5) Why did Jefferson sign presidential documents "in the year of our Lord Jesus Christ"?

6) Why were there state churches, and why did many states have in their constitutions that only Christians could serve in high level offices?

7) Why didn't Jefferson change the policy of the bible as the primary read in public schools when he was head of the Washington DC school board?

>> ^LukinStone:
>> ^lantern53:
It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.

Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.
The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.
Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.
You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.
As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.
Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.
And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.
What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"
Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.
Try again.

>> ^lantern53:

It wasn't a 'Christian' god? What is a 'generic' God?
Who was their God?
And our gov't is supposed to be Godless?
Santorum may believe that sex is supposed to be within marriage. That is the ideal, the one which causes the least grief.
If you don't know what grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside marriage.


Maybe you should do some research on "Deism" a popular philosophy many of our founders were exposed to and followed.

The reason I used the word "generic" is because, compared to the Christianity that's popular in America today, it would seem watered down. Basically, a deist doesn't support the supernatural claims of the Bible while still allowing for a god of nature and the universe. You might compare it to Unitarianism today.

Yes, our government was intended to be secular. That doesn't mean that religious people can't participate. It doesn't mean that some of the founders weren't traditional, god-fearing men. It just means, when elected officials attempt to legislate based on purely religious ideas, we should block such attempts, no matter what religion they are based on.

You can propose legislation based on a religious ideal of "good" but you must be able to defend that good in a secular manner.

As I said, Santorum can believe whatever he wants, but when he says he should be able to legislate based on his personal religious beliefs, he is wrong.

Your claim about sex within and without marriage is unfounded. Plenty of grief is caused by people who get married too young or stay in abusive marriages because they respect the sanctity of marriage over their own well being. Plenty of grief is caused by religious dogma teaching adolescents that their sexuality is an evil thing unless it occurs within the confines of marriage.

And, it's fine for you to believe that sex outside of marriage is wrong. But, it is not fine for a law to be passed that takes that assumption as its foundation. That's the purpose of the Establishment clause. You have to have some empathy and consider the spectrum of religions (and atheists too) that will be treated unfairly should such legislation pass.

What would you think if I said "Traditional marriage only ends in grief and divorce?"

Even though the divorce rate is at nearly half, that claim is unfounded. When you say something like "If you don't know the grief sex causes outside of marriage, you never had sex outside of marriage" you show your hand. Using absolutes and straw man personal attacks are indicators of a poorly constructed argument.

Try again.

No way that this is fake. If this were fake the police officer deserves an acting award.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychotic#Medical_uses
"The number of prescriptions for children and adolescents doubled to 4.4 million between 2003 and 2006, in part because of increases in diagnoses of bipolar disorder."\

... you know what... in retrospect, this is a really bizarre video for a number of reasons... maybe fake

Silly me, siftbot is not the adolescent yet.

*dupeof=http://videosift.com/video/The-Guitar-Loving-Golden-Retriever

>> ^JiggaJonson:

On a side note, did you know that D.A.R.E actually increases drug use among teens?
I can dig up more resources on this if you like, but the author of the piece I linked cites various other studies and makes a poignant observation: you could tell kids thought D.A.R.E. was a joke because the kids who were the biggest druggies when I went to school were always the ones wearing D.A.R.E. shirts.


I'm not really one to support the use of 'marketing' to coerce the public into behaving a certain way, and I am not a fan of some aspects of the D.A.R.E program, but I'm struck by the thought that D.A.R.E could really have benefited from more extensive research into how the program would be perceived.


It makes sense that kids and adolescents would not want to be associated with a federally sponsored program with the stated goal of restricting their behavior. Regardless of whether that is the true structure of the program, it is not an effective image. They may have achieved better results if they avoided the appearance of 'top down' control, and instead focused on shaping the image of each child in the program as a self-motivated individual taking charge of his own life.


They should have noticed that D.A.R.E had an inherent branding problem, looked around, and said "hey, there are a lot of kids who are proud to call themselves 'straight edge', maybe we could do something like that?"

If you want a program like this to succeed, you don't make a half-assed attempt to reason with the kids, you either give them all of the facts and let them make their own choices without judgement, or you convince them that they are part of the Pepsi Generation.

This is probly a private story, but wtf.

This track (REZ) defined my adolescence. My older sister was a party kid (read: raver) and I thought she and her boyfriend were just about the coolest people on the planet when I was about 14. She had crazy colored hair and hosted all her crew's house parties at our house. He was an "agro-skater" as we called them in the mid-90s, and he taught me how to grind rails and do stairs backward. I used to hang around them like the classic cloying little brother, just trying to absorb all their coolness by proxmosis (that's a term for proximity osmosis I just made up).

Late one night, my sister came in to my room when I was in bed and she popped a disc into my stereo and cued up track nine on some nameless trance compilation and pressed the repeat button. REZ. I listened to that track over and over as I fell asleep that night, and for many nights after. I don't mean to be saccharine, but I think all your inner fourteen-year-olds will understand when I say that it gave me a sense of the universe, of all the sensory wonders this life and body had to offer, and even some beyond what I thought possible at the time. I can recite every note of that melody and every drum line in the track as if I were breathing. I danced by myself in the reflection of my bedroom window, making sure I could hit every beat and even started making up some silly shit I thought I would never show anyone. I spent about two years soaking up all the trance I could get (and thankfully my tastes grew more mature and eclectic as a result) and before too long, it was my turn to step out into the night.

My first party was a small affair at a tiny little club on 28th street, where I danced for an hour before falling fast asleep. As I came out of it, I thought I was still dreaming. It was about 3:30, and every single person in that club was sweating like a demon in an incredible symphony of movement. The first notes of the REZ melody were just coming in. I stood up, still a little unsure, or perhaps so excited I couldn't really believe it, and began to move. Before I knew it, I was writhing with the abandon I'd taught myself in the bedroom window and I truly had never felt so alive. A friend of mine had taught me how to figure-eight with sticks earlier in the night (we didn't have LEDs quite yet), and within seconds I was off. And people noticed. A lot of people noticed. By the apex of the track, I was at the center of a circle of party veterans, who seemed to see straight into the center of my transcendent bliss. I laughed like a madman. I cried like a baby. I danced like an animal. By the time the next track began to wind it's way in, I had made friends who followed me and whom I followed for years to come. I never heard REZ out at a party again, but I knew I didn't have to. It had given me an incredible gift, and I am still inspired and filled up whenever I hear it.

My sister broke up with that dude, and it turned out she wasn't really a party kid after all. But I was. Through and through I was a party kid. My friends and I, some of us wear suits now (@handmethekeysyou), some are still dancing (@youmakekittymad), some, well who knows...but I really do believe that what cemented my bond to that scene, and to the people I came to love, had a lot to do with REZ.

Some background from Wikipedia:

To test the theory of a person’s ability to delay gratification, the Stanford Marshmallow Experiment (1972), conducted by Prof. Walter Mischel, at Stanford University, California, studied a group of four-year-old children, each of whom was given one marshmallow, but promised two on condition that he or she wait twenty minutes, before eating the first marshmallow. Some children were able to wait the twenty minutes, and some were unable to wait. Furthermore, the university researchers then studied the developmental progress of each participant child into adolescence, and reported that children able to delay gratification (wait) were psychologically better adjusted, more dependable persons, and, as high school students, scored significantly greater grades in the collegiate Scholastic Aptitude Test.[2] More recently, the study Foetal Alcohol Syndrome: Developmental Characteristics and Directions for further Research (1994) reported that children afflicted with foetal alcohol syndrome (FAS) are less able to delay gratification; indicating, perhaps, that poor impulse control might originate biologically, in the brain.[3]

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deferred_gratification)

Heh! I was playing along >> ^NordlichReiter:

This is a fun one to play lead guitar on. So is Mardy Bum.