blog self-censoring

http://www.boston.com/yourlife/health/blog/2007/05/fleas_fall_1.html

i'm intrigued. i understand that what i post on the 'net is different than what i post in my offline diary. once it's on the 'net it's available for public consumption and we have to be responsible for what we chose to post.

but with schools and companies looking at our postings and searching for reasons to not accept us ... how can they give more credit to a drunk picture on myspace than the polished resume on their desk. both are very incomplete pictures of a person.

and now semi-professional blogs pushing people to think and discuss controversial topics. seems that unless it's your profession you should stay away from it. imagine publishing a blog where you play devil's advocate for a controversial subject just to get people to think and discuss (isn't that what america is about??). you can't admit to it being a devil's advocate position - you'll lose credibility on the site; you can't not admit it for fear you'll be found out and people will misjudge you based on it.

how on earth would the federalist papers have been published in modern day?

-s

interesting article:
http://www.getrichslowly.org/blog/2007/05/29/economic-outpatient-care-why-you-shouldnt-take-money-from-the-bank-of-mom-and-dad/

mom and i were discussing this on a broader scope over the weekend - at what point do we become enablers instead of helpers? we had 3 examples ... the first two are financial:

1. i've asked for help once when an unexpected tax bill came in. i asked mom for a no interest loan (which i am repaying now). if she hadn't helped me out i would have managed to come up with the money - but probably at something close to a 20% interest rate. perhaps i'm biased on this one, but i think this is 'helping' - i don't usually ask for the money, i don't expect it, and i have valid contingency plans if mom doesn't help me.

2. someone else is constantly asking for money (school, credit cards, gifts - and he gets the money) and is continuing to add to his credit card debt. i think this borders on 'enabling' since he doesn't have contingency plans, is always asking for financial help, and rarely pays back the 'loans'.

3. a boy was dating a girl. he has 2 children with this girl before they had a fight and she put a restraining order on him. she then proceeded to 'make' him violate the restraining order to see his kids. his mom warned him, but he didn't listen. eventually the girl got mad at him again and called in the restraining order. he was placed on probation and she continued to 'make' him violate the restraining order and terms of probation until she got mad again and called in the restraining order. he has now been educated on tax payer dollars, is planning to see her again when he gets out, and has a friend offering him free room and board to get back on his feet since mom drew the line and said she's not housing him anymore. i think the mom was right to cut of her son to prevent enabling here - she warned him, she supported him on probation, he still didn't learn. but i think society is enabling - he's been 'rewarded' with a free education (complete with the time to focus on it) and free room and board because everyone wants to help him get on his feet and on the right path.

what motivates people to get on the right path and take care of themselves? does putting one safety net after another in front of people who are on the wrong path help (prevent them from turning to a life of crime or feeling that they are 'unloved' because no one will help them) or does it teach personal responsibility? at what point do you declare someone a sinking ship and stop helping? ARE THERE OTHER WAYS TO HELP WITHOUT ENABLING?

-s

bear hunting

No mommy, i'm not tired.

2 seconds later, i see this: