17 Year old writes book about Clinton

[ski]

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1591298040/ref=ase_kamurj0b/002-3016139-3548804?v=glance&s=books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591298040/ref=nosim/gotapex)

I saw this on my favorite channel, CSPAN2, today. He's a reeeally young looking bloke... I thought it was pretty interesting since he had such strong feelings about how he feels that role models aren't holding themselves up to higher standards, and then they wonder why the youth of America is losing its morals.

Oh yeah, if you see a picture of him, I guarantee the first thing you'll think is "NERD!" :)

[Cantacuzene]

Who cares what some 17 year old thinks? Anyone who buys this book is the type of person who is incapable making their own opinions.

[nickel]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Who cares what some 17 year old thinks? Anyone who buys this book is the type of person who is incapable making their own opinions.
"How To Destroy A Village : What The Clintons Taught A Seventeen Year Old"

aka the decay of morals in America. Sounds like this 17 year old is right on the money.

Canta, did anyone care what you thought when you were 17?

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Who cares what some 17 year old thinks? Anyone who buys this book is the type of person who is incapable making their own opinions.

Listening to someone else's opinions can never be bad. Now, if you were letting them tell you what to think, that would be another story. I haven't read this book--and I probably won't in the near future--, but I also would not discount its credibility, depth of thought, or veracity based solely on the age of its author.

[eSDee]

Originally posted by nickelback

"How To Destroy A Village : What The Clintons Taught A Seventeen Year Old"

aka the decay of morals in America. Sounds like this 17 year old is right on the money.

Canta, did anyone care what you thought when you were 17?

I'm sure his Republican parents are very proud of him.

The morals have been decaying for a long time now, and are still decaying with the current administration. For Clinton his biggest vice was the booty, for Dubya it is money :kaching:

[Cantacuzene]

I'm guessing when I was 17 I was just as opinionated as this kid, but I was modest enough not to waste people's time by writing a book.

The kid has been alive for only 17 years how can he say morals are decaying? He was 8 when Clinton came into office, how could he remember anything to compare it to, the quality of saturday morning cartoons?

[NuTs62]

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
I'm guessing when I was 17 I was just as opinionated as this kid, but I was modest enough not to waste people's time by writing a book.

The kid has been alive for only 17 years how can he say morals are decaying? He was 8 when Clinton came into office, how could he remember anything to compare it to, the quality of saturday morning cartoons?

So because he's 17, he should be hanging out in the mall per se instead of writing a book? Since when does age reflect knowledge? Should we discredit the views of minors just because they are "young" and "don't know what they are talking about"? Many schools try to teach kids to be responsible, and speak out. This kid goes through the lengths of writing a whole book, and you'll discredit what he says solely on his age? :disa: Granted I probably wouldn't read it, I for one am glad to see that he wrote his own book.

So what do you believe is an appropriate age for a person to be qualified to give an opinion on whether or not morals are decaying?

[ski]

On one hand, his peers give him the view of decaying morals, and a 50 year old political analyst would have a harder time expressing this than the writer does, but on the other hand, wait, there's no other hand, I just realized something...

He's not claiming to know anything more about politics than the next guy, he is focusing on one thing, how Clinton's presidency affected people his age, which he's as much of an expert on as many of us around that age when Clinton was in the office.

[LPMiller]

Morals aren't decaying. We just aren't working as hard at hiding our failings anymore. People are what they always were. JFK was much worse then Clinton ever was in regards to sex, he just never got caught.

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by skiAtomic

He's not claiming to know anything more about politics than the next guy, he is focusing on one thing, how Clinton's presidency affected people his age, which he's as much of an expert on as many of us around that age when Clinton was in the office.

Oh yes, because just looking at him I can tell he's talked to a lot of kids his age. Possibly didn't even get beaten up most of the time.

[nickel]

Originally posted by LPMiller
Morals aren't decaying. We just aren't working as hard at hiding our failings anymore. People are what they always were. JFK was much worse then Clinton ever was in regards to sex, he just never got caught.

JFK was "caught". everyone knew of his "indiscretions", but they were viewed differently back then and kept more hush-hush.

[blueindian]

Originally posted by skiAtomic
which he's as much of an expert on as many of us around that age when Clinton was in the office.

exactly.

problem is, non of us were experts. i care as much about this kid's opinion on politics as i do that of my 2 year old cousin.

here's some more of his "insight"
this (http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters_fodeman20021028.html)

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback


JFK was "caught". everyone knew of his "indiscretions", but they were viewed differently back then and kept more hush-hush.

does that make him the better person or something? because the media was not as sensationalistic back then?

are you saying that because kenedy was around in the 60s and clinton in the 90s that kennedy is somehow the better person?

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by blueindian

this (http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters_fodeman20021028.html)

Great. I've been grading enough 17 year olds' papers today. I don't need to see all of his grammatical and punctuation errors as well. :2far:

Anyway, he seems to be fairly well educated--or at least well versed in the political scene. He might actually have something to say, but it probably isn't something that I'm going to be interested in. :shrug:

[nickel]

Originally posted by blueindian


does that make him the better person or something? because the media was not as sensationalistic back then?

are you saying that because kenedy was around in the 60s and clinton in the 90s that kennedy is somehow the better person?

are you nuts?

i didn't imply that at all :rolleyes:

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by blueindian
here's some more of his "insight"
this (http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters_fodeman20021028.html)

He is obviously intelligent and obviously passionate about what he believes in, but frankly he is full of it. His arguements are based on superficial stereotypes of both parties, not actual actions and events.

As for decaying morals, "decay" would imply there was once a state of morality superior to our current age. Let me assure you: there was not. Sure, people may have sex out of weblock more now, but we no longer own slaves, domestic violence is less than ever and we care more about our children's education than ever. I would love to hear when this kid (or anyone else) thinks the 'golden age of morality' was.

[YanksFanRy]

Two points:
1) It got published, it can't be all that bad.
2) More power to him!

[bachviet]

So a 17 yr-old kid can't be smart??? There are plenty of geniuses in the world who could complete a doctor degree before they are turning 18. You can't judge a person by his/her age.

[ski]

Maybe next time I should remember to put "he thinks that" or "he says" in front of everything in this topic... sheesh, it's almost like you're assuming that I wrote the book and I have these views! :shrug: I'm simply presenting them to you to discuss. :)

[InfiniteNothing]

Hey Canta, why don't you write a book: "Stupid 17 year old: The egotistical kid who thought he knew something about moral decay"

I agree with LP here.

[Ladogaboy]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
Hey Canta, why don't you write a book: "Stupid 17 year old: The egotistical kid who thought he knew something about moral decay"


HAHA.... Actually, that would be damn funny. :P

[Sir_Froggy]

I sense another one coming, Canta VS. Everyone

:P

[blueindian]

Originally posted by nickelback


are you nuts?

i didn't imply that at all :rolleyes:

sorry then. it seemed you were trying to imply something. were you, and did i miss it, or was that just a general statement?

[nickel]

Originally posted by blueindian


sorry then. it seemed you were trying to imply something. were you, and did i miss it, or was that just a general statement?

all i said is everyone knew about Kennedy's extra-martial affairs but it wasn't the way of that day to bring it out in the media/newspapers like is done today. so i said yes, Kennedy was "caught" just like Clinton but that information is now handled differently.

[Cantacuzene]

Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
Hey Canta, why don't you write a book: "Stupid 17 year old: The egotistical kid who thought he knew something about moral decay"

It wouldnt take a whole book to prove him wrong. I could do it in a pamphlet. ;)

[LPMiller]

Originally posted by nickelback


all i said is everyone knew about Kennedy's extra-martial affairs but it wasn't the way of that day to bring it out in the media/newspapers like is done today. so i said yes, Kennedy was "caught" just like Clinton but that information is now handled differently.

Again, he was able to hide it better, because the press worked with him. And participated. If anything, things were less moral back then because everyone worked to hide these things.

Things always seem worse then what came before. The fact of the matter is, soon as something improves, something else pops up to take it's place. Or comes to light as it was always there, but hidden from view, as child molestation was for so long. Whenever I hear of someone get on a morality kick, I know two things: they only see the bad in things, never the good, and they have no concept of history. We the people suck in general, and if we get better, it's only a lil' bit at a time.

[welfareloser]

Originally posted by YanksFanRy
Two points:
1) It got published, it can't be all that bad.
2) More power to him!

your first point is laughable. it got published because someone thinks (quite rightly, given the sensational gimmick of the author's age and the broad appeal of the topic) that it will sell. it's like saying anyone who goes to yale must be smart - it's a very idealistic and unfortunately wrong way of looking at how things work.

second point is fair enough. can't fault anyone for making a buck.

[welfareloser]

and sweet baby jesus, that link to "more of his insight" was an eye-popper. just because you use an indent every now and then does NOT mean you are composing anything like a coherent paragraph... nice word salad manifesto. eesh.

[whitak24]

Originally posted by blueindian
here's some more of his "insight"
this (http://www.opinioneditorials.com/freedomwriters_fodeman20021028.html)
wow. that was horrendous. if his book is anything like that, then i can't imagine how it got published (other than, as welfare pointed out, the obvious gimmick of his age and the broad appeal of the topic).

i got through about 3 paragraphs of that bilge and skimmed the rest. his logic and grasp of facts was sorely lacking.

as for whether a 17-year-old has something important to say, i would venture to guess "probably not". i'm not that far away from 17 -- senior year in high school. i was an extremely opinionated and politically active person. i had read and learned just enough about politics and economics to think that i knew everything. i thought i not only understood how the world worked, but that i also knew how to solve most any problem, because after all i had read "the road to serfdom", "economics in one lesson", and "economics and freedom", along with the random von Mieses and a couple "summary articles" of marxist theory.

when you're 17, you have no sense of perspective. and quite frankly, you haven't been around long enough to have gained the wisdom that comes with experience, especially in an area like politics. if you've only seen one administration (at an age where you're old enough to understand what's going on), you're not going to understand the political games that go on in every administration. (of course some people are so blind and closed-minded that they fail to recognize the same thing even though they're 50 or 60).

if i were to post some of the papers i wrote when i was a HS senior, you'd all laugh and tear them apart. and rightfully so. they're crap. but at the time i thought i was a freaking genius.

moral of the story: i'm sure this kid means well. i'm not knocking his effort, etc. but i sincerely believe that at age 17, none of us have the understanding and experience to write a book trying to comment on large political/social trends.