http://campusprogress.org/books/3081/optimism-deficient

-----------------------------------------------------------

Optimism Deficient?
A wrongheaded experiment to prove poor people are lazy shows it’s easy to succeed when you’re young, healthy, white, and male.

By Kayla Walker
July 22, 2008


Adam Shepard was sick of hearing the impoverished in America whine and complain. He was “frustrated with the materialistic individualism that seems to be shaping every thirteen-year-old to be the next teen diva,” Shepard wrote in the introduction to Scratch Beginnings: Me, $25, and the Search for the American Dream. In a move that is reminiscent of Jon Krakauer’s Into the Wild, Shepard boarded a train to Charleston, S.C., with nothing more than $25 in his pocket, the clothes on his back, a sleeping bag, and a tarp.

Shepard set out to disprove books like Barbara Ehrenreich’s Nickel and Dimed and Bait and Switch. He wanted to achieve the so-called American Dream—without using his college degree, friends, or exemplary credit history—proving that it is still possible in America to break one’s way out of poverty. Shepard gave himself just one year to break from poverty and homelessness. Completion of his project would be considered successful if Shepard was able to own a functioning automobile, be living in a furnished apartment, have $2,500, and have the prospects to go to school or start his own business.

Of course, after just 10 months of getting a manual labor job at a moving company, Shepard achieves his goals: he owns a beat-up truck, lives in an apartment that is fully furnished (with cast-offs from customers), and has almost $5,000 to his name. Shepard attributes his success to his can-do spirit and work ethic. There are plenty of people that might not have such a “can do” attitude after living in abject poverty for years.

Shepard may not have started out with much, but his experience was free of many of the problems of the impoverished today: He is physically and mentally healthy, he has a strong education and upbringing, and his "homeless" situation was always temporary. Shepard acknowledges such criticisms, but he fails to acknowledge that he didn’t have to face many of the systemic and institutional problems of racism (especially since his experiment took place in the American South), sexism, homophobia, or growing up in poverty.

According to a report by the Center for American Progress, 37 million Americans live below the poverty line. The same report shows that while poverty afflicts 8.7 percent of non-Hispanic white individuals in America, 21.4 percent of both African Americans and Hispanics are afflicted. So it goes without saying that Shepard might have had a different experience had he not been white.

Shepard argues that a person’s background and environment does much to shape them and their lifestyles. Shepard seems to attribute inequality to “poor attitudes”—a child that grows up in an environment with poor attitudes will likely grow up to be an adult with poor attitudes. In other words, Shepard says what is really plaguing America is a severe lack of optimism. Shepard himself is the product of two loving, educated parents, a middle-class upbringing, and a college education (in business management) in Massachusetts on a basketball scholarship. Shepard says that he didn’t use his college degree to benefit his circumstances—but it’s impossible, of course, that he did not make use of his education.

But there’s more than just poverty in the United States. There’s also debt. The Consumer Federation of America estimates that credit card debt in America totaled $850 billion in 2007. Shepherd also didn’t have to worry about college loans, having gone to school on an athletic scholarship. FinAid reports that 65.7 percent of 4-year undergraduate students graduate with debt. The average student loan debt is $19,237. Without having to worry about loan balances, Shepherd’s experiment wasn’t realistic.

In a similar critique to Ehrenreich’s book, it is also important to remember that Shepard’s situation was merely temporary. He had an emergency credit card in his pocket, a comfortable home, supportive relatives, and a college degree to fall back on. If his experiment had failed, all he would have suffered was a bruised ego. Shepard didn’t have to worry about the real, deep-rooted stress and desperation that poverty inflicts, probably making his situation easier to cope with. This makes his experience more of a story of tourism rather than a real experience.

While at the moving company, Shepard had heard legendary tales of Derrick, a mover who could lift anything despite his trim build. Shepard’s description of his time working with Derrick depicts a focused, hard-working man that is striving towards a better life for himself and his family. Unlike Shepard, Derrick is black, from a poor, rural town, and has a wife and child to support. Derrick has succeeded in becoming the most desired mover in Charleston and had purchased a home for his family with the help from the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America, a nonprofit that helps people with faulty credit or without the means to pay closing costs purchase a home, as well as understand the real estate market and process of purchasing a home.

Derrick’s success was thanks not just to optimism, but thanks to antipoverty groups that help people in concrete ways. Derrick’s triumphs and trials, rather than Shepard’s, would have made a much more interesting testimonial to the American Dream’s feasibility, as well as a more realistic picture of everything that’s needed to combat poverty in America today.

Kayla Walker is a recent graduate of Hofstra University and a former Publications Intern at Campus Progress.

Oh my goodness, this may explain a lot.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Web makes us antsy readers, not deep thinkers
Leonard Pitts
June 17, 2008

In reading the cover story in the new issue of The Atlantic, however, I have learned that I am not alone. There are at least two of us who have forgotten how to read.

I do not mean that I have lost the ability to decode letters into words. I mean, rather, that I am finding it increasingly difficult to read deeply, to muster the focus and concentration necessary to wrestle any text longer than a paragraph or more intellectually demanding than a TV listing.

You're talking to a fellow whose idea of fun has always been to retire to a quiet corner with a thick newspaper or a thicker book and disappear inside. But that has become progressively harder to do in recent years. More and more, I have to do my reading in short bursts; anything longer and I start drowsing over the page even though I'm not sleepy, or fidgeting about checking e-mail, visiting that favorite Web site, even though I checked the one and visited the other just minutes ago.



I've tried to figure out why my concentration was shot, but no explanation satisfied: I watch less television than most folks and I'm certainly no more busy than I was 10 years ago.

Now, author Nicholas Carr posits a new theory. In "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" he notes that he and many of his literary friends report the same experience, leading him to wonder if the Internet is not rewiring our very brains, not altering the hard drive of the human computer. The culture of hyperlinks, blogs and search engines that return more results than you could read in a lifetime is, he argues, changing the way we read and think.

You hardly need me to sell you on the benefits of the Internet. Sitting at her desk, the average human being now has instant access to a vast universe of information a previous generation could not have begun to dream.

But what if the very vastness of that universe, the very fact of so much out there to know and so little time to know it in, requires a trade-off in concentration and focus? I mean, we may have more options than ever before, but we're still dealing with the same 24-hour days we've always had. And the Internet does little to filter or prioritize the information it retrieves—it simply dumps it on your head and leaves it to you to figure out. So perhaps it is to be expected that we learn to skim and scan information, but lose the ability to truly absorb and analyze it.

Granted, this is all theory. To the best of my knowledge, no one has yet subjected it to scientific rigor. But it is compelling, nevertheless.

A couple of weeks ago, I read former White House spokesman Scott McClellan's book, "What Happened," for this column. Deadlines being what they are, I had to wolf down the last 200 pages in a single day. I chose an uncomfortable chair to minimize the danger of dozing off, allowed myself only one Internet break.

I would read this book. Nothing else. Just read.

It was difficult. I felt like I was getting away with something, like when you slip out of the office to catch a matinee. Indeed, I'd have felt less guilty sitting in a matinee. I had to keep reminding myself that this was OK, that this was work.

It wasn't until somewhere around the third hour that I began to unclench, to stop feeling guilty for spending so much time focused on this one bit of matter plucked from a surging sea of knowledge. It felt—liberating.

In an era in which everyone has a truth and the means to fling it around the world, an era in which knowledge is increasingly broad but seldom deep, maybe that's the ultimate act of sedition: to pick up a single book and read it.

The hours I spent reading McClellan's book felt like an escape, like I had stepped off a treadmill for the first time in years. The pages fell away and the hours got lost.

I don't know about you, but I could use more days like that.

This...is...TERRIBLE:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-baby-drown-web-apr24,0,4262329.story

South Side mom drowned daughter so she could 'go to parties,' prosecutor says
Teen didn't want to be a mother, officials say
By Robert Mitchum and Dan P. Blake | Tribune reporters
2:39 PM CDT, April 23, 2008

Rozlynn Rodgers, 19, was charged Tuesday with first-degree murder in the April 4 death of her daughter, Makalah, at their home in the 7800 block of South Ingleside Avenue. She later told authorities that she drowned the child because she no longer wanted to be a mother, officials said.

Rodgers told police "she didn't want to be a mom anymore because she couldn't go to parties if she had to take care of the baby," Assistant State's Atty. Mary Anna Planey said Wednesday during a bond hearing before Judge Laura Sullivan.

Planey said that Rodgers placed the baby in a full bathtub on the afternoon of April 4. When the child slid under the water, Rodgers sat and watched for several minutes, Planey said. Another person in the house called 911 after Rodgers removed Makalah from the bathtub.

The baby later was pronounced dead of cardiac arrest, and the medical examiner reported that her lungs were saturated with water, Planey said. Though the original autopsy by the Cook County medical examiner's office was inconclusive, the manner of death was later changed to homicide, police spokeswoman Laura Kubiak said Wednesday.

Rodgers also was charged with aggravated battery to a police officer after she attacked a police officer during her arrest, Kubiak said. While in custody Tuesday, Rodgers became disruptive and knocked over a table in an interview room, Planey said. Later, Rodgers scratched, punched, kicked and spat in the face of a detective, Planey said.

A public defender said Rodgers was a full-time student at Las Casas Occupational High School and planned to graduate in June. Her next court appearance will be on May 12.

The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services launched an investigation into allegations of death by neglect the day Makalah died, spokesman Kendall Marlowe said. He said the agency had no prior contact with the family and that there were no other children in the home.

Young Americans and Health Insurance
Why young people should demand change to our health care system.

By Rebecca Mansbach
January 14, 2008


Lauren Fant, 18, winces as she receives an injection in Marietta, Ga. (AP Photo/John Amis)

Health insurance hasn't traditionally been considered a pet issue of young Americans. Conventional wisdom says that young people are not farsighted enough to worry about their long-term health or politically engaged enough to care about the state of the country's health care system. Fortunately, recent polls have proven that view to be drastically outdated.

In a survey of 2,526 young people taken this fall by Harvard University's Institute of Politics, one in 10 respondents ranked health insurance as the national issue that concerns them the most—only the war in Iraq trumped it as a more pressing concern. A poll conducted by Rock the Vote turned up similar findings, while the Kaiser Family Foundation has reported that 42 percent of young people are very worried about the price of health care. And it's no wonder: Young Americans are one of the most neglected demographic groups when it comes to health care. While young adults account for only 17 percent of the U.S. population under the age of 65, they disproportionately make up 30 percent of those Americans under the age of 65 who don't have health insurance.

A smattering of new state laws is helping to plug the holes that make it difficult for young adults to obtain health insurance. But further reform is needed, and, in the meantime, millions of young adults will continue to cross their fingers, hope for the best, and inevitably turn to the emergency room as a last resort.

The “Invincibles”

Young adults are commonly ignored in discussions about health care reform. The so-called “invincibles” are ordinary young adults, typically ages 19-29, who go without health insurance. According to an issue paper from the National Institute for Health Care Management, 91 percent of 18 to 24 year olds reported that their health status was “excellent,” “very good,” or “good” in 1994. Many chose not to pay for health insurance because they believe they had a very low chance of getting sick or injured. Even so, young people report a large number of cost-related health care problems, such as foregoing needed care, failing to fill a prescription because of cost, and skipping preventive care because they lack coverage.

Even for the “invincibles” who acknowledge they need coverage, health insurance can be difficult to obtain. When it comes to health care, an individual's 19th birthday is a defining moment. This is the age at which he or she may no longer qualify as a dependent under his or her parents’ employer-sponsored insurance and no longer qualifies for public insurance programs such as the State Children's Health Insurance Program, also known as SCHIP, and Medicaid. At age 19, an American's risk of being uninsured more than doubles; the percentage of uninsured Americans rises from 12 percent for those 18 and younger to 31 percent for those between the ages 19 and 29.

Under many employer-sponsored family plans, only full-time students can receive coverage, leaving part-time students and those who are not in school ineligible. The Commonwealth Fund noted that nearly 60 percent of employers who offer coverage do not insure dependent children over 18 or 19 if they do not go to college. Furthermore, 40 percent of part-time or non-students aged 19 to 23 are uninsured while only 20 percent of full-time students are uninsured.

Working young adults are often hard-pressed to find health care. Entry-level jobs are typically low-paying and often do not provide benefits. Nearly half of young adults with jobs are not offered coverage. Young adults also tend to face a more transitory job market, which makes it more difficult to maintain coverage even when employers do provide it. In addition, working young adults are more than twice as likely as older adults to live in poverty, and therefore are unable to afford health insurance if they are not offered it within the workplace.

Health Care Risks

Young adults are particularly vulnerable to a host of health-related hazards like injury, homicide, and substance abuse. According to the Journal of Adolescent Health, young people get injured more often than any other demographic. Car accidents, for example, are a leading cause of mortality for young adults.

* Young people also face a high risk for problems related to sexual reproductive health. The prevalence of many sexually transmitted infections, especially chlamydia, gonorrhea, and human papillomavirus peaks during this age, and in 2000, young adult females aged 20 to 24 had the highest pregnancy rate.


* Young Americans are at risk for binge drinking and other kinds of substance abuse. The risks for cigarette use and eating disorders peak during young adulthood.


* Mental health is a concern for individuals aged 18 to 24. Three-fourths of all lifetime cases of diagnosable mental disorders begin by age 24. According to the Journal of Adolescent Health, young adults have triple the suicide rate of adolescents.


* The NIHCM Foundation reports that increasing numbers of young adults are overweight or obese today. There are also an increasing number of young adults living with chronic medical conditions or disabilities. In 2003, disability affected one out of every 15 young adults between 16 and 20 years old.


The States as an Imperfect Model

Even with all of the risks associated with being young, 19 to 23 year olds have the lowest per capita health expenditures of all age groups—approximately $1,600 per person. Some states are beginning to recognize this, and in recent years many have adopted policies to better provide coverage to young adults.

In May 2006, New Jersey began requiring most group health plans to cover single adult dependents until they are 30 years old. Since January 2006, Colorado has required group and privately purchased individual health plans to cover unmarried dependents until the age of 25. As part of Massachusetts’s April 2006 health care expansion law, young adults are considered dependents for insurance purposes until the age of 26 or for two years after they are no longer claimed as a dependent on their parents’ tax return, whichever comes first.

As of September 2003, full-time students are covered under their parents’ insurance in Texas until the age of 25. And New Mexico’s insurance policies provide coverage for dependents until they’re 25, regardless of school enrollment. (All these policies are summed up here.)

It is clear that in the past the “invincibles” have been invisible in health care reform. However, new policies are starting to provide coverage for these young adults. But these policies need to both become more widespread and provide preventive care for a gamut of illnesses and care common in young adulthood. Further progress is still necessary, especially for improving coverage that matches young adults’ needs.

Rebecca Mansbach is a senior at George Washington University and a former health policy intern for the Center for American Progress.

BECAUSE I NEED A MEANS TO GET TO WORK!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/06/AR2008010601971.html?hpid=sec-nation

Cheering News for the Cubs?
After Squabbles With Owners, Mayor May Back Park's Sale

By Kari Lydersen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, January 7, 2008; Page A03

CHICAGO -- Mayor Richard M. Daley has had a tumultuous relationship with the Chicago Cubs, the city's third-largest tourist attraction.

Daley is a lifelong fan of the Cubs' rival Chicago White Sox, having grown up in the South Side neighborhood of Bridgeport that the Sox call home.

In 2004, Daley and the Tribune Co., which owns the Cubs and Wrigley Field, had a nasty public spat over the Chicago Tribune's coverage of the Cubs and over structural issues at the historic ballpark. In the midst of a spate of Tribune articles suggesting cronyism and corruption in the mayor's administration, Daley blasted the firm for alleged safety problems at the field, including chunks of concrete falling from the upper deck, and threatened to close the park. The Tribune followed up with stories on structural problems at City Hall.

Now, it appears that Daley and the team have made up, as discussions move forward about a deal in which Wrigley Field could be sold to a city-state government agency.

Last fall, local real estate magnate Sam Zell bought the Tribune Co. for $8.2 billion. Zell, a Daley supporter, wants to sell the Cubs before the 2008 season starts on March 31. Also last fall, Tribune approached the Illinois Sports Facility Authority (ISFA) about buying Wrigley Field.

The authority built and owns U.S. Cellular Field, where the White Sox play. It also furnished bonds to finance the architecturally innovative and controversial renovation of Soldier Field, home of the National Football League Chicago Bears, and funded construction of the United Center, where the Bulls play basketball and the Blackhawks play hockey.

Daley initially lashed out at the proposal, saying that the Cubs do not need public financing and that taxpayer money would be better spent on such projects as Chicago's failing public transit system. He promised to oppose any increase in the hotel or restaurant tax aimed at financing Wrigley Field.

Then on Thursday, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Daley saying that he would keep an "open mind" to the idea, and other parties lauded his change of heart. Daley's office did not return calls for comment, and others were reluctant to speculate on his motives. His amicable relationship with Zell and assurances from ISFA and state officials that taxes would not be raised to finance the project may have won him over.

On Friday, the city approved the Cubs' plan to add 70 left field box seats and signs. Since Wrigley Field, which was built in 1914, has landmark status, the city must approve any structural changes.

If the sports authority buys Wrigley, proponents say, tax breaks and bonds would help carry out a much-needed renovation. ISFA ownership could also ensure the Cubs stay in Chicago for the long haul. Though details of any deal are still speculative, sports authority spokesman Doug Scofield said the agency would probably own the field and sign a contract with the new owner of the Cubs, which would require they stay in Chicago.

"Potentially, the benefits of public ownership are an ironclad guarantee of keeping Wrigley as the Cubs' home, which is good for the state and the city," Scofield said.

Crane Kenney, a senior vice president at Tribune Co., said a purchase by the authority would be made without taxpayer money; it would be financed through bonds repaid by rent from the Cubs' new owner, ballpark fees and property taxes. He called it the most desirable of options the company has on the table.

The arrangement would probably raise the Cubs' asking price significantly. That is because the buyer would not be stuck with the field renovation, which is expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

James Thompson (R), the sports authority's chairman and a former governor of Illinois, is a fervent supporter of the proposal. He said he hopes Daley and other leaders will get behind it.

"I haven't talked directly to the mayor, but I take him at his word he has an open mind," Thompson said. "This could not be done without the complete cooperation of the governor's office, the mayor's office, four legislative leaders, the city council and the neighborhood. That's a lot of folks to get together."

Tom Tunney, the alderman representing the surrounding Wrigleyville neighborhood, has publicly opposed the plan. He said he does not see a need for taxpayer dollars to be spent on Wrigley Field when private investors are interested. Tunney said he is also concerned that government ownership of Wrigley might disrupt the neighborhood.

Kenney, for one, said he considers the mayor a friend of the team.

"The mayor's made it pretty clear which team he's a fan of -- but he understands the economic importance of the Cubs," he said.

I came across this randomly while looking for something related to work. Crazy! What an intersection of interlectual property and just about every other legal field!

http://www.abanet.org/rppt/publications/ereport/2007/6/Virtual_Grekin.html

The Legal Reality of Virtual Real Property

By Nancy Grekin

Virtual real property took on actual life in the case of Bragg v. Linden Research, Inc., No. CIV.AO6 4925 (E.D.P.A., May 30, 2007). The plaintiff, a lawyer, sued Linden Research, Inc. (the “Company”) the creator of a virtual reality Web site called “Second Life”, alleging that it had improperly confiscated his virtual property and denied him access to its virtual community. He also joined the President and CEO of the Company for having made personal representations which led him to participate in Second Life. The case covered a variety of procedural issues which resulted in the determination that a Federal District Court in the State of the plaintiff’s residence had personal jurisdiction over the CEO, and that its on-line terms of service (“TOS”) contract was unconscionable. Because the contract between the user and the Web site was unconscionable, the arbitration clause which users were required to accept in order to participate would not be enforced. The case provides lessons on how to prepare a TOS for acceptance on the Internet, and a warning that the operator of a Web site and its principals may be sued virtually anywhere.

Plaintiff signed up and paid defendant to participate in the Second Life virtual world. Participants use the site by creating “avatars”, which are virtual depictions of themselves, and which interact with other participants in the Second Life virtual communities. Second Life agreed to recognize the intellectual property rights of the digital content created by participants, permitting them to buy, own and sell virtual goods and property, including land. The owners of virtual land could exclude others, improve it, and rent it and sell it to other avatars for a profit. Plaintiff purchased numerous parcels of virtual land, paid defendant real money as property tax, and created a digital business of selling fireworks for a profit to other avatars. He also acquired other virtual items from other avatars. In order to participate, the plaintiff was required to agree to defendant’s on-line TOS. The TOS required, among other provisions, that any dispute between the company and the user be decided by arbitration in California where the Company is located.

The dispute arose because the plaintiff acquired a parcel of virtual land for $300 but the defendant informed him that he had improperly purchased the land through an “exploit.” The defendant then froze the plaintiff’s account, and confiscated all of the virtual property and currency that he maintained at Second Life. The Plaintiff sued the Company and its President and CEO, Philip Rosedale. Rosedale moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Company moved to compel arbitration.

Motion (of Rosedale) to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction

Personal jurisdiction can be established either by “specific jurisdiction” when the basis of the plaintiff’s claim is related to or arises out of the defendant’s contacts with the forum, or by “general jurisdiction” which need not relate to the defendant’s contacts with the forum in connection with the underlying cause of action, but will be established if the contacts were “continuous and systematic.” The plaintiff maintained that Rosedale’s representations made in national media supported personal jurisdiction.

To establish personal jurisdiction it must be shown that the defendant had sufficient contacts with the forum to have anticipated that he could be sued there. The plaintiff alleged that Rosedale personally made statements in the media to a national audience regarding Second Life, and that those representations induced the plaintiff to participate. Further Rosedale hosted “town meetings” at Second Life at which he made various statements about the purchase of virtual land. The Court held that these personal representations made to induce participation in Second Life and the purchase of virtual land, were sufficient contacts to support personal jurisdiction.

Further, the Court ruled that the exercise of personal jurisdiction would not offend due process because there was no undue burden on Rosedale to defend in Pennsylvania, and because Pennsylvania has a substantial interest in protecting its citizens from misleading representations that would induce them to purchase virtual property.

Rosedale argued that because he made the representations in his capacity as chief executive officer of Linden Research, Inc. that he could not be subject to personal jurisdiction in his individual capacity, the so-called “fiduciary shield” doctrine. Although the Court was uncertain as to the law of Pennsylvania and the Third Circuit on this doctrine, it held that it did not apply because if a defendant had (1) a major role in the corporate structure, (2) the quality of his contacts with the State were significant, and (3) his participation in tortious contact was extensive, the doctrine would not apply. Because of his title as President and CEO and his participation in Company management, and because his statements were made on national media and he personally participated in the dissemination of the representations, he met the tests for determining that the doctrine did not apply and therefore did not preclude personal jurisdiction.

Motion to Compel Arbitration

Participants in Second Life are required to accept the on-line TOS by clicking an acceptance box. The Second Life TOS included a California choice of laws provision and an arbitration provision requiring disposition of disputes in San Francisco. The plaintiff alleged that the arbitration provision was procedurally and substantively unconscionable.

Procedural Unconscionability

The Court held that the TOS was a contract of adhesion because the other party had no opportunity for meaningful negotiation, and it was therefore procedurally unconscionable. Further the Court held that the Company clearly had superior bargaining strength which also established unconscionability. Apparently Second Life was the first virtual community on the Internet to offer its participants the right to purchase virtual land, so the Court held that there were no other reasonable market alternatives, further supporting that the TOS was a contract of adhesion. Finally, the Court noted that there was an element of “surprise” in the arbitration provision, another element of procedural unconscionability, because the provision was particularly inconspicuous and was buried in a paragraph with the heading “GENERAL PROVISIONS.”

Substantive Unconscionability

Even if a contract is procedurally unconscionable it will be enforced if the substantive terms are reasonable. A substantively unconscionable contract is one which is “one-sided.”

The Court held that the TOS was substantively unconscionable because it was entirely one-sided. It permitted the Company to suspend or terminate a user’s account and to refuse use of Second Life without notice, the Company had the sole discretion to determine if the participant had breached, and it had the right to retain any equity the participant had acquired based on a mere “suspicion” of fraud. In addition, the Company could amend the agreement at any time in its sole discretion by posting the amendment to its Web site. Thus the Company had a variety of remedies for breach, while the users had only one: they were required to arbitrate.

The Court analyzed various other provisions of the TOS and concluded that the lack of mutuality, the forum selection clause, and a confidentiality provision unilaterally imposed by the Company demonstrated that the arbitration clause was not designed to provide users with an effective means of resolving disputes. Therefore it was substantively unconscionable. Because the TOS was held to be substantively unconscionable, the Court held that the arbitration clause would not be enforced.

Lessons of the Case

All Web sites are made available nationally (and internationally) so a provider such as the Company can probably be sued virtually anywhere in the county. A CEO or other corporate representative who personally participates in hyping the company’s products nationally is at risk of personal liability for false or misleading statements.

The on-line TOS that Web sites require users to accept may not always be contracts of adhesion, but they certainly offer no opportunity to negotiate, are always one-sided, and are presented to users as “take it or leave it” – if a user doesn’t accept it, the user cannot participate. Many TOS contracts may be substantively, if not procedurally, unconscionable based upon the theories of this case. A company seeking to enforce a provision such as an arbitration clause included in a TOS should be very careful to make the provision obvious, and not to include other onerous one-sided provisions.

In the new world of virtual reality a company which advertises nationally and which promotes its business on the Internet must be prepared to operate in the real world of the law of contracts or risk serious legal sanctions!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/fashion/06professions.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=fashion

By ALEX WILLIAMS
Published: January 6, 2008

YOU can’t say law firms aren’t trying.

At the Chicago office of Perkins Coie, partners recently unveiled a “happiness committee,” offering candy apples and milkshakes to brighten the long and wearying days of its lawyers. Perhaps this will serve as an example to other firms, which studies show lose, on average, nearly a fifth of their associates in any given year, in an industry in which about 20 percent of lawyers over all will suffer depression at some point in their careers.

Last year, Cravath, Swaine & Moore tried a more direct approach, offering associates an added bonus of as much as $50,000, on top of regular annual bonuses that range from $35,000 to $60,000.

At the august Sullivan & Cromwell, partners in 2006 began a program, groundbreaking in white-shoe firms, encouraging the uttering of “thank you” and “good work” to harried underlings, as reported in The Wall Street Journal.

Probably not a bad move at a firm that had been hemorrhaging associates at a rate of about 30 percent a year. (The rate dipped below 25 percent in the year after the program was started, although Fred Rich, a partner, said better etiquette was simply an element in a “very broad agenda” focused on more open communication.)

So now who’s going to cheer up the doctors?

As of 2006, nearly 60 percent of doctors polled by the American College of Physician Executives said they had considered getting out of medicine because of low morale, and nearly 70 percent knew someone who already had.

In a typical complaint, Dr. Yul Ejnes, 47, a general internist in Cranston, R.I., said he was recently forced by Medicare to fill out requisition forms for a wheelchair-bound patient who needed to replace balding tires. “I’m a doctor,” he said, “not Mr. Goodwrench.”

Make no mistake, law and medicine — the most elite of the traditional professions — have always been demanding. But they were also unquestionably prestigious. Sure, bankers made big money and professors held impressive degrees.

But in the days when a successful career was built on a number of tacitly recognized pillars — outsize pay, long-term security, impressive schooling and authority over grave matters — doctors and lawyers were perched atop them all.

Now, those pillars have started to wobble.

“The older professions are great, they’re wonderful,” said Richard Florida, the author of “The Rise of the Creative Class: And How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure, Community and Everyday Life” (Basic Books, 2003). “But they’ve lost their allure, their status. And it isn’t about money.”

OR at least, it is not all about money. The pay is still good (sometimes very good), and the in-laws aren’t exactly complaining. Still, something is missing, say many doctors, lawyers and career experts: the old sense of purpose, of respect, of living at the center of American society and embodying its definition of “success.”

In a culture that prizes risk and outsize reward — where professional heroes are college dropouts with billion-dollar Web sites — some doctors and lawyers feel they have slipped a notch in social status, drifting toward the safe-and-staid realm of dentists and accountants. It’s not just because the professions have changed, but also because the standards of what makes a prestigious career have changed.

This decline, Mr. Florida argued, is rooted in a broader shift in definitions of success, essentially, a realignment of the pillars. Especially among young people, professional status is now inextricably linked to ideas of flexibility and creativity, concepts alien to seemingly everyone but art students even a generation ago.

“There used to be this idea of having a separate work self and home self,” he said. “Now they just want to be themselves. It’s almost as if they’re interviewing places to see if they fit them.”

Indeed, applications to law schools and medical schools have declined from recent highs. Nationally, the number of law school applicants dropped to 83,500 in 2006 from 98,700 in 2004—representing a 6.7 percent drop between 2006 and 2005, on top of the 5.2 percent slip the previous year, according to the Law School Admission Council.

(Maybe they’ve been talking to actual lawyers. Forty-four percent of lawyers recently surveyed by the American Bar Association said they would not recommend the profession to a young person.)

The number of applicants to medical school, meanwhile, has dipped to 42,000 from 46,000 in 1997, although it has recovered from a low of 33,000 in 2003.

Students are focusing now on starring in their own creations, their own start-up businesses, said Trudy Steinfeld, the executive director of the Wasserman Center for Career Development at New York University.

“There’s a sexiness to starting something cool,” she said. “Now we have people trying to start a Facebook or a MySpace. You might be working like a maniac, but it’s going to pay off in status. You’re going to be famous, providing something people are going to know and use all over the world.”

Unquestionably, many doctors and lawyers still find the higher calling of their profession — helping people — as well as the prestige and money, worth the hard work. And the stars in either field are still that: commanding the handsome compensation and social cachet. But to others, the daily trudge serves as a constant reminder that the entrepreneur’s autonomy simply can’t be found in law or medicine.

“We’d all seen the visions, watching ‘L.A. Law,’ or ‘Ally McBeal,’” said Catherine Kersh, 32, a former litigator at a large firm in Los Angeles. “It did seem glamorous.”

Reality, she quickly learned, was different. Ms. Kersh recalled a two-week stretch in which she and a team of associates were holed up in a conference room with 50 boxes of documents. Every day, for 12 hours, they fastened Post-it notes to legal briefs.

“You look around at the other associates, trying to remind ourselves, why did we go to law school?” said Ms. Kersh, who now works for a nonprofit group that administers scholarships.

Many young associates, she added, spent their lunch hours making lavish purchases on NeimanMarcus.com, just to remind themselves that what they did counted for something.

Life, in fact, was less like “Ally” and more like “The Practice,” where lawyers work like dogs in a thoroughly unglamorous setting.

Nor does hard work guarantee success. “With law firms merging, fewer people are making partner,” said Carolyn Elefant, a lawyer in Washington who writes for Law.com, a legal news and information Web site.

In 2005, the number of equity partners at law firms grew by 2.5 percent, compared with 4.5 percent five years earlier, according to a study by Citi Private Bank. And even if you make partner, the work doesn’t lessen.

“Partners now are often billing as many hours as the associates, because of the enormous growth of law firms,” Ms. Elefant said. “There’s a huge overhead. The demand for global practice means many partners having to be available to clients around the clock.”

As firms demand ever more billable hours, said Lawrence J. Fox, a partner in the Philadelphia office of Drinker Biddle & Reath, lawyers find less time for pro bono work — the very thing that once gave them a sense of higher calling. Increased competitive pressures also mean that young associates are often locked into arcane sub-specialties, like pharmaceutical product liability.

Doctors face similar pressure. Complaints about managed care crimping doctors’ income and authority over medical decisions are nothing new, but the problems are only getting worse, several doctors said.

“Remember the ‘I Love Lucy’ episode in the chocolate factory?” said Dr. Ejnes in Rhode Island. “That’s what a medical practice is now like. They keep turning up the speed on the conveyer belt, and before you know it, you’re stuffing chocolates in your pockets.”

One doctor responding to the American College of Physician Executives survey wrote: “I find it necessary about once every month or two to stay in bed for 24 to 48 hours. I do this on short notice when I get the feeling I might punch somebody.”

Increasing workloads and paperwork might be tolerable if the old feeling of authority were still the same, doctors said. But patients who once might have revered them for their knowledge and skill often arrive at the office armed with a sense of personal expertise, gleaned from a few hours on www.WebMD.com, doctors said, not to mention a disdain for the medical system in general.

“If the topic comes up in cocktail party talk, you’ll hear nightmare stories from people as they’ve gone through the system — ‘they gave me the wrong pill,’ et cetera,” said Dr. Gregg Broffman, 57, a former pediatrician who is now a medical director of a primary care group in Buffalo. “In terms of my own self-esteem, it feels like a personal attack.”

EVEN the language of contemporary medicine has eroded the physician’s sense of majesty.

“What irritates me the most is the use of the term ‘provider,’” said Dr. Brian A. Meltzer, an internist in Pennington, N.J., who now practices pro bono on the side, but works full time for Johnson & Johnson’s venture capital division. “We didn’t go to provider school.”

Making the erosion of cachet more acute is the fact that unlike law schools or medical schools, flashier industries recruit heavily on top college campuses, said Lauren A. Rivera, a sociology graduate student and an instructor at Harvard who studies career choice among students.

“Investment banking and consulting firms have a huge presence; they’re barging in from before first day of classes,” Ms. Rivera said. “The messages they convey appeals to every undergraduate fantasy: this is a continuation of prestige education, this is the only valuable way to finish your education. You’ll work with the smartest people and the most exciting, high-profile clients.”

And then there is, yes, the money issue. Or rather, money envy. Associates at major New York firms often start at $150,000 to $180,000, said Bill Coleman, the chief compensation officer at Salary.com, a company that tracks income statistics. Partners at the country’s biggest 100 firms took home an average of $1.2 million in 2006, according to American Lawyer.

Hardly small sums, but for many senior investment bankers, bonuses and salaries this year will average $2.25 million to $2.75 million, according to Options Group, an executive search and consulting firm.

Doctors rarely approach such heights. While income varies widely, a typical physician might earn $150,00 to $300,000, according to Salary.com data. A surgeon might make $250,000 to $400,000; hot-shot surgeons can earn $750,000 a year, and superstars over a million dollars.

But absolute numbers are not the only issue, Mr. Coleman said.

The professions still largely award income in the traditional sense — a set, orderly progression, over the course of decades. Careers in more entrepreneurial industries like hedge funds and private equity firms follow the sky-is-the-limit model of the entertainment industry, the Web or professional sports.

Kevin J. Delaney, a sociology professor at Temple University who has studied the culture of hedge funds and private equity firms, said executives there “love the idea of being responsible for their own fate.”

They’re going to make a million or lose a million based on the trades they make,” he said.

Many firms are so small, he added, that “you go there, it’s one floor, and 10 people sitting around the room, six of them making millions of dollars.”

This star-system mentality is particularly attractive to college students, many of whom were reared with the ’80s philosophy that every child was a potential superstar, Mr. Coleman said. And they want immediate rewards — not exactly the mentality that will fuel a student through years of medical school, a residency and additional training for a specialty.

“Their attention span, everything, is instant feedback: quick, quick, quick,” Mr. Coleman said. “Apprenticeship, these kids don’t want to do it.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/11/08/60minutes/main3475200.shtml

CBS) Stand back all bosses! A new breed of American worker is about to attack everything you hold sacred: from giving orders, to your starched white shirt and tie. They are called, among other things, "millennials." There are about 80 million of them, born between 1980 and 1995, and they're rapidly taking over from the baby boomers who are now pushing 60.

They were raised by doting parents who told them they are special, played in little leagues with no winners or losers, or all winners. They are laden with trophies just for participating and they think your business-as-usual ethic is for the birds. And if you persist in the belief you can, take your job and shove it.

As correspondent Morley Safer reports, corporate America is so unnerved by all this that companies like Merrill Lynch, Ernst & Young, Disney and scores of others are hiring consultants to teach them how to deal with this generation that only takes "yes" for an answer.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The workplace has become a psychological battlefield and the millennials have the upper hand, because they are tech savvy, with every gadget imaginable almost becoming an extension of their bodies. They multitask, talk, walk, listen and type, and text. And their priorities are simple: they come first.

Just ask Marian Salzman, an ad agency executive at J. Walter Thompson, who has been managing and tracking millennials since they entered the workforce.

"Some of them are the greatest generation. They're more hardworking. They have these tools to get things done," she explains. "They are enormously clever and resourceful. Some of the others are absolutely incorrigible. It's their way or the highway. The rest of us are old, redundant, should be retired. How dare we come in, anyone over 30. Not only can't be trusted, can't be counted upon to be, sort of, coherent."

Salzman says today's manager must be half shrink and half diplomat.

What are some of the do's and don'ts in speaking to the generation of young workers?

"You do have to speak to them a little bit like a therapist on television might speak to a patient," Salzman says, laughing. "You can't be harsh. You cannot tell them you're disappointed in them. You can't really ask them to live and breathe the company. Because they're living and breathing themselves and that keeps them very busy."

Faced with new employees who want to roll into work with their iPods and flip flops around noon, but still be CEO by Friday, companies are realizing that the era of the buttoned down exec happy to have a job is as dead as the three-Martini lunch.

"These young people will tell you what time their yoga class is and the day's work will be organized around the fact that they have this commitment. So you actually envy them. How wonderful it is to be young and have your priorities so clear. Flipside of it is how awful it is to be managing the extension, sort of, of the teenage babysitting pool," Salzman tells Safer.

All of which has led, as you'd expect, to a whole new industry -- or epidemic -- of consultants, experts they allege, in how to motivate, train and, yes, sometimes nanny the extraterrestrials who've taken over the workplace.

Mary Crane, who once whipped up soufflés for the White House, now offers crash courses for millennials in, well, the obvious. "As to the tattoos just make sure they stay covered up within the office, especially if you are going to be meeting clients," she advises her clients.

"It's a perfect storm we have created to put these people in a position where they suddenly have to perform as professionals and haven’t been trained," Crane says.

Basic training, like how to eat with a knife and fork, or indeed how to work. Today, fewer and fewer middle class kids hold summer jobs because mowing lawns does not get you into Harvard.

"They have climbed Mount Everest. They've been down to Machu Picchu to help excavate it. But they've never punched a time clock. They have no idea what it's like to actually be in an office at nine o'clock, with people handing them work. And oh, by the way, possibly asking them to stay late in the evening, or their weekends," Crane says.

She maintains that while this generation has extraordinary technical skills, childhoods filled with trophies and adulation didn't prepare them for the cold realities of work.

"You now have a generation coming into the workplace that has grown up with the expectation that they will automatically win, and they'll always be rewarded, even for just showing up," Crane says.

"To what extent are you having to tell the boomers, the bosses, the 50 to 60 year olds, 'The people who got to change are you guys, not them?'" Safer asks.

"The boomers do need to hear the message, that they're gonna have to start focusing more on coaching rather than bossing. If this generation in particular, you just tell them, 'You got to do this. You got to do this. You got to do this.' They truly will walk. And every major law firm, every major company knows, this is the future," Crane explains.

(CBS) It's a future of sweet talking bosses, no more "Pay your dues just like I did." If this generation knows anything, it's that there are more jobs than young people to fill them.

"I believe that they actually think of themselves like merchandise on eBay. 'If you don't want me, Mr. Employer, I'll go sell myself down the street. I'll probably get more money. I'll definitely get a better experience. And by the way, they'll adore me. You only like me,'" Salzman says.

So who's to blame for the narcissistic praise hounds now taking over the office?

Wall Street Journal columnist Jeffrey Zaslow covers trends in the workplace and points the finger at the man who once was America’s favorite next door neighbor: Mister Rogers.

"You have got a guy like Mister Rogers, Fred Rogers on TV. He was telling his preschoolers, 'You're special. You're special.' And he meant well. But we, as parents, ran with it. And we said, 'You, Junior, are special, and you're special and you're special and you're special.' And for doing what? We didn't really explain that," Zaslow says.

"But isn't this generation, particularly of middle class kids, really quite special? Aren't they, in some ways, much better than your generation, certainly mine," Safer remarks.

"Well, except, when we were younger, you had a piano teacher who expected you to practice your piano and work hard at it, and the parents expected it. And now, the parents say, 'Have fun, learn the piano, practice a little bit.' So, there's not the expectations that they will achieve and work hard," Zaslow says. "It's not the same work ethic."

Zaslow says that the coddling virus continues to eat away even when junior goes off to college. "I heard from several professors who said, a student will come up after class and say, 'I don't like my grade, and my mom wants to talk to you, here's the phone,'" he says. "And the students think it's like a service. 'I deserve an A because I'm paying for it. What are you giving me a C for?'"

Today more than half of college seniors move home after graduation. It's a safety net, or safety diaper, that allows many kids to quickly opt out of a job they don't like.

"There once was, if not shame, a little certain uneasiness about being seen to be living at home in your mid 20s, yes?" Safer asks Mary Crane.

"Not only is there no shame with it, but this is thought to be a very smart, wise, economic decision," Crane says.

"Well, that would suggest that they probably had pretty happy childhoods," Safer says.

"And who couldn't be happy when you're growing up in a world where there's no failure?" Crane points out.

And dear old mom isn’t just your landlord; she is your agent as well. "Career services departments are complaining about the parents who are coming to update their child's resume. And in fact, you go to employers, and they're starting to express concern now with the parents who will phone HR, saying, 'But my little Susie or little Johnny didn't get the performance evaluation that I think they deserve,'" Crane says.

"Our parents really took from us that opportunity to fall down on our face and learn how to stand up," says Jason Dorsey.

Dorsey and Ryan Healy both make a living advising their fellow 20 some-things on how to cope with work. Healy started a Web site for that purpose and Dorsey has written two how-to books for them. And while Dorsey admits his mother picked out his suit for his interview with 60 Minutes, his generation is not going to make the same mistakes their parents made.

"We're not going to settle. Because we saw our parents settle," Dorsey says. "And we have options. That we can keep hopping jobs. No longer is it bad to have four jobs on your resume in a year. Whereas for our parents or even Gen X, that was terrible. But that's the new reality for us. And we're going to keep adapting and switching and trying new things until we figure out what it is."

And figuring it out takes time. Sociologists tell us most Americans believe adulthood begins at 26 or older and that having witnessed so many sacrifices by their parents to achieve middle class security has had a huge impact. Family and friends are the new priorities, while blind careerism is beginning to fade.

"We definitely put lifestyle and friends above work. No question about it," Dorsey tells

Both Dorsey and Healy feel that that's pretty much the way one should look at life.

(CBS) "I remember my dad getting laid off and all these things growing up. And that's 'cause they sacrificed for the company. Well, the first knee jerk reaction from me is I sure don't want to do that. I'm going to be in it for me and I'm going to make it work," Dorsey says.

"Where does this fantasy about 'I'm going to find the dream job' -- there's no such thing as a dream job. I mean, a few of us like me happen to have it. But where does this fantasy come from?" Safer asks Dorsey.

"I think we were told when we were little, 'You can be anything you want.' And then they went on and on and told us this," he replies.

"Big lie, right?" Safer asks.

"Big goals are great. Selling a fantasy that everything's going to be perfect and peachy is not," Dorsey says.

"I also think from, when you're in your early 20s and you're really not responsible to a family of kids, this is the time to find the best job, the best career. You know, what you really want to do," Healy adds.

And more and more businesses are responding, offering free food, fun and flexibility to keep their employees happy.

Online shoe retailer Zappos.com has found that the best way of keeping employees is giving them what they want. Actual work actually happens, despite goofy parades, snoozing in the nap room, and plenty of happy hours.

Motivational consultant Bob Nelson says companies like Zappos will avoid a looming demographic crisis. "It's harder to get people. There's gonna be fewer of them to get. And if you want to keep them and get the best out of them, you sure better know what presses their buttons," he explains.

Nelson, known in the trade as the "guru of thank you," believes that the teeniest rewards pay big dividends, regardless of age. And boss-abuse gets even bigger dividends.

"I've worked with managers that have, if we make this goal, they'll shave their head type thing," Nelson says, laughing. "Or they'll be in the dunk tank at the summer picnic. When a senior manager's willing to do that is, it says we're all in it together."

All that togetherness comes together every year at the Motivation Show in Chicago -- with acre upon acre of coaches, consultants, knickknacks and fancy stuff -- rewards for a job well done, and reminders to work harder.

"You think this would help motivate people to work harder?" Safer asks a masseuse.

"Oh it does," the masseuse says.

But for sure, there is an almost evangelical fervor about this work philosophy -- no stick, all carrots. And believe it or not, all this prodding, praising, peddling, cajoling and psychobabble is worth $50 billion a year in business. Ain't America great?

Where else you find free back rubs for the deserving worker bee. What’s wrong with a happy workplace and taking your time to grow up?

"Could this be that everything is being delayed so that adolescence ends at 30 say and middle age starts at 60 say?" Safer asks Jeffrey Zaslow.

"You can hope that's the case. But, while we're having this delayed adolescence, are we getting behind as an economy and as a workforce, because we're just all playing computer games at work while we wait to grow up?" he replies.

For all the complaining, Dorsey and Healy believe their generation will transform the office into a much more efficient, flexible and yes, nicer place to be. But until then, a message to bosses everywhere: just don’t forget the praise.

"We want to hear it and truly we'd love for our parents to know. There's nothing better than Mom getting that letter saying, 'You know, Ryan did a great job. Yeah, I just wanted to let you know you raised a fantastic son,'" Dorsey says.

"Send it to grandma, too," Healy adds, laughing.

October 23, 2007

By Janet Kornblum, USA TODAY
Reared on reality TV, paparazzi, cellphone cameras and the insatiable maw of the World Wide Web, it's no wonder teens and adults in their 20s think a little differently when it comes to privacy.

"I am constantly broadcasting who I am," says Indigo Rael, 22, of Lake Dallas, Texas. "The Internet is just a way for me to reach more people with who I am. It's the age of information; I'm used to giving and receiving tons."

To the Internet generation, reaching out and touching a few hundred of their closest friends — especially through social-networking sites MySpace and Facebook — is as natural as brushing their teeth.

"They're dealing with privacy differently than any of us over 35 ever have," says Steve Jones, communications professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago.

In the old days of their parents' and grandparents' generations when teens wanted to talk to each other, they'd pick up the phone. Sometimes, they'd have to resort to actual face-to-face conversations.
FIND MORE STORIES IN: Google | Jones | Myspace | Facebook | Online Privacy

Today's teens and adults in their 20s are a lot more likely to reach for a computer keyboard to convey something as fleeting as a mood or as traumatic as a breakup — even if it's only to a list of trusted friends.

"They are growing up in an environment, in a culture where you get constant feedback from others on yourself in ways that we never did," says psychologist Linda R. Young, who teaches at Seattle University and writes about teens and technology.

"The private self and public self become intertwined in a way that we (older folks) can't possibly understand," Young says. "So they're not embarrassed about some of the things that we think they should be embarrassed about because it's an extension of the self that they're used to having viewed."

The trend toward online self-disclosure "really started with reality television and the confessional nature of that form of entertainment," says Anastasia Goodstein, author of Totally Wired: What Teens and Tweens Are Really Doing Online. "And that began to permeate our culture."

So when sites such as MySpace, Facebook and Xanga, where people can post everything from the mundane details of their days to their innermost thoughts, began gaining popularity, teens were ready to jump right in.

"Because they've grown up with the Internet and the ability to put that stuff online, it's just become more comfortable for them," Goodstein says.

'A generation thing'

It's so comfortable that some worry that teens are inadvertently broadcasting to a wider audience than they intend.

Elli Langford, 19, a sophomore at Auburn University in Alabama, says that while she guards her own privacy by being selective about sharing information online, she has seen others display more than they should.

"I guess my generation really puts a lot less stock into privacy," Langford says. "I mean, every other celebrity couple is letting movie cameras into their houses. And you've got shows like The Hills and Laguna Beach (both on MTV) where they're in high school, but they're letting cameras follow them around and putting their lives on TV. I guess it's just like a generation thing."

The issue is widespread enough that some schools, including Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia, are offering seminars for students, staff and the community about the ramifications of using these sites.

A preference for privacy may be catching on. A study in April by the Pew Internet & American Life Project showed that 66% of teens who posted online profiles kept at least some part of them hidden from public view.

And most social sites, including MySpace and Facebook, are adding tools to protect — and, perhaps as important, control — the personal information of their users.

Kiyoshi Martinez, 23, a Web assistant for a chain of newspapers in Orland Park, Ill., says privacy settings give "people a willingness to use these social networks and put some elements of their lives out there. I think everyone is kind of the editor of their own lives."

But the sense of control can be illusory, says Amanda Lenhart of the Pew project.

"Because there is that sense of greater privacy, teens believe that 'as long as I control who is my friend, it's no problem.' "

As teens have been learning recently, however, online areas you might think are private may not be. What goes on MySpace or Xanga, or even a seemingly private e-mail, often does not stay there.

"We are all figuring out in real time what is socially correct and incorrect," says Paul Saffo, technology forecaster and consulting associate professor of engineering at Stanford University in Palo Alto, Calif.

"The difference is (older folks) are doing it with dead, old technology that kids don't use. They're doing it with the new technology."

Hard lessons

For the Web generation, socially correct is different from what it was for those who grew up before Google was a verb.

"The Internet generation" may not expect privacy in the same way older people do, but they do rely on trust, Jones says. "They expect that their peers will treat particular activities as private."

If they go to a party where there's underage drinking, for instance, they trust that their friends will keep it private, Jones says. And their intentions may very well be to do that.

But "people will leave this party, and they'll think: 'If I just share these photos with the people who were at the party, that's fine.' But what they end up doing more often than not is posting the photos in an online forum that seems private but is not."

Says Internet safety consultant Parry Aftab, "You have this disconnect between what they know is risky and what they do anyway."

Sometimes it takes a lesson — such as knowing that someone was denied a job because of a drunken picture posted on Facebook — for teens to understand the ramifications of their actions, says privacy expert Lauren Weinstein.

Teens in general tend to be lax about their privacy because "they don't have a lot of baggage," says Weinstein, co-founder of People for Internet Responsibility. But, he says, "they're only OK with (being very open) until the point that it bites them."

A networking tool

Most teens really do understand privacy more than many realize, Goodstein says.

"They've grown up with the reality that if you put things out there, things can happen," she says. "People find out about things, and you just get a thicker skin or figure out how to manage your public identity and just bounce back from it."

Martinez says he has weighed the risks and decided it's worth the risk to divulge lots of personal information, including his work experience — even his address. He knows that anyone can find him anywhere and that his information could be abused.

"I'm personally just not concerned about people stalking me," he says. "I'm more concerned with using my credit card information online than about having pictures of me out there."

He says the question rarely comes up with his peers. But he has had conversations with older people "who refuse to go on Facebook or MySpace, or they don't want anything to come up when you enter their name in Google."

That, he believes, is foolish. "If people are interested in who you are, and you maybe want to use that as a way to network, why not have that up there and market yourself?"

Martinez has had job interviews through his posted résumé, and he found out about his current job through a friend on Facebook.

Putting his life online also allows him to more easily keep up with friends. "Maybe it's a generational disconnect between seeing the Internet as a bogeyman, vs. 'I really want to stay in touch with the people that I know.'

"Maybe that's the main difference between the current generation and older generations. We want to be in touch with people and our friends and stay connected through the Internet, whereas security and privacy is maybe a secondary concern to us."

Pushed man 'didn't stand a chance'
Charges in drowning

Carlos Osorio, visiting Chicago from Mexico, goes fishing Tuesday at Montrose Harbor, where a fisherman drowned early Saturday. A Chicago man charged with first-degree murder is believed to have pushed the man into the lake. (Tribune photo by Terrence Antonio James / September 4, 2007)

By Emma Graves Fitzsimmons and and Azam Ahmed | Tribune staff reporters
10:21 PM CDT, September 5, 2007

John J. Haley arrived at Montrose Harbor on Saturday morning looking for trouble after a night of drinking, police say. He allegedly told his friends that "some of the fishermen look hot, and they need to go for a swim."

Haley was charged with first-degree murder on Wednesday for following through on that threat by shoving a fisherman into the water, prosecutors said. The 62-year-old man could not swim and died within seconds, police said.

Haley, a 31-year-old repairman from Chicago's Palmer Square neighborhood, was held in lieu of $1.5 million bail Wednesday afternoon in connection with the death of Du Doan. He was also charged with aggravated battery for a similar incident on July 31 in which he shoved another man at the same location.

The charges came after Haley admitted to both incidents in a videotaped statement he gave to police, prosecutors said at his bond hearing.

His friends, who were also questioned, said that right after Doan fell, Haley was laughing and bragging about pushing the man into the harbor, prosecutors said.

"These victims didn't stand a chance," Assistant State's Atty. Maria McCarthy said. "They had no idea what was going to happen to them, and in the case of Mr. Doan, that was a death sentence."

Haley's lawyer, Marc Gottreich, said that Haley did not intend to kill the victim in Saturday's drowning. "We believe the evidence will show my client did not push or intend to hurt this individual in this matter," Gottreich said.

Police said that Haley was at Montrose Harbor with four friends about 5:30 a.m. Saturday to watch the sun rise after attending a party. He began to behave erratically and picked a fight with another fisherman, who is a retired Marine. A friend restrained Haley and persuaded him to leave, police said.

Haley then ran back to the water and allegedly pushed Doan in the back with two hands, "launching him into the water," police said.

Some people nearby tried to help him, but they could not save Doan, a Far Northwest Side father of four.

In the July 31 incident, prosecutors said Haley was drinking with friends when he asked a fisherman for a lighter. The two men had a conversation, and then Haley allegedly hit him in the back of the head and pushed him into the water, McCarthy said.

The man was able to swim to safety and only reported his situation once he heard about Doan's drowning, she said. The victim appeared to have Asian features, but police were not sure of his ethnicity.

The two incidents were not Haley's first run-in with police, and he has shown a clear pattern of aggressive behavior, prosecutors said.

Haley was sentenced to 6 months in prison for a 2001 felony conviction for cocaine possession, court records show. Two years ago, he was convicted of battery for hitting a person in the head with a barbell, prosecutors said.

Police had originally investigated Doan's drowning as a hate crime because the victim in both incidents appeared to be Asian, police said. But they now believe it was simply a random attack by an "out-of-control" man, Lt. Anthony Riccio said.

"We concluded that hate was not an issue," Riccio said. "The motive was, in fact, senseless violence."

Haley appeared Wednesday in court before Cook County Judge Israel Desierto with a shaved head and tan worker boots, and his forearms were covered in tattoos. He bent his head, and his hands were clasped behind his back.

Haley lived with his girlfriend in the 2100 block of North Point Street, police said. He earned a GED and had worked repairing heaters and air conditioners for seven years, Gottreich said.

The four friends who were with Haley at the lake have "terrible criminal records" and made "self-serving statements about my client," Gottreich said at the hearing.

A man who said he was Haley's brother declined to comment on the case Wednesday outside his family's Southwest Side home. A man who was leaving the apartment Wednesday afternoon said that Haley's mother was "upset" and "irritated" by people bothering the family.

Detectives said that Haley is a skinhead, but that he is part of a group that is against racism. He identified himself as a member of SHARP, or "Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice," police said.

The people in this faction are "polar opposites" from the racist skinheads that most people picture in their minds, said Elana Stern, the associate director of the Chicago chapter of the Anti-Defamation League. Skinheads in SHARP are rarely on her radar because they do not target minorities, she said.

Members of a MySpace group called "Chi-Town SHARP" said they despise racist skinheads.

Their movement is more of a cultural one that honors working-class values, they said. They may shave their heads and listen to reggae music, but they say they have friends from every background.