What a crock. It's not like the kid was asking for drinks (I think).

When somebody made a law that said "no kids in bars", I think it's safe to assume they weren't thinking of entertainers like this. Sadly, though, the law fairly applies to them I guess. Perhaps the law should be changed.

If I could bitch-slap any government official, this one is at the top of my list.

Well, the kid can still play in a church, though that might not be all that good for him either. Hope that he can find a legitimate venue to continue his musical development in that is free from undesirable influence. He could always play for donations on the sidewalk or down at a city park, I suppose.

Mark

I just don't get it. This kid is gonna be famous one day for his skill, and this bureau-rat shuts him down.

the fucker is just jealous.

No that may not be true but Come on!!!! He would be with a TRUSTED Parent!!!!

I agree with you 100%, Alan

Loge

Your life experience which seems to automatically grant parents some status as protectors (competent ones at that) ... Is diametrically opposed to my experience.

You are not going to advance the proposition that parents have the safety of their children in mine on a male survivor board unopposed. Which is as it should be.

Perhaps you might consider thinking before typing. How do you suppose a lot of us came to be here?

I was just saying that the kid gets along with his dad and from the interview, it clearly seemed to be Kosher, capiche?

You think only parents do this shit?!? Maybe you should think about that, before responding!!!

oh yeah and I said "TRUSTED parent" not parent, maybe some thicker glasses then, mate

Logan

Hi Mr. Ed.

Hey, we're all well aware of abusive parents, yours (or one of them) appear to have been among them, from what you say. This is a horrible reality that I've never forgotten.

That having been said, let's keep the perspective of this thread focused in off-topic mode, shall we?

We're talking about a busy-body government employee who's merely covering his ass in the unlikely event that this kid ever happens to slip and fall on a beer cap or whatever, in the bars or taverns in question. Oh! (how could we forget?) and to keep his coveted position with it's pension and full-benefits package in place in the unlikely event that this might occur. Personally, I think he should have to work a REAL job that patrons are actually willing to voluntarily pay for, like I have always done, but that will probably never happen since he's probably got his cushy government job for life.

I guess my point is that he doesn't HAVE to enforce the law, he's merely doing so because he considers the security of his personal lifestyle is more important to him than refusing to enforce an unjust law, with it's POSSIBLE negative consequences for him.

But who cares? He's just a kid who's pursuing a dream and not hurting anyone, he doesn't matter. All that matters is the law. Every law is just. Every law perfect. Every law deserves respect and unquestioned obedience.

Alan,

I am sure this one government employee probably didn't write this law or even voted to have it passed. He is probably just the poor bastard whose job it is to enforce the law pass by his state government. For all we know he feels the same way about this law as you do. And like every employee he cannot choose what part of his job he will do. Just because he does not agree with that aspect of his job duties.

How can you judge a person you don't even know?
Can we just paint every individual with a broad brush of judgement by what his employment or whatever else we choose to focus on that we don't like.
Sounds like something that we in this country have been trying to overcome in the last few decades.

Not every law is just,perfect,or even needed. But until they are changed or removed we still have to obey them.
And to change them we have to do more than just complain about them.


Mike

the kids really good, got definite skill and probably pushy parents, i think he deserves to still be able to play music in those places, but you cant have a law for some and not for others, it would require redefining the law, but if you redefine the law for one child occupation you have to consider redefining it for all the other child occupations and who knows where to draw the line, yeah it is a nanny-state, but it would probably be more of a micromanagement if we split the laws into tiny segments which could end with ridiculous results that we too would complain about all day long (eg. child musicians with guitars can play in bars but child musicians with trumpets can't- because of passive smoke etc, and with everything re-evaluated there will end up being more out-there reasonings and the country would spend all its time trying to iron out the creases and nothing would get done)

While prescribing a medication for me at the doctor's office, I asked my doctor how they arrived at the necessary dosage for me. He said that they used what worked most effectively for fifty-one percent of the population, then, adjusted it upward or, down, depending on my needs.

That's just a little scary, too...uh?

Not unlike legislating the cooking oil for our French fries...

Legislating responsibility is alwaysa crap shoot, uh?


:-)


Dave