No, I think she wrote a column about it-- different audience with more complex considerations so the verbiage and the content is subject to change.
OK - let's start over. Do you believe she actually rolled down the window and said something, or that she didn't?
She probably did... but what does it matter? This is not "reporting." She's writing a column. I doubt she said what she wrote; that doesn't come off as conversational with children-- especially from the back-seat of a car.
So then are you the guy who never offers to pick up the check when out on lunch with friends? Who when he invites friends over for a BBQ charges them for the potato salad, cola and paper plates provided? I don't agree with you politically but really I am surprised that even being contrarian you would still defend what for lack of a better word is jackassery on the part of someone ideologically bullying some kids.
Let me ask you this. What if the column was written by a liberal writer who had rolled down his window to lecture some kids selling lemonade about the evils of greed and capitalism would you still defend that? I mean everything is the same except that the ideological position is reversed and your argument isn't one of ideological position but of defending the columnist.
Are you a parent? Gosh, if kids ran the world.... Yesterday, I went to the grocery store with my two girls-- age 8 and 10. They both had gathered up some 50 cents to buy some temporary tatoos. After we had loaded the groceries into the car, my youngest realizes that she has lost her tatoos out of the cardboard slip they came in. Could I have just given her .50 to get some more? Yes. Should I? We headed back into the store and re-traced out steps down the several aisles we visited. No tatoos. My daughter starts on about how unfair it is and how the store owes her her money back. What would you have said?
Does this mean that as a parent you are fine with random people lecturing your kids when they are trying to have some fun making lemonade? I am not a parent but I know enough to not intellectually bully kids. But seriously you are taking this now as an argument that we should have kids run the world? Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
What lecture? She made a couple of remarks... it reads like she didn't even get out of the car. How can you effectively lecture someone from the backseat of a running car?
So you are fine then with a stranger driving by yelling something out the back of a car at your kids.
I know that. Can you answer the hypothetical question? Do you think by not buying my daughter new tatoos that I, too, was ideologically bullying them?
That doesn't seem to me like an apt description of what happened. If they are going to sell or give away lemonade, people are going to step and engage them.
Well considering you haven't answered the hypothetical I posed to you earlier I don't think there is any reason for me to do so but I will out of courtesy to the debate. As a parent you have the right to lecture your kids and punish them when their behavior doesn't agree with the standards you have established for your household. You have the right to teach them your values, within our laws, whether I agree with them or not. It is a far different matter though for a complete stranger to do that. I highly doubt that you or any loving parent would if find it acceptable to for a stranger to harangue your kids for ideological reasons.
Again, I object to the whole "lecturing" angle. This was a brief exchange and that, I would guess, was elongated in the telling. No one knows for sure. My defense of Savage is focused on the criticism of her as a jackass and the charges of bullying et al. Sad that I would even have to defend her point of view about the time-honored tradition of the Kid Lemonade Stand... I don't see myself stooping to the level of calling someone a jackass.
Why then did you write: You are saying here that she didn't engage in them when now you are saying that she did. Anyway that point is contradicted by what Terry Savage wrote herself. [rquoter] "You must charge something for the lemonade," I explained. "That's the whole point of a lemonade stand. You figure out your costs -- how much the lemonade costs, and the cups -- and then you charge a little more than what it costs you, so you can make money. Then you can buy more stuff, and make more lemonade, and sell it and make more money." I was confident I had explained it clearly. [/rquoter] Her description is that she had gotten the message across.
So now we've escalated to haranguing? Now answer my hypothetical. What would you do? I've answered yours. I tend to respond to posts from the bottom to the top, thus the delay.
Here is what you wrote: I never said that she didn't engage them. You make it sound like Savage sought them out to reprimand them. They were set up on a street corner to distribute lemonade. They should expect the public. The brother is the one who initially and primarily engaged the children. Savage chimed in from the backseat with a couple of remarks. I don't see that as lecturing or intellectual bullying.
