Parks & Rec. has a new request from the Mayor's new Youth Czars (or Tsars if you prefer) Tara S. & Crispin R. They think therefore it must be that the City should provide activities for Adults 18-23. I may have missed something but if you are old enough to vote, hold a job, have all the privileges and responsibilities of adulthood, shouldn't someone 18-23 be able to entertain one’s self in a healthy, lawful manner. If not perhaps we should up the age of consent to 24. Let’s extend an already prolonged childhood into adulthood. We’re living longer, why not? Most of the world thinks Americans are stuck in adolescence anyway, let’s just codify it.
As a taxpayer I don't want my dollars going to entertain 18-23 year olds. You bet, I want supervised activities for children and I do want programs for seniors on a fixed income. They've paid into the system in one way or another and deserve our care. But an 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 or 23 year old needs to be entertained? Supervised? On the public dime? Come on you four (Funk, Gloria, Tara & Crispin) give me a break. Our limited Parks & Recreation dollars do not need to be set aside for adults. If you're bored and can only think of entertaining yourself by breaking the law, supervised activities by P&R are not going to help you. However, someone 18-23 could keep themselves busy by getting a job, getting a second job, volunteering, getting a 3rd job, going to school, go to a museum, read a book, write a book, read to someone, learn something new, give one’s time to someone who needs a little help, but don't expect me to entertain you. (As an after thought, isn’t Ms. Cherry was Wayne’s Czarina of youth? Well maybe she just czars over youth under 18 and Chip and the Girl Child czar over 18-23 years olds). Maybe someone from the Funk’s Kitchen Cabinet could ask P&R to develop and implement programming for that next dangerous age group – the 40 to 50 year olds. They’re prone to mid-life crisis, divorce, buying expensive sports cars and many other inappropriate behaviors.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
You got to be kidding me… It’s about prevention not entertainment… If/then… IF P&R did the job(s) that they were charged to do in the first place THEN you might not have to entertain the 18-23 yrs. Were does responsibility for ones’ own actions come into play… What another waste of our $$$...
yeah, and guns don't kill people. how is this different from offering programs for seniors?
hahaha - yeah, parks board, I want you to flatten Starlight, and bulldoze the golf courses, too, because i don't want my tax dollars to go to anything that might help people who aren't absolutely destitute.
Did you mean to label this post as satire?
Sorry, you've got it wrong-Crispin has not been in on this one. I know him and he has been looking into other stuff such as soccer in the Northeast and a city wide mural program like what they have in Philly. Get your facts straight-he is not interested in throwing summer party's. Is it too hard to do a little research?
18 - 23 year olds? Hhmmmm isn't that their age group? So are we to assume that they think they should be entitled to party on the City's dime? Time for a reality check and to stop playing at being a government professional. Hire some professional staff, Mr. Mayor before it's too late.
It is possible this is the dumbest post about parks ever published anywhere. How can you think that a program aimed at this age group is a bad thing, while programs aimed at every other age group are okay?
Why don't you update your posts?
Post a Comment