And here we are, in our brand new (and awfully shiny) thread!!

The Daily Prophet

144th Edition

Teen Maternity Leave


THIS article and THIS video describe how many schools are allowing their teenage mothers several weeks or months off from school on maternity leave in order to heal, bond with their newborns and not be penalized with unexcused absences. I, for one, was a bit surprised to hear about this practice, as I have often wondered what pregnant high schoolers do in terms of schooling once they give birth.

The video also briefly touches upon the idea of paternity leave for the father of the child. If the mother is entitled to miss school to care for the baby, does that mean the father is, too?

Does this idea promote teenage pregnancies? Should teenage mothers be required to attend school? Is maternity/paternity leave for students fair? Should alternatives be promoted in such situations, like private tutoring? What do the Duellers think??

Would a program like this encourage teen pregnancies? I guess we'll have to see what happens at that school or in any school district that adopts the program, but maybe we can figure out intuitively what will happen.

The question is how would it incentivize teen pregnancies? Prior to getting pregnant are teenage girls thinking, "Oh no, I couldn't get pregnant now--it might lead to unexcused absences"? If a school adopts a policy that allows for maternity leave, then all girls who think like that will be at greater risk of pregnancy.

Perhaps there are girls out there that would really like to graduate but are getting kind of burned out on school so they're looking for a good way to get an extra month off from school. They don't know how to get it, but then they see this policy and think, "Aha! I could get pregnant! That would solve my problem!"

Or maybe there are girls out there who think, "I'd really like to have a child while I'm still in high school, but I just couldn't do it because I wouldn't have any time to bond with my baby afterwards."

Did I miss anything? Are there any major incentives stemming from a policy like the one mentioned in the article that I haven't thought of? If not then I'm not confident we'll see any significant rise in the rate of teen pregnancy due to a policy like this--it just doesn't seem like great enough motivation.

What I do know is that labor and delivery is a tough thing and most human women need several weeks afterwards to recover (there are some women with super human powers that seem unaffected, but that's another subject). I also know that infants are among the most precious resources we have, so we should give them every advantage we can.

One advantage that comes to them through such a policy is the bond mentioned in the article. The stronger the better, and it needs to go both ways. The child needs to feel love and security, and the mother needs to let the natural love that all mothers feel towards their children grow and develop so that they will be the best mothers they can throughout the child's life. Another advantage for the child is a mother with a high school diploma, which is an advantage I don't think can be overstated.

Of course, it does sound like the schools are already trying to accommodate young mothers in high school on their own, but I don't see much disadvantage to creating district-wide policies if the pros outweigh the cons.

The fathers on the other hand better keep their behinds in school. They don't need any excuse to miss extra school and they can do all the bonding they need to when they're not at school. I have two kids myself and I have missed very little work because of them and have bonded with them plenty.

Now for the unintended consequences that may result from this policy. One result might be a decrease in abortions. If a teen becomes pregnant unintentionally, no matter what her position on the issue was before, the option to abort will at least flitter across the realm of potential action for her even if it's summarily rejected shortly afterwards. One of the primary reasons to abort a child roots in the perceived inconvenience an unintended pregnancy will cause. If one of these inconveniences (which I have already argued would not even register in the decision-making process prior to pregnancy) is removed or at least diminished, the reasons to abort the child may seem less pressing.

Another unintended consequence that could result from this policy has to do with another option that is considered at least briefly by most pregnant teens and their parents, which is the possibility of adoption. Many of the same reasons that may lead a teen to abort a pregnancy also influence the decision to put the child up for adoption. If teen mothers know they will have this time off to be with the child they might be more hesitant to put the child up for adoption. There are certain advantages a child receives by being raised by his or her natural parent, but I believe in many cases children born to teenage mothers will be in a much better position in their lives if they are raised by adopted families.

In gauging this policy, four things I believe should be monitored in order to inform future decisions are rate of teen pregnancy compared to other schools in the area, rate if graduation for teen mothers, rate of abortion, and rate of adoption (also, for kicks we could survey teen mothers about how much their schools' policies surrounding teen pregnancy influenced the decision-making process that led to their pregnancies ).

Sex happens, isn't that really the core of the issue? Sex happens, teenagers engage in it, some take precautions, some don't. Regrettably, the female of our species is the member carrying the burden of an act that takes two participants.

I graduated high school at 16 and as a junior. I can say that I never engaged in sex in high school. Now, I have known those that went to high school until they were 19, for a variety of reasons. One of the girls in my graduating class became pregnant in our sophomore year, she took a year off and did home study, gave birth, and returned a bit late in our junior year. Of course, no-one expected her to come back to school. Ever. She surprised us all and graduated with our class.

The fact pregnancy happens to girls in high school, while I don't actually approve of the practice birth control is simple to purchase, I definitely do not support punishment for it. To be disallowed from continuing school, thus giving both her and her baby a better shot for the future, is simply disgraceful. I do not believe that providing a program, such as those David linked for us, would cause more high school pregnancies, yet it would benefit those for which it happens.

I have no issue with either federal or state funding for such programs. My tax dollars are going to pay for someone on welfare, those same tax dollars may as well pay to save and promote the education of a young mother.

On the flip-side of the coin, do I approve of "paternity" leave for the father? Not unless he marries her. I suppose that sounds quite archaic, but a baby is generally born in one day. No reason the father cannot take one day off, return to his studies and better himself.

I do not believe in marriage for the sake of the child, however. It takes love to raise a happy child, and I don't believe unhappy marriages make happy children.

What a subject, David. I just might have to think, ponder, and post again.

I have a mean view of this. So feel free to skip it.

I think that if teens are stupid enough to get pregnant in highschool then stiff. They should have to deal with it without any help from schools. They teach sex ed don't they? The kids know what happens if you mess around and don't use protection, and if they walk down the no protection road and end up where they didn't want to be then it's their rpoblem, no-one elses. Maternity leave should only be for those of us who finish school, have a job/career and have planned to have a baby. Not for reckless teens who think more about a fun night then of long term consequences. The same goes the teen Paternity leave. No offence to guys but come off it! Yeah, lets give them a holiday because they couldn't be bothered wrapping themselves up before having sex. No! Unless of course that Paternity leave means they have to work so many hours to support the mother and child. That I would agree with. How long do regular mothers take off? 6 months is the minimum I think. So they should have to work for that six months. The mother, I agree, needs to bond with the child. She's the one that's gone through the most stress, she needs the time off whereas the father should work like there's no tomorrow. I'm an idealist but I would hope that the prospect of working up to 60 hours a week would make them think twice.

For the schooling of the mother.......well as I said before, if she's stupid enough to go without protection then stuff her. But. If the father denies the kid is his, or wants nothing to do with them then perhaps help should be given considering that straight out of school she would have to get a job, put the kid in daycare and whatever else. Those circumstances are okay. To an extent.

Here in Oz we have a Baby Bonus. You get $4000 in installments for every child you have. This was changed a little while ago because it was $4000 all at once. Which encouraged teens to get pregnant to claim the money. They didn't spend it on the kid, or very little was spent on it. Instead they bought the things they wanted, thinking it was their reward to have a kid. You see some of them now with three or four kids looking shabby, dirty and just plain feral because the parents thought they'd be set with the governments money. How wrong they were. So many of these people never finished highschool because of this incentive. Now they are Dole bludgers and people like me are paying taxes to keep their sorry butts alive. I blame the Gov for this. Obviously they never thought their plan through thoroughly enough and their 'baby boom' turned into a catastrophy. So what did they do to counter this? They put in another law. Learning or Earning. If you leave school before you graduate you need to be going straight into a job. But that doesn't help all the people who thought they'd lucked out with the Bonus.

Now before anyone thinks I was born with highschool grads as parents you coudn't be more wrong. My mum was 17 when she had me. She never finished highschool. But now, as a 22yr old, I have learnt about the life she had after having me and my sisters. And it's only been in the last 5 years that she's made a career and has the opportunity to travel and do everything she could have done 22 years ago. She was one of the stupid people I'm talking about, but with a major difference. There was no-one but my Dad to help her. He worked to support us, the dads of today should be made to do the same. I get that things change but they should be stepping up the bad side of sex instead of setting up programs to help those foolsih enough to ignore the messages.

You'd think that in the last 20 years the new Teens would wise up.......but I think we're growing dumber by the minute. I applaud those who wait to have sex, no matter what their age is. I just wish there where more people like us!

These stories arise from time to time, sensational news practically too hideous to believe: parents that murder their own children, all of them.

Take this story reporting four children found in a DC woman's home decomposing. The children have been dead for months and none were reported. To complicate an already ugly story, child services allowed them to fall through the cracks.

Here is another terrible story of a father alledgedly throwing all four of his kids off an Alabama bridge.

Murder is a tough enough subject to get my thoughts around, I certainly cannot understand the mentality of a parent able to kill all of their children. How do people get into this state of mind? What could possibly drive a person to commit this most viloent of acts?

These stories abound throughout the world, societies, cities, religions, and seem to know no boundaries. No race seems to be immune to this brand of tragedy. What thoughts do the Duelers have on this subject?

To me there are two types of people who take the lives of there own children, the desperate and the deranged.

Here in the Uk we have some horrific yet infamous murder stories. Not far from where I live back 10 years or so ago, a man called Fred West and his wife committed quite a number of murders of young woman, one of which was his wifes daughter. It's believed she made a doscovery and that's why she had to die.

Last year a man jumped from the balconyof a holiday apartment in an attempt to take his and the lives of his two children [click]. The children who were a boy of six died and a girl of two lived. He was badly injured and was charged with the boys murder. This happened following his wifes announcment that she wanted a divorce.

I think that someone has to have a severe mental illness to feel the need to kill their own children, but who knowa what's going on inside their minds.

Most of the children murders seems to happen to get back at the partner, either for divorce or cheating or whatever else. It's kind of like an eye for an eye thing. The partner hurt them, now they want revenge. The fact that they do it to their own children is sickening. There are so many other ways to get back at someone.

In some cases I think a mental problem is to blame. But in others......well you hear about mums and dads raping their own kids don't you? Well it's a power thing. They control the kids lives, they brought them into the world so to them it's only fair that they take them out of it or to use them for whatever means. It's tragic but it happens.

I read about one case where a woman took her 2 or 3 kids to a bridge, at peak hour when she knew her husband would be driving by, and when he did she tossed the kids and herself off it. I'm not sure of all the details like if they lived or not, but obviousy that woman was in a semi-normal state of mind. To be able to plan this so it had the most impact on her husband shows that she obviously thought it through, chose the time and place very carefully and was on the lookout for him during that time. There is nothing to excuse her for that. Temporary insanity wouldn't cover it because she obviously wasn't insane enough to plan it. Spite plays a big part in most murders. Sad isn't it?

I don't know whether I am too innocent or too romantic, but I can not understand how one can take away their children's life. You have every right to control your life, and even decide when you are going to end it (although this is against my religion and against my beliefs, since I think that killing yourself has an impact in other people and you don't have the right to make people suffer), but at no circumstance is one allowed to proceed to such a horrible act.

Children are innocent little people who were brought to life to live and not to face a horrible life, that ends way too soon and in a way they would never imagine. I can not guess their parents motivations, whether it was anger, psychological confusion or a way to protect them from an awful future.

I don't know what future is holding for me, but I believe that from the moment one becomes a parent, they have the obligation to stand by their child no matter what and never give up because a child always needs its parents. These crimes are horrid and probably those that we can not stand watching on our television.

I remember hearing years ago of a man who strangled his new-born child because he was convinced it was an evil child. I don't know what was the case, if he had a mental disorder or if he had other motivations, but this story had had me thinking for quite a while. I wonder what pushed someone to kill something so innocent as a child...

It's very very sad. I really hope that we won't hear any of these stories in the future. It's tragic.

Wow, this is a deep topic you chose, Dorthy. As it so happens, the second story linked is just down the road from me. It's constantly being monitored on the news with breaking stories as new developments occur.

The poor mother of those four children is in complete devastation. She keeps wondering why the father didn't throw her off the bridge instead of their children; if he was mad at her, why he didn't take it out on her, not them. You really have to feel for this woman. Especially with the way things have been slowly unfolding. Every new update tears wide open that poor mother's wound and grieving heart. It's so sad.

The father compounded the issue by telling everyone that the children were alive afterall, that he didn't really throw them off the bridge. He created hope when there was none. That was a cruel act in itself.

Who knows what goes through the minds of people like that. To take the life of your own flesh and blood? It's bad enough to take the life of someone when they aren't your family, but even worse when they are (and innocent children at that). If you lack the compassion and love for someone you created and gave life to, there certainly can't be any for someone who is a stranger or mere acquantiance. There's nothing keeping you from killing someone you don't care about or have ties to. Those people should be put to death themselves or locked away for the rest of their lives with no hope of ever being free again.

In the case of the father and four children, I think it was done out of a control issue. He wanted to prove his role as the "man", and that he could do what he wanted while she was unable to do anything to stop him. Yet, his choice at proving his "control" was mentally deranged because it involved taking the life of his four children. That's a dangerous combination-overly controlling with mental issues.

Unfortunately, events like the ones mentioned are more common than we would like them to be. It's everywhere. And like Dorthy said, no particular group seems to be immune to it. It's just so tragic and sad, especially when there isn't a set cure to stop it from happening.

The Daily Prophet

146th Edition

Interpol Head Quits

This article describes how Jackie Selebi, chief of police in South Africa, has quit as president of Interpol after allegations of corruption against him. He was elected for a 4 year term in 2004. Selebi faces allegations of corruption, fraud, racketeering and defeating the course of justice. The National Prosecuting Authority is ready to charge him, and the indictment covers charges including receiving corrupt payments totalling R1,2-million (about $180 000) from his friend Glenn Agliotti, a convicted drug smuggler accused of playing a role in the murder of mining magnate Brett Kebble in 2005.

SA president Thabo Mbeki has allowed Selebi to go on leave, which caused him to be accused of inconsistency. When former deputy-president Jacob Zuma was facing charges of corruption in 2005, Mbeki fired him. Zuma has since taken over the presidency of the ruling party, the ANC, in a fierce battle between him and Mbeki at the end of last year. Mbeki is notorious for rewarding those loyal to him and for strategically wiping out opposition.

In another twist, the man responsible for the investigation into Selebi's dealings, Gerrie Nel from the Scorpions (an organisation independent of the police), was arrested last week, but charges have since been dropped. He was handcuffed in front of his family, and the arrest was widely criticised, with the opposition, the Democratic Alliance, calling it a witch-hunt to protect Selebi.

How do these allegations against the head of Interpol affect relations between Africa and the world? Movements like MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY and Live8 campaign for having Africa's debt written off, but even in relatively well-developed African countries like South Africa, corruption is at the order of the day. Should aid be increased and debt dropped? China's increasing influence in Africa could mean that Africa's resources will simply be abused by a new order, and its problems won't be likely to disappear. Should the West feel obligated to help Africa, especially in light of such embarrassing examples of corruption? How big are the economic and political incentives for helping Africa?

Without doing any research about the topic, here's my response to the question regarding allegations of corruption leveled against the head of Interpol: What does interpol do again?

If I'm alone in my ignorance, then forgive me. I'm sure there are plenty of analyses than can be made about how this will affect behind the scene working that don't affect tha average citizen of the world, but if a lack of understanding of the role of interpol is somewhat general, then I don't think Africa has much to fear with regards to allegations against the head of an international police organization that happens to be from South Africa. The relevance of Interpol itself may be further diminished, but I don't think Africa's reputation will take a major hit.

As for writing off Africa's debt, the corruption of heads of state in Africa is the biggest issue, for which the corruption of other officials in Africa may serve as an indicator, but a more direct analysis of the African heads of state is all that's really needed. The biggest motivation for movements like Live8 and MAKEPOVERTYHISTORY is to reduce the problems associated with extreme poverty that exists throughout much of Africa, but that motivation is greatly hampered if corruption in African governments prevents any benefit of debt relief from reaching the poor in the country.

Again, while the corruption involved in this case may serve as a useful indicator of much more pervasive corruption in government, I don't think it draws much further scrutiny of African governments than already exists. The extreme poverty that has motivated campaigns to reduce poverty still exists, so the organizations will continue to exist. How to distribute the contibutions of money, goods, and services from charitable people throughout the world may need to be reevaluated, but as long as both poverty in Africa and charitable people exist, Africa will continue to receive aid of one form or another. Hopefully constant reevaluations are made, though, so that people's good intentions are not abused to benefit only the corrupt.

The Daily Prophet

Since the "War on Terror" began, there has been much talk of a loss of civil rights and privacy for the average citizen of the world. Even before 9/11, there was controversy over the setting up of cameras in public places, to observe the populace and prevent crime.

This recent article in Forbes discusses the new inventions that can be used to either benefit us, or spy upon us. Like many new inventions which were created to fulfill a specific need and benefit society, Forbes dicusses how this technology can also be used to curtail and restrict a citizen's freedom.

Already, few of a person's internet excursions are kept private. Many websites attempt to track your surfing with Spyware, prompting attempts by sites such as Spybot--Search & Destroy, which, when downloaded, can detect and remove said spyware. Other sites collect information about your internet habits and sell them to interested businesses, which then try to solicit you to spend money on their products.

Perhaps the most striking thing in the Forbes article is that technology now exists for a miniscule tracker to be placed inside a person's body. Originally created to help with medical detection, the device could also be used to track one's movements. We can already be easily tracked in many ways--by our cell phones, our cars, even microchips in our children or pets. But the one thing they have not been capable of until now is the tracking of a person by infiltrating their body. All that would need to take place is a microchip, strategically placed in your food, to put the tag on you. You wouldn't even know it was there.

What do the duellers think? Will this, as Forbes suggests, lead to mental problems and paranoia in the populace? Or will it benefit society, as those who are a potential danger are kept easily under surveillance? Is this something the average, law-abiding citizen need worry about? Or is it only a threat to those who would willfully harm society?

I, for one, am very interested in your opinions on this, so by all means, have at it!

How wierd (or maybe not) The Times ran the story on the front page yesterday with the headline 'Microsoft's office 'spy''. The article says that Microsoft is developing Big Brother style software capable of remotely monitoring a worker's productivity, physical wellbeing and competence. The newspaper said, it has 'seen' a patent application by the compnay for a computer system that links workers to their computers via wireless sensors that measure their metabolism. It would monitor employees heart rates, body temperature facial expression etc. Similar technology allowing constant monitoring of workers, has been limited to pilots, fire fighters and Nasa Atsronauts.

They say this system could automatically detect stress and therefore employers could offer support at an early stage. Yep, and they can also detect when your slacking, when you take ten seconds extra for your lunch break and when your having an affair with your boss.

OK, I can see the benefits of such a system, but come on, just how much of our lives are we to allow these people access to. The trouble is, the big corporations that we all love will have it's workers over a barrell. Being hooked up to the sensors will be written into employee contracts, so you can't refuse.

This is a completely new level of invasivness. Even the privacy lawyers are saying that the system may breach data protection law. Employess may fear the sack because of the computers assessment of their health and what about personal data? What about trust between bosses and workers?

I'd like to see them try it in my line of work!

The Daily Prophet

148th Edition

Hello Big Spender

Overconsumption is one of the most negative social phenomena of the 21st century. Wherever we might be, we find ourselves surrounded by numerous advertisements which lead us to spend more and more on products we don't need. Experts say that this is the era of fictional needs. The question risen though, is whether this phenomenon has an actual impact on our life and our mental state.

This article states that according to experts, overconsumption can put in danger our health and lead us to depression and sadness. Buying more not only doesn't make us happy, but also it brings us closer to a never ending disappointment. We live a life where we make ourselves work harder and harder to be able to spend more, forgetting that true happiness doesn't really lie in objects.

Being a matter that concerns us all, it'd be rather interesting to see what everyone believes and how our lifestyle is formed in accordance of the stereotypes demonstrated by the media.

So, what does the Duelling club think? Do you believe that overconsumption can lead to depression? Have you ever found yourselves addicted to buying and do you consider the amount of stuff you have as an indicator of happiness? Are the media to be blamed, and if not, who is it?

Duel!

Alkisti, what an awesome topic!

Wow. This one is something I've spent a lot of time thinking about, too.

Once upon a time, when I was younger, I was married and my husband made a good deal of money. We didn't live in a mansion or anything, but we had plenty to spend and I was able to stay home with our young son. It was the one time in my entire life when there was plenty of money and I could buy pretty much anything I wanted, within reason. It was also one of the most miserable times in my life!

Why should that be, in America? Where the more you own, supposedly the more happy you are? Well, part of it was that I felt so disconnected from my husband. I loved him dearly, but he was so busy working, he had no time for me or my son. He rose before 6 in the morning, and didn't come home until after 6 at night. He would eat dinner, then sit in front of the TV until 8, when he would go to bed. This was 6 days a week. On Sundays, he just wanted to relax, which meant that discussing family and personal problems was not something he wanted to do. On Sundays, he sat in front of the TV, often in a marijuana or whiskey-induced fog.

Some of his income went to payments for woodland up north, where he would go to hunt. Mostly he would just go up there to hang out and relax. And it would not be with his family! Our son was too small to enjoy time up there in a little camper in the woods. And if I came along, I was relegated to cooking and cleaning up after my husband and--you guessed it--his friends from work! So we opted to stay home.

A lot of times I would go shopping because I felt lonely! The mall was comforting, there were people around. It made me feel like I mattered when I spent money, because the clerks were nice to me. What I ended up with was a basement full of things I neither needed nor wanted.

Since leaving my husband, I've pretty much been poor. Life isn't always easy. I don't have the 'fancy' things other people take for granted, like a cell phone, TiVo, a big television, a nice car. My computer is old, my car doesn't run, and my 4-year-old TV has a 13" screen. And yet, strangely, I'm happier. I'm happier because I have my freedom, and I work my own business. I've tried working for others, but I just don't like it. I would rather work for myself and have less money than spend a lot of time making someone else rich.

Learning about Buddhism has helped a lot. Buddhists talk about a place called 'The Realm of the Hungry Ghosts.' It's a hell, where people are never happy, never satisfied. This world, the one we live in now, can also be like that, but here, it's our choice. And many people choose to be a hungry ghost.

I've seen it a lot in people who have collections. This is a definite sign of an over-affluent society, I think--this need to have 'collections' of objects, be it cars, or china figurines, or books!

There's this one guy I knew who collected WWII British "Homefront" memorabilia. He had so much of it that he had to rent a large storage space for it! I went to visit him in California once. He groused about the cost of food, the cost of his rent, but when he found a couple of "Homefront" posters that he could add to his collection, he bought them without hesitation, and dropped close to $250 on them. Did it make him happy? It didn't seem to. Right away, he was talking about the posters he did not yet own, and wondering when he could get them.

That is a hungry ghost. Someone who cannot take pleasure in what they own, but are forever hungering for the next object. This can apply to anyone--from the kid who gets one CD and doesn't even listen to it before he is planning which CD he will buy next, to the billionaire collector of vintage cars, who doesn't even drive the 1942 Bentley he's just acquired becase he's in negotiations to buy a car that was in a James Bond movie.

I fall prey to this just like anyone else. I have movies I've bought but haven't watched. I have books I've bought and never read. The 'need' to own them outweighs the pleasure I've taken in them. I'm embarrassed by this waste.

Does it make us mentally ill? I don't think so. I think it can exacerbate certain kinds of mental illness, though. I think that some people can hoard belongings to the point where they endanger thier health and safety. I think they can spend themselves into spiraling debt, which can cause them to lose it all. That has to cause some stress!

But one thing that I've noticed is there seems to be this whole slew of new 'illnesses.' And I think that comes from the pharmaceutical industry. See, when they invent a new medicine, they can only hold on to the exclusive use of that patent for 20 years. After that, any company can make that medicine. So they are constantly trying to come up with new medicines that they can convince people that they need, so they can keep making money! I think it's far too easy to classify basic human failings as 'diseases,' in order to sell people a pill that will supposedly cure it or keep it at bay. Doctors will sometimes help in this, because they receive a kickback from the pill companies for every prescription they can hand out.

I don't think it's an illness. I see it as a choice. And we can choose not to spend a lot of our time thinking about what we want to buy next, or suffering from wanting things we can't afford. It's part and parcel of the world in which we were born that we often feel dissatisfied. How much we suffer from wanting is our choice.

Wow, Darcy! You really have thought a lot about this topic. My little contribution is going to seem silly next to yours, but oh well.

I've never had the "privilege" of having lots of money. There are times when I wish I had more so I could go out and buy whatever I wanted or needed without having to think of the cost or how much money was in the bank. Strangely, any wants that I have are always for someone else. If you ask me what I want, I can honestly say I don't want anything. There's nothing out there I have to have just for the sake of having it. Well, I'd like to have a bigger house with a larger piece of land. But that's mainly to give the kids more room, an extra bedroom for guests, and the land so my husband can build a shop for his cars and tools. A bigger house for me is just more to clean.

I don't collect anything for myself. When I can, I buy things for the kids for them to collect. For example, I've been buying those Cars cars (like Lightning McQueen, Doc, Mater, etc.) for my son. He LOVES cars. I've bought a few to put away for when he is older. I will admit, I went and did something I've never done before and probably won't do again. I spent almost $50.00 on one of those little cars. Reason being is there was only 15,000 made and they were never sold in retail stores. I saw it as an investment. That car is going to be worth a LOT several years down the road. Of course, it's going to be put away and not played with. I can't believe I did something like that, but I did it for the investment and my son. It's going to be past down to him when he is grown and can appreciate the rarity of it.

But as for myself, I don't collect anything nor do I want anything. I think that is because I am at a point in my life where I am finally happy and at peace. A few years ago, I couldn't have said that. My life was full of grief and heartache. I've been through more in my life than most people would see and experience in two life-times. I guess that's why I'm content and have no needs now. I appreciate what I have and to want more is just ridiculous to me in my own situation. To me it would seem greedy.

I think the majority of people who want more and collect things aren't happy in their life. They haven't reached that point of contentment. Their need to collect stems from their need to make themselves happy and content even though it can't be found in those objects of their desires. Only they can find peace in their own life, not through material things.

So, I don't think the collecting of objects is the root of depression. It is the root of depression that leads to collecting. Of course, this is just my opinion. And there are always exceptions to the rule. I'm sure there are those few out there who are truly happy that just love to collect for the sake of collecting, but they know that those objects aren't what brings them true happiness. Money doesn't buy happiness.

Darcy, I'm glad you are at a place in your life where you are happy and free. That's always a good place to be. You are so right about our choice to be happy or a "hungry ghost". Personally, I know what I choose!

These replies really had me thinking. I am so glad that you decided to leave your husband, Darcy. I know it must have been a hard choice very few women would take, as noone would like to have less money when they are used to a very good way of living. And Laura, I agree with that investment part. I remember seeing in a movie (40-years old virgin) that there was a guy who was collecting dolls and had hundreds of them and when he sold them he got like a million dollars. So, yes, that's an investment.

Actually, before I read this article, we had a discussion at one of my classes about money, vanity and our capitalistic society where very few people own great amounts of money and the rest are just working for them to make them more rich. This is called surplus value; the product we make without being paid for. On top of that, we keep on buying products we don't need, and that's what experts call "Illusionary/fictional needs".

I can't decide whether I am such a buyer or not. When I was younger, I would go almost every Saturday morning out with a friend of mine and we would buy cosmetics I'd never use since we weren't allowed to wear any at school. Now, I rarely go there anymore (I have so many!) but somehow I seem to spend more money. Being a student is very expensive, you have so much free time you spend on cafe places where you hang out with friends..

I think I can't call myself an impulsive buyer, I buy only the things I need. Also, the fact that I don't work and I don't make money of my own, puts limits to the amount of items I can buy. However, I don't think that later I will spend more.

I myself don't believe that objects bring happiness. And I truly believe that rich people can never find comfort in their money, cause money gives you power and power can put you in danger. I have seen people with very few being extremely happy and others with lots of money being miserable. It is not really the things you buy, it is how you use them to make your life easier.

I agree with what Laura said: it isn't overconsumption that leads to depression, but depression to overconsumption. I have read a very good book (Shopacholic) where a woman would value her worth by the clothes she'd buy. As a result, she spent all of her money and found herself trying to make it. In the end, she realised she doesn't need clothes to be happy, cause after all, it's your relationships that matter, as family and friends are the ones to stand by your side no matter what. However, for the sakes of a second book, she forgot her lesson and made the same mistake again.

I really find myself impressed by how much people are willing to spend. I can not understand who would actually get a loan to go on vacations. It is so...immature! If you can't afford holidays, then you'd better stay at home. How can you put yourself in debt for a couple of days of overspending? What is more, everyone now, here in Greece, has these fabulous very expensive cars (BMW, Porsche) and you wonder how they can afford them. Well, let me tell you this: they pay for them their whole life just to show off. Last but not least, women spend so much money on clothes, cosmetics etc when they are staying in a horrible place, too small to fit two people in it. Shouldn't they set priorities? In the end of the day, you go back to your place and your clothes don't really matter.

This is such a big issue, I have so much more to say, but I think I'll end this here. It was very interesting to see what others think about it, especially people from the US where money makes everything go round. I just hope that none of you will ever face serious economical issues..

Too late Alkisti... It happened to me... Darcy's post encouraged me to talk a little about my own situation.

I ended high school in 2001, at age 17. I planned on going to med school, because both my parents are doctors. Instead of me going away to college, my parents decided that we should all move, so I could stay at home. We bought some land, almost 4 miles away from the campus and built a huge house. We moved in by half my first year.

Legal driving age in Costa Rica is 18. My father asked me what car I wanted for my birthday, and haughtily enough, I said a BMW. My mum had one, my father had one, I wanted one too. And I got it. I was the first teenager in the whole campus with a BMW. I became popular, and won a lot of "friends".

My mum didn't work because it wasn't necessary, and when my brother was about to turn 18, two years later, another BMW was arranged to be delivered home from the dealership. We would travel at least two times a year out of the country, mostly to the US, to visit my relatives. My dad did extremely good. Not millions of dollars, but having a monthly check here with more than $5K guarantees you that kind of lifestyle. I was once a 19 year old with 3 credit cards in my wallet and a $10.500 credit limit all put together.

Somehow, my father started attending these "work" parties, staying until late at night, and my mum said that we should stay at home because we should make it "easy" for him. That way he would know that we were safe. He started meddling with drugs and alcohol... It was considered fancy, and he became a very nasty person to be with.

He would yell at us for even offering him a dinner plate, and soon after, we found out he was seeing other people. He almost hit my mum, and almost hit me a couple of times. My mum got cancer on her cervix because of a venereal disease he gave her through HPV. We had to convince my mum to leave him because she was afraid that the financial support might be gone. And after therapy, because we all had to go, we moved out. It was impossible to live with him.

We left our huge home, our fancy cars, our credit cards, and moved into a very small apartment. I had to leave med school because we couldn't afford it and that's how I ended studying something else. It all happened in a couple of years.

Attorneys didn't help us recover anything from our old lifestyle, but that doesn't matter now. With a little reluctant help from my mum's family (because they didn't approve of her marriage in the first place) we moved into a bigger apartment (1/5 in size of our old house) and got a car, and through saving some money we finally bought another one last year. We can't travel as we wished and I had to change careers. The three of us became survivors, and the experience made us stronger.

Is my life better without the fancy beemer? Yes. I love the fact that my mum is happy by seeing me and my brother full time at school, we spend only on important things that we actually need, and we enjoy each other's company a lot more. We learned to value the small beautiful things in life. For example, and a dumb one, like buying coke. There was a time when coke was a luxury for us, because we didn't have any money to spare. My mum would rather spend the money on milk, and she was right. We learned to stay at home and watch TV together, play cards or read a book, and got to know each other.

Every now and then I know my mum makes a huge effort to get a new "toy" for me or my brother, like an IPod or stuff like that, but just like every mum, she gets extremely exited to see her kids happy. We try to get her things she likes too, but it's difficult because she never likes anything and she's always keeping a close record of every expense. I know she wishes more for us, but somehow, after having an aggressor living in my house, I can tell you, there is no price for peace. Our peace costed us our comfort in material stuff, but it was well worth it.

I would never change my lifestyle as it is now, saving every penny when I want to get something new, for one of those days, when I was always on the verge of tears, parading around at the mall not wanting to go home and see my abusive father.

Buddhism does teach you a lot. I didn't become a buddhist, but did learn a couple practices, which gave me peace of mind.

In the end, money was like those "friends" I had because of my car: they were all gone and I very much appreciate that, I know now who my real friends are, and I value them a lot.

So I can say, money doesn't buy happiness, or at least it didn't buy it for me. I totally understand what Darcy, Laura and Alkisti said.

Only last week I was listening to some guy talk about this very thing...can't recall his name but basically he said that as a nation we were obsessed with having the latest thing whether we needed it or not. Half of the time it's something to do with technology because we keep getting the government tell us that in 2011 we are going digital and anologue TV's will be no good, so everyone is making sure they own the latest HD digital 42" TV like we really need it.

OK so here come my admission...I really need a 42" HD digital TV! So I bought one!

Seriously though, I grew up as the youngest of 8 children. I never had hand me downs as the nearest sister in age to me is 10 years older and sp everything of hers had gone by the time I came along. So I had new, but not much of it. One party/Sunday dress as I recall which, I often had to wear a bit damp if I needed to wear it 2 days on the trot. I had a couple of play dresses and mum's friend had made me a couple of pairs of hot pants, but I was at least 8 or 9 by then. I didn't have many pairs of socks or pants and wash day was Monday so socks especially were turned. When I was 6 or 7, my mum returned to work and money became less tight. I remeber the first this she bought was a new lounge carpet, lounge furniture and a colour TV. We also had a phone installed. I thought it was brilliant, but we were behind the neighbours, they'd had all this stuff for years.

Mum never go anymore new furniture until 10 years ago. The tens years before that she lived with me anyway so all her mod cons lasted for about 15years. But she never complained, or rather I never heard her complain.

When I got married, we bought our first home which was a 2 bedroom apartment. The property market was booming and after 3 years and one baby we sold up, doubling our money and bought mums house at a snip.My dad had died the year before and mum was rattling around in that big house. Our plan was to do it up and sell again while the market was still good, but the bubble burst and although we were still quids in, we sat tight until things recovered a little. We then bought our last house before this one. While living there, Kenton got an amazing job offer he couldn't refuse, with brilliant earning potential. We were flying high. I had my first new car ever and we took our first holiday abroad as a family. We were happy in that house and with the money we had, we made it as comfortable as possible, changing furniture, decorating etc when we felt like it, rather than when it was needed. Then I had baby 3 and things happened that meant mum moved out. We still had plenty of money but soon realised we needed more room for this growing family of ours.

Six years ago we decided to move again. The trouble was the UK was in the middle of another property boom and this meant that although we would achieve a brilliant price for our house, to buy what we wanted would mean we had to take on a huge mortgage or move to a cheaper area. We opted for the latter and bought our present home. In the time we have been here, mortgage rates have increased, utility bills have practically doubled and my kids are now adults...all but one. The only thing that hasn't changed at all it Kentons wages. It hasn't gone up one penny in those 6 years. This has meant that we have had to say no to the kids, but they pretty much get it. I put that down to them not getting everything just when they fancied it rather they had to wait until a birthday or Xmas. Except me ofcourse who has to have everything now...just kidding.

Yes we do have a very nice home. Yes is is furnished to a high spec. I do have a nice newish car (but it's the last). But by the same token. I work, I shop frugally for food and we eat very little meat which is expensive. I wear reasonably priced clothes from shops like Walmart (ASDA) although I still like M&S undies. I buy Issies a summer wardrobe and a winter wardrobe every year and fill in the blanks as she grows.

But the point is, if it were all gone tomorrow, if I had to sell the lot would I miss it? For a while yes, but you adapt as Kaitlyn says. You soon become used to living with what you have. We have already had to start cutting back because of the lack of wages increase and thigs look set to get worse if the news from Kentons work is anything to go by. But so long as me and my family are well and safe....who cares about DVD's, TV's and all the other techno rubbish...I don't. And that's quite a scary thing to admit.

The Daily Prophet

1489h Edition

A Father Loves Football a Bit Too Much




Thanks to a recommendation from Polandbaby, we have THIS article to present today. The article describes the terrifying story of a young boy who was forced by his father -- by use of tape -- to wear a Green Bay Packers (that's an American football team for all of our non-American readers) jersey. The boy, only seven years old, was found by his mother, who took photos of the scene with her cell phone and reported the incident to the police. The 36-year-old father was arrested and taken to the county jail and held for two days, when he pleaded to contest to the charges and paid a fine of only $186.

The mother of the child is currently working on obtaining a restraining order that would not allow the father to come near his son. Apparently, this is not the only incidence of abuse that the father has exhibited.

What do the Duellers think? Is this fine of only $186 a fair punishment? What can be done about child abuse in the future?

Interesting...abhorent...common.

Fathers often love things much too much. People often love things too much. Perhaps that is not a problem...unless the "thing" is not an inanimate object, rather another person.

Green Bay? Not my team, no my team is huge, but in a decade long slump going nowhere fast. Doesn't mean I falter in my allegience or force my daughter to wear their colours. Heck, she can pick her own team.

So, what's the question here: team loyalty taken to extreme; divorce and a direct method of inflicting pain; simple human insanity?

I'd adore to offer an insightful perspective on this story, alas, I cannot. I would simply be forced to explain the insanity I survived as a child, still survive as an adult. That serves no purpose really.

What does this dueler think? Heck, I think he needs to be the football in Green Bay's next game.

Forced to wear a jersey. No offence but Americans are kinda.....what's a non-offensive word.......silly, when it comes to this sort of stuff. To be honest when I read or hear about these sorts of stories I have to laugh. Sure it sucks for the kid to be forced but I don't see it as abuse. Perhaps if he'd strangled the kid, or hit it, cut it, burnt it or whatever then yeah, that's abuse and he should be punished. But forcing the kid to wear a jersey. Just seems really silly. And I know there was tape involved. But where? Just to tape the jersey tightly so he couldn't take it off? Silly but not abusive. If he put it on the kids skin, or over his mouth, that's a little extreme.

I think the mother should be held accountable as well. If, as the article said, there had been more domestic violence from this guy, then she should have the common sense to not let him near the kid. People shouldn't just blame the one parent, they're both as stupid as each other. Sure the father was to blame this time (apparently) but so was the mother.

I honestly take these types of stories with a grain of salt. Ever since I heard about the woman who had her kid arrested when he opened a christmas present a day early. Could you get any more pathetic?

Once again, no offence to Americans, you guys just seem to have more.......silly....stories then any other country. That I read about anyway.

Obviously I'm not going to let you get away with this one without countering. I think it's pretty absurd to generalize things like these...and I think that you know that just as well as I do.

I don't want to bully Australia here, but just to make a point, look at this disturbing article from Melbourne, 2006. It tells of how a group of 12 boys ganged up on a 17-year-old girl, who is known to have developmental problems, and forced her to perform disgusting sexual acts on them. They also urinated on her and lit her hair on fire. What is worse, they caught it all on video. And then they went and made a DVD out of it, selling it across the country!!

That's probably all I have to say. America is not the only country with abusers, and we most certainly are not the only country with over-the-top strange stories.


Again, I completely disagree.

The kid, remember, is only seven years old. This is not only physical abuse, but it is mental abuse, too. To have your own father do this to you! That's horrible. Secondly, the tape was used to make sure that the child couldn't take the jersey off, and it was also used to "restrain" him. I thought that meant to restrain him to a chair or something, but it doesn't really embellish. Either way, it's definitely abuse.


Whereas I do agree that you can never place all of the blame on one parent when a child is abused, I don't think the mother in this case can be held very accountable. Getting abused is a very scary thing, and many people who are abused by loved ones are afraid to notify the authorities or to get something done about it. They care too much about the abuser that they would rather live life with that dark secret than get their loved one in trouble. If the family, in this case, has been abused before, this could be the case. I think it took a lot of guts for the wife to get the police involved, and then to go one step further to protect her son and herself by filing for a restraining order. It's hard to stand up for yourself in these situations, but she did.

Financial markets around the world have endured a rather volitile ride this past week. This article refers to Jerome Kerviel, a french trader at Societe Generale. It is alledged that Mr. Kerviel has defrauded Societe Generale of more than 7 billion (US) dollars through unauthorized financial trades.

The unauthorized activity was discovered last weekend, thus Mr. Kerviel's losing bets started to be offloaded Monday, when stock markets began falling around the world.

Is it possible that one man could hedge bets controlling stock markets around the world? Was this mere coincidence in today's economy where volitivity can occur so quickly, rippling through countries around the globe?

Do you trade in the stock markets? Did you rush to sell any of your stocks or change your portfolio? Do you know anyone who did? Or, did this week's financial crisis appear as only a headline to you?

I happened to watch this story in the news on Thursday and I was quite impressed actually. This guy seems to have caused quite a mess there. I am not very familiar with economical terms, especially with foreign economical terms, but I really wonder how this happened. I mean how noone caught him red-handed while he was betting other people's money. As far as I am concerned banks have very strict controls when it comes to their money and to where they are invested. Only hackers can cause so many problems, and this guy, if I am not mistaken, was working there.

Apparently, (I am not trying to do propaganda) France is going under some major changes ever since Sarkozy was elected. I read this in a greek newspaper, and it made me wonder how far can politicians go. The journalist was saying that Sarkozy has been causing all this fuss about his personal life, his divorce and his new girlfriend so as to distract the French people from the serious political issues. For example, Sarkozy passed a law according to which public television won't have any advertisements leaving them all consequently, to private channels which happen to be a possession of one of his closest friends. Coincidence? I don't think so. This guy knows what he is doing.

Well, enough with that. What I am trying to say is that this economical scandal was the last thing France needed now, since banks are one of the factors that support a nation and its power.

As to your question Dorthy, (funny that you brought this up) Greeks had gone mad with stocks a few years ago. Everyone was investing and investing, selling and buying, as if they had a fortune to waste. As a result, the stock had a crisis and everyone lost so much money and only the ones who knew how to play won. I knew some guys that played and they won a lot. But these were the exceptions. Overall, there was a big fuss back then. No reason to mention that noone played ever since.

However, if I knew how to play, I would. You can make a fortune, maybe later!

This story, although not the main news headline, is a top story here in the uk, hence the BBC article to which you referred. But in answer to your question which I have quoted, yes, and it has happened here in the UK. Perhaps you recall the incedent in which a rogue trader by the name of Nick Leeson was instrumental in bringing down Barings Bank in 1995.

In fact when you google 'Nick Leeson' his name is entwined with this story. Mr Leeson even had a movie made of his exploits called, Rogue Trader, starring Ewan McGregor and Anna Freil (girlfriend of David Thewlis). Perhaps Jerome Kerviel is after his own movie deal? What gets me is this, Kerviel wasn't even supposed to be that important in as far as traders go, he was a futures trader, a small fish. So why wasn't someone keeping an eye on him? Maybe someone was, and spotted all to late that he had lost so much money, they thought to say anything would just cause problems for themselves. If that's the case I hope they are found out.

The stock market has been wobbly of late and there has been rumour of a resession. Governments are loaning banks billions and vice versa in an attempt to keep countries economies afloat. It's scary.....has a nation ever declared itself bankrupt?

The Daily Prophet
151th Edition

The "Internet Suicides"

This links to an article about a number of rather mysterious suicides in the Bridgend area of South Wales. It's a rather disturbing piece on how 13 young people have committed suicide recently, and there are rumours of a death pact made on the Internet between some of them. The police are looking at the deaths again to see if they can find any significant similarities.

Apparently, the area has always had a rather high suicide rate, but quite a few of the young people who hanged themselves seemed quite happy and sociable. The questions are why so many deaths, and why now? Could the Internet have played a role? How does the setting on the Internet change how people act and react to each other and their problems?

I’ve never actively participated in The Daily Prophet area before, but I guess it’s time I started.

First and foremost, reading the article gave me shivers down my spine. Literally. I think “disturbing” is to say the least of it, Laurette. Honestly, the way it is written, I was half expecting Hercules Poirot to pop up any minute and save the day. Unfortunately, that won’t be the case with those poor kids.

There are many highly unsettling things in this affair. To name only some of them – the particularly young age of the people, the fact that they most probably knew each other, the one and the same means of their deaths etc.

As for their young age, I believe that people around twenty are significantly vulnerable to any kinds of influences coming from the outside. This concerns primarily those under twenty. The ones that were around 27 might have had problems with work. I know this sounds mediocre, regarding the fact that one of them was “loving his job,” but still. We must bear in mind that it is a former mining area. I think what is important is the adjective former, indicating that the pattern of employment there has changed recently, which sometimes can have serious impacts on the population (though usually the ones affected the most are people older than the victims). I personally come from and now live in a formerly highly industrialized, and now “reformed” and deindustrialized area, so I have the first-hand experience of what the people feel when unemployed and depressed. Or not unemployed completely, but with little or no prospect for better job or promotion. So this aspect might also come into question.

I think I strongly disagree with this statement in the article:

It’s true that suicides simply happen, but not at such a high rate in such a small community of 130,000 inhabitants.

If the police decide to investigate into any possible links between the suicides, I believe it would be worthwhile looking into other similarities, not only the means of the people’s deaths. What I mean is whether the people have left any letters, for example. Or have all of them passed away without the last farewells? Also, the one girl who survived could prove to be a valuable source of information.

As for the Internet involvement, of course it might have played its role. Just the other day, I read an article about the predictions for the past year, 2007. I read that many people had expressed their believes that 2007 was going to be a year of virtual social networking spreading like a spider web. And the experts have corroborated this trend. Looking at the age of the victims, it is highly probable that they were used to using the Internet and it is possible they were active in one or another virtual social network. I wouldn’t be surprised learning that some of them decided to commit suicide only because their friends did. But doing so not in order to follow suit and be a part of a community behaving in a way the other members do, but rather out of despair of losing a friend. And for that, they needn’t be part of any virtual community, it’s enough that they knew themselves in person in their real physical surroundings of the town.

I might agree with the idea of the Internet pact if the suicides appeared around the globe, to people meeting on a day-to-day basis virtually. But as the affair has happened in one such a close community, I believe it is necessary to start looking for the causes somewhere there.

~Jana

This story, when I first heard it frightened the life out of me. Jenny (my older daughter) has known a number of aquainrences on the internet to take their own lives.

The first was a good looking young lad from the South East of England. He was 17 years old and started to chat to Jenny through MySpace back 5 or 6 years ago. He appeared on the outside to come from a happy family, he had plenty of girlfriends and was facsinated by girls with the name Jenny. He was in a band that was relatively successfully loocally and looked as though he had everything to live for. One evening Jenny answered a rather sombre text from him. He was feeling down, could she call him later? Later she called and he said sorry he was realyy down and could they talk later. He was found hamging from a tree the next morning, in his garden. He was 17 years old. Jenny had been the last person to speak to him, she was 14 and devastated.

A few months later she heard that another young lad who both her and the previous lad had had contact with over the internet had committed suicide the same way. The two had never met. They were both found later to have been the targets of bullies throughout the whole of their school lives.

I don't think it is a pact, but I wouldn't dismiss the fact that theses young people have some depression or issue in their lives they they have shared with others on line and subconsciously chosen the same way to die.

Two years almost to the day, my friends son took his own life, he was almost the same age as my son and they were friends when they were very young. Chris had just become friendly with a girl through the internet. I doubt that anything she did on didn't do had any influence on his decision to end his life, he was depressed and had been since the death of his father 3 years before.

Suicide is never easy for those left behind to accept. Perhaps the area in which they all lived had a high rate of depression, who knows. I just think this is a very disturbing story.

This story is creeping me out. I always find suicides rather disturbing, especially when it come to young people and to massive ones.

I know that the pact rumor sounds maybe silly or way too exaggerating, but it has happened. Many years ago, I don't know when, there was this religious pact who called themselves satanists and they were against God, Christianity and all. Believe it or not they planned massive suicides and they all killed themselves at the same place at the same time. It must have caused a fuss here, I think I wasn't born back then.

It sounds bizarre to me as well the fact that so many kids killed themselves in such a short period. It might be random and not be linked to any serious reasons, but I'm not sure about that. I fear that the internet has had an impact on these people. Don't you remember when this guy responsible for the Virginia tech massacre, had announced the attack through youtube? Maybe it's a desperate cry for help and support. Being a teenager or a young person nowadays is not hard. You can be teased, bullied, kicked and attacked. We're talking about a very violent new generation and I'm really sorry to be a part of it. These kids may have been victims of this tough society who thought death was the only way out; that's the way it is always.

I don't know if the investigation will lead anywhere, I believe it won't. They don't really know where to look or what is really important. You don't need to have a health problem to feel the need to escape; being teased can do that as well.

I just hope that the families will cope with it eventually and if they have other youngsters left behind, they will help them overcome these deaths and make a better life for them.

It's really so tragic and sad..


Oh and Elaine, that story of yours really freaked me out. Gosh, you never know who may be capable for something like that..

Like all the rest of you have said, and I already too, this is really a highly disturbing issue. So disturbing, that I cannot somehow stop thinking of it. And just the other day, I sent the link to my fiancee and we had an online discussion, so if you don’t mind I’ll present some of our points.

But first

The case you mention, Alkisti, is not by far the only one. From time to time, the like rumors reach the media, and thus we can learn about some groups who are planning, or already have committed, a mass suicide. Like you rightly point out, these are usually some religious parties, though they needn’t be specifically Satanists. I remember the last case, where the people closed themselves somewhere (sorry all the particularities of it have slipped my mind), and announced they would kill themselves. What was the most disturbing aspect was the fact that they had their kids with them, too.

And this,

is basically along the lines we were discussing with my fiancee. It was actually the very first thing he told me. That we are living in violent and primarily highly insecure times nowadays, and young people are of course generally more sensitive to such things. When they see no hope for themselves in the society, they rather opt for such ultimate solutions. Privately, we decided to call this condition as coming from the people themselves. They commit a desperate act to escape the hopeless society. They are the ones who make the final decision.

As an opposition to this, he also suggested a from of “neo-romanticism,” to use the term employed only for the purposes of our discussion. Please, now disregard any connotations that this term has for you in the artistic milieu. What he means is that the impulse for such acts comes from the outside. The people attempted to perform something cool. Super and ultimate cool, that is. For death can be seen as cool and romantic at the same time – we chose the term above because this period in art is marked by a significant veneration of death. I see this condition as imposed on the people from the outside. Through the pressure on them to act in a cool way, to be a member of a certain community, to disregard life maybe, you name it.

But be that as it may, I think Alkisti puts it right, it’s a tragic and sad story.

~Jana

The Daily Prophet

152nd Edition

Flying naked

Nudity is one of the issues many of us prefer not to discuss about, being one of the "taboos" of our century. The naked body, no matter how natural, has always caused debates when it comes to being public. There are laws against it, and only in very strictly controlled areas it is allowed.

This article presents an innovation launched by a german airlines. Apparently, in a few months, there will be flights to a certain destination where passengers will be allowed to be nude.

Germany is one of the countries where nudity is highly discussed and heads back to the 19th century, when a sociologist named Heinrich Pudor had published a book supporting nudism. It has always been considered an action of freedom and a way of approaching nature.

So, what do the Duellers think? Is this way over the edge or is it acceptable and within the rights of humans? Do you mind about nudists, would you ever join them or is this an issue of no concern?

Discuss!

Personally, I'd rather keep all my bits and pieces under wraps

The germans have long been known to get their kit of at every turn. I admire there candour, so I'm not a bit surprised they're the first to come up with the naked flight. I'm not a prude, but sometimes it's off putting to see someones bit dangling all over the place.

Years ago, we used to holiday in Malta quite a lot. The Maltese were not happy for people to (women) to go topless and more often than not it would be the German women being told to cover up. as the years went by things became a bit more relaxed in Malta, although if you asked the locals what they thought of all these women going around topless by the pools and on the beaches, they'd have said they didn't approve.

We went to Lanzarote as a family one year and found a really peaceful beach. It only took us 10 minutes to realise the reason for it's peacefulness, it was a nudist beach, we left rather sharply!

In Spain 3 years ago, Issie and I found our spot on a lovely beach, this time it wasn't a nudist one. About half an hour after we go there, a young family arrived and the children who were about 11 or 12 procedded to take their clothes off. Now Issie being 7 or 8 at the time said, "Mummy why don't they cover up while they change?" and then was shocked when the two, a boy and a girl didn't put on any swimwear! Yes these two children whose bodies were developing rapidly started to build an enormous sand castle right in front of me and Issie blocking our view of the sea. Issie was particularly bothered by the boy. I was not a happy mummy I can tell you and when the mum stripped of to a thong and then dad did the same, we decided to find a nicer view on the beach.

Nudity is ok in some places. In specialised areas, the privacy of your own back garden, but not in public places, I don't care how 'free' you feel. There are some bodies that just aren't mean to be put on display.

This article in The Times today explores the possibility that employers are looking to social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace to get an idea of how you project yourself. Giving too much information in you personal profile could lead to you not bagging that highly sort after role.

When you consider that 62% of Bristish executives were signed up to Facebook, you can see that they are in a good posistion to dig for any dirt on candidates.

With social networking sites being so popular, do the duellers think it ethical that prospective employers look at recruits in what is essentially an out of work pasttime?

Personally, I have neither MySpace nor Facebook, not for these reasons but because I know of people who have been found by people in their pasts that they never wanted to see or hear from again, and that's enough reason for me not to have them.

You know, I have heard of that. My french teacher had told me about this a few months ago and I couldn't really believe it, though it sounds possible. It is like the other thing I used to hear at school: that in a few years, employers will check our DNA in order to see if we have genes that may lead to a serious disease and all. It sounds like science fiction but it doesn't sound too crazy to me. They are already digging our internet profiles, so why not check our DNA as well?

Anyway, I have a facebook account but bearing in mind that, I haven't put my real surname and all you can find out about me is that I come from Greece. No pictures of myself there and a page full of stupid quizzes. I only opened it at the first place in order to be able to view the profile of a friend of mine living in Australia. But that's it. I am not really fond of facebook.

But, I have a profile at hi5, mainly because all my classmates at my university have and it was a good way of keeping in track with them, though we rarely speak now through it or in real life. However, as you said Elaine, I met some people there I'd rather not meet, such as old classmates I used to hate and still do. I added a few of them but now I just ignore them. I have my nice little profile, with comments from friends and total strangers and I am fine by that.

I am planning on closing it in a couple of years, or well, before I get a real job. Though I don't think someone would check it here in Greece. We are not functioning this way. Plus, I don't plan on looking for a job at a big company; a small magazine or newspaper would do.

However, it is quite freaky the fact that government is controlling us and on top of that, we let business people do it as well. I mean, I listen to gothic. Does this make me a bad person? As soon as it doesn't affect the way I work, then they shouldn't care either.

We are heading to an era more and more controlling and noone can escape from the "big eye". (Lord of the rings was not that fictional after all )

I have to say that I'm not that surprised about this whole story.
I mean, in Germany we have a really big network, like facebook, with about 3 million members (the number's growing). It's mainly for students, but most people enter there when they finish school, no matter if they really study, do civil service or are just working. Like Alkisti said, it's the best way to stay in contact with all your schoolmates (and other guys). And of course the big companies (maybe the smaller ones too) check your profile there to see if you drink a lot of alcohol or come late or other things. The good thing is: in this network, you can decide who should be able to see your profile, so you can say 'only my friends shall be able to see my profile' and then others can't.

You know, before you go to the army, you have this medical examination, and if you don't want to go to the army, you tell them, like, you have headache very often or have some problems with your back. When you're unlucky, you have an accident at work and hurt your back. And when you're VERY unlucky, your health insurance checks what you told the doctor at your medical examination and says: 'You told the doctor that you have a problem with your back and we don't believe you that you injured your back at this special accident but at another occasion.' And they don't have to pay if you can't prove that the accident was really the cause of your injury.

So you see, it's pretty normal that you get checked before getting a job or when you get hurt. And I agree with Alkisti that this whole idea will not end until they really check our DNA if we are ill or have any other genetic diseases.
Does anyone of you know the movie 'Gattaca'? It's about a future in which Genetic manipulation is normal (but not a must) and your parents decide which genes you should have and which not. So the companies only take those with perfect genes and the 'normal' people are unwanted. I hope I won't have to live in such a world.

And with the development of internet and GPS and stuff, we get nearer and nearer to Orwell's '1984', a world in which everyone is monitored and controlled.
Back to the article: I would recommend everyone to use more than one email-adresse and give as few information as necessary when participating somewhere in the internet, especially in big networks where your profile can be seen by everyone!

If you are considering on going to Mississippi and you are slightly overweight, you should think twice. Apparently, law-makers have proposed a law which will not permit to overweight people to eat at restaurants and such public places. The reason why: it seems as a very good solution against obesity, the number one problem in the state.

This article speaks on its own.

What does the Duelling Club think? Is this the way to solve the problem or is it against one's rights? We've seen governments adopt drastic measures against obesity but does this seem just? Duel!

This is disgusting. It's discriminatory and degrading. Isn't this the same as the Jim Crow laws? You're black, you can't use this toilet. You're fat, you can't eat here. It's foul. Throughout history such laws have been enacted, and I can't think of a single one that wasn't sick. I would honestly hope that the world was moving beyond such revolting laws.

There is no way that this can work. So I can't go out for a nice meal and celebrate food because I'm overweight. No one is going to lose weight. It seems to me that this is just bourne from a desire to see action taken quick-smart, but is just going to harm these people (and the rest of the world) further. You'd have to be a naive, short-sighted bigot to think that this could work.

Obesity is a big issue, yes. But surely there are more humane ways of beating the problem? This will not help people lose weight. It will most likely lead to people putting on even more weight. They're going to feel ugly, and not worthy of the right to go out in public. So they will comfort eat to ease the pain, and so the circle goes round (and I appreciate that this is a wild generalisation). What they're not going to do is to try to lose the weight - they've been offended and degraded and won't think that they're good enough to go to a restaurant. All this is going to do is foster deep insecurity issues within people and propel others to try to be thin even more (essentially an even more extreme situation than we have today) - god forbid; if I get fat, they may take away my rights!

No one has the right to discriminate and label people, based on anything. It doesn't matter whether people are black, white, fat, thin, educated, uneducated. Everyone is a person, and everyone has inalienable rights. I'm deeply horrified that this was even thought up as a viable solution.

~Rebecca

Wow! That's just....wow. I can't even begin to imagine what they were thinking when they thought up this scheme. You know, there are good ways to give people a wake-up call. This wasn't one of them.

I seriously doubt they will be able to legally pass this bill. Being obese isn't illegal like drugs, and it isn't harmful to someone else's health like cigarettes (second-hand smoke). If for some unknown reason this was able to pass into law, it would completely go against people's natural rights. I think utter chaos would erupt because the average person wouldn't stand for this blatant disrespect for humanity.

I agree with Mundu. Something like this would probably just worsen the situation. If you want to help someone lose wait, you help them feel good about themselves; not kick them while their down. The idea of banning someone from a restaurant because of their weight is below the belt.

Instead of wasting their money coming up with insane ideas like that, why don't they dump that money into investing in a restaurant that centers around healthy eating? Seems a little more productive to me.

Sheesh. That's our tax dollars at work.

When I read Mundu's and Laura's posts, I felt glad I came up with this story. That's why I wanted to post it: it seems unjust, it is against human rights and it is utterly extreme. I wonder how this law would ever work.

It makes me feel appalled that there are people nowadays who would be willing to propose such laws. What makes me wonder ever more, is how this guy proposed that scheme at the first place when he is overweight himself. Would he like to be denied to eat at a restaurant because of his own law? I don't think so.

Obesity is indeed one of the greater problems in the US and it is growing faster and faster here in Europe. Greek kids are thought to be ones of the fattest in the continent. However, we can always adopt other measures.

Like Laura's proposition for example. Why not spend money on a campaign? On a movie maybe? When I saw Super Size Me, I felt so disgusted I swore I'd never eat fast food again. I have eaten once or twice but I have completely stopped drinking Coca-Cola. I don't want my body filled with harmful fat and my health being in risk. So, if this movie can make me think like that, a Greek girl who doesn't really like fast-food, wouldn't it cause greater change on other people? Or maybe documentaries like the ones Jamie Oliver makes. He had been to a british school and tried to change the menu offered at kids. And it worked out! You wouldn't believe the change on kid's behaviour and performance after they altered their eating habits.

So, shouldn't tax money be spent on something more productive than non-sense, racism-promoting laws? All it takes is a few good ideas to raise people's awareness. Simple as that.

I think what the western world needs to do to combat obesity is to develop a healthier view of food. Food is not evil! There are no bad foods. Has anyone read French Women Don't Get Fat by Mireille Guiliano? The basic principles of that book I think need to be translated across the western world. As soon as people start viewing food as something to enjoy and respect, rather than the enemy, I think obesity will decline. Sure, eating fresh fruit and vegetables daily is good for you, but I don't think it should be done because it is 'healthy' and 'the government said so'; I think they should be eaten because the taste damn good and make you feel great (that's how I feel anyway...). And people who skip dessert make me want to cry ! Essentially people need to take the science out of food and focus more on the pleasures of it.

I agree, watching Supersize Me made me give up fast food for life. There was one time that I was really hungry and the only thing available was chicken nuggets (you know the ones that are grey/brown inside? Yeah...), and I actually couldn't eat them. I was shown one time what was actually in them, and man, I don't ever want to see the things again.

What the world needs more of is people like Jamie Oliver: people who help clean up school lunches into things that are whole, fresh and taste damn fine. The kids ended up loving them! But imagine growing up on turkey twizzlers... He also does nifty things like giving cocaine addicts another chance at life, but I shan't go on about that here, or I'll fill up pages. I do quite admire the man, let's put it like that!

What the world doesn't need is another hair-brained scheme with no fore-thought involved, and that undermines our basic rights. Like I said before, aside from the very dodgy moral grounds, it's not going to effect obesity positively.

I appreciate this post was a bit off topic in that it didn't focus on the Mississippi bill, or even obesity, but more people's ideas and views on food and diets etc. I'm sorry, but I felt that they were relevant points to be made. And I do recommend that book for anyone trying to lose weight...

~Rebecca

Ah, fat. The last acceptable prejudice. I should know. I've lived with it most of my life, and I've heard it all. Until now. This was a new one.

Rebecca's so right! This is simply no different from discriminating against someone because of their color. The excuse for treating overweight people abominably is that "it's not like they can't help it--they can always lose weight."

Yep. We can always lose weight. That's why billions of dollars are spent yearly in that effort--never mind that 99% of the time it's a waste of money, the weight comes back. Fat people don't really want to be fat. And they certainly aren't unaware that they are fat. But they are busy, like everyone else, and they get hungry, like everyone else. I wish our bodies had a shut-off valve when we gained five too many pounds--that we simply wouldn't feel hungry till we burned that off. But it isn't that simple.

If this law passes (which I doubt) it could create a disturbing precedent. Why not ban fat people from hotels (since they might wear out the beds faster). Why not ban fat people from movie theatres (they might break the seats). Ban them from the opera, the golf course, ban them from the streets! Like we don't feel ostracised enough already.

The murmur now is that fat people cost too much money because they have more health problems than thin people. So we have to pay more for insurance. I don't get it. My mom and my sister are sizes 12 and 4 respectively, and both of them suffer from high cholesterol. I don't. Mine is actually too low! My grandfather had cancer. He never was fat. I've never suffered from anything other than people who are jerks who don't know when to shut their big mouths about my weight. Not that that is a health problem, but being ridiculed for your fat behind when you are out riding your bike, from some idiots sitting in a pick-up truck, shouting out the windows, no less, causes a real pain in my heart.

This proposed law won't pass. It's a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money to even discuss it. But it does at least bring attention to this matter in a way that I respect. Being able to compare it to the Jim Crow laws of the past puts it in perfect perspective.

Yes, this article hit our newpress here, too. I laughed, I admit it. Not for the issue, not for the poor representation of Mississippi herself, nor for her people; I laughed, because I thought is was insane.

As I recall, Mississippi has been awarded the number one slot for citizen obesity for the last couple years, running closely with a few of her border neighbors. So, why propose the bill there? Hit the hardest where the issue is touted to be the largest?

It is absolute discrimination, and it is absolutely shameful.

Ironically, Mississippi also wears the glory banner of being one of the lowest income states in the USA. Correlation? Of course. There is also rampant alcohol and drug abuse, issues that fester in low income areas. Perhaps the big question should be why are so many residents of Mississippi impoverished, overweight, abusing drugs and alcohol, and depressed? The depression statistics may be a bit suppressed there, as many don't have access to any form of health care.

Seems to me, the bill is more designed to draw attention away from the overall issues. That's big government for you: smoke screens everywhere.

The Daily Prophet

155th Edition

Valentine's Day

Now that the Valentine's Day is over, we can all feel relieved and share freely our views on the subject. Looking for the great present, staying in budget or putting up with all the romance in the air makes this day one of the hardest of the year.

This article proposes several ways of having a great Valentine's day without spending too much money, such as a dinner at home or home-made gifts, giving to committed ones the chance to celebrate this day as better as possible.

On the other hand, there are entries like this one which demonstrate the negative aspect of this celebration. Not everyone is in a relationship, and not everyone is in a loving one.

What do the Duellers think? How did you celebrate this day? Does Valentine's day mean something special to you or is it yet another result of overconsumption? Do you have any funny stories when it comes to this day?

Discuss!

Hello Duellers!

Wow, where to begin? I'm a very very romantic person, but the idea of an only love day isn't my favorite, really. When I had a boyfriend, many years ago, it was a struggle to get a decent gift. When I became engaged, it was even more difficult: I didn't really know what to expect or what to give. I wanted things to be perfect, to build memories and to be remembered for details.

When I broke my engagement a year ago, I was extremely relieved. No more panicking on the previous dates (I went out with my ex-fiancée for more than 4 years and were engaged for 1) and this huge stress of saving money and handling schoolwork and working our different schedules was off my back!

Did it really matter to have a special night when the next day everything was back to normal? The arguing, the bitterness, the bad mood, all went back to the way it was and all I was left was some candy, a couple of red roses a card declaring some "undying love" that didn't exist and a bill.

Last year, I went out to celebrate with my mum on Valentine's Day. We had a nice dinner and I really enjoyed it. This year, neither my mum or my brother had a date, so we went out and each got a present for themselves. It was great! Meanwhile, we saw the line growing longer at the flower stand and the people on it making faces and eyeing their watches because it wasn't going fast enough. How happy can that be?

I overheard a girl while we were having a drink at a coffee house saying that the day of love should be every single day, very cliché but probably right.

So I guess I've learned that giving a card or flowers to someone doesn't really prove that you love them, but the actions and the thought behind them do, and probably that makes me an awful V-Day hating person, but I think I'm happier with myself on that matter. No more stress because of the date, and if I feel like doing something special for a special someone, anyday can be the day.

(It could also be that the right person hasn't come along for me, but until then, I'll stick to my worry-free self, and then we'll see! )

Every music store you go in to lately, in the UK anyhow, has shelves piled high with the 25th anniversary edition of Michael Jacksons album Thriller.


Here in the UK at least Michael has been out of the news somewhat since the show that was 'the court case', although a number of stories have appeared in the 'Sun' such as pictures of his children Prince Michael and Paris.

With Michael due to tour europe later this year, and tickets selling for £175 plus--face value and with the re-release of the Thriller album, do the duellers think that Michaels star will ever shine as brightly as it did in the eighties?

Do you think that the collaborations with stars such as Kanye West and Akon will endear mhim to a new audience, or do you think that the ghosts of the past will shadow his pop career for ever more?

I've never been a fan of Michael Jackson. He had a few songs I liked, some of which I still listen to, such as "You are not alone", but overall, I was never attracted to his music.

I believe that Michael Jackson has managed to damage his career over the years, not only by causing scandals but also by ruining his appearance which is actually the main reason why he got so famous all around the world. Everyone has seen pictures of "before" and "after", and we all wonder what pushed him so hard to changing so much. It might have been hard for him to be accepted as a black singer, but now he is deformed as a result of the continuous operations.

What is more, he has messed up with his personal life as well. I think that at a point he went mental; I remember a picture of him holding his baby outside of the window ready to drop it. This is even worse than Spears actually. They both represent fallen idols who will have to struggle really hard to get back their place.

No matter how optimistic I usually am, I don't believe that this concert or the cooperations with modern singers will boost his career. Personally, even if I was a fan, I wouldn't want to watch him perform live, and on top of that, pay so much money. How can this person give an astounding performance when he can barely walk or talk or whatever, properly?

To me, it seems like a lost cause and a way to make some money by doing what he always did. If I recall correctly, he is in debt because of the sues against him, and there is no other way to support himself (and probably his kids) but by releasing an album or having a concert.

I really wish that this will work out, though I doubt it, if only for the sakes of his career and of his past, his talent, and of the people that once listened to his songs and enjoyed doing so.

I was a fan of Michael Jackson back in the late seventies, early eighties when he was at his peak. Thoose were the days of Rock with You, Billy Jean and just about the time he started to have a little bit of facial surgery. I pretty much forgave him the surgery because he was a fantastic music maker and performer. We all knew his back story was a big bizarre and the fact that he had his own zoo and whatever on his Neverland ranch I saw as a harmless eccentricity rather than anything with a sinister hidden agenda that the future would out.

When Jordan Chandler accussed him of , whatever it was, I questioned the judgment of a mother who allowed her son to have such a close relationship with a person who needed a kick into reality. I always thought he was, not particularly innocent, but slightly naive in allowing the relationship to go in the direction that it allegedly did.

When Michael married Lisa Marie Presley, I took it as a huge publicity stunt that would boost the careers of both stars. I thought it fishy when out of the blue he had allegedly married and his new wife had given birth to his child and then another one and she had given him custody when the marriage broke down. Yeah right!

When Michael was seen in London dangling his new baby over the balcony of his hotel, I decided that Social Services should intervene and take the kids away from him. His bizarre lifestyle is just too strange. And with the further court case about his relationship with yet another young boy(s), you'd have thought some official would have taken those kids into care for their own safety. But Michael came up smelling of roses, they are all gold diggers and , well you all know the story. At the end of that case, it was said that Michael was millions of dollars in debt and would need to recapture the the record sales of the early eighties again to be in with any chance of addressing the balance of his bank account. Perhaps this is the way of doing that. Michael has proven time and time again that he can make a comeback despite or inspite of his past digressions. His fans will always remain loyal to him and buy whatever durge he puts into the shops, but with the addition of modern artists to the Thriller album, I'll sure he'll be riding high in the charts again in no time.

I grew up dancing from an early age and as part of our training, we were just about expected to know every juicy detail of the magician that was Michael Jackson. He was worshipped and I don't think that there's a single song from the Off the Wall to Dangerous Albums (and in between) that I don't know a dance routine too.

So because he was 'God', we learnt to accept and forgive some of the oddities. And I still have this incredible loyalty to him. I know that he is weird. Personally as a counsellor I'd love to study him . However speaking strictly of his MUSIC and not his lifestyle and personality, the man has been a genius. Genius is something that you just don't lose.

Of course, there's a fine line between genius and insanity and I think he crossed that line a while ago... however getting back onto his songs, I don't think a day goes past that I don't hear Billie Jean or The Way You Make Me Feel or Black or White on the radio. There is an element of timelessness to them. And while the loyal fans will always be loyal, I think updating some of the old stuff will keep the new and young fans into it- especially since one of the 12 year old told me last week that 'Wanna be starting something' was only recently released and there IS only one version Little do they know....

I think that is a very good description of Michael. I think his Thriller album was very good and most of his stuff since then has been garbage. Sometime after Thriller he crossed that fine line and we have all suffered his insanity since then.

One problem is that I think Michael believes he is above the law and everyone else. He has defaulted on contracts for live performances and has been sucessfully sued for the breaches. I doubt any producer or promoter would take a chance on a comeback tour or new album, at least here in the US. He has burnt too many bridges in the music business.

I think other than the twelve jurors at his trial, the people in the US believe he is to some degree or another guilty of those child abuse charges. His career here in the US is dead and I do not believe it can ever be resurrected. The release of the new Thriller album has done well here but that was the Michael of old.