This first story is just horrible. To be honest, and this is just my personal belief, I would rather save a child's life by picking him off the street and returning him to his daycare than letting him go out of fear I would be labeled a "pervert" -- fully aware that he is a small child with little to no judgement -- where he has a possibility of dying. If you really do not want to go over to the child because you are afraid of getting falsely accused of something which is untrue, the least you can do is drive back to the daycare and report to the manager or worker that you spotted one of their children wandering around outside! I feel terribly for the poor kid's parents. How would you like it (and I am sorry for presenting one of these 'how would you like it...?' scenarios, I personally hate them myself) if you found out that your little child was found dead, but one man could have saved him, but did not out of fear that he would be labeled a "pervert" or "kidnapper"!? I would definitely hope that if this kid were my child, the man would have done something! Well, although I deeply sympathize with both the child, the parents, and the man who is getting in trouble, the blame lies almost fully on the daycare center. How on earth does a small child "escape" from a daycare center!? That baffles me...their job is to control the kids, keep them safe, make sure they are happy, and give them something to do for the day while the parents are at work, and they obviously fail at everything. No control, not keeping them safe, and clearly not attending to them if none of the workers realized one of the kids was not even there!

As for this second case, I have heard soooo many stories so similar like this one. All I can say is that I must side with the man. He was probably so nervous for almost killing a girl that he was not even in the right state of mind. The Illinios government should have taken that into consideration. After people get into car accidents, tehir adrenaline content in their blood rises off the roof, which often causes them to act purely on instinct -- whether that means swivering off the road to prevent yourself from hitting other cars, or running out to help the girl and tell her to be more careful. What was the man supposed to do...watch her on the ground possibly struggle to get up. She must have been in such sever shock, she did not know what happened. Just out of curiosity, if he did not help her up, yet she was unable to get up herself, would he have been sued for another crime? Is there any law saying anything about this if anybody knows? Just out of my own curiosity ....

It is flaws like these in American law and just society in general that just do not make sense.......




_daviD

That's my biggest fear. There are parents out there that have no sense of reason. Whether it is a parent complaining because you touched her daughters breasts while performing CPR or situtions like the one with the man nearly hitting the girl, there are some parents without any sense of reason. My understanding of the case of the man nearly hitting the girl was that it was pushed by the girls parents. The judge and jury both sided with the man but because of the way the laws are written, they had no choice.

My two oldest girls attended a part time pre-school to prepare them for school. One way the school keep prices down was that the second adult required in the class was always a parent. Usually me or my wife was the parent helper once a month. I remember one day a girl needed to go to the bathroom. I started to walk her down the hall and the teacher panicked. I wasn't going into the bathroom with her, just escorting her to the restrooms. That was one of the jobs of the parent helper. But because I am a man it was not acceptable. The teacher was a family friend so I know it was not an issue with her. It had to be a school policy against men being alone with the children. There was no such policys against the women who were helping. On top of that, to be a parent helper we had to pay the school for background checks on us. Its really sad that our society has sunken to the point of thinking so little of men.

I think that they are blinded by fear. Don't get me wrong peadofilia is a terrible thing and unfortuanly is rather real. But it's no where near as a problem as the media is saying it is. Cases of children being abducted by a peadofile are very rare. What is more common is children being sexually abused by a family member, or their father (although still very rare if you think about it.)

I know a girl who was adopted and was sexually abused by her adoptive father. She's now emotionally damaged, but i think he birth mother had serious mental problems as well, which would explain why the girl is. Even though it's a tragic case it doesn't make me fear families who have adopted children, thinking them all sexual abusers i still respect them, as i realise that raising a child that isn't yours can be tough. I want to adopt children and i hope that people wouldn't automatically think that my husband (still have to find him, lol) was automatically a sexual offender as he chose to adopt kids!

Cases of peadofila are very rare! And i also think that peadofilia is almost a disease. Near where i live there is a prison that's famous for rehabiltationg sex offendes, mainly peadofiles. Even though i think that sex offenders should serve a long time in prisons i still believe in rehab for them, don't get me wrong, i don't think that they should ever be allowed to work any where near children or even live in an estate where lots of children play outside a lot etc...

I'm not sure I understood your question too well, Chris, but I would say yes, since these two things could very well be a primary source of aggravation that has led to the outburst of conflict. Power and wealth are very real issues in Africa and have been for centuries, even before colonisation. Africa has still, in some cases, a very tribal instinct, which is in effect socialistic within the community of a tribe. It means that the leader speaks for all and decides for all. (This is also part of Zimbabwe's problem, but that's something else). This usually means that some leaders become a tad greedy (Idi Amin is a great example, but you'll find quite a few). The balancing of wealth and power between tribes and their leaders has therefore always been vital for peace.

In history class we read last year, in a rather pro-African textbook in comparison with some of our other books, that one of the failings of the AU is its poor co-operation because of jealousy and envy between the leaders of different countries. Power is an extremely important driving force here, so if all parties aren't satisfied with the amount of influence and power they have, things won't improve. The same with wealth, and maybe even more so because it is so scarce in Africa.

I honestly don't know what the solution is. The issues in Africa that have surfaced in the past century after de-colonisation, has really been there since the start of it and grew more and more complicated as time went by. It had just been kept subdued by colonial governments and has now exploded. A part of it is the international borders that were marked off by the colonialists. They used the longitude and latitude lines and natural borders, such as rivers and mountains, to mark their territory, with no thought of the 'ethnic map'. This has caused many traditionally hostile groups to be thrown together in governments, making peace within such countries near impossible.

The Iraq thing shows that international intervention is not at all simple, even if you believe it has improved the situation. Even worse, the members of the UN Security Council are wary of stepping in where the situation has no direct relevance to their own country - look at the disaster of Vietnam. I don't know, it's a question that hasn't been answered yet, imo. South Africa can thank its stars for Nelson Mandela who, by sheer force of his personality and strenght of conviction, turned a nation's heart enough to ward off a civil war.

Edit>> Maybe if the media paid more attention, people would have better thought out ideas and suggestions, because all I've really done is say that I can't think of a solution myself... If knowledge of the nature and causes of the events were more regularly heard and digested by people, it would be easier to form an opinion.

...So basically I think the intention is to make energy for themselves though it could potentially become corrupt and start the production of weapons of mass destruction, and what I mean by the Persian President is that he said something about 'wiping Isreal off the face of the planet' or something like that. To me, it sounds as if he wants to annihilate the country...in my opinion.

Are you refering to the United States? I don't think its an issue of dominating the world, or even spreading democracy, otherwise every nation that isn't democratic would be on the US's hit list. Its more about countries like Iraq or North Korea that have dictators that neglect their citizens from every day essentials, and stopping them from doing this. A possible way to stop these things from happening is to bring democracy to whichever country is being run by a dictator or a strict government. The reason is because there is a share of power, or a balance at least, so that no one holds total control. If a dictator was deposed of, who is to say that the next won't become just like him or her?

Perhaps its best, though, not to force this on people. But when there seems to be no other choice, then the system might be implemented. Maybe the US, after invading Iraq, thought that since the system has worked here, that it could work there. I guess we'll just have to wait and see once the violence dies down.

Thats my opinion, for now at least...since we're all able to change our opinions

Ahhh, now this is an issue that I really do appreciate- my apologies for leaving my response to it for so long- I'll get to the next issue in a minute

My last relationship counselling class was on parenting and me being the loud mouth that I am had a lot to say on it

First let me start by saying that I am 24 years old and NOT a parent. I have not had the experience of 'raising a child' which seems to be one of the biggest comebacks that people have to say to me when I say anything along the lines of this area. However children are my area of interest, my primary area of study and my entire area of work.

I've seen children who would rather stay with their day care teacher- who they've been with since 7am- than go home with their parents. I've seen parents who laughed when their child poked a stick into another child's eye and made comments such as 'He's such a ratbag!' I've seen parents who had said to other adults (while in front of their child) 'I just don't know what to do with him, he can go and live with his father for all I care'. I've been in a situation many times where I can tell a parent things about their children that they don't have a clue about- even down to simple things such as their favourite colour or the fact that mum keeps giving them jam sandwiches which they hate...

and there's even been a few times where their school teachers have complimented ME (NOT their parents) for the improvement in the child's behaviour at school. or the fact that they are actually DOING their homework.

I'm not these children's parents- is this something that I should really be doing???


There's been an article recently that said something like almost 40% of children are now being diagnosed with ADHD. In my Relationship Counselling- Parenting class, I brought this issue up and the lecturer- who is involved with the Positive Parenting Program- as well as the majority of the parents there, felt that parents in general just don't know how to be parents.


There's a line from 'Parenthood', which I love. It's said by Keanu Reeves' character and to simplify it says along the lines of needing a license to catch a fish, drive a car or buy a dog. But anyone can be a parent.

My mother refers to the now youth generation as being the 'instant gratification generation'. Anything that they want is given to them now on a silver platter and everything that they do is given instant rewards. I think a lot of this is because parents just don't know how to be parents. They don't know how to cope with the crying, the nagging, the not understanding etc etc and so they do what they can as a quick fix solution without ever dealing with the problem. They buy the kids the latest toys, give them something to stop them crying etc.

In regards to the actual teacher's limits outside of school, I've noticed that there are many times where if I'm in my uniform outside of work, I'm expected to be the parent for all of these children whose parents are watching me. I'm expected to make sure little Jimmy isn't going to punch his sister, or that Susan doesn't fall off the flying fox while her mother is chatting to another parent. I've had parents who have said to me 'I can't handle my own two, how do you cope with 20?' and complete strangers who have said to me 'Mr --- tells me that soandso is understanding their maths homework- how did you explain it to them???'

Teachers shouldn't be needing to do these things. In the case that was mentioned with Bullying, sometimes parents DON'T see these things and people should be able to deal with it without the reprocutions. I mean, if the child tells the school, the school should be able to notify the parents involved or whatever and ensure that it gets dealt with- otherwise things could blow up in everyone's face. However parent's shouldn't expect that because the teacher is there, that they can deal with the problems.


Whoa... that was a rant and a half- was going to put two cents in on the Cold War discussion as well, but I think I might leave it until next time

yes, maybe societies is a good word to describe it, in my language the best is civilization, maybe in english is more correct to say societies. and yes, i meant that russia is no longer a communist state, now they (russia and USA) share the democratic idea. when i talked about civilizations i wasn't talking about russia and the states, i was talking about the states, europe, and other countries "vs" some middle orient countries, that, as you said have dictators that reprime their citizens.

the problem is that everynation that it's not democratic as the USA understands democracy are in the hit list. take a look at Venezuela. Chavez is called a dictator, and the USA doesn't want them to have nuclear power (do you call it like that?), and when Argentina insinuated thay they would colaborate in Venezuela's nuclear plan... USA didn't wait a second to call to be sure that Argentina wouldn't colaborate. And... when Argentina was in democracy, just for that fear to comunism (70's decade) USA supported the worst dictatorship that Argentina ever had.

i agree with you there, i don't like dictatorships, I even shared USA's opinion about Irak, the only problem is that USA runs to spread democracy to those countries that never asked for it. I don't mean that is better those dictatorships, I just think that USA can help, if help is asked. Or let the citizens of any country fight themselves for the democracy.

i totaly agree with this... except that who knows, who has to say that "there are no more choices than an invasion"?

Those are my thoughts exactly. The only one bringing attention to Chavez is Chavez. Instead of being the leader his country needs, he plays on the fears of the overbearing US to keep his people in line. The truth is, as long as he does not disrupt the worlds oil supply, the US would leave him alone. The same thing with Castro. The US has not had any direct actions against him or his goverment since the 60's. The only thing we are guilty of is not allowing our citizens to travel there or do business with Cuba which is our right. Both dictators are working off the same play book, when all else fails, blame the US.

I do not think we are seeing a return to the cold war with Russia. With democracies, presidents come and go. All that matters is the will of the people. Neither the citizens of Russia or the US want a return to the cold war. There will be slight chills from time to time when the elected presidents do not agree but that passes with the next election. No one doubts US and France's relationship but I know there is no love lost between Bush & Chiroc. The only thing with Putin is he represents the old guard KGB which makes things a little difficult.


Pixy & Omerus, I could not of said it better. I think both of you have summed up my opinions on the lack of parenting these days. Different countries yet all experiencing the same problems. I wonder why?

i agree with democracy, what i don't like is the US interventing(sp?) in everywhere. you can't imposse democracy, it'd be a contradiction, how do you imposse freedom? It's good if the democratic countries want the others to be democratic, too. I understand that, and I even think it should be like that. because a non-democratic country's dictator can think that he can rule not only his country, but others too!


and both of you are right with those paramilitar groups, but why does the US have to do with it? Maybe it's just that i live in a country that suffered too much because of the USA, and I cannot simply be impartial, i must admit that! nevertheless, i don't want another country to nose in my bussiness, just leave the others alone, unless they're a real danger for the world and, in that case, the whole wolrd must have its opinion, not only USA ot the OTAN...


and talking about parenting... i think that's a problem that exists in almost everywhere. I am a teacher, and parents never think that their precious little angels are wrong, or that they didn't do enaugh homework, they allways think that the teacher is th one who made a mistake. and they also have no authority over their children... it's as if they don't want to say "no" to their children...

Yes, you are right on one aspect. Brown most certainly highlighted the downsides of NASA and all of their failures, and just oh-so-conveniently "forgot" to mention many of NASA's breakthroughs and discoveries. What is definitely true about the book is that all of the technologies in it exist today and are being used by the space agency. Brown always has a little paragraph in the beginning of his books stating that sometihng is true, for example the technologies or organizations, etc.

I did a current events report in my research class this past week about how NASA's satellite Cassini found an active water plume and very stable heat source on one of Saturn's moons, Enceladus. This can be a huge discovery because scientists speculate that if there is to be extraterrestrial life, it would exist in a liquid environment with an average-ranged temperature. Unfortunately, due to a very tight budget (considering the incredibly high cost of the missions and research), a mission to Enceladus will probably not happen for a while, maybe even 5-10 years!




_daviD

Even those can be a stretch on the truth. I assume you mean his 'fact' about the Priory of Sion in The DaVinci Code? Mmm...yeah, not true. The Priory that Brown presents as a secret organization was created by a con man, Pierre Perdant or something like that. He created and planted the various documents (The Secret Documents, the ones in the book) all proclaiming him as the true heir to the throne of France. Brown used Pierre's Priory and his geneaologies of the French royal line (which continued past the date they actually died out in order to get to Pierre) to tie into his Holy Grail story.

So yeah, I'd still be careful. Though I don't doubt that NASA has better technology that the average American does, you can't take Dan Brown at his word.

I think that NASA is being run by fear, to be honest. We lost a few shuttles, and in response they shut the whole program down. Now don't get me wrong, the loss of those astronauts and the missions were catastrophic. But space travel in this day and age, though safer than Gemini, is still dangerous. It's easy for me to say, I'm not the one taking the risks, or the one ordering that the risks be taken, but that's my view on the retreat from the Shuttle Program.

I think that the reason NASA hasn't made such breakthrough's since the 60's is the lack of a tangible and attainable goal. Before Kennedy's "go to the moon before the end of this decade", NASA was a joke. We couldn't even get rockets off the pads, let alone launch sattelites, monkeys and men into space.

But after they were given a clear goal, something that every other mission was building up for, it took off. They had a purpose. After they achieved that...what now? Mars was too far off, though it's growing closer due to technological advancements. The Shuttle Program was a good idea, I think, but being a primarily commercial idea at heart, without a free market to drive it, it was doomed to fail.

In fact, one of NASA's three main goals is to 'find extraterrestrial life.' Sort of ambitious, considering it could be on any one of the billions of planets in the galaxy, and we can't get past our own moon.

In short, I think that NASA grew content.

But I just visited Kennedy Space Center (which was worth the money) and they had a lot to say. Of course you have to take it with a grain of salt, since it is NASA running the place, but they estimated a permanant moon base by 2020. (I think...could have been a different year, but definitely close.) It's supposed to be a sort of practice base for the eventual one on Mars, hopefully up by 2050. One of their goals is trying to find a way to make fuel on the moons surface, so that they can refuel ships on their way to Mars, and so that they can make their own to get back.

Now that is something that I can get behind. Fuel...wouldn't that be nice, if through finding fuel to get to Mars and back, we find a new way of powering our own cars and homes?

That has really been a big problem for them. It is the same thing with the Iraq war. No one expects casualties from a dangerous mission. Look at the original Gemini and Apollo missions. A tiny capsule on top of a big tower of solid propellent. Toss in a match and away you went. Talk about dangerous, those early astronauts really had nerves of steel.

Exploration like this will have casualties. No one wants them but they are a reality. NASA has baby proofed the shuttle program so much, there is no significant exploration being done.

I think that is their exact problem. Vietnam left them without direction from Washington and they have been wondering aimlessly since. Bush tried to give them direction with the Mars goal but I think the public has forgotten the original goals of NASA and it will take more than a speech or two to get back on track. Besides Bush does not quite have the chrisma of Kennedy.

NASA needs to get back on their original mission, space exploration. At some point in our future, the planet's resources will reach the point of no longer supporting the population and then people will understand the benefits of the space program.