A U.S. teen did indeed fall down an uncovered manhole while texting. But she’s OK. So what’s the problem?

Her parents have said they’re going to sue! Because that will make their kid less of an idiot?

The Department of Environmental Protection in NYC has stated that workers were about to put cones out when Alexa Longueira came along, her eyes focused on the message she was sending instead of the sidewalk in front of her. Their backs momentarily turned to get the cones, the workers didn’t see her in time to warn her, and the girl fell four or five feet.

She had minor cuts and bruises, but her parents are still talking lawsuit. Who, exactly, are they going to sue? The city I would imagine for daring to have a manhole uncovered. If the DEP story doesn’t hold water and workers had just forgotten to put up some warning, the sad thing is, they might actually win.

But what purpose will it serve? Will their kid learn to watch where she’s going? Will she tear her eyes away from the stupid mobile? One of my colleagues once compared dodging the kids on phones and listening to headphones on a university campus to playing a game of Frogger. But where they can’t hear anything with something clamped over their ears, texting has proven equally if not MORE dangerous because kids are tuning out the world AND not looking around them.

But hey, at least they can earn Mum and Dad some fast cash for acting like a moron.

Image/Source: MSNBC

The principal goes on at some length rationalising the rule. Mostly he’s scared of traffic and stranger abductions.

‘If anything happened, it would weigh on me for the rest of my life,” he said.

It’s easy to fume about the stupidity of this rule—how the cars are what make traffic dangerous and so are the ones that are constrained, and how the whole “stranger danger” thing is overblown (not non-existent, overblown), and in any case, how getting people out of cars and onto bikes and their feet in greater numbers is a (partial) answer to both.

But I keep coming back to that quote of the principal’s and thinking about how it’s a symptom of something larger, not a freakish anomaly. Everywhere I turn, I seem to find choices that are bad in the long term being made—and even worse, being foisted upon others who would have chosen differently—in the name of avoiding ever feeling responsible for having taken a risk.

In this mindset, the ultimate goal is not actually the best outcome possible or even the most reduced risk—it is the absolute avoidance of those risks that can’t be passed off on someone else or accepted by society at large as “something that just happens.”

This mindset is at work every time anything fun and active and educational is canceled for “liability” reasons: swimming outside the ropes in a lake; playing on a school field after school is closed; doing real chemistry experiments. It’s the reason we can drive on the highway with an infant in a car seat (car accidents just happen, you know, like tornadoes), but not let a 10-year-old bike to school. That “if anything happened…” phrase comes up in arguments against home birth and co-sleeping all the time, with nary an indication that the possible negative effects of the opposite choices might weigh on anyone equally.

Does that principal stay up at night worrying about the children who are getting asthma from unnecessary exposure to school-bus exhaust? The ones getting what used to be called “adult-onset” diabetes as children because they sit on their rumps all day? The ones with a stunted sense of independence because they’ve never ever gone anywhere under their own steam? The one in 50 children who experience major depression? The ones injured by cars on their way to school (one of the most common ways for children to get hurt is dashing across the street after a parent drops them off at school)?

He should, because he has a policy that increases those dangers.

Would he be directly and solely responsible for each individual instance of those problems? Of course not. Just like he wouldn’t be directly responsible for the purported accidents or abductions he fears for students on bikes or feet.

Thing is, his job is not to make risk go away. It’s to make policies that generate the best results for his students over a wide range of scenarios, and leave things that are not his business to parents or the students themselves to weigh. (Though I cringe at the idea, he could even get them to sign a waiver if his faint heart can’t take it.)

I understand it. Risk is scary, and living with yourself when a risk went wrong is very hard. Many people make different choices about what risks are acceptable to them and which ones aren’t, which is fine—if they’re not making those choices for other people.

But trying to insulate ourselves and our children from all responsibility for judicious risk-taking makes our world more dangerous, less healthy, and significantly less free.

Photo CC richardmasoner.

Well, we now know that the U.S. Governer of South Carolina wasn’t hiking when he disappeared for a week. What we do know is that he has admitted going to Argentina to visit his mistress, a woman named Maria who is reportedly a member of the Argentinean government who lives in the apartment pictured above in a posh area of Buenos Aires known as Barrio Palermo. We also know that she’s separated and the mother of two children. Oh, and we also know that he loves the erotic curve of her hips, since the following emails between the two lovebirds have been leaked:

From Gov. Sanford,

Date: Thursday, July 10, 2008, 12:24 a.m.

One, tomorrow leave at 5 a.m. for New York and meetings. Will think about you on its streets and wish I was going to be there later in the month when you are there. Tomorrow night back to Philadelphia for the start of the National Governor’s Conference through the weekend. Back to Columbia for Tuesday and then on Wednesday, as I think I had told you, taking the family to China, Tibet, Nepal, India, Thailand and then back through Hong Kong on world wind tour. Few days home then to Bahamas for 5 days on a friend’s boat for the last break of the summer. The following weekend have been asked to spend it out in Aspen, Colorado with McCain – which has kicked up the whole VP talk all over again in the press back home …

Two, mutual feelings …. You have a particular grace and calm that I adore. You have a level of sophistication that so fitting with your beauty. I could digress and say that you have the ability to give magnificent gentle kisses, or that I love your tan lines or that I love the curve of your hips, the erotic beauty of you holding yourself (or two magnificent parts of yourself) in the faded glow of the night’s light – but hey, that would be going into sexual details …

Three and finally, while all the things above are all too true – at the same time we are in a hopelessly – or as you put it impossible – or how about combine and simply say hopelessly impossible situation of love. How in the world this lightening strike snuck up on us I am still not quite sure. As I have said to you before I certainly had a special feeling about you from the first time we met, but these feelings were contained and I genuinely enjoyed our special friendship and the comparing of all too many personal notes …

Lastly I also suspect I feel a little vulnerable because this is ground I have never certainly never covered before – so if you have pearls of wisdom on how we figure all this out please let me know… In the meantime please sleep soundly knowing that despite the best efforts of my head my heart cries out for you, your voice, your body, the touch of your lips, the touch of your finger tips and an even deeper connection to your soul.”

——————–

From Maria,

Wednesday, July 9, 2008 8:14 p.m.

As I told you I shouldn’t have done this trip but I would have felt worst if I wouldn’t have come because it was too over the date, he is a very nice guy, great heart … but unfortunately I am not in love with him … You are my love … something hard to believe even for myself as it’s also a kind of impossible love, not only because of distance but situation. Sometimes you don’t choose things, they just happen… I can’t redirect my feelings and I am very happy with mine towards you.

——————–

From Gov. Sanford,

Tuesday, July 8, 1:42 a.m.

Got back an hour ago to civilization and am now in Columbia after what was for me a glorious break from reality down at the farm. No phones ringing and tangible evidence of a day’s labors. Though I have started every day by 6 this morning woke at 4:30, I guess since my body knew it was the last day, and I went out and ran the excavator with lights until the sun came up. To me, and I suspect no one else on earth, there is something wonderful about listening to country music playing in the cab, air conditioner running, the hum of a huge diesel engine in the back ground, the tranquillity that comes with being in a virtual wilderness of trees and marsh, the day breaking and vibrant pink coming alive in the morning clouds – and getting to build something with each scoop of dirt.

——————–

Oh, something else we know: Mark Sanford left his wife and four sons over U.S Father’s Day weekend to go visit Maria, which might just give him a special place in the Bad Father’s Hall of Fame.

Source

The Senate in the U.S. state of Wisconsin has voted to lower the hunting age, the firearms hunting age, to 10. Yes, one decade old. As in, let’s give a ten-year-old a large lethal weapon and send him out into the woods.

I’ve gone through a bit of an evolution in my attitude towards hunting: I don’t do it and think it’s a pretty lame way to spend time, but I have friends who are hunters and understand the argument that if they didn’t hunt, deer would overbreed to the point of starvation. Also, I eat meat and certainly think killing an animal who’s lived its life out in the woods where it belongs is a whole lot more humane than cramming them into feedlots so I can have a cheap burger.

But the idea of saying, “Here, fifth grader, take this ginormous gun and shoot something with it” doesn’t seem all that smart. The bill requires only that a “mentor” be within “arm’s reach.” Which, if it’s a concerned father or uncle proudly passing on the family tradition of hunting to his child, okay…but I have heard enough deer camp stories to worry about that particular wording.

I understand that people who hunt love to do it and probably look forward to the day they can bring their kids out with them…but much like driving or drinking, I think this particular rite of passage can wait a little longer than a kid’s tenth birthday.

In the interest of fairness, here’s an opposing view.

The black panther lurking near a playground that set a father on edge, prompting him to make an anxious call to 911 turned out to be the work of a prankster. But cops didn’t know until AFTER they’d shot the big fluffy toy with a stun gun (give them all the benefit of the doubt – it was dark, and there were kids around, which makes parents and police alike more nervous about dangers).

The response cost the city around $US1,000, and they’re searching for the prankster to charge him for making a public nuisance (and hopefully recoup the money). The question I’m begging to ask?

Who buys their kid a life-like panther? We’re not talking your warm and fuzzy critter over here. Meat-eaters, they have been known to attack humans (although they try to avoid us), and with few predators they tend to reign supreme out in the wild. And, hello, they like to rip their prey limb from limb?

And this you want your kid cuddling with at night? Eeek!

Give me a nice stuffed puppy any day.

Image: NBC

Those pesky baggage fees are annoying everyone these days. Airlines are forcing customers to pay for checked baggage, limiting the number of bags and now one airline went so far as banning a six-year-old girl from bringing her teddy bear on board deeming it as ‘excess baggage’.

In the United Kingdom, a young girl flying from Glasgow to Stansted with her mother was informed by the check-in attendant that Bebe the bear, her stuffed animal, was too big and couldn’t be brought in the cabin with her. Initially, the bear was in a plastic bag to protect it from the rain. They took the bear out of the bag but they said it still counted as an extra bag. The mum stated that “I was carrying a big waterproof coat that was much bigger than the teddy and was allowed to take that on – it was just a complete lack of common sense.”

The mom was told it would cost £9 to check the bear in the storage hold below, they opted to mail the bear from the airport instead – the girl didn’t want the bear to be alone in the dark. A spokesman for the airline said the check-in person should not have been so strict saying “We have a strict baggage allowance on all our flights and this bear was not a small bear – it could not fit into their hand baggage…however we do see that a common sense approach should have been taken and so this time we are offering to reimburse the parent concerned for postage.”

Do you think items such as pillows, coast and bears should be deemed extra baggage?

Source

I think they were planning to stop at the actual abduction part—kind of a, “You’re a candid camera!” type stunt—but I’ve been surprised many a time at how far FOX is willing to go in the service of the news (read: sensationalism and fear-mongering).

Fortunately, parents and school administrators have a lot more commonsense than the good folks who bring us the news. After FOX informed police of their intentions—the last thing these hard-working reporters need is to get arrested for kidnapping, after all—police sent a message to the local school. The principal, in turn, sent out an email to parents, which read, in part:

This message details information about a “news” story KMSP Fox 9 will be “creating”. Thanks…

Molly Anderson of the Edina Police Department just informed the district that KMSP Fox 9 will be driving around Edina neighborhoods between 2:00-4:30 p.m. today to “ask children for directions.” She indicated that the reporter, Trish Van Pilsim will be driving a 2004 silver Ford Explorer or Expedition.

The police indicated while there is nothing illegal with this, they do not endorse this activity.

As you can imagine, the parents of Edina did not endorse this activity either, and they flooded FOX with complaints, succeeding in getting the station to abandon the story.

Thank goodness. I don’t even want to imagine how terrifying it would be for a child to be approached by a stranger in a truck on his way home from school. Not to mention that trying to abduct a kid, then saying, “Just kidding! We’re actually the news,” is not the best way to instill stranger safety in children. FOX News, ever heard of a little story called The Boy Who Cried Wolf?

Image: Fox 9 News

Here’s what the CNN story says:

12-year-old Jacob Larsen found a “.25-caliber European semi-automatic handgun” in the closet. The gun had been stored there by Jacob’s parents when they moved a few years ago, and they had forgotten about it. The mother, Tracy Newman, told police that the gun was a gift from a “former employer.” Jacob found the gun and accidentally shot himself in the head. He was discovered by his stepfather, who called 911.

Again, the most important detail is that the boy is, for now, alive. Hopefully he will recover. But it’s worth pointing out something that is often skipped over in debates about gun control.

Guns are dangerous.

Why do people keep guns at home? For protection. Or maybe because they hunt. That assumes some active involvement in the ownership of a gun, which is a dangerous weapon. Whenever “the right to bear arms” is discussed, we hear about “responsible gun owners.” And I’m sure there are many.

But then you have a situation like this. Local police told CNN that when she received the gun “The mother never checked it, never fired it.” How do you not know that you have a loaded firearm in your house? If someone gave me a gun as a gift, the first thing I would do is check if it was loaded. Wouldn’t you? And I know next to nothing about guns. (OK, I know what I see in movies and on TV, and I do read ‘The Punisher.’ The occasional Ludlum novel. But that’s not real life.)

Interestingly, the CNN story focuses on the legality of the incident. Apparently “Florida law prohibits a person from leaving a loaded firearm where a minor might have access to it. Prosecutors do have some discretion, and depending on what happens with the gun, charges ranging from a misdemeanor to a felony can be filed in the event of death or serious injury.” Chief Assistant State Attorney Bruce Bartlett is quoted as saying that “Sometimes, the injury of a child is more severe from a punishment standpoint than any kind of criminal charge…those parents will blame themselves from here out, and you have to look at things real close to see if it warrants any enforcement from our end.”

Fair enough. And I can’t say enough that I sincerely hope the boy comes out of this safely. But how can anyone defend unrestricted gun ownership when something like this occurs?

Source: CNN

Read more:

UPDATE: Jamie Foxx Apologizes To Miley CyrusWoman Will Go Free If Son Comes Back To LifeFox News Hates Kids In Political Videos Except When They Don’tOcto-Mom Home With All Eight Kids – VIDEOFamily Awarded Millions For Circumcision Mistake

36-year-old Belinda Leighton of Boca Raton, Florida was arrested this week and charged with driving drunk. With her kids, ages 9 and 13, in the car.

After spending “the morning drinking wine and beer”, Leighton got in her car with children in tow. She told the kids that she had “had it” (it’s not clear if she’d “had it” with them or just in general) and “was going to kill them and herself by crashing the car.” One of the children called 911 from the back seat; Leighton was arrested at a friend’s house.

According to WPBF News, Leighton asked that the deputies “take her children and put them in foster care.” I give her credit for that, at least. Hopefully that’s an indication that she knows she has a problem and will get help.

Big props to the kid who called 911 as well. It would be enough to just get out of that situation physically unharmed (emotionally is another story). But to have the presence of mind to call the police? I’m impressed. (I know, looking for a positive here, but can you blame me?)

Source: WPBF

Occasionally at the zoo, when viewing the animals, I’ll say something like “oh, look at that cutie, I want to pet him!” But do I act on that urge? Hells no! I’m not crazy. But you know who is? A 32-year woman who went to the Berlin Zoo with her husband and baby. This mother opted to take off her shoes, climb down a fence, wade through a thorn filled hedge, go over a concrete wall and then proceeded to swan dive into the “murky moat” that is in the polar bear’s enclosure. And this all happened during feeding time mind you. But polar bears, they ain’t cute little puppies. One of the four bears that were in the enclosure bit the mum on her arms, legs and back.

Zoo keepers were able to throw her a life preserver and rescue the polar bear loving lady. She is currently in a Berlin hospital and is recovering from the injuries that occurred. But this wasn’t the first time someone felt the need to risk life and limb to get up close to the snowy white polar bears. Last year a 37-year-old man jumped in because one of the bears looked “lonely.” But the most recent “leaper” had her baby with her. I can just imagine the family chats year from now, “remember that time when Mummy got attacked by the polar bear?” Ahh, memories.

Have you ever wanted to pet an animal at the zoo? If so, what animal would you want to get up close and personal with?

Source