Just some random articles and the iconoclastic thoughts they engendered.
Children Of Lesbian Couples Are Doing Well, Study Finds
Now that one will pull the chains of some Evangelical Fundies and rightfully so.
However, should you read the article, you might notice the following:
Hmmmmmmmmm.
....findings like these have led the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, and American Psychological Association to issue official policy statements supporting equal treatment of families headed by lesbian and gay parents.
Gays <> Lesbians.....
And the research was about Lesbian couples.
Not Gay couples.
Doctor-aided Suicide: No Slippery Slope, Study Finds
To quote from Science Daily:
This will also drive the Evangelical Fundies nuts and make people wonder why the Xian mafia had Doctor Kervorkian thrown into jail. I can only hope (not being Xian, I am allowed to do this) that they all die in extreme pain the way their God wants them to die...... The Fundies oppose assisted death ostensibly because they believe it will be misused(and also because it is EVIL). These studies show otherwise. OTH, it may be that Fundies are scared to death that Fundies themselves might misuse this option as a quick way to get to Heaven. It may also be the only way some Fundies can get out of some terribly abusive relationships.
Contrary to arguments by critics, a University of Utah-led study found that legalizing physician-assisted suicide in Oregon and the Netherlands did not result in a disproportionate number of deaths among the elderly, poor, women, minorities, uninsured, minors, chronically ill, less educated or psychiatric patients.
Of 10 "vulnerable groups" examined in the study, only AIDS patients used doctor-assisted suicide at elevated rates.
World Leaders Need To Remain Alert To Latest Scientific Thought On Climate Change
Any rational human being would agree with that. But, our leaders are not rational nor are many of those wannabe leaders that reside in Congress rational. The right wing that leads this country is genetically unable to adapt to change. Whether it be changing weather or changing weather models. Any and all change is perceived as weakness. They simply have to be overridden by the 70 or so percent of us who are capable of dealing with change.
I highly suggest you read the paper:
http://www.iop.org/activity/policy/Events/Seminars/file_25825.pdf
Even if you, as I, have no expertise in Atmospheric Science at all. And even if you are a denier or someone who hasn't made up their minds yet.
Scientists: Owl recovery plan 'deeply flawed'
Hidden between the lines in this article is yet another indictment of the Bush misAdministration's policy of injecting politics and corporate interests into what should be a scientific matter. Also hidden between the lines is yet another woman or two who is complicit in these immoral (if not outright illegal) attempts to manipulate science for political and economic ends. Any of you who are infected by the "woman superior" myth can dispense with it. Woman are no more morally superior than men. All those republican women put in charge of these agencies would do anything in their puppy-like need for the love of their male superiors. (Remember that in the right wing and Fundie world, THE MALE IS SUPERIOR!).
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Random Iconoclasties
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Some thoughts on Terrorism
Some thoughts on fighting a war against terrorists and guerrillas.....
I am not capable of a really technical study of the relationship between guerrilla war tactics and strategies and terrorist tactics and strategies. I suspect they have much in common. The only way to win a guerrilla war that I know of is to redress the grievances that give authority and cause to the guerrillas.
Beyond and above that, there will always be some people who hate someone or some idea or some religion enough to try to physically destroy it. Those you can't do much about. Call them the "Random Anarchist" for lack of a better term.
Identify the difference between them (the "Random Anarchist") and an organized group of terrorists. Identify the difference between an organized group of terrorists and an organized group of freedom fighters. Is there any difference?
Note that redressing the grievances that give power and authority to the terrorists doesn't get rid of the terrorists - it simply removes popular support. You still have to use police or military action to get rid of the actual terrorists who are likely to be fanatics not easily won over.
Redressing the grievances is also known as "winning the hearts and minds" of the people infested with guerrillas or terrorists. This technique is poorly done by Americans. It's as if Americans cannot deal with anything more complicated than shock and awe. If they can't blow it up or shoot it, it doesn't exist. That is why the State Department has been ignored in these modern mini-wars. That is why American Marines will build an outpost right on top of a muslim holy site and then act honestly surprised when the locals object. We have no feel for that at all. We are barbarians.
That is also why the British, evil and conniving that they are, are much better at it than we are. At least their government understands the concept. Probably as a result of all the British and colonial and Irish blood shed over the last 500 years.
One of our problems is the right wing and it's insistence on the Absolute Truth of their position. They believe in absolutes. They believe that their religion contains the Absolute Truth, that the American culture (their version of it) is the Absolute Perfect Culture and that all other cultures around the world are deficient in some way. Which means that when their soldiers (the little boys they train to believe this from birth) trample all over another cultures holy symbols and customs, it is ok for them to do so since the American system is superior. Of course this kind of behavior makes it impossible to win people over but who cares? "Winning the hearts and minds" is only for left wingers anyway.
One of the problems with the left wing is their inability to understand the necessity for military force in putting down either guerrilla wars or terrorism. Evidence from Viet Nam and from Afghanistan indicates that guerrillas and terrorists both rule by fear in addition to popular support. If you are successful in removing the popular support, the guerrilla will strike back with terror to control the populace. No amount of diplomacy will counter that. It takes a military or police force with the mission to keep the people secure to accomplish that. Simply ejecting the guerrillas has no effect if you leave the next day. You must plan to stay around awhile and train and equip a native force. This is extremely difficult for a military to do. Their missions are all based on attack and defense, not training. Our troops receive no such training.
In Iraq we are seeing a third problem. Infrastructure that we have destroyed not being replaced. Not just physical infrastructure but the political and social infrastructure.
Think about it. A small American town is pretty much destroyed. No power. No food distribution. No employment. No Police. No firefighters. No medical help. No politicians(no jokes, please). Those who managed the system from the power station operators to the local Mayor are either dead or dispersed or trying desperately to take care of their own. Expertise in almost all infrastructure positions is lost. Furthermore, a foreign military who does NOT speak the local language and who does not keep the local customs is in charge. The main mission of the foreign military is, however, not to rebuild your infrastructure but to fight some shadowy enemy. Further more your town is broken up into White, Black and Mexican gangs each fighting for turf. What would happen?
Friday, March 16, 2007
best of craigslist : Advice to Young Men from an Old Man
I like a lot of these. They can be applied to women too - even the fist fight - especially the fist fight.
Just make sure your opponent is armed ONLY with his/her fists tho.
Very few people can actually beat someone to death with their fists.
http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/279126743.html
Read More......
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Eighteen Percent Of Young Women Experience Sexual Victimization
The gist of this nonsensical and politically correct research is that women are childlike victims and can not be expected to take responsibility for their own behavior. If I was a woman, I'd be insulted.
(1) A woman is verbal coerced by her "intimate" partner into sex. Because she gave into his whining, she is a victim. This implies that women are not mature enough to say NO to aggressive intimate partners and not smart enough to make overly aggressive intimate partners into EX-intimate partners when they misbehave.
(2) A woman gets drunk at a bar and goes home with a stranger and has drunken dirty sex and wakes up ashamed of herself - because she didn't say NO, she is somehow a victim of the stranger. Most males have gone thru exactly the same thing - no one ever accuses them of being victims. Instead, their buddies laugh at them.
(3) A woman is a binge drinker and, sometimes, during her binges other drunken bingers "take advantage" of her if and when she passes out. Ignoring the fact that the other drunken bingers are just as drunk as she is and just as responsible for their acts as she is of hers, she is still somehow a victim here. The first time this ever happens to her should be the last time. She should report it as the rape it was and.........She should never get drunk again. She should never put herself in that kind of danger again. But, what if she does? What if she does it again, and again, and again? What if she continues to do it with the same group of people? What does that say about her as a victim of herself?
According to the study : "Victimization was defined as unwanted sexual contact, verbally coerced sex, rape or attempted rape."
Let's see. If I am feeling unwell and my wife tries to seduce me because she is feeling very well - does that make me a victim? After all, I experienced unwanted sexual contact from my wife. Obviously this criteria doesn't make much sense in long term relationships where partners are not necessarily in the same mood all the time.
"Verbally coerced sex" - the concept boggles me. I have a feeling here that they mean physically aggressive partners who usually don't need to demonstrate their true violent nature because their submissive partner already knows. Other than that I can only imagine some kind of con man who sweet talks his way into bed with a reluctant partner. I have yet to see anyone beaten to death by mouth altho my mother's mouth could cut you in half. There is NO verbally coerced sex. A man who demands sex from his partner against her wishes is a physical threat to her well being. He backs his mouth up with his innate violence. This is rape.
A woman who submits to this more than once is a victim of herself.
No one can deny that a woman ( or a man, for that matter ) can be a victim of a rape or attempted rape. When a physical threat is hung over a person's head whether it be a threat of physical violence or a threat of dumping you out in the cold in the middle of nowhere, then the act is rape or attempted rape and you are a victim because it is beyond your capability to defend yourself or protect yourself. And, let's face it, it is not always possible to determine ahead of time the true nature of the man(or woman) you've made the mistake of dating.
But the people who have done this study are those for whom the word "seduction" is equivalent to rape and who feel that women have no brains or self-respect nor are they required to. Women are somehow helpless automatons in the spanish sense who will instantly rip their own clothes off if they are ever alone with a man because of his overwhelming "manliness". Since men have this control over women, every action by a male towards achieving a sexual liason with a female is an act of victimization of the helpless female.
Bullshit.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Police, school get failing grade in sad case of Julie Amaro - USATODAY.com
I cannot begin to describe my disgust at the stupidity of everyone involved in this gross miscarraige of justice.
This shows that our system of justice only works when there are enough sufficiently intelligent people to operate it and that justice is rarely, if ever, dispensed, even then.
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2007-02-22-julie-amaro_x.htm
Only an extremely self-centered prosecutor and anal-retentive police department would ever believe that a middle aged teacher would intentionally search for porn while being responsible for a class of 12 year-olds. Only a judge close to his dotage would exclude evidence from a computer expert who obviously spoke in tongues the judge couldn't understand.
UN rights expert compares Israeli occupation violations to apartheid
The title comes from the JURIST - Paper Chase RSS feed.
Here is the link to the actual report by UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories John Dugard:
http://www.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/4session/A.HRC.4.17.pdf
Israel and the United States (it's lackey) have dismissed his reports as one-sided (,of course).
Over 1000 Israelis have been killed by rockets and suicide bombers.
No one knows how many thousands of Palestinians have been killed by the Israeli Occupation Forces.
Not to mention how much private property have been stolen from Palestinians by Israelis and Israeli settlers.
Try to imagine you live in Indiana and you are surrounded by a state that will not allow you access to any other part of the country, that will not allow you, for instance, to get to your job in Chicago and won't allow you to own property in, say, Illinois. Imagine further that, to relieve internal pressures and to fulfill some imaginary religious dream, citizens from the surrounding states are allowed to take YOUR property and build on it and, if you object or try to defend yourself, you are assaulted with military that you don't have. Supposed furthermore that the rest of the USofA supports these surrounding states to the tune of 2 billion dollars a year PLUS free rearmament and test weapons(cluster bombs, for instance).
THIS is the country (Israel) that has dismissed these reports as one-sided.
ScienceDaily: Standardized Diagnostic Test For Learning Disabilities Developed
Just wait till this test gets to America. What happens if 30% of those children now getting supplemental benefits for disabilities suddenly discover they aren't disabled? Which black "leader" will be the first to say that it is racially biased?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070222102533.htm
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Executive Order
In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, (my emphasis) to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.
In his attempts to emulate other dictatorships, this guy never gives up.
Why does this remind me of the political officer assigned to all Soviet army units?
This is the same guy whose Political Appointee tried to quash any mention of global warming and the big bang from Nasa research.
This is the same guy whose Political Appointee orders the Park Rangers in the Grand Canyon not to tell visitors the age of the park but who permits a religious book to be sold at the park store that claims the Grand Canyon was created during the flood about 6000 years ago while not permitting any other book that describes the park to be sold there.
This is the same guy whose Political Appointee insists that some veterans go thru a "Spiritual Assessment" in addition to a medical assessment.
I say some veterans because I was never asked to do that and would have refused.
I do not recommend impeaching Bush/Cheney (just yet) because they will be gone in 2 years and then maybe we can get them for a variety of felonies he committed while president. However, if they keep up undercutting the constitution, separation of powers, bill of rights and separation of church and state, it may have to be done just to protect the union. In fact, they are both moving rapidly to cover their asses right now - using Gonzalez to appoint "right thinking" attorneys who won't be likely to bring charges.
The man violates his vow to protect the constitution of the united states with almost every move he makes.
Friday, December 15, 2006
Lest any of you believe electing a woman to the office of president would make any difference..............read this.
Arroyo Backs Away From Constitution Change
When THIS lady is upset because her Senate is controlled by her opponents, she tries to change the constitution to eliminate it. As unamerican as Bush is, he's not thought of that .......... yet.
Monday, December 11, 2006
Voodoo Economics
The principle of supply-side economics, also known as Reagan's "voodoo economics", is to give the suppliers of the economy, i.e. the business/corporate side, tax breaks and other benefits so as to encourage them to create more jobs and find more business.
The problem with this version of economics is that it assumes that business has an interest in creating more jobs and finding new businesses. Unfortunately, history tells us that it does not. During the 20 years this country was controlled by voodoo economic freaks, business used the extra money to (1) move to other countries, (2) buy their competition, (3) buy company's with large trust and retirement funds so they could bust them, (4) try to bust unions and (5) buy more government toadies.
(1) move to other countries. This has the effect of putting pressure on wages in THIS country. It is an attempt by business (which has neither patriotic nor worker loyalties) to force the American worker back to some sub-human wage condition that existed in the late 1800's.
(2) Buy their competition. If they can buy their competition and reduce the workforce, they can gain more profit with less expense. Business is about profit - not employees.
(3) Buy other companies who have large cash reserves (trust fund or retirement fund). This activity got so bad during Regan's term that golden umbrellas and poisoned pills were invented to protect businesses from predator businesses. The object of the predator company was often the cash reserves of the target company without regard for the employees of the target company. Quite often the retirement plans were raped, the business gutted and employees dumped.
(4) With extra cash, a company could try to bust a union contract since it could withstand a strike longer than the union members could go without food. Also, companies could buy judges, lawyers and police officials who could bankrupt unions with phony court cases. The focus of this effort was to reduce wages and benefits earned by the unions over the years since these impeded profits.
(5) Business always needs toadies in congress - state and federal. More money means more lobbies means more toadies means more power. Also they need judges to avoid nasty court renderings such as environmental requirements.
During the time Reagan and the elder Bush were in power, I was sitting in a safe job on a railroad in the midwest. For 12 years my railroad did not hire a single soul - in fact it (and other railroads) got federal laws changed to do away with 2 members of a crew and a caboose. While I was not a part of management I was around them all the time and I was well aware of their objectives: reduce employees to interchangeable robots, eliminate work rules, reduce wages and benefits. During this era the railroad reduced it's total amount of rail and closed goodly percentage of it's stations. Now, if Reagan's economics were so beneficial, why would the railroad do that? Why would not the railroad be out there looking for more business and hiring more employees? It's because supply-side economics helps no one - not even business.
Point: If a business man does not hear his cash-registers jingle, he won't hire new employees and he won't attempt to expand his business. And supply-side economics does not make the registers jingle.
Now the current Bush continues the same old bullshit. At this point we have had over 6 more years of supply-side bullshit and the economy sucks. The middle class is smaller than ever and the growth of those in the lower class is overwhelming. Bush keeps claiming that the economy is making jobs but those are low paying jobs with no benefits - just the kind of jobs that businesses want. Some people work two-three jobs but, since none of them are over 40 hours a week, they can't get benefits. The various free trade agreements continue to attack American industry and endanger American security (do we really want to buy our military supplies from other countries?) benefiting only the global corporations. Free trade agreements are great when made amongst equals but who in America can compete with a $.50/hr Chinese or Thai worker? Ask what's left of the American textile industry how they like the free trade agreements.
Myself - I believe in eliminating the myth of the corporate individual. I believe that corporation shareholders are directly responsible for the behavior of their corporation and should not be shielded by this myth. When you eliminate the corporate individual you also eliminate the corporate income tax. This is fine with me because corporate profits have been illegally taxed twice (once as a corporate profit and once as shareholder income) for a long time. With no corporate tax and no corporate deductions, corporations can decide to reinvest their money or spread it out to their shareholders where it can be taxed as income ONCE. BUT - if it is deemed that the corporation has done something illegal, ALL company officials and shareholders are deemed equally liable. Such as dumping dangerous waste material into areas where a school's water supply comes from.....
And then - i believe in much reducing the taxes of the lower and middle classes. Why? Because, they buy things, they save money, they make the cash registers ring.
Both buying things and saving money are good for the USofA. Because all these people do not work as a unit - they work as individuals and are therefore more responsible, more patriotic and much less dangerous than corporations. Whereas an individual may want to get ahead in the world and make more money, he is generally able to do that without harming others.
Now - you might think that after all this I am against business and corporations and global corporations. I am not. Neither am I against lions and tigers - but I know a predator when I see one. The primary goal of business is to make a profit. For a few businesses, secondary goals may include the welfare of its workers but that is very rare. In almost all modern businesses, workers are a cost center not a profit center. They are liabilities, not assets. The same is true of corporations and global corporations only you can add that most global corporations are not loyal to any particular country - they are loyal only to themselves. But some things just can't be done in a Mom and Pop shop. Some things require organization beyond the mundane. From that I feel that businesses and corporations are necessary mechanisms without which we could not function. They need to be healthy and growing for us to be healthy and growing. But, as with Lions and Tigers and Bears, you need to keep your eye on them and protect yourself as much as you can because they will turn on you in a minute and eat you alive.
See this link for more information on Voodoo Economics:
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/1THE_REAGAN_YEARs.htm
Sex offenders
First read this short article
http://www.todaystmj4.com/_content/news/topstories/story_5865.asp
From the above article:
"District Attorney E. Michael McCann has said no child can give legal consent for sex."
Hmmmm. Then why was this 13 year old boy charged? Because he willingly did something to the girl? The girl also willingly did something to him. Chances are that we will never know why the 11 year old did what she did because they will try to keep her from testifying but there are a number of minors who cannot "give legal consent for sex" being charged in this case including the 16 year old girl who promoted these acts. Can ANYONE explain why? Minors are people who are younger than 18. All those older than 18 at the time of these acts need to be charged as appropriate. But, if the DA is to be believed, NONE of those younger than 18 at the time of these acts can be charged since they couldn't give legal consent. Note also that the charges reflect the attitude that the sexual assault was on the female and NOT on the minor males. This is all hypocritical bullshit. Despite years of femnazis trying to turn males into females, most sex crimes in this country between a male and a female is assumed to be the fault of the male. If a 16 year old girl willingly performs fellatio on a willing 14 year old male, he can be charged with rape. After all - HE stuck some part of HIS body inside a part of HER body. If a 14 year old girl performs fellatio on a 16 year old male, he is really fucked if he gets caught. DESPITE THE FACT THAT NEITHER CAN GIVE CONSENT TO SEX!
Suppose a young couple - 16(she), 17(he) - have been having an affair for a year. Her parents hate him but tolerate the affair because they don't want to kick her out of the house. He turns 18. They have him charged with statuatory rape. He goes away for 20 years. Problem solved. (Actually, since he is a MALE, I think he can be charge before he hits 18.). This is a little extreme but I bet it has happened. Even if he doesn't go away for 20 years he is stuck with the sex offender label the rest of his life. In fact, if a young man (or woman but much less likely) goes to an illegal beer party, say, and takes a leak in an alley on the way home and gets caught by a cop or a righteous citizen (you know them, don't you?) - THEY can become a sex offender for the rest of their lives in some states. And politicians who try to change the law to prevent that quite often risk their careers.
Ya know - what we really want to do is put the real rapists and sexual predators in jail. Not these babies who don't know any better. Who are NOT taught sexual etiquette in schools or at home but by their peers who don't know any more than they do. How did the 16 year old girl get so corrupted that she thought this was ok? Was it done to her? How did the adult woman who was present come to think it was ok to do nothing? If an adult woman and a 40 year old man can stand by and let this happen, why are we laying all this moral holier-than-thou bullshit on a 13 year old boy?
However, for the most ridiculous charge I've heard of recently you have to read this story:
http://www.kxxv.com/Global/story.asp?S=5785699
Now - I don't know about an 11 year old's ability to consent to sex but I'm pretty damn sure a 4 year old knows nothing about sex. However, I suspect that, since the principal in this school is whiter than white, the teacher's assistant was whiter than white too and Texas is a red, red, red state.
My thoughts on Illegal Immigrants
There are 11-20 million illegal immigrants in this country. Not "undocumented persons" but illegal immigrants. There is no changing their status using word magic. They are trespassers on American soil.
However, there is no way of putting 11-20 million more people in American jails which are already overcrowded by an overly anal legislative and law enforcement society. So the idea of making 11-20 million more felons to arrest is ridiculous. What is not ridiculous is making and ENFORCING laws that penalize those businesses and companies which hire those illegal immigrants and those who aid and abet these activities by supplying fake identities and who smuggle people across our borders. Penalizing the companies (and unions) that hire and exploit illegal immigrant workers will eventually reduce the number of illegals to a managable size AFTER WHICH we can explore in a rational manner the necessity for temporary and seasonal workers.
There is no doubt that we need those workers. We have always used them - as long as I can remember back to my first political argument with my sister over a TV program about what was then called migrant workers in the south and west. Even then (back in the 50's) vegetable and fruit crops were picked and packed by workers from Mexico and points south. My sister and I argued over whether migrant workers should get education and benefits and other services. I won't tell you which side I took but I can say that I believe now that anyone who is liable to pay taxes in this country (including those who can't, such as children) should get the benefits of services available to natural born and naturalized americans.
However, WHEN they come back, as they will, laws should be in place to see that they get an AMERICAN living wage, that they pay local, state and federal taxes and that they receive the benefits they pay for. I see nothing wrong in a group of people coming from another country legally entering this country, doing work most Americans won't do or can't do, paying their share of taxes while they are here, obeying our laws and then returning to their homes with money well earned.
As for the President of Mexico? What the hell! He can't control his own country much less make demands of ours. I am reliably informed by an old friend of mine who married a Mexican woman and who lives in Mexico part of the time that Mexican schools teach their children that we "stole" Texas, Arizona and California from Mexico and several Mexican leaders insist that Mexicans have "native" rights in those states. Others are more radical and wish to reconquer those parts of the US gained from Mexico in ancient wars.
Screw all of them I say. Nothing pissed me off more than a video I saw of underarmed American Border Patrol running from what appeared to be Mexican military vehicles heavily armed with mounted machine guns. Some said they were drug runners, not army but who cares? Our people had to run for their lives while this country was being invaded. WTF? Our border guards get PROSECUTED for doing their jobs while those criminals continue to violate our borders. And our "beloved", "god-appointed" Resident does nothing about it? Why is that?
Because it would hurt business. With Bush as Resident, everything, our Constitution, our Bill of Rights and our Borders are up for sale. Influence is all. When a mexican mother complains that her drug running son was shot in the ass while running back to mexico for safety and two border guards are convicted while the drug running son of a bitch is a protected witness, something is very wrong. The most that should have happened to them is that they recieved more pistol training to correct their aim. A dead drug runner can't come back with his mamma and become a witness.
Wednesday, November 15, 2006
Introduction
I've been an opinionated old bastard for a long long time and this is my chance to hold forth about some of the strange and illogical behavior, especially media and political behavior, that surrounds us on a daily basis.
For instance - do you know how many children were technically abducted in the USA in 2002?
54,000+ .
MOST of those were runaways and throwaways or abducted by a non-custodial relative or who lied to their parents about where they were going or just involved in a mix-up about where they were supposed to be. MANY of them were abducted by a non-relative. Most of them were returned alive - even those who were sexually molested.
There were 157 stereo-typical abductions in the same time and these are a part of the above counts. These abductions are the ones you hear about on TV. The children involved in these abductions were less fortunate than the others. 50%+ of them wound up dead and 99% were molested in some way.
This means that some 75+ kids were killed by strangers who abducted them.
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY WERE KILLED BY THEIR OWN PARENTS?
(on average, 1200 children a year are murdered by their own parents)
OR HOW MANY WERE KILLED IN CAR ACCIDENTS? (2222 children between the ages of 1 and 14 were killed in car accidents in 2004)
Hell no you don't - that's not sensational enough for the media who would have all of us running around in fear for our children being abducted by strangers.
Don't get me wrong. You must excercise caution with your kids because they are kids and make bad choices and get themselves into bad situations. That's only common sense. But don't let the media rule your life and your legislators with their fear mongering.