Yes, if you are shaking your head at the title of this post, then you are not alone. As I read through the article that I found on Yahoo earlier, and which forms the basis for this post, I was shaking my head too and wondering how it is that this sort of behaviour can happen.
The story originates out of Markham Elementary School in Oakland. The principal was forced to notify parents that a teacher was placed on leave while the school investigates claims that students were not only disruptive in class, but had in fact stripped off and engaged in sexual acts, oral sex to be precise. Preliminary investigations by the school indicate that the complaints have merit and warrant even further investigation.
According to the school, "We believe if the reports are true, there was a serious lapse of judgment or lack of supervision in the classroom." The school then went on to say "We're investigating how could this have happened. It seems unthinkable to us, just the same way it does to the public." Do you think?
The male teacher claims that he was unaware of any of the alleged acts and has stated unequivocally that he did not witness anything that has so far been suggested. Yet, as a teacher, I find it difficult to believe that if he was present in the classroom as he is required to be, then it is pretty hard not to witness children getting their gear off and engaging in sex acts, particularly when these children are in the second grade.
More disturbing is how children of 7, 8 or perhaps 9 years of age are aware of this kind of behaviour. Personally, I cannot recall when I became aware of oral sex, but I am absolutely certain I was not thinking about it in the second grade. As I recall, I did not even get the benefit of sex education, or as it was called at the time "personal development" class, until I was in Year 9 (Ninth Grade).
The school maintains that it is doing everything in its power to ensure that this does not happen again. The school has also offered counselling and any other assistance required to help those children who were involved.
I am still shaking my head. How does something like this happen on seemingly such a large scale in a classroom?
Nevertheless, it would seem that a group of "Birthers" will not be satisfied until such time as the president provides an original birth certificate. Yet, considering the manner in which birthers have gone about their task to date, an original birth certificate is unlikely to close off their beliefs. The cold, hard reality for birthers is that the State of Hawaii, the State where Barack Hussein Obama II was born, has already released enough data in its public records to put this to bed.
To be honest a certificate of live birth and the corresponding birth notices, both of which are contemporary to the event, should be more than enough. It is a truly bizarre claim that Obama is in essence a "Manchurian Candidate" that has been groomed since birth for this task of destroying the US from within as her president.
Interestingly, the Governor of Hawaii, Neil Abercrombie, wanted to assist in putting this matter to bed. However, the State's Attorney General, David Louie, has instructed the Governor that the Governor is barred by law from releasing the private birth certificates of individuals without their consent. Simply, the only person who can consent to the release of the Obama birth certificate is Barack Obama himself. So, if Obama remains true to past form, it would seem unlikely that a birth certificate will be forthcoming. And, to be honest it is not necessary.
Hawaii has confirmed that the original documents have been cited and confirmed and that information is contained in the State's vital records. So, to all intents and purposes, Hawaii is satisfied that Barack Hussein Obama II was born at Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital in Honolulu on 4 August 1961.
Then again, Hawaii's failure to release the originals is obviously, as the birthers will contend, all part of the grand conspiracy. After all, Obama was born in Kenya, is an Indonesian citizen and a practicing Muslim, right?
There are probably more important things to talk about with regards to President Obama's performance as Commander-in-Chief, such as rejuvenating a depressed jobs sector. On the dying front, I guess a man has gotta do what a man has gotta do. And, if that means dying your hair to hide some of the stresses of office then so be it.
Parenting is an art form, of this there is no doubt. And, as an art form, there are styles one likes and approves of and there are styles that one does not like nor approves of. Yet, there is no one style that is 100% guaranteed to be successful in producing a well-adjusted and accomplished child who grows into an adult that contributes to their community in positive ways. Or is there?
There was an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal the other week written by Amy Chua, an American with a Filipino heritage and a Chinese ancestry. The article was titled "Why Chinese Mothers are Superior". The general gist of the article follows the substance of Chua's arguments for successful parenting that she describes in her book "Battle Hymn of a Tiger Mother".
I have not read the book, so this is not a book review. It is not a critique of her parenting style either. It is merely an opinion piece on how one might decide which style to adopt. Perhaps the point is that each person is unique and each family is unique so maybe it is a case of manipulating styles by taking the best of many styles or those bits that work and co-opting them into a style of your own.
But, back to Amy Chua and what has worked for her. Stereotypes are powerful things and it is to see them when you want to, or feel the need to, label certain things. So, why is it that Chinese children are such high achievers? The generalisation aside assuming that there has to be one Chinese child somewhere that does not fit the stereotypical bill of "high achiever", but nevertheless this is the stereotype, right? Are Chinese children high achievers because they are intellectually more capable or is it that they are more driven courtesy of strict parenting practices.
The Chua argument probably follows the line that strict parenting plays a fundamental role in ensuring 'successful' outcomes for one's children. There are plenty of children who would balk at the prospect of a home where they were not allowed to do the following:
attend sleepovers;
have play dates;
be in a school play;
complain about not being in a school play;
watch TV or play computer games;
choose their own extra-curricular activities;
get a grade less than A;
not be the No. 1 student in a subject (exceptions for gym / PDHPE and drama)
play any instrument other than the piano and violin (and you have to play at least one of either the piano or violin)
As a parent I am balking at this list. Maybe that is because this is not how I was brought up. So, may be our parenting styles tend to reflect those of our parents before us. As a parent I do not want to be that strict. I want Will to be able to take some responsibility for the things he wants to, and chooses to, do. Admittedly, at two-years-old he is going to have less of a say in this.
For us it is more about understanding what learning style will provide the best outcomes. Even at an early age it is easy enough to see that Will is a musical and visual learner. Nevertheless, he loves to read and enjoys acting and role-playing. So, the idea of not allowing him to pursue that seems to be counter-productive.
Then there are personal philosophies that have me believing that sleepovers and social interaction with his peers on his own terms through extra-curricular activities, like sport, and also fundamental to his overall development as a human being.
Parenting is a difficult skill. We are enjoying the ride, but it is certainly a case of learning on the job. It is also a case of trial and error, working through what gets the outcome we want to see and reworking those methods that don't or discarding them altogether.
The point overall, is I am not going to ridicule Chua's style and I am not going to write-off her book as a recollection of how she abused her children's rights, as some have. I am likely to be looking for the book next time I am in the bookstore. Besides, Chua is law professor at Yale...can't argue with that :)
With parenting, ultimately we all want the same outcome: happy, healthy, wise, and well-adjusted young people who contribute to their communities. How we get there, to each their own.
Having just lost the House of Representatives, and having had his majority severely dented in the Senate, things only seem to be getting worse for President Obama. In news out of Jakarta, the actress, Cara Lachelle, who played Obama's mother, Ann Durham, in the film "Obama Anak Menteng" (Obama: The Menteng Kid or "Little Obama") has been arrested for drug possession.
Lachelle, a South African model and presenter and sometime actress, was arrested at the Rasuna Said Apartments in possession of 1.19 grams of methamphetamine. The police found out about her drug taking habits from her Indonesian dealer who they had arrested some time earlier.
According to police they will only be pursuing a case against her that claims she her possession was for personal use. Generally, these cases play out in a "time served" sort of a way. In essence, she confesses, claims to be an addict, agrees to get some counselling, and promises not to do it again. By this time she would have been in detention for 5 or so months and she will then be sentenced to a sentence that allows for her immediate release.
My guess is that she will not be getting a visa to appear in any prequel or sequel to the film if one is ever made.
The Birthers are those individuals who believe that Barack Obama is not qualified to be president of the United States of America because he is not a natural born citizen. Unfortunately for the Birthers, their most recent trip to the Supreme Court of the United States found that there claims were unfounded and were not sustainable, and SCOTUS dismissed the case. You can read about these latest developments at the Birthers website.
Here are some other interpretations of the ineligibility of Barack Hussein Obama II to be President of the United States (POTUS).
It seems that the Birthers are not sure where exactly the President was born or what citizenship he was born with. However, what is clear, they are certain that it was not the United States of America. It could have been Kenya, it could be the United Kingdom, and it may well be Indonesia. In any event, the confusion places the burden of proving his eligibility to become president fairly and squarely on the shoulders of Barack Hussein Obama II.
I am wondering how it was possible to pull off such a large-scale fraud of the people of the USA. Surely, Obama would have been vetted to the "nth" degree prior to him nominating for the presidency, and being nominated by the Democratic Party, right? Are the birthers for real? And do they have legitimate concerns.
Someone wake me up when it is December. Hopefully, there will be an answer to these most pressing questions and concerns.
The "Internet!" The mention of one word, "internet", can inspire such varied and passionate reactions in people. These reactions stream along a curve from the positive to the negative. The internet is a wonderful resource. Yet, it is also a place where there is much to be found that highlights the darkness and depravity that makes some of us tick. Crush videos are one of those things that hide out in the deepest and darkest recesses of our existence.
The US Senate voted unanimously to ban the creation, sale and distribution of crush videos. For some of you, this might be the first time you have ever heard of the term crush videos. You are also wondering "what the hell is he talking about?" A crush video, to all of you reading this who have lived very sheltered and protected lives, are sexual fetish films in which small animals are maimed and killed. It is probably worth noting that the law does not cover "cruelty" to small animals that fall victim to hunters or who might suffer in the care of veterinarians.
If you are anything like me, then you are having a hard time getting your head around the idea that there is anything sexual in the maiming and killing of small animals. Then again, I have always wondered what it is that makes a seemingly super-ordinary person a serial killer? For me, the what makes them "tick" aspect of it all.
I really do not have any problem with parliament getting involved in this way. I have absolutely no problem with crush videos being banned. I do not see the banning of these sorts of videos as an impingement on the freedom of speech of those who make them or those who want to watch them. I would reckon that in this day and age of modern technology there would have to be a way to satisfy this sexual fetish 'virtually'.
Yet, come to think of it, it would not take a whole lot to ban virtual sexual fetishes either. The law as it was passed seems to provide a free pass to virtual content as the wording goes something like this: "actual conduct in which one or more living animal is intentionally crushed, burned, drowned, suffocated, or impaled in a manner that would violate a criminal prohibition on cruelty to animals".
Digressing a little, has a crime been committed against a person, a child, in a virtual child porn, operation? I have been watching too much "Law & Order: SVU" of late.
Back on track, and back to the internet. The internet is a vast resource if you know how to look for certain things or if you are looking for specific content. To be honest, I have not ever looked for crush videos. To be equally honest, I have not studied sexual fetishes that closely to know that there was even a sexual fetish that involved cruelty to animals.
Nevertheless, the truth of the matter, these videos have traditionally been distributed for free utilising file-sharing peer-to-peer networks. The internet and ever-improving connection speeds have ensured that the ability to disseminate and distribute content has become much easier.
As context to why the US Senate had to pass a law on this sort of material arises from a US Supreme Court decision from this past April that declared an earlier 1999 law that criminalised videos that showed abuse and cruelty to animals to be unconstitutional. The 'unconstitutional-ness" of the 1999 law stems from the fact that SCOTUS held that the original law was too broad and therefore a violation of people's First Amendment rights to free speech.
Free speech vs. the right to life of some small defenseless creatures...hmmm, consider the animals for a moment and let's stop the crush!
There must be something in the water up there in Iowa that the North Iowa Tea Party people are drinking in great amounts. Either that or they were sitting around having a few wines and thought this looks like a good idea, let's do it!
Do it they did. The North Iowa Tea Party created a billboard. Not just any old billboard, but the one here on the left.
Yes, folks, that is Barack Obama in the company of none other than Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin. If it were me, I might of gone with Josef Stalin, only because he was probably even scarier than Hitler and Lenin combined. Some historians suggest that Stalin was responsible for the purging of some 10 million of his fellow Russians, his nearest and dearest colleagues. Enough on the tangent and back to the rant.
When are these people going to get it?
I am all for political debate, I am all for vocal opposition, I am all for freedom of speech. Despite the irresponsibility of comparing the current US president to Hitler and Lenin, I want to focus on how the exaggeration undermines the message. The undermining of the message is obvious. Other Tea Party members have been quick to distance themselves from the North Iowa crowd.
Obama is so clearly neither Hitler or Lenin. The last time I thought it through, I really could not see Obama taking the US down the path where he was looking at a final solution of eliminating all the Christian Right or some kind of concerted policy program of racial purification. Maybe I am missing something, but I think not! The comparison is not only offensive, it is stupid. It is stupid because it undermines legitimate grievances some US citizens have with the job that the president is doing, particularly his lack of success. Well, maybe they should have voted for the woman after all!
The point of the billboard is what? Socialism is bad? Well, if the message was that socialism is not in the best interests of all Americans then whacking Obama in the midst of these two is not going to make your point. The first reaction from most people is going to be offense at the exaggeration, and then the reaction is going to be that these Tea Party people must be a group of right-wing nutters who will next be arguing that the UN is running the show and there are black helicopters landing in the middle of the night on the White House lawn.
The message is lost in this billboard. The money would have been better spent on getting people out to vote in the November elections. Let people express their anger and disgust at the ballot box. Let them let Obama know what is important to them by voting out a whole swag of democrats at the next opportunity. The billboard is likely to create even greater apathy and inspire people to stay at home rather than head to the local polling booth.
As I said, I am all for freedom of speech. If these Tea Party people want to place a billboard like this, then so be it. I would probably argue that this is protected speech and they are free to make it. I would argue, and I am arguing, that the billboard is going to have the opposite effect to what was intended. So, in the public relations war, this was a big flop.
Once again, when are these people going to get it? Obama is not Hitler, he is not Lenin, he is not Stalin, he is not the Anti-Christ, he is just a man doing a job!
This most certainly is one of those moments where you stretch back in your chair and smile. I don't know that this is the worst disguise ever, but it has to be close. If you could send people to jail for being hopelessly stupid then these two gentlemen, Matthew McNelly and Joey Miller, might just get the nod.
They tried to break into an apartment complex and failed. There are lots of people who try to commit crimes and do not succeed. However, I am not sure I have ever heard of anyone drawing on their own disguise with a marking pen. Yet, the icing on this cake is that it was a permanent marker.
My experience with permanent markers is that if they get on your skin then they are really difficult to get off. So, to colour in your face with a permanent marker is absurd, absurdly funny that is.
The excuse for the embarrassment is likely to be that they were drinking heavily and were intoxicated. Yep, the last time I had a few beers though, I do not recall hatching a plan to burglarize a place and disguise my face with a Zorro mask inked on in permanent black marker.
Here is something that is sure to get under the skin of the members of Commission I of the House of Representatives (DPR) in Indonesia, Balibo. Commission I has responsibility for matters relating to defense, intelligence, foreign affairs, telecommunications, and information. Just about anything remotely related to the Indonesian and Australian bilateral relationship that is probing of Indonesia or her past is dismissed as foreign interference in Indonesians sovereign affairs.
The film Balibo is about five journalists (Greg Shackleton, Tony Stewart, Gary Cunningham, Brian Peters, and Malcolm Rennie) who were either murdered or killed in the cross-fire between Indonesian troops and Timorese rebels. Primarily the focus is on the relationship between Roger East and Jose Ramos Horta. East was later captured and executed, reportedly by firing squad, by Indonesian soldiers. This happened during Indonesia's invasion of the former Portuguese colony that ultimately led to Portuguese Timor being integrated into Indonesia as East Timor.
Aside from the justice that the Balibo Five deserve, Roger East also deserves to receive justice. Journalists must not be cold-bloodedly murdered by invading and occupying forces. More than that, journalists must not be targeted and murdered in the course of pursuing their profession.
This invasion led to the Timorese suffering for the next 24 years at the hands of a greedy colonizer with an insatiable appetite for natural resources and violence. History was only set right with the direct ballot of 1999. Unfortunately, this was not an entirely peaceful transition from colonization to independence.
East Timor has now become the independent Timor Leste.
The film has premiered at the Melbourne International Film Festival where the current Timor Leste president and former rebel leader, Jose Ramos Horta, spoke about his knowledge of the events of 1975. His comments make for interesting reading and are more likely to strain the Timor Leste and Indonesian bilateral relationship than the fact that Australian film makers have gone about making this film.
Interestingly, the Melbourne International Film Festival website has been hacked purportedly by Chinese hackers critical of the festival's decision to screen a film about the violence perpetrated by the Chinese state against the Uighurs. Here is the link (not sure if it is still hacked and displaying the Chinese flag).
According to Ramos Horta, who is known for being very blunt in his assessment of most things, has said that the killings were not an accident nor did they occur in a cross-fire situation. To the contrary, according to Ramos Horta, the five journalist were tortured and then killed.
It is worth noting that Australia was the only country to recognize Indonesia's sovereignty over Timor Leste. It is also worth noting that the governments of Australia and the United States of America were complicit in the invasion as both gave the green light to Soeharto and his bunch of not so merry marauders to go about their invasion business.
Many are looking to see whether the film will put a strain on bilateral relations, it won't but it probably should! Now, whether or not it should is a different question altogether. Yet, if the most recent statements coming from the Indonesian Department of Foreign Affairs is anything to go by, then it is unlikely that there will be any significant impact on the relationship.
Teuku Faizasyah, is quoted as saying that to all intents and purposes this issue has been settled and the accepted explanation of the deaths are that the five journalists were killed in the cross-fire between Indonesian soldiers and Fretilin rebels. Simply, "they were in the wrong place at the wrong time." It is hardly surprising that the Indonesian government is dismissing the film as fiction and the vivid imagination of film makers.
What will be really interesting is whether or not the film gets past Indonesian censors and is shown in Indonesian theatres across the breadth of the archipelago. This is interesting because Faizasyah is also reported to have said that the Indonesian government is not into banning films as this would kill the film sector. This is certainly a different position from that which was adopted in the past.
My personal opinion is that they were murdered and that those responsible, the majority of whom are still alive, must be held accountable for their actions. On the bilateral relationship front between Indonesia and Australia, the relationship is likely to come under pressure if the Australian government was to get some testicular fortitude in the aftermath of the screening of the film and pursue the NSW Coroner's findings about who was responsible and what action should be taken (I have written about this here).
The reason I don't think that this film will unduly strain bilateral relations is that I do not believe that my government has the testicular fortitude, at this point in time, to pursue this. This makes me sad, if for no other reason that it proves the saying, "that the first casualty of war is truth".
I have not seen the film yet. I cannot get down to Melbourne for the festival. However, as soon as I get the chance to see it in Sydney, I will. I will then write a review of it and post it on the blog.
For now, I attach the Official Trailer (available on YouTube) for your viewing (dis)pleasure.
Some things just tend to slip your mind, and for me the recent passing of the US Independence Day was one of them. It is a good thing that I am Australian, so I should not be punished too much for my indiscretion.
Anyways, thinking about the flag and apple pie and all that stuff, got me to thinking that I should post this picture from the album cover of Amorica by the Black Crowes. The album was released in 1994 and garnered a little controversy as a consequence of the cover art. I am guessing that the pubic hair was probably a little too confronting for some.
The Bali Nine case has taken an interesting turn. However, this turn, no matter how interesting, is not going to impact on the sentences already handed down on the Bali Nine. The alleged drug trafficking network, which has seen Interpol team up with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) and the United States Drug Enforcement Agency to investigate the drug trade in Surabaya as this is the supposed entry point for heroin and other illicit drugs.
This is interesting because the AFP should have known about this considering they claimed to have broken a major drug trafficking ring at the time they gave up the Bali Nine to the Indonesian Police.
The cooperation will obviously include the Indonesian Police and more specifically the narcotics division. It seems though that this is a new development as it is being discussed as a recent discovery.
Strangely enough with the number of local drug busts and the increasing size of these busts it is hardly surprising that there is now a belief that major cartels and international drug organizations operate in an through the Republic of Indonesia. I guess the death penalty is not the deterrent that some claim it to be.
I arrived in the good ol' US of A a little later than I expected, but alive, however I am not one to complain when that is the case.
The big competition starts on Monday. There is an orientation on Sunday.
We are staying courtesy of the Indonesian Embassy in Bethesda, Maryland, which sounds a lot further than it really is from DC and the venue at the Fairmont Hotel. It is a mere bus, metro, and walk.
The team is still suffering a little jet lag and have already crashed out for the evening. So, I am taking this quiet time to catch up on some work and blogging.
More specific detailed posts on the big adventure to follow.
For those of you who are interested in seeing a short video of the Indonesian language skills of the new President of the United States of America, then here it is!
Anyone looking for an in-depth analysis of the relationship between video games and child behaviour will be sorely disappointed in this post. Nevertheless, there is a connection.
In a news story out of Wicomico Church, Virginia in the good ol' US of A, a six-year-old who was so keen to get to school that when he missed the school bus he figured he would grab the keys to the family car and drive himself to school. This decision did not pan out as he was hoping as he did not make it to school crashing after some six miles and still at least a mile and a half short of school.
When pressed by the local police about where he learned to drive the child admitted that all of his driving experience can from playing "Grand Theft Auto" and "Monster Truck Jam" video games. The fact that he managed to drive six miles, negotiate a few turns, and pass a couple of cars before crashing seems to suggest that these video games are pretty real in terms of the reality portrayed.
Unfortunately, for the kid he is now in protective custody as both his parents have been charged with child endangerment. Child endangerment would suggest that there is more to this story than just a mother falling asleep and leaving the car keys on the table. If not, then the moral of this story is that as a parent you must supervise your children 24 hours a day because if they do anything that endangers themselves then you are responsible as a parent.
The logic of this, taken to its conclusion, is that the parents of children are responsible for the children's actions. Simply, if your child steals then you as the parent must be punished. Similarly, if your kid decides to "borrow" your car keys and take the car for a spin then you are guilty of child endangerment.
A victory for common sense is a rare thing in these days of heightened terror and loathing of all things. However, when one does come along it is worth writing about and discussing. Raed Jarrar has just one a sizable payout from two US transportation officials and JetBlue Airways for being forced to cover-up a T-shirt that had Arabic script printed on it. The case stems from a 2006 flight on JetBlue airways from JFK Airport in New York to Oakland in California.
The Arabic script on the offending T-Shirt said something along the lines of "we will not be silent". I am guessing that the majority of people flying on that day and on that flight probably could not read Arabic and had no idea what the t-shirt said. Nevertheless, in their infinite wisdom the transportation officials and the airline required Jarrar to cover up his t-shirt before allowing him to fly.
Presumably, the necessity to cover up the writing was so as not to scare other passengers. The stupidity here was that the officials and JetBlue suggested to Jarrar that wearing a t-shirt with an Arabic script was like "wearing a T-shirt at a bank stating, 'I am a robber'". Stupid is as stupid does! I wonder if the t-shirt had been in French or Russian or Cambodian or Vietnamese or even Indonesian would there have been a need to cover it up? My guess is, No.
Adding insult to injury Jarrar was moved from a seat at the front of the plane to a seat at the back. I guess out of sight out of mind.
It seems that people never learn the error of their ways. This kind of profiling continues through to 2009. On 1 January 2009 a family of Muslims was removed from a flight as a security threat because 2 members of a party of 9 were discussing how safe it was to be seated next to the engines. This caught the interest of other passengers who reported the discussion and the whole family was removed from the AirTran flight. Eventually, they were cleared of any wrongdoing but were still not allowed to board the flight and were not permitted to fly with the airline. For more details check out Spruiked: Djak Style and here.
Here is a story out of Jackson, Ohio in the USA. Is it any wonder it is tough to find someone willing to babysit your kids?
A four-year-old boy, that is right, four-years-old, has grabbed a loaded and unsecured shotgun and shot his 18-year-old babysitter in the arm and side. Apparently, the babysitter accidentally stepped on the four-year-old's foot. This infuriated him so that he responded with a shotgun blast.
There are a couple of issues here, like what was an loaded and unsecured shotgun doing in the home in the first place and can a four-year-old have the legal or mental capacity to be responsible for his or her actions?
The four-year-old has not been charged. This suggests that the possibility of a four-year-old having the mental capacity to understand right and wrong does not exist. Nevertheless, on the bare facts available to date, the idea that the kid got a little angry when the babysitter stepped on his foot and then decided to shoot the babysitter would suggests that there is some capacity there in terms of understanding revenge, maybe.
I do not own any guns so there is not much chance of you being shot when you're babysitting for us.
This is something out of the Washington Post and therefore more focused on what is happening in the US. However, I guess, pre-marital sex is an issue everywhere, including Indonesia. Nevertheless, the US Government is investing considerable sums of cash into abstinence-based programs, some USD 176 million at last count, so it is probably worthwhile knowing whether the programs work.
The survey (a report that appears in the journal, Pediatrics) that the Washington Post quotes suggests that there are plenty of pledgers that cannot go the distance and abstain until marriage. What is disheartening here is that those that cannot go the distance are significantly more likely to engage in unsafe sex by neither using condoms or birth control.
I am guessing I will have to do a little more research to try and track down figures for Indonesia (assuming that they exist) and see what sorts of comparisons can be made.
Lewis Hamilton has become the youngest man and the first black man to win the F1 title.
Are we about to see another first in the US Presidential election with the first black man to assume the presidency of the US of A.
(setting aside the idea that Bill Clinton was the first black president of the US -- different post if I could be bothered -- I am sure black offends some but I have never heard the politically correct term of African-British like I have African-American so in this context I have chosen "black").
I was surfing the net and came across news that an 8-year-old had shot and killed himself with an Uzi (picture from here). The first question was always going to be, "what was an 8-year-old doing with an Uzi in the first place?"
As I read a little further it turns out that this occurred in Connecticut in the US, and I am guessing on a rifle range, under supervision, and with the child's father taking pictures.
I do not know if any of you have fired guns, but the Uzi has a kick (recoil) and for an automatic weapon once the kick starts it will keep kicking until you pull the finger off the trigger.
My understanding is the kid pulls the trigger, the Uzi recoils, the kid loses control, the Uzi spins backwards, and the kid shoots himself in the head. Game over!
The next question that comes to mind is, "what were the boy's father and instructor thinking?"
What was no doubt intended to be a good day out has ended in tragedy for no other reason that the stupidity of a gun instructor and father. Uzis are weapons of war and not toys for children, it is tragic that the boys father had to learn this lesson this way!
