I read about an incident yesterday in one area that I was in last month. It was initially branded as terrorism, but I'm feeling inclined to agree with those who suggest that the guy just went nuts. The death toll there: 3 people. It originally made me think of my trip as somewhat risky - but then I read the local news and read about a larger number of local fatalities.

On a purely statistical basis, what is more likely to get you killed over the course of the next year:

1. Living in Israel in the midst of the Intifada,
2. Living in crime-ridden, inner city Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Houston, Milwaukee, Minneapolis-St. Paul, Philadelphia, or Pittsburgh, or
3. living in the bucolic outer suburbs of those cities?

The answer is overwhelmingly (c).

Philip Longman, The Empty Cradle, p. 181

If you're interesting in comparing Israel to suburbia, try reading an article that originally appeared in the Jerusalem Post, comparing terrorism deaths to auto deaths. Israel actually has a slightly longer life expectancy than the US according to the CIA factbook.

What do you think of the visual and calorie-content comparison between food today and food a few decades ago?

Portion Size, Then and Now

Over the past few decades, portion sizes of everything from muffins to sandwiches have grown considerably. Unfortunately, America’s waistbands have reacted accordingly. ... While increased sizes haven’t been the sole contributor to our obesity epidemic, large quantities of cheap food have distorted our perceptions of what a typical meal is supposed to look like.

Family law has changed a lot in the last decades and I think that most of the changes made have caused problems rather than alleviated them.

Consider the evidence in a recent case that resulted in parents in Canada getting reported. It reads as though it should be fiction - although it was reported in Canada's major newspapers - but this was enough to get a government investigation conducted:

"The teacher looked at me and said: 'We have to tell you something. We have to tell you that Victoria's EA [educational assistant] went to see a psychic and the psychic asked her if she works with a little girl with the initial V. When the EA said yes, the psychic said, 'Well, you need to know that this girl is being sexually abused by a man between the ages of 23 and 26.'"

I suppose that I have to admit that it certain cases some good may result from such investigations, but for the most part I think that they're harmful.

If there is abuse it might not get detected, probably resulting in it being driven further underground and possibly intensifying .

In addition, given the minimal evidence required to have an investigation launched, I suspect that the vast majority of cases in fact involve no abuse. At minimum it means time and stress for the family involved, and who knows what long-term psychological damage it causes.

Protect complainant's anonymity - as most places seem to permit - and it seems a relatively easy way for people to make life hell for anyone who annoys them.

This'll be the last post for a bit from me, as when I'm done the computer is going off and getting packed for the move to Nobleford. When I'm back it'll probably be on dialup for starters, so we'll see how that goes. Wish me luck...

Darren

I'm still intended to add a bunch of captions to these photos, but for the moment I've at least managed to trim down the photos to a more-manageable number. There's still quite a few though.

Check them out!