Comments by BillyG
Page 1 of 6 | Next
Posted on August 19 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)
(And I'm probably over-reacting by getting so upset by your over-reacting... but come on people... this is a woman's life you are taking about, and her very real child that you are saying should be taken from he)
Posted on August 19 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Good grief! You are all way over reacting, and are way too "what if?" oriented.
Of course someone could have kidnapped the child! Your child could be kidnapped tonight while sleeping in your 'safe, climate controlled' home.
Just because someone else MIGHT be a criminal and kidnap a child, does NOT make the mother a criminal by not locking her child away from would be kidnappers in a safe deposit box (which would be criminal)
Of course it is very easy for a car to become over heated (I know this very well). That does not mean that this car was over heated! The article said NOTHING about the car being over heated.
Of course the mother may have been drinking! But there is a big difference between having wine with lunch and being aa raging, child endangering drunk. The article did not say anything about this, and even the ADN article quotes a police spokeswoman as saying the mother 'smelled of alcohol'.. but NOTHING about whether she had actually been drinking.
The point is that you are all over-reacting without knowing ANY details. Based on what the article presented, 'throwing the book at this mother is COMPLETELY unwarrented.
I think it is absolutely crazy that because we have seen a few evening tabloid news programs (think 20/20 or 60 minutes) about children dying in hot cars, that we immediately want to criminalize any person who leaves a child in a car. I have had a number of friends with small children who leave thier sleeping children in the car in the driveway so not to wake them... come out in half an hour (or hour), and get them and bring them inside. These are loving, responsible people, who do NOT deserve to go to jail, do NOT deserve to have the book throw at them.
Just because a parent does not do things the way you would does not mean that they should have thier child taken from them. Based on the details of the article, we have NO indication that this woman physically endangered her child... so stop acting as judge and jury trying to take this woman's child from her and throw her in prison... you are OVER-REACTING!
Posted on August 19 at 2:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok, first of all, I do agree that what she did was irresponsible (and I said so in my post). I do not think leaving a child in a car, unattended is an OK form of babysitting. I do, however, think that it is no worse to leave a sleeping child unattended in a car, given that you have taken the proper steps necessary to make sure they will not overheat (which is the main way leaving a child in a car is harmful), than leaving the child sleeping, unattended in thier crib in the other room while you do the dishes or vaccuming.
I don't think this mother should 'have the book thrown at here' just for the incident discussed in the article. Maybe it is indicative of other potential irresponsible acts by this mother... maybe not. But based on the details of this article, the mother did NOT put here child in any eminent danger.
My point with the 'no more than letting your kids play violent video games' is that ALL parents have thier moments of irresponsible parenting (even those that don't let thier children play violent video games), yet you are all so quick to point the finger at this mother (who again, according to the details of the article did not put her child in eminent danger).
Posted on August 19 at 2:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok... you are all crazy... she did not harm the kid. This happened in Anchorage, on a cool, not-to-sunny day. The article did not say that the car was hot on the inside... it did not say that the child was dehydrated... it did not say that there was ANY harm inflicted on the child at all. So why, then, do you all want to 'throw the book' at the mother?
(I agree that it is somewhat irresponsible, but no more so than letting your kids play violent video games, for example)
Posted on August 18 at 5:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Why? Because I don't think we need to rape all of our resources right now. We can save these minerals for a future date, when technology is better, or when we need these resources more.
The point of my first post is that BOTH sides are mis-leading the public with propaganda. The issue is NOT as cut and dry as "Pebble will destroy our fish", nor "Measure 4 will destroy mining in Alaska".
It's just that, in my opinion, ballot measure 4 is the best option right now. (let's save those resorces for a date when we need them more, and will extract them in a more responsible way)
Posted on August 18 at 3:14 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Have any of you actually read ballot measure 4?
It simply (and elegantly) states that new mines, larger than a certain size, CANNOT release any measurable amount of chemical which are reasonable deemed harmful to salmon OR humans into Alaskan waters.
The rhetoric on this issue is CRAZY!
At issue is the fact that the mines know that they cannot economically operate without releasing some known toxins into the environment. The mines know they will have to pollute to operate in an economical manner.
Also at issue is the fact that this measure restricts any MEASURABLE amount of release. Many would argue that small amounts of pollutants can be safely released with no adverse affects (anyone drink thier arsnic laced well water... I do).
Can Pebble mine operate safely and economically... Yes!
Will they?... history tells us "probably not"
Is measure 4 unreasonably restrictive.... probably.
Will the salmon spawning waters be better protected with ballot measure 4?.... definately.
Will the Bristol Bay salmon fishery be destroyed by Pebble?... probably not, but maybe.
What we need is better regulations to ensure that Pebble does not operate in traditional ways (for that type of mine), and is carefully engineered for environmental safety for Alaska's peotential hazards.
Now that I've said this, I am voting YES on 4. The mineral resources will be saved for a later date when the economics will work to allow no pollutants to be reseased.
Posted on August 2 at 9:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
That's what we get for building in a flood plain. The rest of the borough should also realize now what we will also get for building in an earthquake zone. I hope you all have earthquake insurance too.
Posted on August 1 at 10:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)
This is crazy... I've been in the flooded areas... there is no disaster or emergency. People who knowingly build homes in flood prone areas are being flooded (and not too badly I might add). Definately NOT a disaster.
Posted on July 27 at 4:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)
mw123... your idea of why the PFD exists is terribly misinformed. I hope you don't also misinform your friends and family outside with such craziness.
Page 1 of 6 | Next
Posted on August 19 at 5:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
lagirl... I'm not defending this kind of action, and I don't know a single soul who lives in Anchorage (i.e., I am not in any way related to the person in this article).
To answer your question, no I would not let a complete stranger babysit my kids, but I certainly would not ever do a background check on a potential babysitter either. I am not sure how this relates to the child left in the car though.
Of course, as parents we should train our kids to stay out of danger. But I really think we as a society (and especially the others posting on this topic) over react. I will not raise my kids to never ride in a boat just because they might fall otu and drown. I will not raise my kids to never hike in Bicentennial Park just because they might get mauled by a bear. I will not raise my kids to never be friendly to people they don't know just beacuse those people might have bad intentions. And I will NOT condemn the mother in the article to have her child taken from her and spend time in prison just because her kid spent an hour in the car.
I guess I have a little more empathy than the rest of you because I can understand how a mother might not see the harm in leaving a sleeping kid in the car for an hour(especially if the car is not going to get too hot). (That is NOT to say that I think it's OK to do so... just not criminal)
On Anchorage woman arrested after leaving baby in car