On 5/31/2010 6:39 AM, paul stenquist wrote:
On May 30, 2010, at 11:56 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message ----- From: "paul stenquist"<pnstenqu...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: OT: Kids are Dying in Cars
On May 30, 2010, at 11:19 PM, Ken Waller wrote:
Kenneth Waller
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/kennethwaller
----- Original Message ----- From: "paul stenquist"<pnstenqu...@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: OT: Kids are Dying in Cars
On May 30, 2010, at 7:47 AM, John Sessoms wrote:
Not always forgetfulness - sometimes just plain ignorance.
The hyperthermia deaths are sometimes the result of ignorance. But the majority
are inadvertently caused by otherwise responsible parents.
Ahem.... Paul I would change that to 'irresponsible parents'. Having children
is among other things, a responsibiity.
You could change that, but the facts wouldn't support you. Most of those who
have inadvertently forgotten an infant have otherwise very clean records.
Distraction and the stresses of daily life can cause even the best of men and
women to fail from time to time. The record supports that. Yes, it seems like
its impossible to forget one's child, but apparently it's not.
I didn't say they weren't fine upstanding members of the community, but that
they were unwilling to be responsible for their actions, they left their child
in the car, I didn't.
Everyone makes mistakes, it how we deal with them that is the issue here.
I don't know of anyone who has caused the death of their child or someone
else's and has been unwilling to take responsibility for the outcome. Some have
even been incarcerated, although not many. The Post article that preceded mine
deals with that in depth. It's independent safety advocates who have been
pushing for a warning device. As I said, I take no position on the issue.
Paul
"Independent advocates" have been pushing for everything, it doesn't
matter how few people are affected, it doesn't matter that those
involved could have taken precautions on their own, it doesn't matter
the total cost, because; "It's for the children." Say those four,(well
five actually), magic words, then say the second magic formula; "It
only costs x number of dollars, for each y! (where x is some
sufficiently small amount, and y is some sufficently large group of
things, car, person, whatever), and you get a mandate. So what if x is
underestamated, as it usually is, it's still small. Small that is until
you all the damn xs up and the cost to each person becomes substantial.
But it's done deal because "It's for the Children!"
In this specific case, instead of spending the money on something that
might be of utility to them car buyers pay for another non essential on
an already over complicated car. Which by the way probably costs too
much for most of the people who might actually forget their children in
a car. They have used cars, in which most of the extr crap stopped
working years ago.
Paul
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
--
{\rtf1\ansi\ansicpg1252\deff0\deflang1033{\fonttbl{\f0\fnil\fcharset0 Courier
New;}}
\viewkind4\uc1\pard\f0\fs20 I've just upgraded to Thunderbird 3.0 and the
interface subtly weird.\par
}
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
