Pendragons Princess

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/manchester/7804828.stm

Arrest over ‘home alone’ sisters

30 December 2008

A 29-year-old woman was arrested for neglect after three sisters under the age of 10 were found at home on their own on Christmas Eve.

The children were discovered at a property in the Gorton area in Greater Manchester.

Police telephone operators collected money for clothes and toys for the girls after being told that they had no Christmas presents.

The woman was later released on bail until 11 February.

Donated money

The gifts were wrapped and delivered to a new address where the children had been placed temporarily.

Pam Wild, 50, a call handler for Greater Manchester Police, said: “I just couldn’t bear the thought of the children waking up on Christmas morning with no presents, so me and some of the girls had a whip-round and got them some gifts.”

Officers also donated money, which was used to buy clothes and toys for the girls.

Mrs Wild added: “It was just something that anybody would have done. I love children and it wasn’t their fault that they didn’t get any presents.”
……………………………………………………………………….

It’s wonderful the children finally got something for Christmas through caring listeners of the news story. Of course, it does not mention where the 29 year old mother was (29 and she obviously could not handle one child, let alone three children) during Christmas Eve. Maybe she was out at the local pub. I have nothing against pubs but Christmas Eve should be spent with one’s own children, if one has children - not out carousing with the guys at the local pub, I mean bar, in American English. What if their mother did not get home by Christmas Day? Those poor kids would have been left on their own. No father is mentioned in the story and somehow I am not surprised. I can only hope that 2009 will be a better year for these kids and that their mother learned her lesson not to leave them alone on a major holiday evening.

Not really the biggest news around, but it is worth posting:

http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7795540.stm

December 23, 2008

Bad parents ‘widen ability gap’

Poor parenting is the key factor behind the significant gaps in readiness for school between children from low and middle income families, a study says.

Analysis of ability test scores of children in the UK and US showed the poorer their families, the less well prepared they were for school.

But the study found up to half of these differences in the US were due to poor parenting and home environment.

It suggested early years “compensatory education programmes” could help.

The study led by Professor Jane Waldfogel of Columbia University, New York, sought to establish what ability gaps there were across income groups, how large they were, and what factors explained them.

It found similarly stark gaps in ability between children from poor and rich families in the US and the UK.

For example, four-year-olds from the poorest families in the US scored 34 points out of 80 in literacy tests, compared with 69 points out of 80 for the richest families.

And in the UK, three-year-olds from the poorest families scored 32 points out of 80 in school readiness tests, compared with 63 points for those from the the richest homes.

In England, differences between the social classes persist all the way up the educational ladder.

The study said: “The environments of low-income children differ in many dimensions from those of more affluent children. For example, access to toys, books, computers and learning-related activities may be directly affected by lack of income.

“But other dimensions, such as parental sensitivity and responsiveness to children’s needs, may be linked more strongly to parents’ education, knowledge of child development and psychological well-being.”

‘Making the difference’

Prof Waldfogel said her findings were “very concerning because with children starting out at school so unequal, it’s very difficult to imagine they will end school on an equal footing”.

She said what surprised her the most was the extent to which the way children were parented and how they were influenced by their home learning environment had an impact on their ability to learn once they reached school.

The researchers looked at only how parenting affected children’s ability levels in the US.

Here, between a third and half of the gap between low and middle income groups were to due to factors related to parenting and the home environment, rather than income itself, she said.
These included, for example, how sensitive and responsive a parent was to their child’s needs, whether they read to the child and whether they took them on outings.

“It is these factors that make the difference,” she said, adding that higher income mothers were interacting more positively with their children from when their offspring were as young as nine months.

They have not yet studied the impact of this factor in the UK.
Prof Waldfogel said the research in the US suggested there were some useful “compensatory education” programmes which could help bring children from poorer backgrounds forward.

For the US, providing universal access to good quality pre-school child care would help.

But in England, where all three and four-year-olds are entitled to free part-time pre-school day care, she suggested ministers might consider improving parenting help for poor families when their children were very young.

She cited a scheme called Nurse Family Partnerships, which targeted parenting help and developmental awareness at low income first-time mothers during pregnancy and the first two years after a child was born.

…………………………………………………………………….

Waldfogel has it a little bit backwards: all students are on equal footing when they enter school: they all have the potential to learn. It is when they leave school, that students come out unequal, and they are supposed to - students who work hard will succeed, while those who do not, will fall behind and fail. A poor home environment is not going to be learning oriented where the only form of entertainment is the television set and kids who spend too much time with each other when they are supposed to be studying. August Hollingshead’s “Study of Elmtown Youth” is the most extensive scientific study done in this area. He well documents the social class divisions and why the poor people very rarely cross the tracks to succeed. Parents who fail to provide the keys to succeed for their children are indeed bad parents, no question about that. I mean, let the kid vegetate and be trained to pop out babies as soon as puberty hits. Once the child enters school, the child has a responsibility to learn, since no one else can do it for him or her. Furthermore, the parents of the poor kids should at least get them a library card and take the kid to the library for reading, not playtime with other poor kids. Who one hangs out with is definitely a big influence - why hang out with and socialize with peers who have no intention of getting anywhere in life?

Lastly, some poor students who start out with next to nothing can indeed get ahead if they are given the right tools to succeed by their teachers. Schools are there for students serious about learning; students not serious about learning should be weeded out. It may sound unfair to those who cannot take academics seriously but it is not unfair to the taxpayers.

http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/hourlyupdate/272996.php

Tucson boy, 14, accused of injuring son to be tried as juvenile

Arizona Daily Star

December 23, 2008

A 14-year-old Tucson boy accused of severely injuring his infant son last August will be tried as a juvenile in February.

Judge Jane Eikleberry decided last month that Ismael Robles’ case should not be transferred to adult court, said Deputy Pima County Attorney Barbara Galvan.

The judge’s decision was made following a series of hearings that were intended to provide details on the case itself and the boy’s psychological history, educational background and past behavioral issues, if any.

Robles was charged with five counts of child abuse after telling authorities he shook his 7-week-old child and struck the baby’s head on a car-seat handle, causing two skull fractures, according to court records.

The boy also said he squeezed the baby, resulting in five broken ribs, and pulled his legs, causing two leg fractures.

The baby remains in foster care, Galvan said.

The case against the boy will be heard Feb. 24 and Feb. 25.

Robles turns 15 Feb. 10.
……………………………………………………………………………………….

Yes you heard right, a teenaged “parent” who abused his own child. Of course, there is no mention of the child’s young mother in this article. There is probably much more to the story than what the AZ Daily Star reports. Even though the rate of teenaged pregnancies have dropped in Arizona over the past few years, the state still has a higher than average rate than the rest of the nation (http://www.azdhs.gov/plan/report/tp/teen96/index.htm). It is always tragic when an infant is abused like this but when it comes from another child who is the “parent” it is even worse. The other thing not mentioned in the article is Robles’ parents, if he has any. He could very well come from a broken home, hooked up with a girl, then got her pregnant. Not a very smart thing to do on his part. I don’t think he should be tried as a juvenile though - with an action like this, he should be tried as an adult, especially if that child is really his.

http://www.mayflower.org.uk/parental.asp

“Most productions are suitable for children, unless labelled otherwise, though parents are advised that some may contain mild swearing, sexual subject matter or loud or disturbing effects.

Infants under 2 will not be admitted except to productions aimed exclusively at children and listed as a Children’s Show.

No children under 5 will be admitted to Opera or Ballet performances.
Other age restrictions may apply to specific shows. If you are unsure, please ask.”
…………………………………………………………………………………..

This is actually a common sense measure. Like malls, small children really do not belong at the theatre. The live theatre can be especially distracting for performers onstage, who cannot allow those in the audience to distract them for any reason. Well, young children would definitely fall into that category. As for babies, forget it - they have no business being there since they are unable to follow the performance onstage. If I was an actor onstage the last thing I’d want to hear is crying, screeching, and wailing from a baby in the audience. I’m not even sure babies belong at children’s shows where even the young stage performers have to concentrate on their lines and movements on the stage. Parents who want to see a performance will just have to learn to shell out a few bucks for a babysitter. That’s how it was done when I was a child back in the 1970’s. Maybe the United States can take a clue and follow this example. Back in 2005 I went to see “Cursed” and even though it wasn’t one of Craven’s better films, it was still rated R and what does one young couple do? Drag their three year old plus a baby into the theatre at the mall in Broomfield, Colorado. There was only one point during the film where the two kids acted up. They finally quieted down before the movie ended. I’m definitely in favor of childfree theatres.

I had a wonderful childfree Christmas with my husband this year. We went mountain biking together and had a Christmas picnic lunch (the weather was only 57 degrees, not bad at this time of the year in the desert. So for the picnic we had it bento style: teriyaki chicken with mixed veggies, a green salad, and clementine oranges with chocolates for dessert. The sky was slightly overcast but at least it did not rain. It would have been quite a ride back home if it did - five miles bicycling. Then we had the rest of the day to ourselves in peace and quiet that can only be experienced in heaven. It was a great holiday for us.

………………………………………………………………………………

One famous childfree person whose philosophy is probably better known in the western world than her childfree status is Ayn Rand. Ayn was a Russian immigrant who came to the United States to become an author and screenwriter. Those familiar with her name have probably read “The Fountainhead” or some of her other works. Her philosophy known as objectivism, despite its controversiality, has actually rung true with many Americans since the philosophy is inherent in our Constitution: “Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Not surprisingly this philosophy is very close to that of David Seabury (”The Art of Selfishness”) and Leo Louis Martello (”How to Prevent Psychic Blackmail.”) Martello openly admired her philosophy. Objectivism is controversial of course to our Judeo-Christian heritage that demands sacrificial altruism from every living person: it states that one exists only to continually sacrifice for others, whether other appreciate the sacrifices or not, or even throw it back into your face. Objectivism states that one has a right to pursue interests and to grow as an individual person through education. Not surprisingly, Ayn rejected the collectivist mentality of the Communist Bolsheviks before she left Russia for the states. But back to her childfree status for a moment: her choice to be childfree is consistent with the objectivist philosophy. The whole notion of slaving and sacrificing for children is strictly Judeo-Christian in nature. Of course, people with kids will never admit they will never gain anything positive from having kids, but that’s normal. It is still taboo for a parent to speak ill of offspring in our society, even if Junior has an extensive rap sheet by the sixteenth birthday.

I didn’t learn anything about objectivist philosophy until my early adult years and why this philosophy is neccesary for survival. Those who become successful in life do so on objectivist principles. People who simply live only to please others will only wind up a zero, as the proverb “He who trim himself to suit everyone will soon whittle himself away.” goes. Ricky Nelson summed it succintly in his song “Garden Party.” One really cannot please everyone so you are better off trying to please yourself through positive selfishness. The Judeo-Christianists do not like to hear that but when one takes a look at prominent preachers like Mike Murdock, Benny Hinn, Oral Roberts, and Jimmy Bakker, one cannot help but wonder if these figures also subscribe to objectivism in the closet.

But they do since their parents don’t know how to use birth control and to give it up when it comes to the welfare checks.

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/113-06232008-1553060.html

With school out, kids could go hungry

By AUBREY WHELAN

The Intelligencer

June 23, 2008

For Lynette Cruz, the fact that nearly 200,000 children in the Philadelphia area could go hungry this summer hits home.

In the 1980s, Cruz raised six children while living on welfare in Bristol. Free breakfasts and lunches provided by her children’s schools, she said, helped alleviate the financial burden.

“It was harder in the summertime, because they had breakfast in the morning and they got free lunches (at school during the school year). Otherwise, we had to conserve … but I was always trying to stretch it. It was very hard times then,” she said.

Now a Fairless Hills resident, Cruz works with families who face problems like she did at Faith Baptist Church’s food pantry in Fairless Hills, where fewer donations and more clients exemplify a growing problem at food banks across the Philadelphia area.

According to Philadelphia-based charity Philabundance, which supplies more than 600 Delaware Valley food banks, 197,188 children in the Philadelphia area who receive free or reduced-price breakfasts and lunches could go hungry this summer now that schools have closed. In Bucks County, 12,375 children receive free or reduced-price meals at school; Montgomery County schools serve free or reduced-price meals to 15,142 children.

For many area food cupboards, gearing up during the summer to provide food for children and their families is not a new occurrence, said Philabundance president and executive director Bill Clark.

But this year, thanks to rising food prices, a dearth of donations and little government aid until at least October, food cupboards may not be able to fill that need.

“This is a year that’s a perfect storm of problems,” Clark said. “You don’t have to be poor to know the impact of higher food prices.”

Philabundance manager of communications Marlo DelSordo said increased traffic at food cupboards puts a strain on supplies.

“More people are coming for assistance, but there’s less food going into the system. This summer is probably going to be the most challenging we’ve faced,” she said.

The Indian Valley Opportunity Center, a Souderton-based charity, is listed as one of Philabundance’s member agencies on its Web site, philabundance.org. Center director James Holton said its food pantry is beginning to feel the strain of increased customers, although its food supply is currently in good shape.
However, pantry assistant Mary Ann Gerhart said the amount of people requesting aid this year is surprising.

“Now, with the gas prices, everybody is really tight. I think there’s more and more need,” she said.

Jamison resident Leila Steele, charities chairwoman for Prudential Fox & Roach’s Doylestown office, is holding a food drive for the Bucks County Housing Group and Doylestown Food Pantry this month at her office at 550 N. Main St. in Doylestown.

Bucks County Housing Group volunteer coordinator and food pantry coordinator Kate Bianchini said the pantry served 86 families last May. This May, it supplied 186 families, and supplies are running low.

The pantry has served more middle-income families this year. “It’s not just low-income anymore,” she said.
Clark said Philabundance’s lack of supplies has led the organization to begin asking for monetary donations so it can purchase and distribute food on its own.

“It’s not a very cost-efficient way, but when people are hungry, it’s the only thing you can do,” he said. “The short-term solution — the only thing you can do is throw some money at the problem.”

At the New Britain Food Larder in New Britain, supplies are also low, said food larder chairwoman Shirley Eyrich.

“Right now our shelves are getting barer all the time,” she said. Everything in the larder, she said, including basic necessities like toilet paper and shampoo, is “in short demand.”

“People give most when it comes to November, December, January,” she said. “And the rest of the time, I think they sort of forget that there are a lot of hungry people yet.”

Philabundance’s goal this summer is not necessarily to provide programs for children to receive food themselves, but to help their families obtain enough to feed them during the summer, said Clark.

“We’re trying to well up the cupboard network itself,” he said. “We see this tidal surge that hits 400, 500 cupboards. This tidal surge is the families needing to provide food to all their members. We’re interested in helping the entire family.”

………………………………………………………………………………..

I actually like Steve and Mike’s comments - if a woman is incapable of feeding one tiny hungry mouth then why does she make five more babies? This is common sense, not rocket science. Yet they know they can get that free welfare check in the mail each month for every baby they make. The United States needs some major welfare reform, and not in the form of more handouts for these young women who insist on making babies just for the tax dollars. They are not paying into the system; they’re living off the system. Sooner or later, these people will have to learn how to control their breedership and develop some real skills and hobbies that will benefit society. That benefit will be able to help fill the food pantries, thereby making these people be more productive in society. It should be made illegal for Americans to “work the system.” I’d even support a revamped workfare system so that wannabe lifetime welfare recipients will be discouraged from that kind of lifestyle, and discouraged from making babies every year of their lives just for that state welfare check.

It’s time again for another childfree song parody! This one is “Sprog City USA” and gets sung to the tune of - you guessed it! Surf City. I dedicate this to all the men who get all pumped up for the job (pun intended).

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20081222/tuk-welfare-reforms-linked-to-baby-boom-6323e80.html

Welfare reforms linked to baby boom

Monday, December 22, 2008

A new report has suggested there are links between increased state benefits for children and a baby boom among poorly-educated women, it has been reported.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies found there were 45,000 additional births to women who left school at 16 in the year after the introduction of changes in 1999 which made it “economically much more attractive to have children,” said the Daily Telegraph.

The changes meant that the worst-off families could claim £56.76 a week instead of £39 - and it meant a 45% rise in the benefits available to couples who both left school at the earliest opportunity - almost double what a couple who went on to sixth-form education would receive - said the report.

It concluded: “We have shown that more generous Government support coincided with an increase in births among the group most affected by the (welfare) reforms.
“We have also provided supporting evidence of a decline in use of contraception among the group affected. Our results indicate a sizeable response in child-bearing among the group affected by the reform.”

Researchers, led by Sarah Smith of Bristol University, looked at fertility rates both before and after the reforms were announced for a sample of 101,330 women aged between 20 and 45.

They found a 15% increase in the probability of having a baby among women who left school at 16 - equivalent to an extra 45,000 births compared with 670,000 across Britain as a whole.

……………………………………………………………..

There has always been a link between educated women, and non-educated women, and the number of children they have. Educated women tend to have few to zero number of children due to their access to birth control knowledge, as well as decreased desire to reproduce. The development of the intellect usually overrides any base reproductive desire. In American dollars, 56.76 British pounds comes to about $112.00 a week per child. No wonder so many young British women are having children as soon as they get finish our equivalent to junior year of high school. For them, it’s free money from the government, even though the Brits who do work hard, pay into the system. I’m not sure why so many of these young women have no interest in advancing their education - Great Britain is home to Oxford and Cambridge, two of the top universities in Europe. But it appears they would rather drop out of school, make babies, and live off the system for the rest of their lives. It looks like Britains welfare reforms took a turn for the worse and not the better. Maybe that is something that should be changed to discourage unmarried teenaged mothers from living off the system for the rest of their lives.

Some common sense from D.C. for a change:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_el_pr/inauguration_security_rules

Inaugural security: leave chairs, strollers home

By NAFEESA SYEED, December 20, 2008

WASHINGTON – No strollers near the Capitol. No tents on the National Mall. None of that Silly String on the parade route.

That’s just a sample of the items forbidden from President-elect Barack Obama’s inauguration for security reasons. And while many people say the inconvenience is a small price to pay to witness the swearing-in of the nation’s first black president, others are scratching their heads, trying to figure out how they will sit, snack, carry diapers or transport tired tots.

Some older people are backing out of their inaugural plans, partly because of a no-chair rule for the parade route. Parenting blogs are abuzz with complaints about the less-than-kid-friendly restrictions. Thermoses, coolers and backpacks are out at both the Capitol and the parade route.

“Of course, they’re not going to say, ‘no children,’” said Sunny Chanel, a San Francisco-based contributor to Babble.com, a parenting Web site. “But they’re definitely not making it easy for parents with smaller children to go.”

The tightest rules are reserved for the lucky 240,000 ticket-holders, who get to sit closest to the Jan. 20 swearing-in ceremony on the West Front of the Capitol.
There are understandable prohibitions on weapons and pepper spray. But you also can’t carry an umbrella. And don’t think about holding up any “Yes We Did” signs — posters also are not allowed.

Additionally, Johnson said seven people, including families with young children, recently backed out — losing their deposits — because they’re afraid they won’t be able to maneuver in big crowds. Turnout estimates vary widely, with Mayor Adrian M. Fenty saying 2.5 million to 3 million people are a possibility and the National Park Service planning for at least 1 million.

Johnson said some people are worried about packed Metro trains now that officials are sounding warnings. Metro has said its bathrooms will be closed for security.

The option left for parents wanting to change stinky diapers? Hundreds of portable toilets that the transit system and park officials are providing downtown.

“It’s truly scaring people,” Johnson said. “The news is becoming more and more bleak.”

The rules aren’t so strict on the National Mall, where most people will end up because tickets aren’t required. Officials have said everyone will be checked, but they haven’t said what that will entail.
……………………………………………………………..

Of course it is highly questionable that a small child even belongs at such a somber event. God forbid that some of those parents get a babysitter for their child while the parent attends the inauguration. The last thing our child-centered society needs is to make a presidential inauguration a child-oriented event., because that is not the purpose of the inauguration. The kid won’t die if left home with a babysitter for a few hours. It is tragic to think that Americans would even treat a presidential inauguration along the lines of some Saturday concert picnic event. What else could possibly be on their minds besides entertainment? Ladies and gentlemen, the presidential inauguration was not, never, or ever will be designed for a bunch of otherwise bored Americans who couldn’t possibly see the difference between watching it happen in person versus watching it on the television set. Maybe they had to sell their television sets in order to buy those tickets. Thank God Obama is smart enough to say “No strollers” to the event – babies and small children do not belong at presidential inaugurations, especially since they have no concept whatsoever of such an event. I can just picture a whole bunch of people crushing into each other with babies and small kids getting in the way on the Mall. Older kids like pre-teens and teens can at least follow the event but I am with Obama on this issue, all the way.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_on_re_us/18th_baby_5

Arkansas family welcomes 18th child, a girl

Thu Dec 18, 2008

ROGERS, Ark. – An Arkansas woman has given birth to her 18th child. Michelle Duggar delivered the baby girl by Caesarean section Thursday at Mercy Medical Center in Rogers. The baby, named Jordyn-Grace Makiya Duggar, weighed 7 pounds, 3 ounces and was 20 inches long.

“The ultimate Christmas gift from God,” said Jim Bob Duggar, the father of the 18 children. “She’s just absolutely beautiful, like her mom and her sisters.”

The Duggars now have 10 sons and eight daughters.

Jim Bob Duggar said Michelle started having contractions Wednesday night. She needed the C-section, her third, because the baby was lying sideways. Jim Bob said both baby and mother were doing well Thursday night.

“We both would love to have more,” he said.

The cable network TLC broadcasts a weekly show about the Duggars, called “17 Kids and Counting.” Chris Finnegan of TLC — which handles public relations for the Duggar family — said the show’s name would be updated to account for the latest addition to the family. He said TLC also will air a show Monday on the baby’s delivery.

Jim Bob Duggar is 43, a year older than his wife. Their oldest child, Joshua, is 20.

The other Duggar children, in between Joshua and Jordyn-Grace, are Jana, 18; John-David, 18; Jill, 17; Jessa, 16; Jinger, 14; Joseph, 13; Josiah, 12; Joy-Anna, 11; Jeremiah, 9; Jedidiah, 9; Jason, 8; James, 7; Justin, 6; Jackson, 4; Johannah, 3; and Jennifer, 1.

“Our whole family is excited about Jordyn’s addition to our family,” Jim Bob Duggar said. “She’s just perfect in every way.”

………………………………………………………………………………….

Well of course the new child is going to have a name that starts with the letter J - what else? I had to laugh at the part where Jim Bob said that Jordyn-Grace is the “the ultimate Christmas gift from God.” No, more likely it was really good timing on the part of the Duggars - I’d say about eight months ago in May, to be exact. At any rate, mother Michelle is now over having the eighteenth fetus removed from while she gets the bedrest, provided that Jim Bob leaves her be during that time. The older children will be feeding, changing diapers, and looking after Jordyn-Grace. That’s one way to keep the teenaged Duggars busy and out of trouble, anyways. Michelle won’t have to be doing any of that dirty work anytime soon. It still creeps me out how Jim Bob says they’d love to have more kids. What happens when they run out of space in their home? More importantly, what happens if Michelle’s uterus completely gives out, which I am surprised it hasn’t already? It must be nice to use religion as an excuse to run through the sheets. Just like someone else I know of in real life but I won’t mention any names in order to protect the extremely guilty.