And just a few other articles....

[conuly]

First things first, just about the only cheerful link you're going to get!

One article on modern childhood.

A graph showing the difference between the demographics of the US and of Congress.

And this post about what has to be one of the most outrageous rape cases I've ever heard of.

And finally, this article about a woman who withheld cancer treatment from her autistic child. Yes, Time, it *is* murder if you keep lifesaving medicine away from your kid - particularly one who cannot talk and who is too young to trust him to have much of a say in his course of treatment anyway. (Comments where I got this article indicate that she didn't even quit openly, she simply stopped giving him the medicine and lied about it.)

Comments

[pne]

My first thought on the Congress diagram was, what if they *completely* reflected the country, but that's silly, of course - some attributes do affect fitness for office. (For example, level of education maybe; age, certainly, at least inasmuch as a five-year-old Senator most likely wouldn't be up to the job, even though there are five-year-old constituents.)

But what about other things such as blood groups, hair and eye colour, sexual orientation, marital status, or veteran status? (Or pregnancy status?)

[chaos-by-design.livejournal.com]

That article about "modern childhood" sounds more like "modern upper class childhood." I wish journalists would stop treating the experience of the upper classes as if it was the experience of everyone.

[erinlin-w.livejournal.com]

What the hell is up with that last article. Seriously. At least she was found guilty...

[sayga.livejournal.com]

I don't see how the kid's autism should play a part in the decision at all. If it's murder to withhold cancer treatment from a child, then it's still murder if the child also has another issue going on. I do think the remission rate and prognosis of the cancer should play a part in the decision though. If there is little to no hope of remission, then I do think it's a parent-doctor decision (and child, if the child is old enough and able to express an opinion), but it's just horrible that they're making it out as ok just because he was non-verbal and difficult to manage.

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

The article about "modern childhood" seems really strange on a lot of levels. Modern childhood is so different because kids today don't have "the no-cares time of innocence, exploration, and imagination" that their parents recall about their own childhood? I would like to suggest that the author, and/or the parents being interviewed, are conveniently forgetting some aspects of their own childhoods.

I was a child of the 1970s, and it was not a "no-cares time of innocence." I had responsibilities and obligations. I lived with somewhat less scheduling and supervision than the average child of 2011, but not none. (I had Hebrew school and scouts, and either chorus or a sport.) When I was out to play, I was responsible for looking after my little brother, and we weren't allowed to go more than 2 blocks. And had to call home if we went into any house.

I also have a problem with trying to conclude that "kids are more anxious/stressed/depressed these days than they used to be," based on surveys about of how they are now. Was anybody doing surveys of kids a generation ago? Two generations ago? It doesn't count if you ask a bunch of adults, "How happy were you when you were 9?" Memories blur...the ones who didn't keep diaries are likely to think, "Oh, it was great, I didn't have [this specific problem] or [that specific problem], so I had nothing to worry about."