It doesn't have to be homogeneous or rural, you just have to address the grievances, make sure everyone is adequately housed, has access to medical attention, and has something to do; and then you get peace.
No that's really not sufficient Some groups of people have absolutely endless amounts of grievances. They have made the grievances their entire personality. They will never be sufficiently satisfied with whatever concessions you make to them
The US has very low standards for its lifestyle. We're told we are number ONE in everything but in fact its usually 40 or 20 when you actually go look at things that matter. We never really notice because we think filling a big house in the suburbs with garbage from Costco is living the dream.
As a naturalized American who lived in 3 other countries including two in Europe and who travels often all over the world, married to a European, etc I must say the US has its perks and it’s definitely in my top 5 countries to live. I lived mostly in the south and the east coast so I don’t have a full picture of the US as a resident. But it’s the same in Europe, living in Berlin is very different than living in Sicil…
>In Europe taking long family road trips by car as we do in the US would be prohibited and even stupid in the eyes of many Europeans.
What?? Caravan or road trip with regular car is a very common vacation in Europe. In France there are tons of free places to stop over the night. In the nordics you can camp anywhere that isn't close to someones house, even on private land. But no I wouldn't take the car instead of a 2-3 hour flight, especially as our cities have excellent public transportation.
> It's a short walk, along a sidewalk separated from the street by 10 feet of grass. Sam would have to cross two streets with crosswalks, which she'd seen him do safely hundreds of times—including six times that morning
She was always with him when he did that. Not the same as him doing it alone. Regardless, there are local laws against this.
She repeatedly saw him do it safely. Why should she think he wouldn't do it safely if not observed?
pond != school. Ponds are notoriously unsafe and even treacherous for small kids. In any case this is law enforcers overreaching and creating unneeded and useless trauma in the family just because they can. Should never went so far.
Yup, this is the part that bothers me.
5 year old kid who has been properly trained walking alone--I have no problem with that. My mother was blind, I was taught safe street crossing from an early age. I do not recall when I was crossing residential streets unsupervised, I do recall I was crossing major streets (at traffic lights) alone at 7. I'd take the bus to go visit grandma--no escort on either end.
But 5 year old unsupervised at a pond is another matter. Unless they have plenty of swimming experience that disturbs me.
I mean I wouldn't let me 5 year old cross busy streets by himself in my neighborhood... People drive while staring at their phones going 45 mph in a 25... Maybe we should start punishing people who make the roads so dangerous in the first place...
Phones, 45 in a 25? I was taught that pedestrians are invisible. 99.9% of cars will stop, but not all--don't take the risk. Cross only when you can see that nobody's coming.
One of the worst aspects of modern life. The most paranoid person decides what the right thing to do is.
Well, I actually live in Gurgaon, India. It is very modern, and it's pretty much the same. Everyone lives in these gated complexes with a tiny militia guarding them from no real threat. Children are driven around everywhere and are always accompanied by a nanny or grandparents inside the gated complex.
"they" like to gaslight us that cities are safer than ever. That it's social media scaring us into thinking our cities are less safe. But in actually safe countries (Japan, Switzerland, Singapore) kids are already taking themselves to school around 5 years old and parents aren't getting criminal records for letting their children explore their independence. Food for thought...
Your reasoning makes no sense. Laws are not indicative of how dangerous being outside is, the only indicator is getting into danger. The child did not get into any danger. The point you oppose still works - "they" made you (Americans) terrified of cities/other people/the idea of children leaving your house, so you all start passing helicopter parenting laws.
Here in Switzerland children start walking to school at around 5-years. Parents aren't allowed to bring them to school. If a parent escorts their children to school they'll be told not to. If they keep doing it they'll get a letter from the school and probably a police visit. And if they continue (I never heard of it getting to this stage) they may be fined. It's funny in the morning. One child walks to another child…
Young children also walk to the elementary schools near me. When I’m at the park with my kids, it’s common to see other very young kids show up alone on their bikes or on foot to play in the park. This is in the US. I think international readers see these headlines and assume the entire US is like this, but the reason the story is a headline is because it’s a dumb sentence. This is going to get appealed. The US is a…
For sure. My youngest, who was 13 years old over the summer so a bit older, went on a few 25+mile bike rides on a nearby bike trail. He was gone for several hours, we just made sure he had plenty of water, sunscreen, and a reasonably full phone battery. This is in northern Chicago suburbs, Lake County. He absolutely loved the freedom, and we were able to periodically check is location. My MIL thought we were insane for letting him do this. She also thought we were insane for letting our oldest, a HS senior, do a 4 week summer course at USC in LA. He delighted in telling us about going off campus to play basketball, etc.
Parenting "pros" don't break the law. If everyone did this we'd have similar number of drownings and vehicular homicide as we did in the 60s about 4000->1000.
Argue the law all you want, just don't break it or try to rationalize it after breaking it. The title is misleading, she was sentenced for neglect, not for "allowing" her child to do something. She told him to go to the pond unsupervised putting him at substantial unnecessary unreasonable risk, that's intent.
Furthermore when officials informed her that she was going against local regulations she doubled down and didn't want to hear it. "Point to the exact statute that says I can't do this insane thing" Ma'am please, nobody here does that.