Our village failed a child

The Advocate reported yesterday about an incident that put a wide and ugly spotlight on Newark Ohio. It concerns the mistreatment of one of our children and you can read the story at this link and see the WBNS TV report at this link.

That incident would never have occurred if our village hadn’t failed so miserably, including ...

1 - Every driver who passed without stopping - especially the school bus driver. More than 50 drivers passed. I can’t believe all of them failed to call the police; did anyone call and, if so, did the police show up?

2 - Every resident who lived along the street, saw what was happening and did nothing.

3 - The Newark Police Department for not patrolling the streets near schools.

3 - The Newark Police Department for not getting serious about this crime until it received media attention and worldwide exposure on the Internet.

4 - The Newark City Schools for not preparing students for bullies, for not teaching this victim how to react.

5 - The Newark City Schools for maintaining the attitude: It happened off our official property, so we are helpless and we can’t get involved. Not true. Administrators and teachers could maintain a presence along neighboring streets (the principal and teachers at Lincoln did so many years ago when my kids attended that school). They above all, should get involved - personally and professionally.

6 - The Newark City Schools for failing to follow up on this incident; that video tape was surely available to administrators, had they cared enough to ask.

7 - The parents of the bully, of course, who failed to supervise their child.

8 - The parents of the victim who should have known their child could be endangered on her way home and acted to protect her with whatever it takes.

There is a proverb: It takes a village to raise a child.

Only one person did not fail the bully’s victim. That was the person who held a video camera and recorded Newark as it failed one of its children.

Criminal aliens want their rights

This morning I read at the Dispatch web site “Immigration activists start reform push in Ohio.”

Two hours later I receive one of those e-mails, the facts in which are unattributed, but the thrust of which is on the money. It says:

“If you cross the North Korean border illegally you get 12 years hard labor.

“If you cross the Iranian border illegally you are detained indefinitely.

“If you cross the Afghan border illegally you get shot.

“If you cross the Turkey border illegally you spend the rest of your life in prison.

“If you cross the U.S. border illegally you get ...

“... a drivers license

“... a Social Security card

“... welfare

“... food stamps

“... and free health care!”

I have written about giving our millions of criminal aliens their “rights” many times and you can link to all of them here. But if this subject interests you, please at least read Criminal aliens: The losers are Mexico and Mexicans

Trash solution: Use laws on the books

Yesterday, the Advocate - again - editorialized in favor of a city contract with a trash hauler to solve the piggish behavior of certain residents who soil their yards and sidewalks with trash.

The last time the Advocate did that, I suggested that newspapers be licensed, since Gannett is so willing to take away freedom of individuals and give it to the Magic Nanny. Such a license might require Gannett to move its printing operation out of Newark as a means to save wear on the city’s streets. Read it here.

Trash-talking is an on-going pastime in Newark Ohio and its disciples are preparing another dopey offensive on free enterprise. Trash is a favorite avenue by which local meddlers attempt more regulation on private affairs, as I said in the most recent essay, 3/9/09, at this link.

Meanwhile, citizens have consistently sent the message to council- and busybodies like the “Trash Talkers” - and the Advocate - to butt out of the trash collection business.

The solution for the pigs among us is simple. The city must enforce its own laws against fouling yards, sidewalks, and streets. The laws are on the books.

Unless something’s changed since I checked it in March, 2009, all the city needs is to enforce 660.04 (Noxious odors; filthy accumulations ...); and 660.05 (Duty to keep sidewalks in repair and clean); but especially at 1860.03 (a), (1), (2), (6) and 1860.04 (a), (1). They prohibit people from creating and maintaining improper and unsanitary and bothersome trash.

Talk all the intrusive and ill-conceived and bothersome “solutions” to trash you can think of, but to clean it up, the administration, the police, and the courts need only to enforce current laws.

Aliens are not the same as settlers

Comments to yesterday’s Advocate essay about Obama’s balloon to legalize criminal aliens sometimes amazed me by their misunderstanding - and mixing - of issues.

For instance, leo21 (Jon Emler) wrote the following: “Bruce, My family came to America in 1732 from Germany. The American Indians didn't invite them and didn't want these white people to take over their land. I just don't understand how people think this land is only for them and keep others out. Fear isn't the answer.”

Here’s my response to that:

This argument implies that because settlers took over from the Indians that now anyone should be free to cross our borders at will, which is what happened in the case of the “criminal aliens” I write about.

If that is indeed your point then consider this: If our nation today were as weak, disorganized, and indefensible as the “nation” of Indians, then today our national language would be Russian or Nazi German and if not that, then Spanish.

It didn’t work out that way. Instead, millions of people - like your family and mine - entered this country legally (as laws developed to define the difference). They built our country into what it is - with labor and tax payments - so that we are able to protect ourselves from Russia and Nazi Germany, for instance, and also may decide who is allowed to cross our borders, and when they may cross, and what they must do to qualify for that privilege.

We pay a huge government a huge price to enforce those decisions, but government will not do that. Instead, it is ignoring our wishes in favor of big businesses who’ve bribed government to allow them cheap, illegal laborers.

I don’t think our ancestors, who obeyed immigration laws - no matter the delays and inconvenience - would be very proud of us if we threw open our borders to anyone who can find a way to get here.

And I think legalizing these millions would further weaken our national economy and national pride. All this aside from further straining a job market from which millions of jobs by U.S. employers have gone to other countries because it is more profitable.

Here comes Obama on criminal aliens

Today President Obama began testing the waters on his plan to legalize the criminal aliens who’ve overrun the United States. Will you buy it, citizen? And if so, what kind of soft-shoe dance by Washington will it require?

For me, he can test us and finagle his voter base and define these people as victims all he chooses. They are criminals because they are in this country illegally. They should be sent back home.

Anything else, and the Presidential honeymoon is over.

Further, as I wrote 7/5/07, Criminal aliens: The losers are Mexico and Mexicans the losers will continue to be Mexico and Mexicans. For other essays and links, go to the box above and search “aliens.”

Hottinger explains Ohio's child predator law

I took a pop at the law that permits government to go after a teenager as a sex predator for a minor offense when I wrote about it here 10/9/08. I said it was Jay Hottinger's badly written law at fault.

Well, it's a lot more complicated than that. After exchanging correspondence with Jay and his legal assistant I have concluded that the law is indeed imperfect and Jay may have contributed to that imperfection by not being able - any more than any other legislator who voted for it - to envision the loophole that allows prosecutors such as Ken Oswalt to snare a child into the category of sexual predator for inappropriate behavior. Also, that this law will be revised by the Ohio legislature.

Here are are three key paragraphs from Jay's letter to me as they relate to the prosecution of a local teenager under Megan's Law, which he authored, and which was revised under the title Adam Walsh Law:

"I can tell you with 100% certainty that as I was writing the bill, as it was being debated, and as it was being passed with broad and overwhelming bi-partisan support in 2001- the discussion was always on these young people doing very dangerous and serious adult-like crimes.
 
"I was not involved in the Adam Walsh writing but I can tell you that no legislator ever envisioned an incident like our current local situation being used to prosecute a young person as a sex offender and having to register. 
 
"This case is a classic example of why are laws in Ohio are called the Ohio Revised Code.  I believe there certainly needs to be some revision as while this girl broke the law and there needs to be some form of consequences - to label her a sex offender and to have to register for 20 years is tragic and absurd.  I am certainly not condoning her behavior but this possible sentence is not in balance with the offense."

At this link you can read Jay's letter and an explanation by his legislative aide of the laws in question.

Licking County stands out among bad governments

When Licking County's zealous prosecutor took advantage of a quirk in a Licking County state legislator's badly written law to snare a 15-year-old girl as a sexual predator, (which I wrote about yesterday) I suspect he didn't know it would be a world event.

AP picked it up from the Advocate's report and it has been a subject of interest from New Jersey to Spokane, from Alabama to Canada, and recently it has jumped the ocean to England. Google News claims to have listed 223 news articles about this event as of this morning.

Only one reason for such widespread interest and that is the depths to which government - our local government - has sunk. We are an oddity in a world filled with bad governments.

Let us reflect on our world reputation when our county prosecutor, Ken Oswalt, and our state representative, Jay Hottinger, ask for re-election.

Government mind control showcased by county prosecutor

The extent to which government has gone in its attempt to control the thoughts of citizens is showcased in today's Advocate by the report headlined Girl, 15, accused of sending nude photos over phone.

It's about the local court's prosecution of a kid who sent nude photos of herself via cell phone to some other kids. Charged with two felonies, she could be labeled a sex offender and put under government behavior control for 20 years.

A sexual offender? And the other kids who got the photos? The report indicated that even they could be charged. Doesn't it make you feel good to have government looking over your shoulder, protecting your morals and guiding your thoughts?

This likely is a kid who, when opening her e-mail is drowning in spam that wants to know if she'd like to buy pills to increase the size of her penis, salves to make her lover more sensitive, and any other slimy crap that can be imagined by basement-level pervs throughout the world.

Why doesn't government get that stuff off everyone's computer instead of regulating what citizens say (in words and pictures) in private over their private phones and computers?

As I understand government's mind-control capability, you can be charged as a perv for downloading photos and written materials that don't meet standards set by high-thinking moralists who oversee state and federal governments. Yet the perverted spam rolls on like a river. Don't tell me government couldn't stop it. But better headlines for government are to be had in local grunts coming after local citizens. What a crock.

I'm not saying the girl should have done what she did, but I know at age 15 if I had a cell phone and I knew a girl who had a cell phone I would surely have encouraged her to be a bit naughty with it. More than a bit, in fact.

Back then, though, our phones were on party lines with live operators. So my chances of naughtiness, phone-wise, would have been slim to none.

Complicating such an endeavor would have been my parents and her parents who likely would thrash all unclean thoughts out of us if we got caught.

Which points to the differences of then and now. Parents took care of their kids' morals and behavior and local government wouldn't have dared to poke around in our private activities or thoughts. Back then, such notions were still merely sci-fi.

All of which makes this a good time to review The Price of Freedom.

Now will you start arresting tailgaters?

I certainly don't wish anyone to be hurt in an auto accident or otherwise. But if anyone has to get whacked, let it be the fools who put their bumpers together in high-speed traffic.

Some of them got what they deserved in a recent 12-car pile-up on Newark expressway. Here's the report.

It's way past time when law enforcement people should be nailing tailgaters, even more so than speeders. Its also past time to outlaw telephone chatting and texting while driving.

We should test drivers for impairment, not for birthdays

An older driver went into the wall of McDonald's last week and it was her age, not her impairment (if any) that came under attack. Commentators to the Advocate report chirped about the need to remove older folks from the roadways.

As a 73-year-old driver with my first McDonald's wall - or anything else - yet to be hit with my car in 57 years behind the wheel, I'm pretty sure I can drive at least as well as any of those commenters. I have the added advantage, most of the time, of a 69-year-old wife yelling in my ear about approaching hazards, many of them thousands of feet away and most of them imaginary.

Old age itself does, I admit, eventually become an impairment and whenever I get penalized by age I fully intend to arrange for transportation by others. It will be a sad day, and I hope it will be many years from now, but I promise to peacefully submit my keys.

In the meantime I don't want to hear anymore crap about taking the keys of, or requiring special tests for, folks unfortunate enough to grow older.

What I do want to hear is about sensible laws in Ohio that identify and penalize impaired driving - by people of all ages.

Start with the definition of - and reliable tests for - driving while "impaired." Such a definition would include not what is in one's bloodstream, urine, or breath but instead a computerized measure of the driver's ability to think, control his body, react to emergencies, and read both speedometer and distant traffic signals.

As mentioned here yesterday, the present law measures only chemicals deemed to be "controlled substances" found in body fluids and breath. It ignores effects of medicine - prescription and otherwise - which slow you down, make you light-headed, make you pass out and even, fer God's sake, cause weird things such as "anal leakage." Having anal leakage while driving would surely impair anyone's ability concentrate or to steer in a straight line.

Meantime, there is a Nintendo gamester thing called Wii Fit, described by Business Week as "a sturdy board slightly larger than a bathroom scale, about an inch high, that communicates with the Wii console wirelessly. Players step onto the board, which senses their movements, balance, and center of gravity. Included software features dozens of activities based on strength training, aerobics, and yoga..."

Seems to me that if Nintendo can mass-produce a "game" that can do all that, Ohio lawmen can do better than make suspects blow into a tube or pee in a cup - poor excuses for tests that will get dangerous drivers off the road.

Ohio's "under-the-influence" law misses the point

Note: this was originally published at Newark Tea Party September 1, 2006. It was called to mind yesterday as I tried to learn how the State of Ohio presumes drivers to be drunk. So I looked at the Ohio Revised Code until my eyes went numb. The main section, 4511.19 Operating vehicle under the influence of alcohol or drugs - OVI, is at this link. I first wrote about the law when it was new because misses the point. More on this tomorrow.

A new state under-the-influence law was described in Friday's Advocate by Licking County Municipal Judge Michael Higgins. Taking effect Aug. 17 [2006] the law lists several "commonly used drugs of abuse," in the judge's words. The law provides for prosecution based on the presence of these drugs in the blood or urine of the accused. There is no need, the judge reported, for proof that the person was operating a vehicle or watercraft in an impaired manner. And worse, the concentrations specified in the law are, in the words of the judge, "extremely low and may reflect ingestion of the illegal drug days or even weeks before the operation of the vehicle or watercraft."

The new law accommodates prosecutors who formerly couldn't prove the connection between drug consumption and impaired vehicle operation. Now, they no longer have to try. If the drugs show up in the tests, the law now assumes there is a connection even though the accused may have abstained for weeks.

Dumb law. But it calls to mind the irrationality of convicting drivers with a certain level of blood alcohol. Blood-alcohol level does not indicate specific degree of impairment. Individuals differ from one to the other, and from one day to another, depending on other physical factors. You can read about it here.

Predicting the amount of blood alcohol that will result from drinking so much of this or that also depends on various factors. There is a loose connection between number and type of drinks consumed within a certain time period and you can see the scope of variations which can be projected using a "drink wheel," assuming the bar owner will give you a computer and Internet access. Here's the link.

The only sure way to know if you have an illegally high level of blood alcohol is to do a self-test. And would you know where to get a personal breathalizer? Well, neither did the Ohio Highway Patrol officer I questioned several months ago. Strange.

You'd think that personal breathalizers would be readily available at every drug store and gas station and bar. In fact, government, ever willing to intrude on every other human activity might even promote their use, in view of the stakes involved in driving under the influence.

Here's something else that doesn't make sense to me: None of the legal sharpshooting aimed at DUI takes into account the effects of prescription and over-the-counter medicines consumed, many of which can cause great impairment. Maybe because this involves the work of doctors and drug companies instead of bar owners and breweries.

Impairment is impairment, no matter what did it, and determining how much a person is impaired, not what caused the impairment is not just critical to road safety, but the only fair way to prosecute for endangering others. This calls for an instrument to measure impairment itself. Surely there is a scientific way to do this. Skip the blood, the breath, the urine. Can the person function or not? How difficult would it be to measure this at the time of the arrest? Not very. And how much more fair would it be? Infinitely.

Frank Stare case: An opportunity in vain?

Yesterday I wrote "all's well that ends well," in a tongue-in-cheek essay about the incredible folly surrounding the Frank Stare Hugging Case.

I don't think it ended very well, so it would be a shame had that been the last public comment. It is a serious matter and the least that should come of it is for citizens of Newark to try to learn from it and ask whether our local justice system needs to be improved.

All this not for revenge, not for injustice to Frank Stare, but for our own welfare, since any citizen who lives in Newark could be next.

There probably have been thousands of cases drug through the Newark legal system in which "justice" lost sight of logic and fairness, but not many with this much public attention. I had hoped the case would end with a clearing of the air during which each participant in the decisions leading up to the charges brought against Frank would be fully aired on witness stand under oath.

As I understood the news reports, that was about to happen next and would have if there had not been a plea deal arranged in which Frank had the chance to duck out for the price of $50 with a plea of guilty to a charge of "annoying" someone, which is on about the same level as running a red light.

I have mixed feelings about his decision to do that. I don't know everything that had to be considered, and I don't blame him for wanting to get all this behind him, but by stopping before the finale there seems to have been a missed opportunity to improve our local system of justice, our community, and our own individual freedoms and security.

As it stands there has not been a determination of what, if anything, party politics had to do with this. The perception is, though, had it not been for political influence, the complaint against Frank would have been treated like any other complaint of this ilk, meaning, I guess, that it would have died an early and quiet death among lots of other dying minor complaints.

Someone who knows local politics asked (off the record) "why were the charges brought six days prior to the election?" "how many similar cases have been ignored?" "how many third-degree misdemeanor cases have had three detectives assigned to them in the last year?" "why was no special prosecutor appointed (to avoid the political aspects)?"

Well, consider this: If Frank Stare, a Democrat who was running for city council, had won a seat it would have brought the balance of political power to five Republicans and five Democrats. Thus would Council president, a Democrat, become the tie-breaking voter. As it turned out, Frank didn't even come close to winning.

Maybe all this is mere coincidence. Maybe not, and if not it is an opportunity for improvement of our system that appears, at this point, to have been in vain.

Frank Stare is a recovering hugger, but all's well that ends well

Because of Frank Stare, I'm going to at last get my Advocate delivered to my doorstep and not to the adjoining snow, flowers or grass. Finally I found a law that will resolve this issue!

They used it on Frank Stare during his trial as a hugger. It's Section 2917.11 of the Ohio Code. They nailed Frank with this law for trying to be nice because in doing so he was considered by the hugee to be annoying. He was convicted for being annoying in a city so full of annoying people they can't be counted, one of whom is supposed to put the Advocate on my doorstep.

Nobody on the face of the earth is more annoying than a paper slinger who walks through the neighbor's flowers (though she was twice asked not to do that) and across my yard (instead of the sidewalk) and approaches my house for a distance of maybe 13 paces. Nothing wrong with any of that except for the neighbor's flowers. Nothing except that if she were to walk one single step farther, she could get the paper on my doorstep and not in the crack by the doorstep that can only be seen if I open the doors and walk out on the step. Just one more freakin' step. How annoying can it get?

Certainly a hug is far less annoying. But Frank admitted doing the hugging crime - though likely it was only a sort of a half a crime, as you can visualize when a guy his size tries to reach across a stack of election signs to deliver any sort of full-blown annoying hug. Nevertheless, the lady (who had just been given a free ride and a sympathetic ear regarding her troubles) was annoyed and righteously pursued the case right up to the point where she would have had to publicly testify about her annoyance.

Never mind that Frank's public service career is probably over, and never mind that he also had to go to court and had to be made the subject of a big photo in the Advocate as he sat in court, and he had to screw around with attorneys and legalities and detectives and he ended up having to pay a $50 fine and the hugee never had to testify nor be publicly identified.

This Ohio "gotcha" law lists all sorts of ways in which the legal system can jerk around anyone unfortunate enough to be standing in the wrong place. While "hugging" as such isn't mentioned in the Ohio Revised Code section 2917.11 (which you can read at this link) it does say that you may not cause inconvenience, annoyance, or alarm ... etc." and so my legal advice is that anyone with hugging in mind better get a written permission slip.

But all's well that ends well. Frank is now a recovering hugger; one less hugger we have running the streets of Newark thanks to a diligent city prosecutor, police detectives, safety director, court system and a gaggle of news reporters.

Even better than this city being rid of a hugger, I now have the legal ammunition to go after that Advocate delivery person. Pretty soon she just might be a recovering miss-the-doorstepper.

Self-defense by force isn't just a guy thing

The Ohio Senate unanimously agreed that Ohioans should be able to respond with force in defense of their lives and family. Further, that doing so should not open them to civil lawsuits.

State Senator Jay Hottinger of Newark is to be congratulated for his vote on this, the Ohio "Castle Doctrine."

We should use the occasion to remember that this isn't just another NRA Second Amendment fight, though the NRA is leading this law through state legislatures. SB 184 - the fight of law-abiding citizens who want to live safely in their own homes - now goes to the House for consideration.

We also need to remember that this isn't just a guy thing. Many, if not most, homes today are headed by the "weaker sex," mostly the sex that needs emboldened for self-defense. They need to buy guns and learn to use them safely, and this might be a small impetus.

That Ohio and other states need to "legalize" something so fundamentally necessary as the "right" to defend oneself in one's own home against criminals is pretty sick. It is just one more sign of how far off the edge the legal profession has pushed rights of regular people.

Security at City Hall

The killings during a council meeting at Kirkwood, MO on 2/7/08 has inspired some interest in security measures being taken at Newark City Hall. Channel 4 in Columbus interviewed Council President Marc Guthrie for his reaction.

Federal funds were used to install an emergency exit door and there's a direct wire from council chambers to the police department for emergency help.

The problem though is not just the protection of council members. It is a matter of security for all City Hall employees.

For that purpose, a metal detector was purchased with federal funds three years ago but it is still sitting in the lobby, unused - apparently because the city has nobody qualified to operate it, though $89,000 was appropriated for that purpose last year and $100,000 this year.

There's a saying about closing the barn door after the horses get out. Is that what we're waiting for?

Thorp for Sheriff

The Advocate's recent report on the candidates for Licking County Sheriff did nothing to help me decide which one I would vote for were I to vote in the Republican primary, (which I won't because I value my independent status).

It was, however, reader response to this article on the Advocate forum where I learned what insiders believe. They convinced me Randy Thorp will win.

"Castle Doctrine" hearing set for this Wednesday

Ohio is among states in which you can't respond in force in the defense of your life or family without fear of civil lawsuits by criminals.

Senate Bill 184, the "Castle Doctrine" will, if passed, put an end to this foolishness. SB 184 will go before the Criminal Justice Committee 10 a.m. Wed., 1/30/08 for a public hearing in the North Hearing Room.

Anyone who is interested in legalizing one's right to defend himself while under criminal attack should attend the hearing if possible and if not, then contact members of the Senate Judiciary - Criminal Justice Committee. They are listed on the NRA website here.

Included among those members is our own Senator from Lancaster, Tim Schaffer (R-31); Telephone: 614-466-5838; Email: SD31@mailr.sen.state.oh.us

Entrapment

Recommended reading is a column by Roland C. Eyears at the WCLT web site. Twice in recent months the Columbus police department arranged for what they probably would describe as "sting" because it sounds all legal that way. But any arrests with convictions based more clearly on entrapment techniques would be difficult to imagine. Here's the link.

Sex offenders, cell phones, and local revitalization

Sex offenders...
I second today's Advocate editorial regarding the mistakes of the new sex-offender regulations. They just don't make sense, and particularly so when compared to the ways in which other types of convicted evil-doers - drug dealers and killers, for instance - are set free after serving their time.

Good job, Advocate. Read it here.

Cell phones ...

Consumer Union is making it really easy for citizens to speak out for regulation of the cell phone industry. I used the form they e-mailed me to encourage meaningful federal legislation.

CU sent a follow-up e-mail, encouraging me to spread the word. Here's what the e-mail said:

"Pass the Cell Phone Consumer Empowerment Act of 2007
"The cell phone industry doesn't like real competition--so it produces phones we can only use with a particular company, contracts that lock us in with early termination fees, and more. I just took a moment to help turn it around. After FCC investigations last fall and pro-consumer standards passed in some leading states, Congress is finally stepping in to improve the market for all of us.

"I just took two minutes to tell my lawmakers the most important changes I want to see, and I hope you will too. It will take support from tens of thousands of regular people like us to offset the power of a well funded corporate lobby, but Consumers Union -- the nonprofit publisher of Consumer Reports and a cell phone reform proponent -- has a great track record getting things done. Click here to join me in action."

18th Congressional renewal plan ...

Zack Space is launching "Renew Ohio 18," a long-term game plan to revitalize Southeaster Ohio's economy. Read it here.

Shall we buy another false sense of security?

The most certain way to riches is to invent something that plays on fear, then get the government to make people use it.

Such a maneuver is in the works by a company in Chargrin Falls which manufactures a device "that would warn people when a sex offender is approaching," according to an article in the Cincinnati Post.

Convicted sex offenders would be locked into a monitoring ankle bracelet equipped to set off vibrations in small devices to be carried by folks who want to be alerted when a predator approaches.

Fear of sexual predators creates a ready market. The idea is being pushed by Ohio Senator Tim Grendell, who chairs the state Judiciary Committee on Criminal Justice. He wants a law requiring the existing GPS ankle bracelets to be modified for this purpose.

But even a spokesman for the Cleveland Rape Crisis Center says it won't help because nine in 10 sex crime victims are assaulted by a person they know or trust. "This just plays on the great myths out there, such as the stranger danger myth that's not true," the newspaper quoted her as saying. "It's sending the wrong message and setting people up with a false sense of security."

She's right. Protection from predators should be provided by other family members, mostly moms and dads or guardians. Knowing where kids are and what they are doing and with whom would virtually wipe out this awful problem that has resulted from the breakdown of the family and the refusal of parents and relatives to be responsible.

I don't think legislators can remedy stupid and irresponsible parents; I'm also pretty sure these electronic gimmicks will do no more than make yet another company rich by giving it my tax money.