that some people might be irrationally frightened. Considering that this whole debacle is an example of the amount of damage one irrational madman can cause, who's to say that not one of the remaining 26000 students will be levelheaded and rational as the few students who have been interviewed? It's not a condemnation of Vtech students as a whole; just an understandable reaction to incomprehensible random violence.

meant to say, "not one of the remaining 26000 students will be not as levelheaded and rational as the few students who have been interviewed

And there it is, clear as day on pg 26, 96% of young americans can find the US on a world map. Sure, I wonder about that 4%, but honestly, I don't think this is the national catastrophe we should be asking pageant contestants about.

I'm wondering if someone could enlighten me regarding her voting record. There seems to be an overall impression that she's centrist, or even basically a Bush lackey in liberal clothing, but when I look up her voting record

http://votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

With more commentary here:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/011142.php

And it seems to me that especially on social issues, she's quite progressive. In a general election, the voting record would lead me to worry that she's too progressive to get elected, not that she wouldn't be progressive enough once elected.

I know she voted for the war, and for bills that continue to fund the war, but besides the initial war vote (on all appropriations bills after that, their record is identical), she comes out as being more progressive than Obama, not less.

If women are given the choice between riding the women's bus or riding the coed bus? It's a loaded word and it implies victimization of a weaker group.

Or at least, the segregation doesn't seem to be victimizing women. It's the men who have fewer options (and are forced to ride older, presumably less desirable buses). Granted, the gropers brought it on themselves, but the non gropers seem to be getting the shaft. Isn't there any demand for men-only buses?

Apparently, Mexico doesn't have a foster care system, or at least not one analogous to the one in the US. They do have orphanages, however. I assume that if there was no family to care care of the child, the default would be the orphanage. Adoption is rare within Mexico for cultural reasons and adoptions by foreigners are heavily regulated, very difficult.

I'm just wondering if the policy isn't so much influenced by maternal bonding, but economic concerns. If the kids have to be taken to orphanages, a separate building must be built, with special facilities and staff. If they stay in prison, the mothers and inmates will take care of the children, no new buildings are needed, and a bump in the food budget is probably the extent of the influence on the budget.

If maternal bonding was the real motivation, any child under 6 should be sent to prison with the mother. I doubt this happens. A birth in a government facility makes the child a government problem. Considering the number of children living on the streets (name links to some stats), I'm guessing that an abandoned child whose mother has gone to prison is on its own.

Making it a requirement makes it easier to play the maternal bonding card.

Even if they have to be transferred to an orphanage at the age of 6, that's a lot of money saved. If the numbers from the US are any indication:

According to an analysis done for TIME by the Child Welfare League of America, the annual welfare cost of one child living with his or her mother is $2,644. The same child living with a foster family costs the public $4,800 a year. The average cost for the child's care in "residential group care," today's closest approximation of an orphanage, is $36,500.

Some questions from the scale used in the study, the CED-D

1. I was bothered by things that don't usually bother me.

2. I did not feel like eating; my appetite was poor.

3. I felt that I could not shake off the blues even with the help of my family or friends.

4. I felt that I was just as good as other people.

5. I had trouble keeping my mind on what I was doing.

6. I felt depressed.

7. I felt everything I did was an effort.

8. I felt hopeful about the future.

9. I thought my life had been a failure.

et cetera: http://counsellingresource.com/quizzes/cesd/index.html

The scale focuses on how a person feels and in general has an introspective focus. Men I've known who are depressed are much more likely to be outwardly focused. They seem less likely than women to say, I'm sad, or I'm lonely, and more likely to say, my job sucks, or I'll never find anyone like my ex. They don't think their mental or emotional state is an inaccurate representation, but a direct result of what's going on in the world. In other words, if they're sad, it's because the world sucks, not the other way around.

I would like to see a depression scale designed specifically for men. I think it should be more externally focused, less about feelings, and require less introspection from the person being evaluated.

A few possibilities:

My job is interesting and satisfying.

My significant other is a good fit for me.

People are basically good.

You get the idea. You might have to collect data over time, to see trends (going from my job is awesome to my job is horrible could be an indicator) but something's obviously going horribly wrong if people who are miserable enough to kill themselves are going undiagnosed. Rather than concluding that men don't get depressed as often as women, maybe we should create tools that can identify depressed men.