Capitalism to blame

Yeah, I blame him, he's a fucking nutcase! Blighters, that's a passionate piece of writing, and although I may not agree with it I applaud a) your right to feel this way and to say it, and b) the strong emotion you’ve put into it. And I agree with you in that the first question that has to be asked may well be, “Who was looking after this kid?” (It’s the first question I ask when carrying out construction site Incident Investigations; “Where was his supervisor?” “What was covered in his morning safe-2-start briefing? And so on). However, he’s the one who pulled the trigger. He didn’t have to do that, did he? He could have gone and smoked a doobie somewhere, or watched a baseball game. His choice, nobody else’s. It’s a fact that very often perpetrators of crime are originally victims themselves, and although that may be a reason, it’s hardly an excuse, is it? Big difference between the two. I will challenge you on one assumption though, that a family where both parents work results in an ‘emotionally parentless future generation.’ My wife desperately wanted, and planned, to be home when our lad arrived home from school, but unfortunately it didn’t work out that way. We couldn’t survive on one person’s salary, and so with regret she carried on working. However, our boy at 16 is a well adjusted young man, interested in sports, planning for the future, and extremely kind and thoughtful. He grunts and grumbles a bit, but he’s a teenager and I’ll forgive him for that. It depends on the parents – back to Nancy Lanza. Not wishing to generalise, but the reciprocal viewpoint of yours can sometimes also be true in that parents who don’t work can often result in an emotionally parentless future generation. It’s a slippery slope.

I think that America has to stop slapping itself on the back and wake up to the fact that it is not a true Democracy and never will be until American politicians actually start representing the majority of the people instead of priviledged, powerful minorities. Ban lobby groups they're undemocratic; do away with corruption, serve the electorate and only the electorate because that's how democracy's supposed to work.

I was thinking the same thing, Blighters. Children being killed anywhere is a tragedy.

Well, I truly believe democracy is impossible. Let’s have a look at what we spend our tax pennies on: THE BIG THREE (60%) 1. Social Security & Welfare (25% on its own) - Old age (pensions & winter fuel allowance), unemployment (job seekers allowance), benefits, sickness & disability, family & children (income support, child benefit, tax credits) , social housing. 2. Health service - Hospitals etc. 3. Education - Early years, schools, universities THE REST (40%) • National Debt Management (interest payments) • Defense We’re now spending more money on our national debt than we are on defending the realm. • Public Order & Safety - Police, courts, prisons, fire service, immigration & border patrol, legal aid • The Government - Parliaments, council administration, European Union • Transport - Railways, roads, local public transport • Trade & Industry - Food, farming, research & development • Recreation, Sport & Culture - Sport, parks & beaches, broadcasting & publishing • The Environment & Rural Affairs - Waste disposal, environmental protection • Oversees Economic Aid - Development, defense • Libraries & Museums So, just playing devil’s advocate here for a minute, wouldn’t it be fun if every year we could actually decide exactly what our tax money is spent on? Now I’m well aware that we’re not all economic geniuses and most of us are unable to see the bigger picture. If the country were run by all of us it would be in a worse state than it is now, but wouldn’t it be nice to have a say? Wouldn’t that be a True Democracy? For arguments sake you might decide you’d like 60% of your tax money to go towards education, 21% on benefits and job seekers allowance, 7% on our transport system, 3% on culture, 5% on the public order & safety and 4% on waste disposal & recycling. Or you might like to give 20% towards culture, 20% towards social services, in particular old people, the unemployed and hard up families, 20% towards the health service, 10% towards the railways, 10% on the roads, 10% on managing the national debt and 10% on the environment. And if you really took an interest, you could even say exactly what your 20% contribution towards the health service is spent on. You might choose dentistry, over-the-counter medication, age-related illnesses or increasing the number of hospital beds. Or you might want your tax contribution to go towards a particular demographic or socio-economic area. As I say, I’m only playing devil’s advocate, and the whole idea would be a logistical nightmare, but it’s a nice thought; the idea that we would be able to decide exactly what our tax money is spent on. Now wouldn’t that be true democracy? (P.S. I didn't just write that, I copied & pasted it from something I once wrote after doing the appropriate research)

Please forgive my ignorance Stan, but who is Alan Corenk? I've been trying to Google his name but all I get is two Quotes, the one you posted and this other one - "Television is more interesting than people. If it were not, we would have people standing in the corners of our rooms". Can you tell me more about him please?

I remember him now, from call my bluff. A great raconteur. Oddly that spelling mistake is all over the internet on every quote website. Its even on the Daily Telegraph website. They must have all copied it from the same source without even checking if it was right. That's the internet for you.

I only just found out that Anders Behring Breivik received only 21 years for killing 77 people by bomb and shooting spree at a youth camp. However, I think this can be repeatedly extended for 5 years as long as he is considered a threat to society. Breivik, another crank, has announced that he doesn’t recognize the legitimacy of the court, and therefore doesn’t accept its decision. I wouldn’t think he has much choice in the matter. However, he’s shot himself in the foot with this remark (no pun intended) because now he can’t appeal, as this would legitimize the curt. Ha!

Thank you for asking and sharing these important questions Richard.