R50/53 This baby is gunna have a sore neck. (Britney Spears)
#79
05-17-2006 | 05:20 PM
4th Gear
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 413
Likes: 0
From: Bahstun, MA
#80
05-17-2006 | 07:34 PM
3rd Gear
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 278
Likes: 0
From: Southern California
Raise your hand if you grew up in the 70s...anyone?
Remember putting on Baby Oil or even vegetable oil and laying out in the sun all day? ahhhh - those were the days.
But DialM is right - we should use protection against the sun's harsh rays...maybe Michael Jackson has the right idea covering up his kidlets.
Remember putting on Baby Oil or even vegetable oil and laying out in the sun all day? ahhhh - those were the days.
But DialM is right - we should use protection against the sun's harsh rays...maybe Michael Jackson has the right idea covering up his kidlets.
#81
05-17-2006 | 07:39 PM
4th Gear
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
From: Los Angeles, CA
Pregnant pop star Britney Spears insists she did nothing wrong when she drove her Mini Cooper convertible with son Sean Preston slumped forward in his car seat in the rear of the vehicle. The singer sparked outrage when photographs appeared of her eight-month-old son strapped in the backseat of her car facing forward instead of backward, which is the safer direction for car seats according to California motor-vehicle code. According to the code, babies who weigh 20 pounds or who are less than a year old should have their car seats facing backward. California Highway Patrol spokesman Tom Marshall says, "The seat is facing the wrong way. We like it when the child's head is facing back." The singer's representatives have rejected the criticism, stating that because the baby is already over 20 pounds, he is allowed to face forward. In a statement, a spokesperson says, "It has been reported that there is a photo of Britney Spears driving with her child sitting in a forward-facing child safety seat in the back seat of the car. Having a child in the child safety seat facing forward in the rear seat of the car is in compliance with California law. There is no law in California requiring rear-facing seats. In fact, there are only ten states that require a child to be in a rear-facing seat, and in two of those states it is not required if the infant is more than 20 pounds. Britney's son Sean weighs over 20 pounds. As such, Britney Spears was in total compliance with California law with the forward-facing child safety car seat with the baby strapped in properly in the back of the car." Spears has already received two visits from the Department of Children and Family Services - one in February, after she was photographed driving with her son sitting on her lap and one in April, when her son fell out of his highchair and injured his head. No action was taken in either case.
Article
Article
#86
05-18-2006 | 09:38 AM
Coordinator :: Northwest Indiana MINIacs
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 2,412
Likes: 0
From: Valparaiso, IN
Originally Posted by Cherry2005
Raise your hand if you grew up in the 70s...anyone?
Remember putting on Baby Oil or even vegetable oil and laying out in the sun all day? ahhhh - those were the days.
But DialM is right - we should use protection against the sun's harsh rays...maybe Michael Jackson has the right idea covering up his kidlets.
Remember putting on Baby Oil or even vegetable oil and laying out in the sun all day? ahhhh - those were the days.
But DialM is right - we should use protection against the sun's harsh rays...maybe Michael Jackson has the right idea covering up his kidlets.
#87
05-18-2006 | 01:42 PM
6th Gear
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 4,293
Likes: 1
From: Cincinnati, Ohio
#89
05-18-2006 | 02:25 PM
7th Gear Gal
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 36,087
Likes: 3
From: Weeblegabber West (aka WLA)
#93
05-18-2006 | 04:43 PM
5th Gear
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
From: Goodbye Milwaukee, Hello Carson City, NV
Originally Posted by DialM
It is about reasonable reduction of risk. Yes, most children survive, some do not. Is it worth the "inconvenience" of installing the seat facing the rear? Yes. Is it worth two extra seconds of inconvenience to pull the belts tight? Yes. Is it worth the tragic inconvenience of not putting the top down to drastically reduce your child's skin cancer risk? Yes. (A single bad burn under the age of 18 doubles your skin cancer risk, a series of lesser burns over time does the same).
Don't joke about people using high-SPF sunscreen. I burn using anything less than a "waterproof" 30. I typically use a 45, reapplying frequently, and still get sun. Jokes like yours encourage people to use lower SPF products, or none at all, which increases their chance of dying from skin cancer. There is nothing funny or silly about that. Researchers have found that reducing the risk, and thereby the actual incidence of skin cancer is incredibly easy. What they have found incredibly difficult is overcoming the moronic attitudes of the drooling masses in order to get them to actually take SIMPLE steps to do so. Again, reasonable reduction of risk.
As for "childproofing" a home, it is impossible. However, taking prudent steps saves lives. That fact is inarguable. Your attitude of poking fun that humans survived as a species without much care belies the fact that many individuals did not. Typically, parents hope that their individual child will be one of the ones that survives. I guess you consider the deaths of many children, even your own, to be acceptable losses. Personally, if I can reduce risk for my children with negligible negative imact on their quality of life (or mine), then I will do so.
Don't joke about people using high-SPF sunscreen. I burn using anything less than a "waterproof" 30. I typically use a 45, reapplying frequently, and still get sun. Jokes like yours encourage people to use lower SPF products, or none at all, which increases their chance of dying from skin cancer. There is nothing funny or silly about that. Researchers have found that reducing the risk, and thereby the actual incidence of skin cancer is incredibly easy. What they have found incredibly difficult is overcoming the moronic attitudes of the drooling masses in order to get them to actually take SIMPLE steps to do so. Again, reasonable reduction of risk.
As for "childproofing" a home, it is impossible. However, taking prudent steps saves lives. That fact is inarguable. Your attitude of poking fun that humans survived as a species without much care belies the fact that many individuals did not. Typically, parents hope that their individual child will be one of the ones that survives. I guess you consider the deaths of many children, even your own, to be acceptable losses. Personally, if I can reduce risk for my children with negligible negative imact on their quality of life (or mine), then I will do so.
Breathe M....
#94
05-18-2006 | 04:45 PM
5th Gear
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
From: Goodbye Milwaukee, Hello Carson City, NV
Originally Posted by saakey
wow, that looks like a 50 year old woman to me 
...and that baby doesn't even look to have any straps (shoulder) on at all 
. She is just a plain idiot and should be slapped quite a few hundred times 
and not just for this incident either.
...and that baby doesn't even look to have any straps (shoulder) on at all . She is just a plain idiot and should be slapped quite a few hundred times and not just for this incident either.
#98
05-20-2006 | 12:22 AM
Coordinator :: Alabama Motoring Society & South East
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 10,170
Likes: 2
From: Burning-Ham Alabama
Originally Posted by DialM
. . . . . Personally, if I can reduce risk for my children with negligible negative imact on their quality of life (or mine), then I will do so.
#99
05-20-2006 | 03:36 AM
OVERDRIVE
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,841
Likes: 4
From: Rochester, NY
Originally Posted by dansmini
