Strollerderby : london

Man Jailed For Spraying Urine On Food And Children's Books

Brett Singer — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 22:00:00 GMT

So. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I should never – NEVER – say "I've seen it all before." Cuz d-d-d-daddy you just ain't seen nothing yet.

Londoner Sahnoun Daifallah is an "unemployed chemist", which I believe means "pharmacist" in London language. (They talk funny over there.) He was found guilty of "four counts of contaminating goods."

What does that mean? Oh, you want to know. Don't pretend you don't.

Daifallah, who one assumes is mentally ill and rather upset about something, was walking round with "a mix of his waste in a container of weed killer concealed in a laptop bag," according to the AP. By "waste" they mean the stuff you find in diapers. The liquid kind. And the not-liquid kind as well. But mostly the liquid kind.

Why liquid? Why, the better to spray stuff with, my dears!

First began his rain of terror by, um, marking his territory at The Air Balloon pub, leaving behind a "horrendous smell," according to pub worker Kate Rochead. Before he was through, he hit the frozen french fries at one supermarket (prefers them fresh, one assumes?), the wine section at another, and then a bookstore. For reasons not discussed, he focused mostly on the children's section.

How do you pee on Pooh? That's just wrong.

Daifallah is Algerian and will likely be deported, according to the article. I mean, I'm all for potty humor, but this just isn't funny.

What will tomorrow bring? I don't know but let me say this – I'll try not to be surprised.

Source: AP via StarTribune.com

Image: Amazon

Wolverine Blow Up Toy

Kate Gosselin Dreamt Of A Husband and Children - Did You?

4 Year Old Brings Pot To School, School Bans Backpacks

Ten-Year-Old Graffiti Artist Captures London Art Scene

JeanneSager — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 16:31:00 GMT

This story made me feel really old. Not because the graffiti artist wowing London art critics is only ten (OK, that's part of it).

I feel old because I got that stern mommy frown until I saw the spots where the British tween is spray-painting on streets are all perfectly legal.

Drawing comparisons to Banksy, the world's most famous - and anonymous - graffiti artist, Solveig sat for photos and a quick interview with the London Daily Telegraph. The resulting picture gallery is amazing - the only sign this might be a little girl's work are the markings at the edge of each piece denoting "Sol's" age when she painted them. Like the best graffiti artists, she's mastered huge canvasses (if you've never tried painting, trust me, bigger is not always better - it's just harder), and she's not afraid to use bold colors and tell a story.

Besides her artistic talents, the little girl has a precocious sense of humor - beside a giant rendering of breakfast, featuring the letters S-O-L as eggs, bacon and toast, she scrawled "bite me." Shocked? She was nine when she made that piece. Nine.

Who else is feeling old?

Image: Telegraph - click here for more pictures from them, here for pictures from Solveig herself

Designer Baby Born Without Cancer Gene

Brett Singer — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 20:00:00 GMT

Pop quiz: you have a history of cancer in your family. You want to have children. Science has progressed to the point where you can alter your unborn child's genetics so that they will be born without the particular gene that causes the particular type of cancer in your bloodline. What do you do?

This is no longer a hypothetical question. A baby girl was just born in Britain without the defective BRCA1 gene, which causes cancer in 50 to 85 percent of girls, according to London's Daily Mail. That gene is rampant in this particular London family, who wisely chose to remain anonymous. (No reality TV show for those two.)

When the unborn are mucked with, controversy follows. Various Pro-Life/Anti-Choice advocates, such as James Dowson of LifeLeague, are against the practice, calling it a "slippery slope…It is designer babies. Screening for cancer is an emotive issue - my own father and grandfather both had cancer, so I know - but it is a dangerous road to go down. Today it is cancer, next year it will be IQ, and the year after that blue eyes and blonde hair."

I don't like the term "designer baby". It sounds like something you create in a lab. But isn't that what doctors are doing? I realize that I'm not offering a good analysis of the science involved here. The Daily Mail article is decent, and there is lots of information online if you want to read up on it. I'm going to stick with the more parenting-related issues that come up with this story.

I'm somewhat ambivalent about the idea of genetic screening, and even more hesitant to agree with genetic manipulation. Although I'm not a scientist (I even graduated college without passing a single science class, for what that's worth) I feel strongly that doctors can't possibly know what the long-term effects are of adding and removing genes from anyone, in utero or fully-grown. Like most Jewish parents, my wife and I went through the genetic screening process when she was pregnant, but declined to know all of the information that they found. It's one thing to check and see if you are a carrier for a horrible and incurable disease such as Tay-Sachs. It's something else to find out what the chances are that your child will contract various types of cancers. We decided that we'd rather not know.

And therein lies the core of the issue – choice. If a technique is available and medically possible, it shouldn't be up to me or anyone else to decide whether or not it can be used.

My ambivalence comes from the idea of trying to create a baby with traits that you pick off of a menu of human characteristics – "I'll have the blue eyes with a hint of hazel, and a boy with a strong right leg so he can grow up to be an NFL punter like Jeff Feagles." (Hey, Jeff Feagles is one of the best punters in football. And punters can play longer than any other position in the game because they don't get hit much.) This may sound silly, but I've read enough comic books and seen enough movies to know that messing around with genetics rarely ends well. Eventually some lunatic – Hitler, perhaps – decides to create a Master Race of Super Soldiers and starts World War III. Hm, maybe it's not just a comic book thing.

As with abortion, this is a religious issue. Conservative British politician Ann Widdecombe said, "'A lot of embryos have genes in them that could lead to nothing but them turning into perfectly healthy humans. Once again this shows a worrying precedent that man wants to play God."

This is the argument that nobody ever makes when it comes to the death penalty. But that's a different story.

What do you think? Is this just another issue of personal choice and women's reproductive freedom? Or is it more dangerous? And even if it is more dangerous, does anyone have the right to tell someone not to do it?

Source: Daily Mail

They Say: Smoking While Pregnant Makes Kids Aggressive

Mother Sues OB Who Said She "Deserved Pain"—And Gave It to Her

Most Tasteless Tree Ornament Ever

Tell Obama to Overturn the Global Gag Rule Sooner Rather Than Later

Woman Arrested For Breast Feeding At A Bar

Conjoined Twin Surgery: One Lives, One Dies

Brett Singer — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:30:00 GMT

An operation to separate the one-week-old conjoined twins, named Hope and Faith, resulted in the Hope's death. Faith is still alive, with a "50-50 chance of survival," according to published reports.

The twins were born last week to Laura Williams. At 18, she is said to be the youngest woman ever to give birth to conjoined twins in Britain.

Listen to this: "The sisters were joined from the breastbone to the top of the navel. They shared their blood circulation but had their own organs, though they were joined at the liver and intestines." Can you imagine? I can, but not easily.

The doctors who performed the separation procedure wanted to wait but "the twins' health was deteriorating," which led to the emergency surgery.

So sad. I mean, what can you say? At least one of them survived? That's good news, right? Somehow it doesn't offset the sadness of the other half of the story. The fact that the twins' names are Hope and Faith got to me even more.

Source: AFP via Google

Missing Girl Reunited With Father

High School Student in Hospital After Scavenger Hunt

British Teen Makes History with Siamese Twins

Woman Swings Crowbar At Trick Or Treaters

Chicago Woman Lived With Dead Siblings For 20 Years

Smokers No Longer Allowed Foster Children

Brett Singer — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 16:45:00 GMT

The East London borough of Redbridge will no longer allow smokers to be foster parents.

From The Scotsman:

The ban, which was passed unanimously at a cabinet meeting of Redbridge Council last night, means that children in the east London borough will not be placed with foster carers who smoke after January 2010.
Councillors say the move is crucial in protecting children.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, children shouldn't be inhaling second-hand smoke because it is a health risk. On the other hand, this is discrimination, isn't it? I'm actually a big smoker's rights guy in certain areas. For example, I think it should be legal for me to start an airline that lets people smoke – Up In Smoke Air. Make smoking illegal on commercial flights, fine. But why can't I start a business where the whole point is to give smokers a place to go? (I'm not a smoker, but I was for many years.)

Another publication, Business Report, has a little more info on the ban:

"Some people will feel it is an intrusion on personal freedoms," said councillor Michael Stark. "But we also know that smoking increases the risk of serious illness in childhood.
"On balance, we have decided children in our care shouldn't grow up breathing second-hand smoke."
...
A spokesperson for Forest, a pro-smoking group, said: "It's going to exclude people who could be outstanding foster parents.
"It sends out an insidious message that smokers in general are unfit parents and I don't think any politician has the right to do that."

Look, it's a nasty, unhealthy habit that has proven to be unhealthy for children (and everyone else) to be around. But is it better for kids to stay in a potentially worse situation? And if this ban is OK, doesn’t that open the door for banning other behaviors? I'm slightly surprised at my reaction to this story, actually. What do you think – is it OK for a government to ban smokers from being foster parents? Or is that going too far?

Source: The Scotsman, Business Report,

Image: Church Times

Guy Changes Name to Captain Fantastic

Incredibly Good Homemade Halloween Costumes

Barack Obama Asked If Bill Clinton Was The First Black President

The Candy That Time Forgot

About Ann Nixon Cooper

109 Year Old Daughter Of Slave Votes For Obama

Babble Podcast for November 3, 2008

Is The Incredible Flying Baby Video Real?

Jay Thomas Reunites With Out of Wedlock Son

Rocco Ritchie wears Yankee shirt, Guy Ritchie weeps

Brett Singer — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 21:00:00 GMT

This is just silly.

Us Magazine is reporting that Guy Ritchie, who is divorcing Madonna and had NO PRE-NUP, is freaking out because his son was wearing a Yankee shirt.

"He's actually been crying over it," says the source on the set of Ritchie's upcoming drama 'Sherlock Holmes'. "He's in a terrible state but is doing his best to be on form at work."

The insider tells Us Ritchie "cannot believe" Madonna would let their son wear the shirt, given the fact that her close relationship with the slugger played a role in their contentious divorce.

Look. If it were a Mets shirt, or a (shudder) RED SOX shirt, I could understand Guy getting all worked up. But the Yankees? The most storied franchise in sports history? Come on.

On a slightly more serious note, if this report from an "insider" is true (who are these people who call tabloids at the drop of a hat?), what a self-centered bozo. He's off directing a major film, the Material Mom is on tour screaming about Sarah Palin, and his son is being raised by who knows who. The shirt? That's what he's worrying about?

As for A-Rod – sorry, THE Rod – he apparently attended Yom Kippur services with Madonna and her children. (Aside: next time you are with Madge, ask her what meshugeh ahf toit means. It's important.) This is because the Yankees aren't playing in October. Just wanted to point that out. ALEX. FOCUS.

Source: US

Guy Ritchie Already Found Somebody Else

UPDATE: Jon Stewart says "F*** All Y'All"

The Obamas wear cheap clothes

Another non news photo

Santa Claus says: Smoke More

Sarah Palin on SNL for real

New Obama Cabinet Position: Oprah as the Secretary of Feel-Good?

Is a happy ending massage cheating?

Should DirecTV Go Around Reincarnating Dead Child Stars?

Magic Garden out on DVD

Missing Teen's Dad Blames Xbox Game Call of Duty

Bill Murray asks about the Cubs

Disney movie to feature black princess

Nanny Market Shaken Up By Current Financial Woes

SunnyChanel — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 01:55:00 GMT

Sometimes when I hear the impressive salaries that professional nannies make, I think to myself, man, I should totally go out and raise someone else’s kid instead of my own. But that’s just when mine’s having one of her tantrums. And then I realize that I’d, in turn, have to get a full time nanny. So it would all be kind of a wash wouldn’t it?

But the days of the high-end nanny salaries reaching almost up to six figures, may be a thing of the past in our fragile financial marketplace. Reuters reports that the “credit crunch sends shivers across nanny market”, based on recent changes in the London nanny market. A nanny agency there stated that “Nannies are among the first to be hit when times start to get tough. It has been a boom time for nannies in recent years, but that looks to be ending. Many of the people who employ nannies are bankers and they are suffering now,"

(source Reuters)

Enormous baby sculpture

Brett Singer — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:00:00 GMT

If you have a lot of extra cash lying around, along with a lot of space, you can be the proud owner of this gigantic sculpture of a seven-month-old baby. This Marc Quinn work is currently on display on the grounds of Chatsworth House in England. The piece, called "Planet," is owned by The Duke and Duchess of Devonshire.

A few quick comments:

-   That's one big baby.
-   I like that the artist felt the need to say it was a seven-month-old. Very specific.
-   Unless I'm looking at it wrong, that kid ain't Jewish.

Source/Images: Telegraph (here and here)

More stuff my 3 year old broke

Arkansas Evangelist's compound raided, six children removed

Mom finds hairy Goldilocks in 2 year old's bed

YOU say: I got fooled (update to "They USED to say: give babies cola")

Stuff my 3 year old broke

They say: keep your money under your mattress

They say: Chinese baby formula is dangerous

Another 8 year old on the terrorist watch list

Austrian incest mom speaks out

Man ejected from Yankee Stadium for lack of patriotism

Another 8 year old on the terrorist watch list

Brett Singer — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 20:00:00 GMT

So remember the 7 year old kid who had the same name as someone on the terrorist watch list?

Here's an 8 year old kid who has the same name as someone on the terrorist watch list.

This time, we have video of the boy and his mother testifying before Congress.

"Since 2005, when James was 5 years old, the Robinson family has had to deal with the delays and hassles of having a son who has been consistently misidentified when traveling."

Despite her experiences, Denise Robinson is "a strong proponent of the watch list" and feels that we all have to "accept some inconveniences" in order to keep our country safe from terrorists. However, she thinks the list has been "mismanaged." Considering the fact that, without looking, I found two examples of children who had been detained multiple times because their names appeared on the list, that could be the understatement of the year.

7 year old on terrorist list

Important news stories depicted by five year olds

Two women found guilty of illegal midwifery

Retarded movie boycott

Austrian incest mom speaks out

Upcoming Sesame Street Guests

5 things that would make parents' lives easier

Dad arrested for leaving son at McDonald's

So – who ya voting for?

Are your kids aware of the election?

I can tell how much you orgasm because of how you walk

Naked Harry Potter pics hit the web

Brett Singer — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Let's call it – The Full Muggle.

Some intrepid theatergoer snapped blurry cameraphone shots of Daniel Radcliffe nekkid onstage in 'Equus', currently on Broadway at the Broadhurst Theatre. Here are a couple of the pics:

Some fans that are flipping out over this. Some comments from the Daily News article:

The snapshot shows Radcliffe, 19, standing totally naked in front of co-star Anna Camp, who is also bare to the bone.
The scandal surrounding the teenage star's nudity has helped ticket sales with advance box office receipts topping $3 million.
Fans buying tickets vented their outrage at the sneaky snapper.
"They're turning art into pornography," said stage technician Rachel Juozapaitis, 27.
…
"Someone has violated his privacy," said Susan Zimmerman, 32, an NYU graduate student.

Um, not exactly. Someone – admittedly, someone kinda pervy – took pictures of something happened on a Broadway stage and posted them online. Porn? Violation of privacy? I don't think so.

"It's just wrong, he still has to do some more Harry Potter films for the kids."
…
"He didn't sign up for this, now it's for all time, forever on the Internet. What about all the Harry Potter children?"

Ah, yes. The children. Methinks very young children are unlikely to surf to these shots on their own, and I don't think any parent will show them to their kids. Even if they did (which would be nuts), there's not much to see. (That's a comment on the photo quality, not Mr. Radcliffe's, um, bangers and mash, as they say in the U.K.)

As for "he didn't sign on for this," the play calls for his character to be fully nude, and if he thought that someone wouldn't take pictures of it, Daniel needs to get out more. So, you know, sure, it's kinda lame, but the level of fan outrage is a bit kooky.

So why did I post it here? Honestly? I just wanted to use the phrase "The Full Muggle." Sorry.

Go to this site if you want to see all the pics.(Link via the Daily News.)

Source/image: nydailynews

non-naked pic: telegraph.co.uk

Awww…a baby otter…

Step on a Crack, Updated

5 reasons it's a good thing I had boys

Grand Theft Auto player saves family

I can tell how much you orgasm because of how you walk

Queens woman pregnant with sextuplets

Teaching Evolution as Theory not fact

25 Great Children's TV Shows That Aren't On DVD

7 year old on terrorist list

Brett Singer — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:30:00 GMT

A 7-year-old boy was detained at JFK airport in New York because his name was on a terrorist watch list. More accurately, his name is the same as someone else who is on a terrorist watch list. The fact that he was, you know, 7, didn't factor into the decision to keep the entire family in a locked room for an extended period of time.

Twice.

On two occasions, Alex and his family were kept in a holding room upon arrival at Kennedy International Airport from London because his name apparently matched a name on the list.

Alex was born in 2000.

“They hauled us out of the line and into a holding room,” said Ms. Harris. “It’s 8 o’clock on a Saturday night and they said, ‘We have to call Washington to have him cleared.’ And I’m like, ‘Just who do you suppose is available in Washington at 8 o’clock on a Saturday night?’ ”

It took more than two hours before Alex, a United States citizen like his parents and twin brother, was free to go. That was in late 2006. Six months later, the family arrived again from London, around 11 p.m.

Again, Alex was detained, his mother said, even though she carried his birth certificate and Social Security card.

“I said, ‘Look at him. He’s clearly not a terrorist. He’s 7!’ ” she said.

I'm all for fighting terrorism, but if this doesn't prove that a lot of the effort being expended is misplaced, I don't know what does.

Source: NYTimes, Image: ACLU

Two women found guilty of illegal midwifery

Retarded movie boycott

Upcoming Sesame Street Guests

5 things that would make parents' lives easier

Dad arrested for leaving son at McDonald's

8 year old blues guitarist not allowed to play in bars

Morning News: More Sex, Some Drugs, and Rockin' Oil

Important news stories depicted by five year olds

Queens woman pregnant with sextuplets

Girl being kept alive by Viagra

So – who ya voting for?

Are your kids aware of the election?

I can tell how much you orgasm because of how you walk

IOC orders investigation of Chinese Gymnast's age

Did Michael Phelps actually win 8 medals?

Red eye? Nope, eye cancer

Brett Singer — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 19:00:00 GMT

You know those people you've befriended online? Never met them, but you trade baby pictures? It's all just a little casual thing, right? A way to connect with people who are experiencing the same things that you are.

For one woman, that seemingly casual connection actually saved her baby's life.

Megan Santos of Riverview, Fla. and Madeleine Robb, of London, were online buddies. They gave birth the same day and swapped photos of their bundles of joy. The U.K. mom noticed something odd about one of little Rowan Santos' eyes.

It wasn’t easy for Madeleine Robb to send an e-mail to another mom warning that her baby might have a deadly form of eye cancer. But she’s glad she did it — and so is the mother of 1-year-old Rowan Santos.
…
Just hours after reading the e-mail, Megan Santos of Riverview, Fla., learned from a doctor that Rowan has a potentially deadly form of childhood cancer called retinoblastoma.

WOW.

(For what it's worth, "retinoblastoma" isn't on my spell-check.)

Here's a video report from the Today Show:

source: NBC

Read more:

Man ejected from Yankee Stadium for lack of patriotism

Return of the son of stuff YUPPIE parents like

More Kids Stuff I like that my kids don't care about

Kids Stuff I like that my kids don't care about

Sarah Palin, Sportscaster

11 months old, 62 pounds

Dad arrested for leaving son at McDonald's (what is it about McDonald's, anyway?)

They Say: Make Lunch Fun

Airline removes life vests

Best of FameCrawler: Week of June 27th

Whit Honea — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 20:00:00 GMT

Billie Piper's Topless Role

The Sexualization of Miley Cyrus

Ben And Jen Together For Better Or Worse

Worst-Dressed Bellies? Top 5 Maternity Wear Mistakes Of Spring/Summer 2008

Tim McGraw and the Wife Beaters

Scott Kalitta Killed In Drag Racing Crash

Robert Downey, Jr., and Son: What's Wrong with This Picture?

Matthew McConaughey Is Ready To Rumble

Guess Who's Moving Across The Pond?

Jamie Lynn's Delivery Room Drama!

Tori Spelling Baby Photos!!

Madonna visits divorce lawyer

Brett Singer — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 16:15:00 GMT

Is it all over for the Material Mom and hubby Guy Ritchie? The Times of London reports that the former cone-shaped-bra-wearing singer has retained Fiona Shackleton, the UK attorney who repped Paul McCartney against Heather "I ain't sayin' she's a gold digger" Mills. The Daily News calls that case "a major coup" for Shackleton, since Sir Paul was able to hang on to "all but $48 million of his $1.6 billion fortune." This is important, because like the "cute Beatle", Madonna apparently also has no pre-nup.

Now, far be it from me to point out the obvious. But no pre-nup? Madge, babe, what the hell? Were you hoping to get your hands on some of that "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" money? I know it's not romantic, but all celebrity marriages should be required to have prenuptial agreements.

If you're wondering what could have happened to the happy couple to make their love take a "Holiday" (bad song pun alert!), go no further than Famecrawler, which has an enormous pile of items about Material Marital Strife. Ah well. Sorry Madge. Hope it all works out for the best.

image: New York Daily News

Madonna's Kids Think She is Irritating

Christie Brinkley's Ex Paid Off His 18-year-old mistress

From TMZ: Hooker Moms

Before and after baby pics from TMZ

Harry Potter and the Schlong of Broadway

Brett Singer — Wed, 28 May 2008 17:00:00 GMT

Daniel Radcliffe, aka Harry Potter, is coming to Broadway this September to star in "Equus." If you're not familiar with the play, it involves a boy, his therapist, and the horse that the boy is, um, sexually attracted to.

Plus, Daniel gets to show the world his birthday suit. Its Full Frontal Muggle, girls!

Now, will there be a massive public outcry, the way there was with Miley and her seemingly never-ending supply of vaguely suggestive photos?

Nah. This is "art." If Daniel were to be photographed nude in Hyde Park with his special someone, that would be one thing. But stripping down and showing the world "Harry Potter Jr." in a play is something else. It's not like he has a choice, the script actually calls for his character to take it all off. (Besides, we think it's time to lay off Miley, but that's a topic for another post.)

That said, it's entirely possible that some unsuspecting parents will bring their little ones to the theater and be shocked – shocked! – at what they see. When the play "Take Me Out" was on Broadway a few years ago, a woman brought a little league team to see what she thought was a pleasant little baseball play. When she arrived, one of the ushers tried to warn her that the play might not be what she thought it was. Pish-tosh, she scoffed. But when the shower scene started – featuring a row of naked Broadway actors soaping each other up – she charged out of the theater, team in tow, and demanded her money back.

"Avenue Q" has a disclaimer that tells people the show features 'full puppet nudity'; this is meant to discourage parents from bringing their Sesame Street-aged spawn to a show that features a song called 'The Internet is for Porn.'

Despite the fact that it should be obvious to anyone that "Equus" is not for kids, methinks the producers of the show may want to make an effort to educate Radcliffe's wizard loving public so as to avoid any unpleasantness. (Insert a really bad "wand" joke here.)

image: telegraph.co.uk

Sins of the father: bin Laden's son can't live in UK

Brett Singer — Fri, 16 May 2008 12:30:00 GMT

Omar Osama bin Laden, the son of, yes, the Osama bin Laden, has been denied a visa to live in the United Kingdom. He currently lives in Cairo, Egypt with his wife, Zaina Alsabah, who is British. Alsabah -- who used to be called Jane Felix-Browne -- wanted to return home. Omar is 27, his wife is 52. (Um, you go girl?)

British authorities told Omar that they found "evidence of continuing loyalty to your father who is ultimately held responsible for the London bombing" which took place on July 7, 2005, killing 52 people. Omar has also allegedly said that his father's guilt in the World Trade Center attacks "could not be proved."

Alsabah says that the couple will appeal the ruling, because, "The decision can't be based on media reports." In other words, she believes that the British government denied the visa based partly on what they read in the newspaper about her husband. According to CNN, "Omar has not renounced his father, but says he wants to be an 'ambassador for peace' between Muslims and the West. The couple plan a 3,000-mile horse race across North Africa to draw attention to the cause of peace." Ooookay.

Look, if it were anyone else, it would be fairly easy to say that you shouldn't blame the son for his father's actions. In this case, I can kind of see the British government's point. When they say, "Your presence in the UK could...cause considerable public concern," that might be the understatement of the year. You also have to wonder about the mental state of someone who wants to move to a place where it is unlikely that he'll be able to move around freely. I mean, not only is he the son of the most notorious terrorist on the planet, he has the same name. Not just the same last name. THE SAME NAME. So maybe the Brits are actually doing him a favor.

image: CNN.com

12 of the 100 Greatest Places to Vacation

Brett Singer — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 14:00:00 GMT

Life Magazine has just come out with a new tome -- LIFE: Dream Destinations: The World's 100 Greatest Places to Vacation. Twelve spots are chosen for families, and here they are:

London: The wife and I took Thing 1 and his Gramma to London when he was only 2 years old. It was great. There's a lot to do that can appeal to even a young kid (the Globe Theater, changing of the guard, and eating fish and chips in a pub were a few highlights). Depending on where you stay, there can be a lot of walking and/or tube riding, so if you are more Country Mouse than City Mouse, just be prepared for a potentially urban adventure. Highly recommended.

Riviera Maya: I had to look this one up (I don't get out much). This is an area of Mexico designed for tourists. This site has some info on family-friendly vacations in the area.

Orlando: Um, duh. Disney. Other theme parks. Sun. Fun. Go.

Wisconsin Dells: The "Waterpark Capital of the World." 18 indoor and 3 outdoor waterparks, one of which, Noah's Ark, is the largest in the United States. Never been but it sounds pleasant enough, if a tad soggy.

The Ahwahnee Hotel, Yosemite Valley, California: this sounds a lot like…nature. For those who like that kind of thing, you can't go wrong. If not, go to London, or Orlando.

New York City: I live here and we hate tourists. OK, we don't hate you. But we wish you wouldn't stand in the middle of Times Square and not move. (I kid. Well, not about the standing in the street part.) Obviously, there are millions of things to do for those with families and without. The notion of New York as scary place is gone, although personally I would stay away from Bushwick. Bonus: we have a new Governor!

The Bahamas: Why not? Can I go now?

Snowmass, Aspen, Colorado: Aspen is incredibly beautiful. Also kind of expensive. Snowmass, a ski resort, just opened the Treehouse Kids' Adventure Center, which sounds fun. If you don't ski, this probably isn't for you. But if you do, have at it.

Memphis: Even if you aren't an Elvis fanatic (and if you are, it's OK, you can admit it. There now, wasn't that easy?), there's plenty to do in Memphis, including a Children's Museum, Zoo, and the Mud Island River Park (Mississippi Mud, of course).

Cuzco, Peru: these pictures look intriguing. I like Peruvian food. Need to practice my Spanish though. (De donde esta el... hey, give me a break, it's been awhile.)

Montana’s Dude Ranches: Dude! Who doesn't want to be a cowboy/girl? Unless the kids are allergic to horses, this sounds like a blast.

The Impossible Dream: Space: Now that's just silly. Isn't it? Until Richard Branson re-opens reservations on Virgin Galactic, and maybe lowers the price a bit ($200,000 a person is a tad high), this option will indeed remain the impossible dream.

Anyone been to any of these places, especially the less well-known spots? What are your favorite vacation destinations?

Parents Take Over School in U.K.!

Karen Murphy — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 13:59:00 GMT

In a first for England, a group of concerned parents got together to found and govern a state-run secondary school. 380 parents worked together for four years to create their vision now known as Elmgreen School in south London, which hopes to enroll about 1000 students over the next seven years.

The school's admissions policy and decisions regarding staffing and funding are set by the local governing council, but other day-to-day decisions are made by a governing body composed primarily of parents. In addition, the school's building itself is owned by the parent group, called Parent Promoters.

I've been involved with schools that each had varying degrees of parent involvement, but I am really liking this idea, which extends so much farther than presiding at class activities or helping out in the library or handling fundraising, each worthwhile activities of course but with nowhere near the mutual commitment that such a partnership between parents and the state could provide. I'll be interested to hear how the school fares over the years and if this one begins a trend worth watching.