bodhigirlsmiles

do you think this would even help? i realize that a microchip may be used, sadly, to track down bodies rather than live children, but if it gave law enforcement even a few hours advantage, there may be lives saved.

john brooke in little women

and, now that you mentioned it.....we mustn't forget mama look a boo boo day....

that is true! how so?? that does sound awful! i am just trying to think of a way to better protect children. it breaks my heart everytime i hear about crimes against children. i know that crimes against adults are terrible as well, but there is something so special about children that makes it seem all the worse.

this may be a crazy idea, but what do you think? i know there are some devices that track a child if they wander off, but, to my knowledge, there are no implantable microchips for humans. there are so many awful stories lately of creeps stalking, kidnapping, raping, abusing, and murdering children (i cannot think of anything that makes me angrier!!), that it may be a good idea for children to have a microchip whereby law enforcement may find them if they go missing. what do you think? i realize that this would require surgery (and would result in some pain for the child), but it would be minimal and i think the benefits far outweigh the pain that would be endured. is this a crazy idea?!? i'm sure i'm not the first that came up with this, but we got our dog microchipped recently and it started me thinking.....

yes.....but with a finer point on men vs. women. are women really more emotional than men? are women really more capable of being nurturing toward a child, for example?

this is a topic that has been discussed for as long as there were men and women, perhaps, but i would like to know your various opinions on it. it has been said that men and women are fundamentaly different. now, setting aside obvious physical differences, do you believe this to be the case? it has been said women are more emotional (or, at least, more in tune with their emotions), more nurturing, gentler, etc. do you think that men are really that different in essentials? or, is it a matter of each individual?

breathing is a very underrated thing!

for reals? crazy much? :)

isn't it funny how (well, at least to me it is), for the large part of history, men have worn fairly simple clothing compared to ladies' big dresses? and yet, during jane austen's day, women wore very simple dresses while the men were more peacock-like.

have you ever worn one? they are painful and supporting at the same time.

it is certainly true, of the two choices it would be easier today to dress more 40s or 50s. if i were to walk out of my home dressed like jane austen, it would be sure to raise a few eyebrows. :)

in the history of the world fashion and clothing styles have changed dramatically. just for fun, what would say is your favorite era? for men? for women? personally, i would have to pick jane austen's era and the 1940s/1950s for women and.....well, i'd probably pick the same for men. what say all of you?

and what of oil of olay?? what would become of them? oh, wait....different kind of oil sorry. :)

says the librarian: books are our friends. plead the books: please don't forget us. we love you. we long for you to hold us and caress our pages. we look forward to the minty freshness of your breath. we love the warmth of your laughter and the raw emotion of your tears. we love the way you smile at us from across the room as we sit between the comfort of our brothers and sisters on the bookshelf. we don't even mind the occasional chocolatey finger of your child touching our pages as they squeel in delight at the colorful pictures. silly amazon, books are for libraries.