dumbnewbie

I'm guessing that the main problem most of us have with Christianity in particular is the way it obsesses over sexuality and tries to repress it and give everyone a huge guilt trip over it (unless it involves a priest and a little boy - that's OK apparently).

Why do Christians have to equate nearly every form of sex with abuse and "sin"? Why can't they focus their disapproval and moral crusades on something else, like... oh, I don't know... how 'bout VIOLENCE? Or drug/alcohol abuse? Or poor hygiene and disease? Why is it always about sex with these people? Why can't they just accept that sex is one of the greatest joys in life and not in-and-of-itself harmful and evil?

It should go without saying that nobody should be forced or even coerced into sex, much less into prostitution. But aside from that criminal aspect, and the STD problem... well, aside from those two things, what the hel_l is the problem really? If Christians would just stop demonizing sex I think they'd find a lot fewer people stridently opposed to them.

I read a blog of one of these missionary doo-gooders trying to 'save' girls in Nana. He basically got fleeced and ended up as angry and bitter as any of the posters you see here that get scammed by them.

God that's too funny!

It can't continue and is a recipe for trouble.

Sure is. Yet even now -- with all the one-child kids graduating college -- fully 25 percent of graduates are still unemployed six months after graduation each year, and most of those who are employed are working as store clerks and the like. Perhaps 25 percent at most are employed in the field they studied.

So the "great Chinese economy" can't absorb even the "relatively fewer" one-child graduates. They need to scrap the one-child policy for the demographic reasons noted, but the society can't provide jobs for the 20-somethings it now has. Of course this spoiled generation -- each doted on by two sets of grandparents and their parents -- has extremely high expectations that in most cases will not be realized. They will certainly be most unhappy about that.

Then there are the peasants who still have nothing. They watch TV and see middle-class lifestyles and know that's a universe away from what they have. They also know their local and provincial governments are corrupt. They are also a powderkeg.

Far from trying to control the world, the Chinese Communist Party will have its hands full continuing to control its own population. My own guess is they will not be able to over the long haul -- and they know it.

And let's not forget all the poor Chinese guys who can't find a girlfriend because so many parents aborted their baby girls because they prefer to have a son, especially if they're limited to only one child.

Put all of the above together, it seems like a recipe for explosive violence, either revolutionary or more likely a war. I would expect the CCP to start a war to channel that violence outward if the alternative is losing it's grip on power due to increasing civil unrest.

"Peaceful rise"? Sure, as long as it's working. But beware when it stops working!

(Reading some of the other posts here on this thread US posters need to grow some skin. Getting offended at some lame jibes from Brits on an internet forum, grow up for god's sake!)

Yeah, like it is just once in a while.

Heh! Precisely.

On the original topic, I think Thais may regard America in higher esteem than some other countries based on a number of factors. First, of course, there is Hollywood and American pop music - they pretty much dominate everywhere.

Next, I'd have to guess that there are more Thais in the US than in any other foreign country, so Thais have more experience with the US, and if other posts in this thread are credible, apparently they largely have a good experience in the US. Being a country of immigrants, America is far more welcoming to immigrants than many other countries. I've heard the same opinion from Hong Kong people, for instance - that they feel much more comfortable and accepted in America than in the UK, or even Australia or Canada (despite the latter two also being immigrant countries).

Then there is the fact that Thailand has historically been very shrewd at maintaining its independence by aligning itself with the most powerful nations at any given time, or if there were more than one, then balancing them off against each other. Thus they kept good relations with both the French (in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia) and the British (in Burma and Malaya), later shifting alliance to the ascendant Japanese in WWII, but back to the allies before the end of the war, and to the US during the Cold War and Vietnam war. Without that alliance, Vietnam would've easily overrun Thailand after taking Laos and Cambodia. I think Thais and Asians in general have a much more realistic view of international politics, having their own experience with both Communist and Islamic terrorism/insurgency, and being grateful for American help in keeping their country independent and prosperous relative to neighbors which fell under Communism.

Finally, the Thais have no problem acknowledging the US as they don't have any pretensions to world power status, unlike the European powers which destroyed each other in WWII, or certain scattered remnants of the British Empire, which still exhibit a lot of sour grapes for some reason.

Countries like Taiwan and Japan are obviously right and China left, but what about Thailand? Are they more liberal right or more social left?

An interesting question, complicated by the vagueness of these terms. Are you sure Taiwan and Japan are right and China left? What do we mean by these terms? The word "liberal" is particularly tricky, because traditionally it refers to laissez-faire capitalism and is similar to "libertarian", whereas in the U.S. today most people understand "liberal" to mean "leftist, socialist, anti-capitalist, pro-big government, high taxes, lots of welfare, etc." (i.e., the opposite of right).

By "liberal right", it sounds to me that you mean laissez-faire, market-oriented, free enterprise capitalist, with small government (i.e., low taxes, little wealth redistribution, etc.). According to this definition, Hong Kong is one of the most laissez-faire markets in the world, with a very small government, a very low, flat income tax (15%), etc. It is widely regarded as one of the best places in the world for business.

By "social left", I believe you mean socialist, as in highly egalitarian, meaning equal. Supposedly Communist countries were "social left". But were they really? They were certainly nothing like the "social democracies" of Western Europe. If you look at China before Deng Xiaoping, or North Korea today, you'll find something closer to feudalism - almost everyone was extremely poor, bordering on starvation, with little freedom to move to another place or another job. On the surface, it seemed like "equality" - everyone poor. But hidden away behind walled compounds was an elite class of Communist party members living the high life like aristocracy, with wealth and many more freedoms.

But China has changed a great deal in the 30 years since it embraced the export-driven, state-capitalist model created by Japan and followed so successfully by South Korea and Singapore: there is a large and growing middle class and poverty has been nearly eliminated (at least in terms of mass starvation that was prevalent under Mao). But social inequality is more obvious, with a business elite (mostly the children of the Communist party elite) growing ever richer, and flaunting their wealth for all to see and envy.

On the other hand, Japan has always been very capitalistic, but is also a largely middle-class society, with progressive income taxes (steeply rising tax rates for higher incomes), "lifetime employment" for a large segment of the workforce, etc. Public flaunting of wealth is much less prevalent than in other Asian countries, so it seems that the vast majority of Japanese are equally well-off, comfortably middle class.

So how does Thailand compare? Thailand is something else again, having more in common with other Southeast Asian (or Latin American) economies. I think of these countries as somewhere between feudal and capitalist, with most people living third world lives (but at least not starving to death) and large, entrenched aristocratic classes that pretty much monopolize all the business in their countries and live first world lives. Interestingly, these elites tend to be mostly a different ethnicity (Chinese in Southeast Asian countries, European or "white" in Latin American countries).

I think it's interesting and significant that both China and Japan are largely homogeneous societies (certainly compared to SE Asian or Latin American countries) and both have basically stable one-party states with strong governments heavily involved in directing the national economies (with one voice). The other countries in contrast tend to have chaotic "multi-party democracy" where various factions of business elites compete with each other for power, making for less a than optimal business climate. These economies have also traditionally been less export-oriented and more "import-substitution" oriented, meaning local elites are content to merely protect their local monopoly businesses from foreign competition rather than try to export to the international marketplace, which is much harder. My theory is that these elites, because they are largely different from the majority populations are content to maintain their superior social status vis-a-vis their countrymen, whereas the Chinese and Japanese elites identify more with their fellow countrymen, being the same ethnicity, and thus have a more nationalist outlook of waging economic warfare to advance their whole nations to the top of the international order.

I'm no expert on this subject, but I find it interesting, so I've offered up some thoughts. Would love to hear any comments.

The rules are subject to change however so stay on top of things.

Very good point to keep in mind.

I wonder if a contract can be drawn up with a disability attorney making him liable to keep you informed of any changes?

The answer can be found on this SSA webpage: Your Payments While You Are Outside the United States

Naturally, it's byzantine legalese, but from what I can tell, if your friend is a US citizen receiving SSDI (not SSI), there is no restriction on living outside the US for any length of time, as long as he remains "eligible", which I take to mean "still disabled". The 6 month limitation alluded to by another poster appears to only apply to certain non-US citizens.

I'm no liar - I mean lawyer - so my interpretation might be wrong. Read it yourself and see what you think. Then check with your nearest U.S. Embassy, consulate or Social Security office and to be sure, also consult with an attorney who specializes in this area.

But it looks like your friend is in good shape.

...BTW..in large part the thai bar girl industry is perpetuated by farang seeking paid for-sexual favours, thus exploiting the bg's...

Sorry, but this is inaccurate. The vast majority of prostitution in Thailand is "perpetuated" by Thai men, followed by other Asian men (Japanese, Korean, Chinese, etc.). Farang are simply the most visible, because of racial differences, and therefor catch all the flack from ignorant, politically-correct sex-hating religious prudes and man-hating radical feminists.

Yes Thailand is a much better place for low class whoremongering men, congrats on finding nirvana. However FYI there are also plenty of Thais and Farangs in Thailand that have higher moral standards than that.

Ugh. When will this tired, hypocritical, hateful ancient Middle Eastern "morality" die already?

You want "family values"? Go live in Saudi Arabia, because the only way to have that kind of "morality" is to enforce it with a reign of terror, thuggish religious police and cruel and unusual punishments, the likes of which you find in the torah, bible and koran (each largely a plagiarization of the previous). Of course, then you'll have to live with the ugly consequences of severe sexual repression as frustrated men commit horrendous acts of violence against wives, daughters, servants, homosexuals, etc., etc., etc. But at least violence isn't immoral, right? Funny how you never hear this kind of outrage directed against the epidemic of violence caused by alcohol, drugs, gangs and religion... no, it's always reserved for sex between consenting adults. (The horror!).

Thank yaweh the East Asians never bought our so-called "moral standards".

I'm not specificly refering to the OP ..... The problem is that the old people you refer to DO know it, but they make excuses and rationalisations about it convincing themselves that it's ok. How many times do you hear .... Well Thai girls don't look at age like westerners ! LOL ...... They are going after poor young girls who need the stability enough to put up with the situation and they and everyone else knows it. The cultural excuse falls on deaf ears with me, it would be like saying it's ok to rape a woman because her husband commited some crime because your in an area that follows those muslim laws. NO girl grows up and dreams of being 20 something and marrying some guy of retirement age, they only settle for it or out of desperation or look for it at some point. There are a lot of sleazy things in the world that are wrong but legal and this is just another one. If it were really true that Thai girls didn't care you would see educated, well off, Thai girls with those same men just as often, and you don't.

You make some good points, but do you really think these relationships are "wrong" and analogous to Islamic shariah punishments?

You make it sound like the girls are innocent victims being preyed upon, or "raped" to use your word, when it's usually these girls who are throwing themselves at any rich guy (which they take most Westerners to be). There's no need for a Western guy to "go after" poor young girls. Isn't it at least as accurate to say the girls are going after poor, naive older guys who need the attention, sex and ego-boost enough to pay for it? No guy grows up dreaming of having to pay for a semblance of love and affection from a woman he finds attractive.

Would you have the same moral outrage if such a girl married an older, richer Thai guy? What if a poor girl in a Western country (they exist, you know) married an older, richer Western man? Cause for outrage? Akin to rape? I think not.

Maybe it's the racial aspect that subconsciously causes so much offense? Would you be as outraged if a poor white girl married a richer, older Asian (or Arab, or African, whatever) man?

I really don't see the problem. Please explain it to me.

Yeah, the same questions have occurred to me while reading through this thread.

Does anyone know the general track record of such marriages? Do they suffer a higher divorce/failure rate compared to more typical marriages (either in Thailand or Western countries) where the partners are of the same ethnicity/nationality and closer in age and socio-economic status?

Would having/raising kids together make a difference? Would having a common language at a very high level make a difference?

And what is the divorce rate in Thailand? How 'bout other countries? In the US it's supposed to be ~50%, but I think that means 50% of marriages end in divorce, which is different from 50% of first time marriages (and I haven't heard what that rate is).

If you thinking about Thai gold (the one you find in gold shop) please remember it has a different gold contain, it is very hard to sell in paw shop or other in Australia and many other countries.

That's good to know - thanks for sharing that info!

"how would a guy serve 2 masters?"

I would imagine the trick lies in how you frame the relationship; instead of you serving 2 masters, YOU be the master, and they compete to serve YOU. At least, that's my guess. I have no experience with this, except in fantasy. For the time being, I think serial monogamy is the way to go.

Of course, Hugh Hefner has found that 3 is the perfect number - not 1, 2, or 4 girls, but 3. He's found this to be the most practical arrangement. And who's gonna argue with him? If anyone's the master, it's gotta be Hugh. He has more experience with this stuff than all of us combined!

I met a girl in Chiangmai who had a conch shell tattooed on her inner thigh. The colour was exquisitely realistic and it was just small enough that it could be discreetly hidden when wearing shorts.

It worked too! When you held your ear close to it, you could almost imagine you were smelling the ocean.

I bet that was fun!

And while you can ask about the sterilization process and check for general "cleanliness", you can't see bacteria or viruses, and have to trust that these people are telling you the truth

Same with eating in a restaurant, traveling by airplane ect ect there are safety procedures in placed and offcourse if people dont follow this procedures even cycling is very dangerous.

We dont ask the pilot if they have enough fuel on board during a fleight from London to Bangkok, we presume that if traveling with a well known airline that they follow all this procedures.

True. Especially the analogy with restaurants - very good point. But somehow I trust the guys in the cockpit of an airline more than the guys in a tattoo parlor, and I also think they're much better regulated/supervised.

If you do get a disease from a tattoo, good luck proving it in court. How can you prove you got it from the tattoo and not from some random sex partner, or whatever?

You can prove in about 80% off all cases where a disease is coming from...

Really? This is news to me. How can you prove that you got HIV, Hep C, herpes, etc. from a tattoo parlor?

This study (admittedly contradicted by the CDC, but then, who do you trust more? The government or an independent research team? Probably whoever supports your position ) found that those who had a tattoo had an almost 7-fold higher risk of testing positive for hepatitis C (just one of many diseases which can be transmitted by tattoo needles):

http://www.utsystem.edu/news/clips/dailycl...toos-060303.pdf

OK, granted, anyone with a tattoo would want to believe that they were smart enough to find the "good" tattoo parlor, staffed by highly competent and professional people who diligently take all the state-of-the-art measures to prevent transmission of diseases. And chances are you're OK, and didn't get infected with anything. (I hope).

But it just seems to me that in general, tattoo parlors are not exactly the kind of places I would trust my health to. But that's just me. Sorry if I've caused offense with this unwelcome info - it wasn't my intention to cause offense. I was just expressing my opinion and some of the reasons for it. Peace.

Yeah, so if you have a tattoo, you may want to get checked for all diseases which can be transmitted by blood/needle. Even if incurable, there are treatments that can at least alleviate symptoms and keep the disease from progressing.

oh dear, suggest you get some proof of recent cases if that is your stance as you seem to be trolling imo. Anyone who gets a tattoo knows well to check the sterilization process of their artist & the cleanliness of the studio they go to.

No, dear, I'm certainly not "trolling" and I don't appreciate the accusation. There is a very real risk, as the links I've so diligently provided will verify. And while you can ask about the sterilization process and check for general "cleanliness", you can't see bacteria or viruses, and have to trust that these people are telling you the truth and are actually both knowledgeable and diligent in using disposable needles and/or sterilization procedures. Of course, if you do get a disease from a tattoo, good luck proving it in court. How can you prove you got it from the tattoo and not from some random sex partner, or whatever? And since there's really no way to prove it in court, there are no cases of tattoo artists being sued and put out of business (that I know of). This means that they really don't have much incentive to be super careful about sterilization.

Of course, you could argue that medical providers may also infect you, and it would also not be provable in court, and it would actually be in their interest to do so, because then they could treat you for that disease and bill your insurance company for more money. Hopefully few people would do this deliberately, but I think negligence and carelessness is a real risk.

But medical care (like sex) is a necessity, whereas tattoos, piercing, shooting heroin, etc. are entirely optional.

Tattoo needles transmit dangerous diseases (sorry, I'm not allowed to post links):

(from cnn.com)

(Pamela Anderson infected with Hep C by tattoo needle. Hepatitis C, a liver disease caused by a viral infection, affects nearly 2 percent of Americans. A person can become infected by sharing needles for drug use, tattooing or body piercing... The disease can lead to serious, permanent liver damage and in many cases, death... some patients have no symptoms at all. Usually a lifelong infection. Spread by sexual contact or blood contact. No vaccine.)

(from preventdisease.com)

Other health risks.

In addition to allergic reactions and the unknown long-term health effects from the metal salts and carrier solutions that make up tattoo inks, there are other health risks involved. Skin infections, psoriasis, dermatitis and other chronic skin conditions, and tumors (both benign, and malignant) have all been associated with tattoos. Due to the use of needles in tattoo application, there is also the risk of contracting infectious diseases such as tetanus, herpes simplex virus, staph, HIV, AIDS, Hepatitis B and C, and even Syphilis. And those with tattoos might not be able to get a life-saving MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) test if they need one—some hospitals and testing locations will refuse to do an MRI on people with body tattoos due to the metal particles in the tattoo, which may cause a burning pain during the test.

If you plan on having your tattoo removed, you should be aware that some of the pigments used (especially Yellow #7) are phototoxic and may break down into toxic chemicals in the body when removed with UV light or laser, common techniques used in tattoo removal. The toxic end-products eventually wind up in the kidneys and liver, adding to your total body burden.

(from CDC - the US government's Centers for Disease Control)

<h2 id="featureTitle">Health and Safety of Tattoo Artists, Body Piercers, and Their Clients</h2>

Tattoo artists and body piercers should follow health and safety practices to protect themselves as well as their clients from bloodborne pathogens such as hepatitis B, hepatitis C, and/or human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).

Body art is a popular form of self-expression. Tattoos and body piercings are typically created by professional tattoo artists and body piercers and appear on the body as permanent markings and decorative metal.

Health and safety procedures for body artists may be regulated by city, county, or state agencies. Reputable shops and tattoo parlors govern themselves and follow strict safety procedures to protect their clients – and their body artists.

Considering Body Art?

If you decide to get a tattoo or body piercing, make sure you go to a licensed facility and take time to discuss the safety procedures with the artists working at the shop or tattoo parlor. They should explain the process and clarify what they do to keep everyone safe and healthy by using sterile needles and razors, washing hands, wearing gloves, and keeping surfaces clean.

Safety Procedures

Body piercers and tattoo artists protect themselves and their clients when following safe and healthy practices, such as:

• Use single-use, disposable needles and razors. Disposable piercing needles, tattoo needles, and razors are used on one person and then thrown away. Reusing needles or razors is not safe.

• Safely dispose of needles and razors. Used needles and razors should be thrown away in a biohazard-labeled, disposable container to protect both the client and the person changing or handling the trash bag from getting cut.

• Wash hands before and after putting on disposable gloves. Gloves are always worn while working with equipment and clients, changed when necessary, and are not reused.

• Clean and sterilize reusable tools and equipment. Some tools and equipment can be reused when creating body art. Reusable tools and equipment should be cleaned and then sterilized to remove viruses and bacteria.

• Frequently clean surfaces and work areas. Chairs, tables, work spaces and counters should be disinfected between procedures to protect both the health of the client and the artist. Cross-contamination (spreading bacteria and viruses from one surface to another) can occur if surfaces are not disinfected frequently and between clients. Any disinfectant that claims to be able to eliminate the tuberculosis germ can also kill HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C viruses. Use a commercial disinfectant, following the manufacturer’s instructions, or a mixture of bleach and water (1 part bleach to 9 parts water).

For more safe and healthy practices, please see Preventing Needlestick Injuries.

By following safety procedures, tattoo artists and body piercers protect themselves and their clients against exposure risks such as:

• Viruses, germs, and bacteria that can cause infections

• Tuberculosis

• Hepatitis B

• Hepatitis C

• HIV and AIDS

Very unoriginal and boorish comments like 'tramp stamp' should perhaps be directed by the posters in person at the male population with 'love and hate' Tattoos on their knuckles......or the other muscle men who enjoy wearing Tattoos......then perhaps they may change their sad opinions.......and appreciate that for years both men and women...formerly mostly men.....have been sporting tattoos.

Wait - am I reading this right? The threat of being beat up by "muscle men" because I don't like tattoos is supposed to change my "sad" opinion? Wrong - that only reinforces my low opinion of tattoos and those who "sport" them. In fact, your post reinforces my opinion.

Sorry, tattoos are just ugly, on either sex, of whatever ethnicity. That's my opinion. Never mind that tattoo needles are infecting many people with HIV, Hepatitis, and god knows what other incurable diseases (both directly and indirectly, through their sex partners). Now that's sad.

where you got this information from, same page as the story few months ago that they found glass marbles from space in there backyard,

facts please, thank you

Fair enough. Stand by...

Never mind that tattoo needles are infecting many people with HIV, Hepatitis, and god knows what other incurable diseases (both directly and indirectly, through their sex partners). Now that's sad.

umm say what now?

Yeah, so if you have a tattoo, you may want to get checked for all diseases which can be transmitted by blood/needle. Even if incurable, there are treatments that can at least alleviate symptoms and keep the disease from progressing.

Aren't there also 1,000 Euro notes?

Although $100 bills are currently the largest US denomination, as late as the 1920s (and maybe later) there were also $500, $1,000, $5,000, and even $10,000 bills in general circulation. Ironically, the value of money was much greater in those days, so that a $10,000 bill in 1929 would be worth $123,475 in 2009 dollars. A millionaire in 1929 would be worth more than 12 million today, assuming his money merely kept up with inflation all these years.

And today, most retail cashiers in the US will respond with something like shock or panic if you try to pay for your purchase with a $100 bill. Most will then state that they can't accept anything bigger than a $20 bill.

What's wrong with this picture?

Very unoriginal and boorish comments like 'tramp stamp' should perhaps be directed by the posters in person at the male population with 'love and hate' Tattoos on their knuckles......or the other muscle men who enjoy wearing Tattoos......then perhaps they may change their sad opinions.......and appreciate that for years both men and women...formerly mostly men.....have been sporting tattoos.

Wait - am I reading this right? The threat of being beat up by "muscle men" because I don't like tattoos is supposed to change my "sad" opinion? Wrong - that only reinforces my low opinion of tattoos and those who "sport" them. In fact, your post reinforces my opinion.

Sorry, tattoos are just ugly, on either sex, of whatever ethnicity. That's my opinion. Never mind that tattoo needles are infecting many people with HIV, Hepatitis, and god knows what other incurable diseases (both directly and indirectly, through their sex partners). Now that's sad.

Thai kid: I'm bored.

Thai mom: I have some chores for you!

Thai kid: I'm un-bored.

I tried asking this question to a British Customs Officer

in the departure lounge at Heathrow Airport where tourists can reclaim VAT.

All I got was a cheeky answer

"Hatton Garden"

"You going to wear one of those little gold bars around your neck are you"

"We'd need to look at it"

And his colleagues in the background were all smirking.

Wait - what the hel_l does that mean? What is "Hatton Garden"? And why were they smirking? Nothing about that answer gives me much comfort.

The way I interpret it is something like this: "we love idiots who bring gold bullion or cash to us - we can just take it and there wouldn't be a dam_n thing you could do about it - in fact, we could just deny all knowledge of the incident". Am I wrong?

I concur with the other poster who said that gold and cash are considered "dirty" and basically evidence that you're a criminal and/or tax-dodger. The US requires disclosure of any cash (or "cash-equivalent", I believe, which probably includes gold) of USD 10,000 or more when entering the US. I believe they can confiscate it if you fail to disclose it and they discover it. I don't know what happens if you do disclose it - and I wouldn't want to find out. Anyone know? Do they grill you about how you got it and why you're travelling with large amounts of cash? Do they confiscate it? I've heard that there are some pretty scary laws in the US now which basically let police assume that any large amount of cash found on you (at lets say a traffic stop) to be evidence of criminal activity and they can just confiscate it on the spot without ever going to court or anything. Scary, scary, scary. I haven't really looked into this, so maybe there are some critical details I'm missing, but I don't like the sound of it - it doesn't sound like freedom to me.

troll or no troll, I cannot tolerate hearing/seeing words or actions condoning violence against women

and in real life I will do whatever I can to intervene (of course with some thoughts for my own safety)

I'm with you, but is it only violence against women you're concerned about?

I hate all violence equally, whether against women, children or men. If anything, I would guess that violence against men is much worse than violence against women, often resulting in death. It's almost always a much stronger person (or bunch of people) attacking a much more vulnerable person. People don't like fair fights - they might get hurt. It's all horrific.

And in that, Western societies aren't much different from Thailand - there is far too much violence just about everywhere on earth. It never ceases to amaze me that societies everywhere censor all depiction of sex, even loving and consensual, but rarely censor even the most horrific violence. Indeed, they glorify violence, rarely showing the terrible and long-lasting consequences.