I have to say, my thoughts followed the same line, especially once I read about it. The nanny was overworked, stressed and worried about money — and her employers’ response was to offer her more hours, and refer her to an additional part-time job? Hmm.
Nah. This story’s complicated. Obviously, you don’t kill children. But just as obviously, you don’t respond to poor people in need by adding to their stress.
Well, Susie, the poor don’t work and when they do, they do not work hard enough, don’t ya know?
the tragedy may be about a lot of things, probably has about zero to do with the nanny. nope, look at what the dad was pursuing. hint: the truth, a big’un. there’s always more.
It is possible that the nanny had a psychotic episode. Women sometimes kill children to ‘protect’ them. And possibly she waited until the mother got home before she stabbed herself so that the mother would ‘understand’. Of course, I don’t know anything about this case and this is simply idle conjecture.
Mais, of course. The *nanny* is the one who’s psychotic. It was another one of those ultra, statistically-rare, inexplicable episodes. Got it.
Jeebus. Keep aiding and abetting the narrative, there, Holmes.
Care to scratch the surface?
http://www.disclose.tv/forum/cnbc-exec-s-children-murdered-t80221.html
Wan’t it Dubya who opined what a great country Amerika is because a single woman with kids is free to hold down three jobs?
“…you don’t respond to poor people in need by adding to their stress.”
This is pretty much all the oligarchs know. If someone isn’t making it, it is that persons’ fault. Work hard, work more, sacrifice is all they know.
And yes Ron, it was Bush the Lessor who said that. About a woman in WI if memory serves.
Somebody needs to tell Mitt & Co. that every ‘Murkin could, quite truthfully, report 24/7 employment as human guinea pigs. Hey Mitt, is there a living wage and benefits to go with that? Can you quit whenever you want to opt-out? Put it on a resume?