B_J

Assuming you're flying to LA and then taking the nonstop Philippine Airlines flight to Manila, you don't want to focus too much on avoiding a long layover. You fly to LA, then you have to get your bags and walk down to the international terminal. You have to go through the check in process at the Philippine Airlines counter and go through all the security checks. This process can take a few hours. You'll probably want to get something to eat and at least relax a little bit. Then you wander down to your gate and wait for your flight. Don't try to cut it too close on time. It's better to wait than to hurry.

You don't have to use the travel sites. You can book a flight LA on southwest.com and then book your flight to Manila on philippineairlines.com.

Philippine Airlines still has nonstop from LA to Manila. As far as I know, they're the only airline that has nonstop to Philippines.

Just wanted to add that I was in the exact same situation as you on my first trip. I wasn't sure about navigating my way through multiple airports so I flew Philippine Airlines. Philippine Airlines has nonstop flights from LA to Manila. We still fly this way just so that we spend less time traveling and more time at our destination. If you choose this, I would recommend taking the overnight flight over there. You'll sleep on the way, and arrive in the morning in Manila. Not too bad. Flying back is worse. You'll pretty much arrive in LA "before" you left Manila. Jet lag will suck when you get back. The other advice I would give is listen to your significant other when it comes to things like paying for things, where to go, etc. The last advice is just enjoy your time there. Things will be different and some people have difficulty accepting that. Remember you're there to have fun so don't let little things ruin your limited time there.

And if the parents took the kid to the psychologist, the kid will always think that anything he says will get back to the parents. But he might trust the school psychologist more because the parents weren't involved. If we could just do something for these kids before they reach that breaking point it would make such a difference.

There are so many things a kid will tell adults at school that they won't tell adults outside of school. Of course, this is only really true if there is an element of trust already established. But if there was a kid dealing with some issues, imo, he'd be much more likely to talk to a psychologist at school than one his parents took him to.

Yes, definitely yes. In my opinion, I don't think these kids just wake up one morning and they're this far gone. I also don't think they are born this way. I think it is a process that can possibly be intercepted and changed. Also, talking to a kid in school, giving him counseling and support, is different than outside of school. It won't be the cure all for every kid but I think it could help a lot.

I hate that people are really working to try to blame the police. Here is an article I found: Police-training experts say if Uvalde police didn't storm the school, they weren't following standard protocol Clearly they want to blame the cops but in the article it says, "when a shooter barricades himself inside a building, law-enforcement officers are taught to evacuate and call the SWAT team " It seems that they did as they've been trained. The shooter was barricaded in the building and they were waiting for SWAT. So, how can they say they weren't following protocol? https://news.yahoo.com/police-training-experts-uvalde-cops-175200064.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall

Here's the problem. We talk about restricting AR-15s but that's really not the issue. For the money he spent on those rifles, he could have bought a few handguns and a lot of ammunition. He could have walked in with a handgun and gym bag full of extra magazines and guns. Once he got in the classroom, he still would have killed every person that he killed with the AR-15. I won't be more dead if I'm killed with an AR-15 than with a 9mm Glock. It's also hard to sneak an AR into a building but it would be easy to sneak in with that gym bag full of weapons. We should focus on meaning full changes to address mental healthcare in schools and protecting kids when a shooter is on campus. With that being said, I am definitely OK with charging parents when their kid does something like this with a gun that they couldn't legally own. There is a responsibility that comes with gun ownership and it needs to be taken seriously.

Me and my colleagues talked about this. I think I mentioned it in this thread or the other. We all, even the one's who are normally far to the left, are comfortable with the idea of arming teachers. That's just the teachers I talk to. But there also needs to be school psychologists on campus. Every campus. And teachers need to be trained on signs to look for in a student so that we can discretely refer the kid to the psychologist. We need to help the kids before it reaches this point. In other words, we need to really invest in proactive prevention. But we also need to be honest about how to deal with the situation when it does happen. I don't like the idea of teachers standing in front of their students to protect them. Because, in the end, they're not protecting them. They're just putting themselves in position to get shot first. And then the kids get shot anyway. I prefer to be in front of my kids and actively protecting them. Yes, I am willing to die for my kids but I'd prefer to die while fighting back, not just being the first target.

Until we find a way to prevent, or cure, whatever mental issue causes a kid to become a shooter, this will happen. So we need to find a way to deal with the problem when it happens.

I'm just reading some Facebook posts from people in Uvalde. While this is tough for them, the people criticizing the cops and turning this political are just making it worse. I think there is a place and time to respectfully discuss how to prevent this from happening again, like how it has been here on VJ, but people trying to score political points off this are disgusting and are not helping the people of Uvalde. As one person said in a Facebook post, "I just wish they'd leave our town and let us heal"

Not being argumentative but, as I look at the measures that Uvalde ISD had in place and, while they look good, I don't really see any way they can be effective. From the nbc news article, " The district adopted an array of security measures that included its own police force, threat assessment teams at each school, a threat reporting system, social media monitoring software, fences around schools and a requirement that teachers lock their classroom doors, " None of these can really prevent this from happening and, more importantly, none of these can do anything to stop a shooter once they're on campus, except the police force. And an elementary at a district the size of Uvalde would probably have one, maybe two, officers on campus. I have no idea if that's what they have but I'm just going off of experience. With the schools having so many entry points, officers can't really prevent them from getting on campus, they can only deal with the situation as it's occurring. The issue is simply that, no matter what systems and teams are developed, shootings will happen and schools have to be able to address the problem as it happens. The response by Uvalde authorities is probably the logical response. They shooter was not moving around the school shooting people. He was in contained area. Authorities, as I understand it, were waiting for the SWAT team. The problem is the plan. The plan is hide and hope the good guys get there before the bad guy kills you. They were waiting for the good guys (the SWAT team) and waiting didn't work. If the parents rushed in, it most likely would have just resulted in more dead, innocent people. There needs to be a protective force at the school that can defend the students. Also wanted to add, even if we banned "assault weapons", the kids could have just spent his money on a lot of handguns. He would have just walked in with a gym bag full of loaded magazines and multiple handguns. A ban will not prevent this. Kids will be just as dead from a handgun at close range as they are from an AR-15. The solution is to be able to address the shooter immediately, not waiting for help to arrive.

We need to change our thinking on what it means to be "famous". Many of today's kids don't watch TV and they certainly aren't paying attention to the 24/7 news. They're fame is internet based, and they want to go viral. So, if you want to stop them from being famous, you don't stop TV and news, you have to stop people from posting and sharing things online. That's even more difficult than stopping the 24/7 news coverage.

Talking with colleagues, we all kind of lean towards a two prong approach to the problem. First is to try to prevent it from happening and second is to have a real plan in place for when it does happen (other than hiding and hoping) . With that in mind, these are the ideas mentioned the most: 1. Of course, arming teachers. Nobody is saying make it a requirement but many, or most, are saying at least have a serious discussion about it. 2. Limiting access to buildings. This will be difficult because of how building are designed. My building has 10 entrances. I'm not sure what you do to fix that. Also, if it isn't a lone shooter but a duo, there will definitely be an issue with preventing access. All it would take is for one to go to school and then open the door during the day to let the other in with weapons. Limiting access will be difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish. 3. Schools need trained, full time psychologists on campus. Most have school counselors but few, if any, psychologists on campus. Counselors deal with student schedules, credits, plans for graduation and colleges, etc. With all of the other duties, there's really not time for finding students who need help, and then helping them. Plus, counselors really aren't trained to deal with the kind of issues some of these kids have. Psychologists could deal solely with the emotional and psychological problems some kids have. 4. Would it be possible for psychologists to make a profile of a potential shooter? Similar to the way a criminal psychologist makes a profile of a serial killer. This profile would not be to punish someone but to let teachers know what type of behaviors and signals to look for so that these kids could be recommended to the school psychologist for help before problems get worse. It would be better to help trouble kids early rather than have situations like this repeated. That's pretty much all we've come up with. We, of course, know it won't go anywhere and nobody will ask our opinion but it is what it is.

I hate guns but I own them for protection. His jokes on that subject simply do not apply to me at all. But again, he's a comedian. He's just supposed to entertain; I certainly wouldn't look to him for a thoughtful opinion on anything, and certainly not on what happened in Uvalde.

For instance, when he claims there is one, and only one, reason for having a gun. "I like guns." That is meant to be funny, but it isn't intelligent, knowledgeable, or correct. Again, just because he's funny, doesn't mean he actually knows anything.

Just because someone may make you laugh, it doesn't mean they're smart. Being funny is not the same as being correct, or even knowledgeable.

Really all we need, in Texas, is for schools to use the School Marshal program. In addition to that, I would like the school marshals to undergo regular training at their campus, during off hours, where they practice strategies, in coordination with local law enforcement, to protect their students. https://www.tcole.texas.gov/sites/default/files/documents/school marshal brochure.pdf

I read where one of the teachers died while trying to shield her kids from the shooter. I really get frustrated when I read that. The teacher wasn't protecting her kids. She was merely putting herself in the position where she would die first. Yes, it is noble and admirable; and she died a hero. But I imagine a scenario at my school (all teachers imagine these scenarios) where instead of just putting myself in front of them, I was armed and could actually protect them. Yes, I'm willing to die to protect my kids, but I'd much rather live while making the shooter die. I understand that not every teacher should be armed but if enough were, it would certainly be better than what we have now. Imagine if we could defend ourselves instead of just choosing which order we get shot.

Wow, Beto did not come off looking good in that situation. The optics would have been different if Abbott or Patrick were responding to him but when it was the mayor yelling at him it really changed the mood of the moment. It's not political for the mayor, it's personal, and it really made Beto look small.

Right now, in almost every school in the US, the active shooter plan is: Step 1: hope you can get the kids in the room before the shooter gets you Step 2: lock the door, turn off the lights, cover the windows and hope the shooter passes you by Step 3: hope the cops get the shooter before the shooter gets you. I'm not real happy with that plan. I have a colleague who teaches down the hall that is about as far left as possible and even he is open to the idea of arming teachers. Granted, there needs to be extensive training but he realized that after this happened in Uvalde, it could happen anywhere. And hope really isn't much of a plan.

Full disclosure: I have family in Uvalde. We've been there many times. My niece's daughter goes to that school. She is okay. Her husband has a nephew who did not survive. This will be very difficult for a town like Uvalde to get over. It's a small town and relatively isolated. It's the type of small town where you're either related to someone or you know someone who is related to them. That's going to make this harder to deal with, if that's possible. Everyone I know from there is asking for, and appreciates, prayers at this time. I'm sure that disingenuous politicians will try to use this to score points for "their side", but the real people of that community are going to be too busy dealing with their grief to waste time on that. I just wish I could make sense of it all. I know that wouldn't make it better but I just want to understand. What makes an 18 year old go shoot up an elementary school? They didn't bully him, they did nothing, they're just kids. I really don't have much else to add to this conversation.

If someone is accused of being violent (and they're not), then meeting in public is safer for them. Let somebody record. That will be proof that no violence has occurred. Meeting in private allows for false claims of violence to be made with no proof otherwise. Now, if the person is actually violent, then a public meeting does not work in their favor.

Good suggestion. Meeting in public also protects him from false accusations. Just in case.