Today the news said that Mr. Obama is halting any new offshore oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico. Of course I regard that as good news.
Unfortunately, that won't do anything to solve the current very serious oil-spill problem, which is beginning to look very tragic. If you follow the news, you already know that the spilled oil is going to ruin the industries for fishing for shrimp, oysters, crabs, and so forth, and seriously impact the livelihood of the fishermen, not to mention Americans' dinner tables--plus it is going to be deadly for shore birds in the Louisiana wetlands.
What is maybe even more tragic is that the oil spill probably could have been prevented. Oil-drilling platforms can be equipped with a type of shut-off valve called an acoustic valve. Had the oil rig in question been equipped with this device, the flow of oil probably could have been stemmed before very much oil spilled into the water.
Some countries, such as Norway, require this device on all offshore oil-drilling rigs. The U.S. does not. Yet another instance where government non-interference with corporations has had disastrous consequences.
Note added: The oil rig did include an explosive device that was supposed to enable shutting down the flow of oil in an emergency. However, it did not function as intended. As of the last I heard, no one knew why, other than simply that it was faulty.
Here is a link to an interesting article. http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/bp-oil-crisis-and-massey-coal-disaster-bring-blame-home/19461901/
She blames our energy-hungriness as the ultimate cause of not only the oil rig accident and subsequent oil spill; but also the mining disaster that occurred a short while before. I agree with her but, in the main. But she says we should drive less and I say, stop driving those big SUVs. Of course some drivers--probably less than 10%--who want to cause less energy consumption and less creation of greenhouse gasses from their driving have purchased hybrid cars or very small cars. The rest don't give a damn. (True confession time: I don't have a hybrid, nor a very tiny vehicle, but my car still is probably more economical than most, and I drive very little.)
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, April 30, 2010
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Politics, Energy Policy, and Financial-System Reform
Anyone who pays attention to current news has heard about the environmental disaster in the making, due to an oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. An offshore oil-drilling platform caught fire and then sank. This has resulted in loss of lives (I think 11 at latest estimate), plus some 40,000 gallons of oil per day are being spilled into the gulf waters.
Such accidents are a constant risk of offshore oil drilling. Yet President Obama recently issued an order to expand offshore oil drilling off the U.S. coast.
Yes, we need energy. For now, unfortunately, we need oil. But it still is surprising, disappointing, and saddening to Obama's liberal constituency and anyone concerned with the environment that he has done this. It seems to be a philosophy of "more oil at any cost." Well, I say, let people driving 3-ton SUVs pay more for their gas than they are currently. They don't care about the environment, and I'd like to see them bear more of a burden for their actions. (The U.S. still has gasoline for half of what it costs in Europe.)
Lest I seem to be attacking Democrats and a (supposedly) liberal president, let me hasten to lay some blame at the door of Republicans. The energy problem goes back at least 30 years. Or rather, 30 years ago, when things could have been done, they were not. The day of his inauguration, Ronald Reagan halted all U.S. Department of Energy funding for research on alternative energy. (I know this because I was working for a nonprofit engineering research group that did a lot of research into fuel from biomass, ocean thermal energy, fuel cells, and so forth. This institution depended very heavily on DOE contracts and was extremely impacted by Reagan's actions, and had to cut, eventually, two-thirds of their staff.) Other commentators have said that we have lost 30 years out of the alternative-energy program.
Ronald Reagan even stamped out or undid what was viewed as Jimmy Carter's last legacy: a solar water-heating system Carter had installed on the White House roof. I don't know what reason, if any, Reagan gave for this action. It was not publicized at the time, if I recall. I have to think it was just thumbing his nose at Carter, liberal policies, and environmentalism.
Also on the subject of Republicans: Right now they are opposing legislation in the Senate that would reform the financial system. During the years of laissez-faire, some of the reforms of the post-Depression era—such as the Glass-Stiegel Act, which separated banking from investment business--were repealed. That was a cause of the recent economic mess. (I think some of this occurred, in fact, under Clinton. Any reader, please correct me if I am wrong here.)
The Republican approach clearly is, "If the Democrats want it, we're going to oppose it." That's called obstructionism. In fact they are filibustering, which is nothing more nor less than an obstructing tactic.
But there is lots of evidence that the people want these reforms. The Republicans in Congress surely are professional politicians; we will see if they are astute politicians as well. To oppose the will of the people should result in their being voted out of office. That message probably is just now starting to penetrate their osseous skulls.
Note added April 29: The news on the oil spill continues to get worse. Yesterday they said it is much worse than originally estimated. Today they said that 210,000 gallons of oil are leaking into the Gulf every day. This promises to be one of the worst environmental disasters ever.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Such accidents are a constant risk of offshore oil drilling. Yet President Obama recently issued an order to expand offshore oil drilling off the U.S. coast.
Yes, we need energy. For now, unfortunately, we need oil. But it still is surprising, disappointing, and saddening to Obama's liberal constituency and anyone concerned with the environment that he has done this. It seems to be a philosophy of "more oil at any cost." Well, I say, let people driving 3-ton SUVs pay more for their gas than they are currently. They don't care about the environment, and I'd like to see them bear more of a burden for their actions. (The U.S. still has gasoline for half of what it costs in Europe.)
Lest I seem to be attacking Democrats and a (supposedly) liberal president, let me hasten to lay some blame at the door of Republicans. The energy problem goes back at least 30 years. Or rather, 30 years ago, when things could have been done, they were not. The day of his inauguration, Ronald Reagan halted all U.S. Department of Energy funding for research on alternative energy. (I know this because I was working for a nonprofit engineering research group that did a lot of research into fuel from biomass, ocean thermal energy, fuel cells, and so forth. This institution depended very heavily on DOE contracts and was extremely impacted by Reagan's actions, and had to cut, eventually, two-thirds of their staff.) Other commentators have said that we have lost 30 years out of the alternative-energy program.
Ronald Reagan even stamped out or undid what was viewed as Jimmy Carter's last legacy: a solar water-heating system Carter had installed on the White House roof. I don't know what reason, if any, Reagan gave for this action. It was not publicized at the time, if I recall. I have to think it was just thumbing his nose at Carter, liberal policies, and environmentalism.
Also on the subject of Republicans: Right now they are opposing legislation in the Senate that would reform the financial system. During the years of laissez-faire, some of the reforms of the post-Depression era—such as the Glass-Stiegel Act, which separated banking from investment business--were repealed. That was a cause of the recent economic mess. (I think some of this occurred, in fact, under Clinton. Any reader, please correct me if I am wrong here.)
The Republican approach clearly is, "If the Democrats want it, we're going to oppose it." That's called obstructionism. In fact they are filibustering, which is nothing more nor less than an obstructing tactic.
But there is lots of evidence that the people want these reforms. The Republicans in Congress surely are professional politicians; we will see if they are astute politicians as well. To oppose the will of the people should result in their being voted out of office. That message probably is just now starting to penetrate their osseous skulls.
Note added April 29: The news on the oil spill continues to get worse. Yesterday they said it is much worse than originally estimated. Today they said that 210,000 gallons of oil are leaking into the Gulf every day. This promises to be one of the worst environmental disasters ever.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, April 23, 2010
Which Freedoms Are You Concerned About?
Conservative/Right Wing/Tea Party types have been complaining that their freedoms are being taken away by the government.
They have also been known to evoke the Founding Fathers, and claim that the shape (or size, or power) that the government has achieved has strayed far from the vision of the Founding Fathers.
Well, as to the second of those: We now live in a far larger, more complex, and more diverse society than anyone in the late 18th century could have envisioned. This society confronts us with issues that also could not have been foreseen (pollution, derivative financial instruments--just to name a couple). We need (even if evidently not everyone expects) the government to have some involvement with these problems.
Also part of our federal government is a huge intelligence establishment. There are at least three intelligence agencies, the CIA, FBI, and Defense Intelligence Agency. Not only are these agencies huge, but they are very powerful and--worse--secretive. Their operation is hidden from the public and from scrutiny by the public and even, too often, from scrutiny by Congress. These agencies have abused their power by spying on US citizens on US territory, even citizens who there was no valid reason to suspect of any wrongdoing.
It seems that the conservatives are not concerned about these invasions of their privacy. When they talk invasion of their freedoms, they don't care about their privacy--just as long as they can keep their guns.
They have also been known to evoke the Founding Fathers, and claim that the shape (or size, or power) that the government has achieved has strayed far from the vision of the Founding Fathers.
Well, as to the second of those: We now live in a far larger, more complex, and more diverse society than anyone in the late 18th century could have envisioned. This society confronts us with issues that also could not have been foreseen (pollution, derivative financial instruments--just to name a couple). We need (even if evidently not everyone expects) the government to have some involvement with these problems.
Also part of our federal government is a huge intelligence establishment. There are at least three intelligence agencies, the CIA, FBI, and Defense Intelligence Agency. Not only are these agencies huge, but they are very powerful and--worse--secretive. Their operation is hidden from the public and from scrutiny by the public and even, too often, from scrutiny by Congress. These agencies have abused their power by spying on US citizens on US territory, even citizens who there was no valid reason to suspect of any wrongdoing.
It seems that the conservatives are not concerned about these invasions of their privacy. When they talk invasion of their freedoms, they don't care about their privacy--just as long as they can keep their guns.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Political Discussions Are in Vain
A gentleman named Michael Moakley has written,
To me at least, that's one of those statements that immediately rings true. You know, and I know, that we almost certainly would not get anywhere arguing with one of those Tea Partyers. It's probably futile to even try to argue these things. We share our ideas with those who already agree with us, and we read magazines that reinforce what we already believe: liberal for liberals, conservative for conservatives. There's the old expression of "preaching to the choir" or "preaching to the converted."
Maybe I should not waste any more keystrokes blogging on political matters.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
. . . [T]he best way to lose a political argument is to carefully research the issue in question and support the resulting opinion with facts.
To me at least, that's one of those statements that immediately rings true. You know, and I know, that we almost certainly would not get anywhere arguing with one of those Tea Partyers. It's probably futile to even try to argue these things. We share our ideas with those who already agree with us, and we read magazines that reinforce what we already believe: liberal for liberals, conservative for conservatives. There's the old expression of "preaching to the choir" or "preaching to the converted."
Maybe I should not waste any more keystrokes blogging on political matters.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Tying Two Subjects Together
I've blogged about the modifications that car makers need to make to a European car model before that car can be introduced to the American market (usually because of U.S. regulations). And I've blogged, more than once, about Americans' obesity.
Here is a bit of news that ties those two themes together: Since the Italian automaker FIAT now controls Chrysler, they plan to sell the tiny Fiat 500 in the U.S. One of the modifications being made to the 500 for the U.S. is wider seats. Gee, I wonder why that's necessary.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Here is a bit of news that ties those two themes together: Since the Italian automaker FIAT now controls Chrysler, they plan to sell the tiny Fiat 500 in the U.S. One of the modifications being made to the 500 for the U.S. is wider seats. Gee, I wonder why that's necessary.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Friday, April 16, 2010
More on Tea Party Demonstrations
The Tea Partiers are at it again, because today is "tax day" (I'm not sure when that became an official holiday such that these people had the day off from work).
According to some of their placquards, they want there to be no taxes. Maybe they don't want the government to provide police services and fire protection; to build and maintain roads; to put up traffic lights (no, certainly traffic lights abridge their freedom!); to help keep our food, air, and water safe from pollution and contamination; and to fight epidemic disease (public health has been one of the major successes of government).
If you ask these people, I'm pretty sure they'd admit that they want the government to continue to provide these services. Only, somehow, let the government do all this without having tax revenue coming in.
Also, they are claiming that the government is taking away their freedoms. Where were their voices of protest during the George W. Bush years, when the PATRIOT act was passed that lets the government spy on U.S. citizens' phone calls and email messages, and even see what books they elect to read by subpoenaing their library records. I guess they don't care much about their privacy, just let them have their guns.
I'd really like to ask them how they want government services to be paid for. And what freedoms they think are being taken away by the present administration. And, for those who cry "socialism," what their definition of socialism is. (If there's any "socialism" in this country, it's the programs we've had since FDR's New Deal.) I'm pretty sure that if you could interrogate these people about their positions, it would turn out that they are not well thought out, and they're full of logical inconsistencies.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
According to some of their placquards, they want there to be no taxes. Maybe they don't want the government to provide police services and fire protection; to build and maintain roads; to put up traffic lights (no, certainly traffic lights abridge their freedom!); to help keep our food, air, and water safe from pollution and contamination; and to fight epidemic disease (public health has been one of the major successes of government).
If you ask these people, I'm pretty sure they'd admit that they want the government to continue to provide these services. Only, somehow, let the government do all this without having tax revenue coming in.
Also, they are claiming that the government is taking away their freedoms. Where were their voices of protest during the George W. Bush years, when the PATRIOT act was passed that lets the government spy on U.S. citizens' phone calls and email messages, and even see what books they elect to read by subpoenaing their library records. I guess they don't care much about their privacy, just let them have their guns.
I'd really like to ask them how they want government services to be paid for. And what freedoms they think are being taken away by the present administration. And, for those who cry "socialism," what their definition of socialism is. (If there's any "socialism" in this country, it's the programs we've had since FDR's New Deal.) I'm pretty sure that if you could interrogate these people about their positions, it would turn out that they are not well thought out, and they're full of logical inconsistencies.
Copyright (c) 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, April 15, 2010
I Hate TV Commercials
TV commercials are annoying. Worse, much of the time they're obnoxious. My current most-hated are two IKEA commercials. I don't hate the company; I have generally a favorable view of them, but if these commercials keep up I will soon learn to hate IKEA.
One shows a couple racing into their kitchen to cheer (that's the best word I can think of) their kitchen appliances for just having produced a delicious dinner for them. The husband belly-bumps (is that the word?) the refrigerator on his way out of the room. Sure, we'd all do that after an enjoyable meal, right?
After a bit more thought, I want to admit that the concept of the commercial is creative. What is annoying about it is that it begins with what amounts to shouting, and the sudden loud noise is very jarring. (See comment below on loud commercials.)
IKEA's other commercial has two young identical twin girls who go through an incredibly annoying monotone chant—in front of the same pair of double ovens as in the other commercial. I don't know what they say. God bless the "mute" button on the remote.
We have a local bankruptcy attorney who does his own TV commercials (almost always a mistake for the small business owner: better to use professional actors). He used to stare into the camera and talk in a droning voice. He's gotten better, and at the same time his face has gotten fatter--but his commercials are still deceptive, and annoying in their frequency and ubiquity.
It's also extremely annoying when a TV station runs the same commercial twice in one commercial break. I'm sure the sponsor would not be pleased at that practice, if they were aware of it. I think the FCC should crack down on that practice, as they are (supposedly) going to rein in another very annoying practice of TV stations, ramping up the volume on commercials. (My theory is that they do that to wake you up, if you've fallen asleep. After all, the commercial being the most important part of the broadcast, they want to ensure that you don't miss it.)
Here's a link to an article on obnoxious, loud commercials:
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/04/27/ad-rant-after-obnoxious-staples-ad-give-me-higher-prices-and-l/
Besides commercials which are annoying in and of themselves, I really hate tuning in the TV or radio right in the middle (or even worse, just at the start) of a run of commercials. It seems to me that there are now more TV commercials in every commercial break than there used to be. (At one time, if you recall, the FCC had a rule limiting commercial content as a proportion of program content. Since that rule was rescinded we now have the blessing of infomercials.) I know that a commercial break can have at least eight commercials. If you count "spots" (ads for other TV shows), and if some of the commercials and spots are only 30 seconds, there might be 12. When a movie is showing, once you have gotten hooked on the program, the commercial breaks become more frequent (e.g., after only 7 minutes of the program), and longer, as well, with more individual ads.
With TV, I will often let one or even two commercials play. When another one comes on, I hit "mute." With radio, after one or two commercials, I switch it off if it's within reach. I can switch it on again in a couple minutes, when the commercials are done.
Someone once gave a number for the number of advertising messages we are subjected to on an average day, via all media. It was some staggering number, like a few thousand. I'm pretty sure we are normally not even aware of how many TV commercials we watch, and would be surprised at the number. Count them some time.
I used to work with a guy who was pretty pro-business. When I complained to him about commercials, he pointed out to me that commercials are why sponsors pay the money that makes TV and radio programming possible. Of course that's true, but (as I mentioned in an earlier posting on this blog), I as a consumer find it hard not to look askance at businesses when they get ever more ingenious at finding new places to put advertising. Has it appeared on chewing gum wrappers yet? The walls of public toilet stalls? Just wait. (I should be careful, I may well be giving someone an idea here.)
Anyone who can remember back a few decades, when I was a child, might recall that, before cable TV was a reality and was just one of those to-come, futuristic ideas, it was called "pay TV," and the appeal for the consumer was that it would not carry commercials! Now, of course, all cable TV networks, even the "premium" ones, carry advertising. Why? Just one of countless cases where someone found out that they could introduce advertising (or more advertising) and customers would accept it without protest.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
One shows a couple racing into their kitchen to cheer (that's the best word I can think of) their kitchen appliances for just having produced a delicious dinner for them. The husband belly-bumps (is that the word?) the refrigerator on his way out of the room. Sure, we'd all do that after an enjoyable meal, right?
After a bit more thought, I want to admit that the concept of the commercial is creative. What is annoying about it is that it begins with what amounts to shouting, and the sudden loud noise is very jarring. (See comment below on loud commercials.)
IKEA's other commercial has two young identical twin girls who go through an incredibly annoying monotone chant—in front of the same pair of double ovens as in the other commercial. I don't know what they say. God bless the "mute" button on the remote.
We have a local bankruptcy attorney who does his own TV commercials (almost always a mistake for the small business owner: better to use professional actors). He used to stare into the camera and talk in a droning voice. He's gotten better, and at the same time his face has gotten fatter--but his commercials are still deceptive, and annoying in their frequency and ubiquity.
It's also extremely annoying when a TV station runs the same commercial twice in one commercial break. I'm sure the sponsor would not be pleased at that practice, if they were aware of it. I think the FCC should crack down on that practice, as they are (supposedly) going to rein in another very annoying practice of TV stations, ramping up the volume on commercials. (My theory is that they do that to wake you up, if you've fallen asleep. After all, the commercial being the most important part of the broadcast, they want to ensure that you don't miss it.)
Here's a link to an article on obnoxious, loud commercials:
http://www.walletpop.com/blog/2010/04/27/ad-rant-after-obnoxious-staples-ad-give-me-higher-prices-and-l/
Besides commercials which are annoying in and of themselves, I really hate tuning in the TV or radio right in the middle (or even worse, just at the start) of a run of commercials. It seems to me that there are now more TV commercials in every commercial break than there used to be. (At one time, if you recall, the FCC had a rule limiting commercial content as a proportion of program content. Since that rule was rescinded we now have the blessing of infomercials.) I know that a commercial break can have at least eight commercials. If you count "spots" (ads for other TV shows), and if some of the commercials and spots are only 30 seconds, there might be 12. When a movie is showing, once you have gotten hooked on the program, the commercial breaks become more frequent (e.g., after only 7 minutes of the program), and longer, as well, with more individual ads.
With TV, I will often let one or even two commercials play. When another one comes on, I hit "mute." With radio, after one or two commercials, I switch it off if it's within reach. I can switch it on again in a couple minutes, when the commercials are done.
Someone once gave a number for the number of advertising messages we are subjected to on an average day, via all media. It was some staggering number, like a few thousand. I'm pretty sure we are normally not even aware of how many TV commercials we watch, and would be surprised at the number. Count them some time.
I used to work with a guy who was pretty pro-business. When I complained to him about commercials, he pointed out to me that commercials are why sponsors pay the money that makes TV and radio programming possible. Of course that's true, but (as I mentioned in an earlier posting on this blog), I as a consumer find it hard not to look askance at businesses when they get ever more ingenious at finding new places to put advertising. Has it appeared on chewing gum wrappers yet? The walls of public toilet stalls? Just wait. (I should be careful, I may well be giving someone an idea here.)
Anyone who can remember back a few decades, when I was a child, might recall that, before cable TV was a reality and was just one of those to-come, futuristic ideas, it was called "pay TV," and the appeal for the consumer was that it would not carry commercials! Now, of course, all cable TV networks, even the "premium" ones, carry advertising. Why? Just one of countless cases where someone found out that they could introduce advertising (or more advertising) and customers would accept it without protest.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Populace and Paradox
The voting faction of the US populace—the electorate—frequently does not seem to think very clearly. Everybody wants government-provided services, and nobody favors taxes. How do they think those services are going to be provided for? Where is the government to get the money it needs to provide services, if not from taxpayers' taxes?
Maybe people should bear in mind two extremes and think about which one they'd like better. On the one hand, Sweden is the very model of the welfare state, with health care and many other services taken care of at government expense. Concomitant with that, taxes in Sweden are high.
You could take Mississippi as the other extreme. Government expenditures, for example on education, are low. As a result, Mississippi ranks low on a lot of measures—education, health of its citizens, etc. Also directly connected, Mississippi has low taxes—and a low standard of living. Maybe when government money is spent, that money circulates and makes everybody more prosperous.
Also, polls show that the populace disapproves of Congress. Congress gets a 17% approval rating. On the other hand, when people were polled for their opinion of their own representative, 45% approved. (And historically, nearly 96% of House members get re-elected.) How can the individual congressmen be good and the collective body be bad? Maybe this has to do with a phenomenon I blogged about before: people decry pork-barrel legislation (or "pork") when some other congressman is doing it. When their own congressman is doing it, it's "bringing home federal funds to our district." I see that phrase in the materials that my own congressman sends to his constituents. A verb declension: He's advocating pork, you're not careful with the people's money, I'm helping my district. (Like "He's a tightwad, you're cheap, I'm thrifty.")
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Maybe people should bear in mind two extremes and think about which one they'd like better. On the one hand, Sweden is the very model of the welfare state, with health care and many other services taken care of at government expense. Concomitant with that, taxes in Sweden are high.
You could take Mississippi as the other extreme. Government expenditures, for example on education, are low. As a result, Mississippi ranks low on a lot of measures—education, health of its citizens, etc. Also directly connected, Mississippi has low taxes—and a low standard of living. Maybe when government money is spent, that money circulates and makes everybody more prosperous.
Also, polls show that the populace disapproves of Congress. Congress gets a 17% approval rating. On the other hand, when people were polled for their opinion of their own representative, 45% approved. (And historically, nearly 96% of House members get re-elected.) How can the individual congressmen be good and the collective body be bad? Maybe this has to do with a phenomenon I blogged about before: people decry pork-barrel legislation (or "pork") when some other congressman is doing it. When their own congressman is doing it, it's "bringing home federal funds to our district." I see that phrase in the materials that my own congressman sends to his constituents. A verb declension: He's advocating pork, you're not careful with the people's money, I'm helping my district. (Like "He's a tightwad, you're cheap, I'm thrifty.")
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Thoughts on Three Subjects: The Census and Latinos; Police; Population Control
We are seeing a lot of PSAs (public service announcements) on TV aimed at encouraging people to return their census forms. Evidently this is a greater problem in Latino communities because illegal immigrants fear that the government can use census data to track down, and even deport, illegal immigrants. Evidently there is a rumor to his effect going around in Spanish-speaking communities.
However, I have never seen any of these PSA in Spanish. Does that make sense to anybody?
A news item of a couple days ago said that Chicago police officers, who now have video cameras in their cars, have been keeping these cameras turned off. The cameras are supposed to deter any police wrongdoing, for example during traffic stops. The police excuse for not having their cams turned on? They might be shown doing something they are not supposed to do. No further comment needed.
Population control: I feel that no family should have more than two or three children. More people being born means more pollution, more strain on natural resources, more energy use and hence production of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, and destruction of habitat for wildlife. We are covering America with subdivisions and parking lots.
I could go on and on, on that subject. But now evidently there's yet another reason to limit family size: A recently-announced study shows that women increase their risk of stroke with every child that they give birth to. So today I was wishing I could say to the guy I saw with five kids, "Think of what you are doing to your wife every time you knock her up!"
Of course, given the nature of things, tomorrow a study will come out showing no such relationship. Meanwhile, the mother of all those kids didn't look at all harassed, I have to admit. Plus, they looked like a family who could afford those children. But, for the reasons above, I don't feel a family should have all the kids they can afford to.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
However, I have never seen any of these PSA in Spanish. Does that make sense to anybody?
A news item of a couple days ago said that Chicago police officers, who now have video cameras in their cars, have been keeping these cameras turned off. The cameras are supposed to deter any police wrongdoing, for example during traffic stops. The police excuse for not having their cams turned on? They might be shown doing something they are not supposed to do. No further comment needed.
Population control: I feel that no family should have more than two or three children. More people being born means more pollution, more strain on natural resources, more energy use and hence production of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming, and destruction of habitat for wildlife. We are covering America with subdivisions and parking lots.
I could go on and on, on that subject. But now evidently there's yet another reason to limit family size: A recently-announced study shows that women increase their risk of stroke with every child that they give birth to. So today I was wishing I could say to the guy I saw with five kids, "Think of what you are doing to your wife every time you knock her up!"
Of course, given the nature of things, tomorrow a study will come out showing no such relationship. Meanwhile, the mother of all those kids didn't look at all harassed, I have to admit. Plus, they looked like a family who could afford those children. But, for the reasons above, I don't feel a family should have all the kids they can afford to.
Copyright © 2010 by Richard Stein
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
