winterene

Phila-hell-phia

winterene@yahoo.com — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:17:48 GMT

http://starbuckseverywhere.net/ScrabbleLog_2009_12_13.htm

The Word Is Getting Out

winterene@yahoo.com — Sun, 13 Dec 2009 02:45:17 GMT

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

I'll first point out that I don't necessarily agree with her advocacy of a planetary one-child law, and especiall not her using China as an example (real bad PR there), but I wholeheartedly applaud her for raising the issue.

I predict that as the world population grows and more people as subjected to suffering and death, and as world standard of living declines due to unsustainable economies and policies, more people will gather up their courage and start to talk about this real inconvenient truth.

It is relatively easy to talk about climate change, but no environmental policies are going to make up for the damage that overpopulation is doing.

Here is the comment (limited to 500 characters) I posted to the article, in case it is deleted (there were comments referring to deleted comments):

"I am a 38-year-old liberal-minded male with no children who had a vasectomy 3 years ago as a statement against overpopulation.

I applaud Francis for having the courage to say something that desperately needs saying.

She is spot on in predicting some of the effects that overpopulation will have. In the future, more people will be talking about controlling population. Unfortunately, the way things are going, many millions and billions of people will suffer before governments decide to act."

Public Enemies #1

winterene@yahoo.com — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:28:58 GMT

Michelle and Bob Duggar, described here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/18_Kids_and_Counting

...should be considered at the top of the list public enemies.

Let's assume that the family does live debt-free and that the parents can adequately provide for all their children. Despite this, the act of having so many children in today's crowded and conflicted world is irredeemably selfish and sociopathic.

There are many reasons why the Duggar's should not have had, and should not have been allowed to have, so many children. One major reason is the impact that they, and their children, will have on the environment. A recent study shed light on this (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126994.200-children-come-with-a-high-carbon-cost.html). Even if the Duggars do attempt to live green, their efforts pale in comparison to the impact all their children will have.

But perhaps the top reason is that they are setting a poor example--in fact an example contrary to what we in the developed nations need to be setting. While it is true that birthrates in many developed nations is dropping, birthrates in developing nations are way to high for environmental sustainability. The number of children living in abject poverty is staggering, and this number is only projected to increase in the future.

In my lifetime, I have not seen attempts to eliminate poverty, whether here in the U.S. or abroad, work. Yes, many people have been lifted out of poverty, but because the population continues to increase, many more people are subjected to poverty. As the climate changes, this will lead to unfathomable suffering.

The only viable solution is strict controls on population growth. One problem with this is that if the developed nations suggest this, the developing nations will accuse them of attempting genocide. It is not hard to visualize somebody in Africa pointing to the Duggars and saying "why should we limit our procreation when you rich Westerners can have as many children as you like?" Of course they are going to say that, and we could mount no justification that would convince them otherwise. We have to lead by example, and we have to prevent people like the Duggars from continuing to have more children.

It is easy to appeal to people's emotion desire to procreate and profess that each child is "a blessing and a precious gift", but that sentiment ignores the fact that while those children may be gifts to the Duggars, they can only grow up in a lifestyle to which Westerners are accustomed via the suffering and sacrifices of others, both in this country and the developing world, who are worse off. Every smiling Duggar baby represents many starving children somewhere in the world. That's the image you should take away.

Inevitable Discharge

winterene@yahoo.com — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 04:01:58 GMT

http://starbuckseverywhere.net/ScrabbleLog_2009_12_05.htm

Sunday Movie Binge in NYC

winterene@yahoo.com — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 19:26:16 GMT

10:30 @ Landmark Sunshine - "Broken Embraces" - Good. Long, but pacing was such that the 2 hrs 20 min went by quickly without my feeling bored.

Lunch from Katz's Delicatessen. Notice the "Where Harry Met Sally" sign for the first time.

1:30 @ Landmark Sunshine - "The Road" - Excellent. Quite faithful to the novel.

5:15 @ Village Cinema East - "The Messenger" - Good.

7:10 @ Regal Union Square - "Up in the Air" - Superb. Though straying far from the novel, I was in no way disappointed and engrossed for the duration. Puzzled by some of the changes, though.

We Can End Racism

winterene@yahoo.com — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:30:57 GMT

I think about the issue of racism and prejudice all the time, but my attention was focused on this issue last weekend when I saw the film "Skin" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2009/jul/24/film-review-skin).

Like "Precious" the week before, this film deals with real social issues, racism in this case, and caused me to spend a couple enraged over the issue of racism.

It's nearly 2010, and science is more than advanced enough to be able to pinpoint the primary causes of racism. The human propensity to fear the unknown is one such reason, but we cannot effectively tackle that in the short run. A second reason that should be obvious, and surely supported by scientific evidence, is that children learn from their parents, and racist parents will raise children that have a higher likelihood of being racists. I guaran-damn-tee you that somewhere in this country there is some parent teaching his child that niggers are untrustworthy and prone to thievery, that kykes are greedy and insular, that spics and beaners are out to put real Americans out of work, that the towelheads want to bomb us all. I swear to you this is happening in households all across the country, and similar scenes are being played out across the world.

I know that educated people understand and accept this as fact. So it mystifies me how these same people cannot make the logical leap to the obvious, rational solution to this problem. How hard is it to see that people who exhibit a certain degree if racist (or prejudice in general) should not be allowed to raise children. The very fact that the population at large does not seem to get this is disturbing in an of itself. Or maybe people do realize this, or at least the educated people, but they are all afraid to say it because the issue of regulating procreation is so explosive. That is perhaps the most frustrating thing, that there are people who can see the light but refuse to acknowledge it publicly. I suppose part of he problem is that most educational systems (that I'm aware of) do not teach people to think logically. If they did, people could make the connection between allowing a racist to inculcate his children and the subsequent fact that racist attacks have risen since the election of Barack Obama (http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2009/11/24/anti-black-hate-crimes-rise-data-remains-flawed/)

Never Leave the Ring

winterene@yahoo.com — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:01:39 GMT

http://starbuckseverywhere.net/ScrabbleLog_2009_11_28.htm

Why Are These Animals Still Alive???

winterene@yahoo.com — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:26:09 GMT

http://starbuckseverywhere.net/PeopleWhoShouldDie.htm#December_1_2009

'Bout Time Somebody Stepped Up

winterene@yahoo.com — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 21:46:26 GMT

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120784381

Damn straight!

It's about time an institution stepped up and broached the touchy subject of putting pressure on the overweight to shape up.

It defies logic to put pressure on students not to drink or not to smoke and yet do nothing to attack weight issues, which can be just as harmful, if not more. The only reason, really, is that weight is a sensitive matter, and whenever it is suggested that the overweight be pressured to lead a healthier lifestyle, they start crying about discrimination and "acceptance".

Ideally, the government should be doing this, in an intelligent, rational, and effective manner (as opposed to an ill-conceived, demagogic, and abusive manner like so many policies). But of course policitians are generally weak when it comes to suppporting policies that are unpopular, even if they are socially beneficial.

In the spirit of fairness, Lincoln University should have applied the same policy to students who are underweight, or even students who do not meet physical fitness standards.

Fuck the Canadian Border Services Agency

winterene@yahoo.com — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 22:55:41 GMT

This is bullshit.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/11/30/amy_goodman_detained_at_canadian_border

Canadians are supposed to be more enlightened than Americans, but apparently not.

Marsha, Marsha, Marsha!

winterene@yahoo.com — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:26:42 GMT

http://starbuckseverywhere.net/ScrabbleLog_2009_11_21.htm

A Precious Horror

winterene@yahoo.com — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:27:25 GMT

First of all I must say that, as a film, "Precious" is very good. The acting, pacing, and cinematic effects all work well.

Despite this, "Precious" was torture to watch, and I spent nearly two hours in the theater feeling enraged and wanting to kill nearly every character in the film. The title character, her mother, and her father are of course all horrible people. It might be going a bit far to say the teacher is horrible, because she does mean well, but she is part of a system that expends valuable resources trying to redeem people who should just be cut loose in order to make better use of those resources. There are too many people who consider it noble to expend any level of resources to save one person without considering that the cost of that decision is to reduce the chances of success for many others.

"Precious" is a dangerous film because it purports to shine a light on a very real social issue but hardly presents a single viable idea for how to solve that issue.

Abortion was mentioned just once in the film, and then only in an extremely emotionally prejudicial context that seemed almost forge a negative association in viewers minds.

The film's single redeeming message was fleeting, and negated by the ending. Precious' teacher did counsel her that giving up the newborn child would be best for the child, but in the end, Precious is seen having decided to try and raise both her children.

One can find plenty of discussions and scientific studies about the effects of film and television on people's behavior. The question of whether violent images can affect people, especially children, is a common one. Positive effects have also been documented, such as the effect of soap operas on the number of children borne by women in some Latin American countries.

I think there is enough evidence to show that film and television does have some effect on behavior, and I think it is a certainty that the effect of "Precious" on some pregnant young women will be to push them in the direction of keeping the child, and that is a horrible, horrible consequence. The decision to bear and raise a child without having an overwhelmingly high probability of providing an excellent upbringing is a selfish, sociopathic, and, in an sensible world, criminal act. People should gamble on things like playing cards and sporting events. People should not gamble with the lives of children. And make no mistake--attempting to "do one's best" to raise a child despite disadvantages--that is gambling. When it comes to raising children, no disadvantage should be acceptable.

The message sent by Precious' decision to keep her children was not the only powerful negative message in the film. Just as dangerous was the idea that every person has worth (also espoused as the idea that every person is good at something). While these ideas can give people warm and fuzzy feelings and can give hope to the disadvantage, they fly in the face of real empirical observations of the world, and they lead to dangerous effects. The very idea of "worth" is meaningless if we ascribe it to everything, or everybody. To say that a person like Precious--unintelligent, uneducated, selfish, violent--has worth is like a slap in the face to the countless people who actually contribute to society. The effect of this idea is to push society in the direction of continuing to give these people second and third chances, to expend resources trying to coax some type of redemption out of worthless people when those resources could be used to help people who have greater potential.

Perhaps the most frustrating thing about "Precious" is that it was produced with the involvement of people who I think genuinely want to do good in the world. I've heard the director Lee Daniels interviewed, and I've heard plenty about Oprah Winfrey's charitable endeavors. Unfortunately, as successful and talented and intelligent as these people are, they are horribly misguided and might ultimately do more harm than good with this film. Society's myriad problems will never be solved as long as unintelligent, uneducated, selfish, violent, impoverish people are allowed to raise children and thus propagate this cycle of misery. I continue to hope, seemingly in vain, that one day some influental person in the media will have the guts to finally speak the taboo words that the root cause of the world's problems is people, and that that problem starts with every irresponsible birth.

A Precious Shame

winterene@yahoo.com — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:18:52 GMT

This is just one of many articles/reports:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120531986&ps=cprs

The article is titled "'Precious' Character Is Reality For Some Girls"... but it doesn't have to be. First thing, let me say that I have not seen the film, but given that neither abortion nor adoption were mentioned in any of the reports I have heard, I think there is a good chance that neither of these two options are advocated by the film.

Regulation procreation is an emotionally explosive subject at best, taboo at worst. Many people demonstrate an emotionally and intellectual incapacity to even consider the subject rational. They often overlook the fact that here in the United States, procreation is in fact subject to regulation, if one extends the definition of procreation to include the raising of children. Although no women is forced to abort a child in this country, state governments do remove children from their parents.

I think few people would argue that a parent who physically beats a child should lose his parental rights. Unfortunately, the same people who would support removing a child from an abusive situation would shun the idea of preventing that child from being born into abuse to begin with.

Rational action is based on probability, not possibility. While it is possible for a person to drive while intoxicated without causing any harm, most societies prohibit this activity because it is probable that it will cause harm. It is similarly probably that harm will result when children are born into certain conditions. For example, a quick google of terms like "children born teenage mothers poverty rate" produces articles such as this one (http://www.spotlightonpoverty.org/news.aspx?id=472711fe-6c23-4674-af23-98e0ee87454b).

If credible science shows that a child born to an unwed teenage mother without a high school diploman is nine times more likely to live in poverty, and if we have before us 100 such pregnant teenagers, then by making the conscious decision to allow those females to birth and raise those children, we are making the decision to condemn a certain percentage of those children to poverty. Most people will want to assign the brunt of responsibility to the teenagers, but that is like blaming a dog for birthing an unwanted litter of puppies. Humans are animals, and in the absence of education and other factors, humans will act exactly like animals and reproduce like animals. Just as we humans take responsibility for preventing dogs and cats from having unwanted offspring, it is the responsibility of those with the education and the power to prevent procreation by those who simply don't know any better.

We have the power to prevent countless girls from having to grow up like Precious, but we as a society have to transcend the emotional and psychological barriers that prevent us from saving others from the suffering that Precious had to endure.

The King and I

winterene@yahoo.com — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:15:37 GMT

http://starbuckseverywhere.net/ScrabbleLog_2009_11_08.htm

Insouciant

winterene@yahoo.com — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 19:35:11 GMT

Wow--all this time I'd thought "insouciant" was a pejorative term, but as it turns out, it's not.

I'm rather pleased to call myself insouciant.

Hostile and Unnecessary

winterene@yahoo.com — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:14:37 GMT

Just tried to comment on Joey Mallick's annotation of his Cape Cod game #6 against me (specifically regarding TONGLESS*), and LiveJournal told me I was "banned" from commenting on that journal.

Seems like a pretty hostile and unnecessary act, to ban other users unless there is some sort of history of abusive comments.

The TP That Saved the Day

winterene@yahoo.com — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 13:49:17 GMT

http://starbuckseverywhere.net/ScrabbleLog_2009_11_07.htm

We Can Beat the Odds

winterene@yahoo.com — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 01:56:41 GMT

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120026976

This could be prevented. This could absolutely be prevented. Not for children already born, at least not immediately, but the government absolutely has the power to prevent the births of a large percentage of children who would otherwise be born to parents that can reasonably be judged to have a poor likelihood of being able to provide a suitable upbringing.

By preventing those births, through a combination of compulsory sex education, free contraception, free sterilization, compulsory adoption, compulsory abortion, and compulsory sterilization (for repeat offenders), the government could prevent countless children from living lives of privation and subsequently growing up to be undereducated and unskilled second-class citizens or outright criminals.

In the reality that we commonly perceive, one plus one is two no matter how much a person's misguided emotions might encourage him to believe otherwise, and probability works the same way. If this study is accurate, a certain percentage of children born to undeserving parents will end up on food stamps and will suffer the consequences. If you support allowing those children to be born, then you support allowing children to suffer privation, and you are essentially making a selfish choice, to support your emotional principles instead of supporting a childhood free of privation.

All humans are not created equal, but the government, through regulation of procreation, could do much towards increasing the likelihood that fewer children are born to inequality.

Jinxing Myself?

winterene@yahoo.com — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 02:34:51 GMT

I shouldn't post this now, because I'm likely to jinx myself, but there is no way I can win this tournament, so I might as well relish this brief time in first place.

http://starbuckseverywhere.net/ScrabbleLog_2009_10_31.htm

Louisiana Must Go!

winterene@yahoo.com — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:04:25 GMT

http://starbuckseverywhere.net/ScrabbleLog_2009_10_17.htm

I KNEW IT--CHILDREN = BAD!!!

winterene@yahoo.com — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:19:41 GMT

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug/07/local/me-greenspace7

FINALLY!!! I've been writing this in my blog for years, and I've mentioned it a few times, just to people who I thought might understand. I had no research to back it up, but it was obvious to me that the environmental impact of having a child had to be great, probably greater than any savings to be had from green living.

Forget raising global awareness of climate change--this is the message that needs to be spread as widely as possible, that having children does real harm to the environment.

How to Stop Masturbating So Much

winterene@yahoo.com — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 02:34:36 GMT

Camping out here on Callowhill in Philly, and something occurs to me.

There's probably guys out there struggling with too much masturbation. I got over that when I was a teenager, but others might not have it so easy.

Well, when you are sleeping in a car a night, masturbation is not really safe (you risk detection and arrest), so if you get that urge it's easy to shrug it off. Driving around looking for privacy is not really worth it, unless you've got a real hard-core compulsion, I supposed.

So the question is, how can I monetize this revelation and help countless men out there stop masturbating?

OMG!!! Why Didnt I Know About This???

winterene@yahoo.com — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:27:05 GMT

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Rhode_Island

AARRGHH!!! STUPID WRITERS OR STUPID PRIEST!!!

winterene@yahoo.com — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 20:07:56 GMT

In an earlier episode of "House", a doctor faked a test result to effect the death of an African dictator who was killing his own people.

In last week's episode, the doctor goes to confession and asks what he needs to do to receive absolution, and the priest tells him he needs to turn himself into the authorities.

This is a moronic statement.

Whether or not killing the dictator was the right thing from the perspective of Catholicism has nothing to do with the legal system. If the fictional priest couldn't see that, he's a moron, and if the writers didn't realize this, they are morons.

There Is a God and She Hates Me, Part II

winterene@yahoo.com — Fri, 23 Oct 2009 19:13:29 GMT

As I was about to walk into the Starbucks at Hillcroft and US-59 in Houston, a young woman, redhead, which I like, was sitting at a table. The wind knocked over her tall can of Arizona iced tea, and I used that as an excuse to break the ice and speak to her.

Unlike most attractive women, especially ones wearing headphones, she did not keep her headphones on, or immediately put them back in, but she took out her headphone and set it on the table, a sign that she didn't mind me talking to her.

When I came back out with my coffee I chatted with her some more, but here's the catch--just an hour earlier I had accepted a contract position in Princeton.

So yeah, as soon as the first attractive woman in a long time seems like she might be interested, I have to leave town.