Scrapwood

being presidential means never having to say you’re sorry

February 24, 2007 · 2 Comments

It is good manners, when one does something that causes harm or loss to others, to apologize. This is a lesson on which we spend a lot of time with our kids.

But some of the newer parenting literature is emphasizing that we should not force our kids to say they are sorry if they do not get what that means.

I guess politicos must be reading from the same literature.

Prez-in-waiting Rodham is getting a lot of pressure to apologize for her vote authorizing the Iraq war. She has talked all around the issue, even explained that if she had known then what she knows now she would not have voted the way she did; but no apology is forthcoming.

I don’t think she should apologize, for what it’s worth; but I suspect my reasoning and hers are different.

Mine is because an apology for that vote serves no practical purpose.

Hers, I suspect, is that the Clintonistas cannot see any fault in themselves. Also, any apology would likely become fodder for some opponent somewhere down the line; the Clintons are more sensitive about politics than most, like ‘em or not.

I just hope that those who railed against Bush for his decision not to apologize for Katrina (he didn’t spawn the storm, regardless of public opinion to the contrary) will be as harsh on our next chief executive.

By the way, I’m not in favor of a Rodham presidency; I just fear that Republicans will cut off their nose to spite their face. If the party goes with someone palatable to the loudest voices in the party, that candidate will not be electible.

And if the GOP goes to the center and chooses someone electible, a huge number of Republican voters will likely stay home on election day.

Hilary, the White House is yours to lose.

My fingers hurt just from typing that.

Categories: Uncategorized

the unbearable lightness of fluorescents

February 24, 2007 · Leave a Comment

One “green” idea that has been getting up some steam here in the states is the compact flourescent bulb. They are significantly more efficient than traditional incandescent bulbs, and the technology has improved so they are closer to the tones of light to which we have become accustomed.

WalMart’s vice president of sustainability (yes, that really is his title; makes you wonder what the dude’s major was in college), Andy Rubin, say the average consumer  can expect to save 50 to 75 cents per month on their electric bill for each bulb replaced.

One problem: ever read the label on a compant fluorescent bulb?

Warning: This light bulb contains mercury, and must be disposed off properly. 

And what does that mean? First, if you toss ‘em in your regular trash, you are putting your friendly neighborhood trash collector at risk of mercury poisoning. Dude keeps leaving my empty can laying in the street – not sure I would feel too bad about that. And the landfill – I’m not sure my one or two bulbs per quarter would make much difference in terms of groundwater seepage. I suspect our groundwater is pretty juiced up with plenty of other nasty stuff already.

One woman from the New York City area said the closest facility which would take the bulbs was over fifty miles away. She’s now fully incandescent, thank you very much.

Yet another fine example of how anything that is an improvement in one area nearly always has some off-setting unintended consequence.

Categories: on being politically incorrect · stuff in my head