Her 15 minutes of fame

Yesterday as I was driving down the Dallas North Parkway I spotted this...um...zoo escapee?  (I happened to have my 'lil pocket camera at hand and traffic was moving slowly, as always.)  I've bought a lot of cars in my lifetime, but I don't ever recall seeing on the option list a leopard spot paint job. Have you? 


Changing course, yesterday Joan Perry (Charleston Daily Photo) had a link to a cute game, The Longevity Game.  You enter your height, weight, how much you smoke, drink, whether you drive like a maniac, etc, and it tells you how long you'll live. Of course everyone wants to see "100 years" or some such ripe old age, but based on a serious story I read over the weekend, that seems increasingly unlikely.


Long story short, there are too many people in the world.  The world's population has roughly doubled in my lifetime, and a baby born today can expect to see it double again in his lifetime, to 10-12 billion people.  (It's about 6.5 billion today.)


In centuries past various maladies...wars, plagues, famines... have conspired to hold the population in check, but not today.  Climate change...think drought in Australia, floods in the USA, heat waves in Europe, violent storms everywhere, etc...are making it difficult for the food supply to keep up with world population gains.  Plus all these new people want their piece of the pie such as cars, a comfortable place to live, and other creature comforts, all requiring more mining for raw materials, polluting production facilities, roads, all dictating less arable land for agriculture.  The vicious circle just goes on and on.


Not to sound all doomy and gloomy, but maybe we should set our sights on a more modest number of years to roam the earth than The Longevity Game suggests we should expect. One way or another, it's going to catch up with us.


"Quality" and "quantity" are two very different things.  Party on.  :) 


S

Washington....home of the best politicians money can buy

Anybody been keeping up with Elizabeth Warren's nomination to become the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief?  She's a pretty feisty Harvard law professor who is hoping to be able to call the banks, credit card companies, mortgage originators, etc on the carpet for their blatantly anti-consumer business dealings.  They've been running amok for years under the premise "He who has the gold makes the rules". Many...OK, me...like the idea of having someone with the power and the willingness to do something looking out for the people's interests (although the idea of yet another bureaucracy bothers me).  


Recently she testified before a congressional committee and had the nerve to stand up to one of the congressmen interrogating her, a big Washington no-no.  The Republicans on the committee have already said there is no way they are going to confirm her nomination, so she really didn't lose much by standing up to him.  Still, I found it refreshing.


What I can't figure out is why the Republicans are willing to vote down a consumer advocate and stand beside the banks and credit card companies in light of all the sleazy things they've done and continue to do, and the near-collapse of the world economy they almost caused.  And got caught doing.  What are the Republicans thinking??  That would be like volunteering to be a character witness for Adolf Hitler.  (Hey, I call 'em like I see 'em.)


S