My daughter had sensitive skin and was allergic to all disposable diapers-- except the cheapest generic ones. We used cloth diapers at home and paper when she went to daycare. Even using cloth sometimes would help.
It's pretty clear that the writer has an agenda to push. She makes a strong case pointing out the costs associated with disposable diapers but she overlooks the true costs of cloth diapers. The cotton doesn't just magically appear, refined, woven and ready to go in a diaper bag. There's resources used to grow, harvest, refine and weave the fibers. There's resources used to deliver the final product to consumers. With the end users, resources are used to clean and reuse the diapers, and to treat the sewage. Every one of these issues is unaddressed by the writer. If she really wants consumers to make the decision to use cloth diapers, she should present ALL of the facts and educate us instead of shaming us. Without an objective and all inclusive review of all the stats, this is just propaganda. I'm a new parent and I would truly appreciate it if someone could present a good case for taking on all the extra work and inconvenience that comes with cloth diapers. This didn't do it.
Another factor to consider (when even having children) is the carbon footprint incurred by the exploding population of the world. If you really want to reduce your carbon footprint then eat plant-based foods (consumption of meat is close to 20% of the excess carbon in our atmosphere), consider adopting instead of giving birth to a child and spay and neuter your pets. A recent Nature report indicated that domestic cats kill about 3.5 billion wild birds and animals per year. They are creating havoc on our wildlife/bird populations.
I have a great idea, stop breeding, then we can stop worring about this. Im F*cking tired of women bringing kids to nice restaurants or worse sitting at a bar with them. Give us a break, we dont want to hear them.
I don't which is worse but cloth diapers also have environmental consequences. First of all, cotton farming is very water intense and also depends on pesticides, fertilizers, and herbsides in its growth. Harvesting, processing, and shipping cotton is also energy intense. I don't have the stats but its hard to believe that a diaper that will be washed uses less water than a disposable does in its manufacture. Does that include the water used to grow, process, and make cotton cloth? I'd like to see a true side by side of the cost/benefits of each.
@RJFletcher, I obtained my information from United States Department of Justice and you from some website maintained by the University of Sydney in Australia. What is more interesting, and what I would like to know, is the source that you have used that fabricated the 100k-2.5M number. Only NRA, Fox News, Rush, and Glen have the balls to publish these kinds of exaggerated figures and scare you into thinking that the world is coming to an end The 1% is feeding you garbage information and people like you clap about it and get excited like a bunch of seals in an aquarium who have been thrown a bucket full of chum.
@gdelirium454, your claim that "The few nationwide cases where the victim defended oneself from a perpertrator hardly justifies 11k+ death, 49k+ non-lethal gun shot wounds..." does not square with the facts, much less a spellcheck. There were 32,163 gun deaths in 2011 and likely a similar amount last year (www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-s… where you might have found the non-lethal gun wound statistics is anybody's guess but I suspect they carry equal accuracy.
What you neglected to post, much less investigate, are the estimated numbers of defensive gun uses every year. Depending on your source, this varies from either 100K times a year (Gun Violence Policy center) to somewhere around 2.5 million (Kleck, Lott, et al). Regardless of whose numbers you choose to believe, your assertion that there are "few nationwide cases" where people defended themselves and the reality are obviously two different things. One hundred thousand people or two and 1/2 million-either number far outstrips 32K, and had these people not been able to defend themselves, the social costs you decry would be far higher than they already are. You are welcome to your point of view, but it is simply not based in the real world.
I feel a lot of personal prejudice has gone into this Fox News type skewed OPINION article. Citing two cases where guns helped someone (not necessarily saved someone) as evidence for allowing military style guns to be purchased by anybody is idiotic. First, let me say to you that I am not against getting rid of guns, but I do support background checks, mental health screenings, and training. If you want to go shooting ducks or deer than I fully support your "I have a small weiner and therefore I have to have a gun and a pick up truck" mentality. Secondly, why is it that every right wing republican keeps using the second amendment to justify ownership of a gun? I don't ride a horse to work anymore so can we just say that the second amendment was written for its time. Assault weapons ban was initiated by the Reagan administration, so can we also keep the left/right politics out of this. Finally, history will prove to you that liberal, progressive, and forward ways of thinking has always won every major political battle in this country. I can sleep soundly at night knowing that in few years the demographic of this country will change far enough to allow gay marriage, assault weapons ban, abortion, etc. You, the NRA and the rest of this crazy gun congregation are statistically a very small minority in this country, but just like always and unfortunately, the ones that yell the loudest get a lot of attention. Your opinion reminds me of that one guy at a Tea Party rally with a big sign that said, "Keep your government hands off my Medicare". To you it might make sense, but to the rest of us thinking that we need to fight off the government or protect ourselves from wild savages in a wild west type of shootout, or be the hero in a gun battle with deranged mall shooter, is a complete fantasy. The few nationwide cases where the victim defended oneself from a perpertrator hardly justifies 11k+ death, 49k+ non-lethal gun shot wounds, 8+ billion in economic losses from medical expenses to missed work to everything else.
@Corvi: "For every case you can cite where a boy protected his sister with an AR-15, I can find a case where a boy SHOT his sister with an AR-15."
For every case you can cite where a boy protected his sister with an AR-15, I can find a case where a boy SHOT his sister with an AR-15. Neither make a bit of difference. That whole paragraph, this comment, and that entire editorial are a waste of ink (my case electrons) and should never have been printed.
I wish I could agree with your assertion that these drugs might have prevented tragedy, Jefferson, but the facts indicate otherwise. A good place to start would be http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DrugSafety/Inform…, which demonstrates clearly that the government warned over 5 years ago of an increased risk of suicidal thoughts in young adults prescribed antidepressants. Since these drugs are now routinely given to troubled children as young as age 10, I think the hypothesis that SSRIs may be to blame when some of them snap and commit mayhem is not without merit. Further evidence for this can be found at http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=sch…, which cross-references over 20 years of school shootings with the drugs the shooters were known to be taking at the time. Another useful page is http://www.medicationsense.com/articles/oc…, particularly the reference list at the bottom.
I urge you to peruse these links and come to your own conclusions based upon the facts rather than emotion-dead children are indeed a tragedy, but proposing useless solutions does their memory no service.
RJ, where do you get your facts? Or, more to the point, how did you reach that conclusion? Those drugs don't cause shooting sprees! They might even have prevented some, given that they're used to TREAT severe mental illness.
The one most common factor in all mass shootings aside from guns is the shooter either using or in withdrawl from SSRIs, a class of mental health drug that specifically warns on its package against extreme rage and/or suicidal thoughts on its packaging.
Our laws already prohibit people from driving under the influence of alcohol, which can and does trigger many of the same moods (along with impaired motor function, to be sure), and cars still kill more people every year than guns do. Why not prohibit gun ownership for those taking SSRIs and similar psychoactive mood stabilizers? I don't believe their right to medical privacy trumps everyone else's right to defend themselves however they choose.
I feel ur pain as there's only 1 Dusty. However, u must have a large mortgage. Mazel toph Mr. Hoffman
Seriously? I can't believe the Tucson Weekly even published this lame editorial.
Just love Hoffman's citing those assault-weapon toting anecdotes as proof. First, they sound suspiciously fictional--any proof these events ACTUALLY happened? And second, if they are real, two anecdotes don't prove a goddamn thing! C'mon, Jonathan, I thought as a conservative you were a notch above that cretin Charles Krauthammer, but now I'm not so sure.
Regarding the first comment about the police not carrying hi-cap magazines; yes they do. Almost every police carry Glock has a 13 or 15 round magazine. All police carry AR type weapons are equiped with 20 to 50 round capacity. Talk to some of the officers, they don't bite.
The NRA and its gun-loving constituents continue to drag out John Lott's (Mary Rosh's?) thoroughly discredited propaganda (masquerading as science). As tarnished as it is, it's all they really have.
It is quite hilarious to see John Lott, whose so called "data" has been discredited for many years now. He was also revealed as using the pseudonym "Mary Rosh" to misrepresent non-existent support for his own statistical. It is probably enough to say that he no longer has any academic standing is has been reduced to being a contributor to Fox "News."
Using John Lott to support one's prejudices about gun violence are like using Ben Shapiro for dating advice.
Oh yes... just Google "John Lott discredited" for a multitude of links!
The "science" behind John Lott's gun lobby propaganda has been broadly discredited. His NRA payed-for "research" employs carefully cherry-picked data which he subjects to equally biased multiple regression analyses in order to tease out a few numbers which he can then parade as scientific proof of his strange hypothesis that more guns equals less violent crime. This is "science" on a level practiced by the climate change deniers from the fossil fuel industries and by the Tobacco Institute, which for decades promoted phony research denying the negative health consequences of smoking. Gun lovers embrace this bad science in which statistics are brutally manipulated to support the favored hypotheses of the firearms industry.
Tucson Weekly |
3280 E. Hemisphere Loop, Suite 180, Tucson AZ 85706 |
(520) 294-1200 |
Powered by Foundation