Having the chilldren

     Why is it that whenever someone or some couple speak of not having children, they inevitably fall to the "It's the worst thing for the environment, what with overpopulation and all", argument?  Why can they not just admit that they do not want children?  Why do they have to make it sound as though they are sacrificing they're deep desire to produce a child for the good of the planet: "I/we really want children, but we/I just can't because of...well, the future." 
     It's a funny thing, you see, that those who want us all to believe that they care so much for the planet and want things to be so much better in the future do not want to have anything to do with the future; they're blood line stops with them.  Personally, I would like a better future, and to do my part, I have helped produce children to help work toward that better future.  Those who do not have children have no real need to be concerned for the future (except that for some reason those are the people who have this unexplained connection to the suffering of everyone and do their part to better the world for those poor, unfortunates that they never want to actually meet or speak with).
     It is my opinion that if one does not want children, one should stop citing a ridiculous study that aims to suggest that each child produced in this world does more damage to the environment than a thousand new factories (or some such rot), and simply admit that having a child would cramp ones style and require more responsibility than one is willing to take on.    

Online discussions

    
     After many an online argument (none of which resulting in anything concretely useful), I have decided the following must be true: Online discussions are like Magic the Gathering: someone flips a card from their google deck and a goblin eats your unicorn.
     How often does one run into an internet abuser that simply "googles" every point of each argument and craftily cuts and pastes the information into the current argument (or paraphrases and mangles the meaning of the point they are trying to steal)?  Each argument should begin with a set of rules: the first of which should be, "no Google"; the second of which should be, "no branching out by arguing the lesser parts of an analogy"; and the third of which should be, "if you run into deep water, please back off and head for shore".   
     The essence of any good argument is that one must use only the knowledge in one's current possession.  If two friends are sitting around a bar, discussing any point at all, neither of them can get up, run to the library, come back with a quote, and then expound upon the virtues or vices of said quote.  Arguments are meant to be stewed over for days and returned to again and again with precious few new points or opinions, allowing each involved to gain or give ground as the discussion grows (or regresses, whichever the case may be).  
     Help me to establish this new etiquette by disqualifying any points made by obvious, on the spot, internet searching.  We will all be better for this.

of the first

     Why not.  Since I have musings just as everyone else seems to, I figure I'll make them available to anyone with the free time to read them.  Most of what will be posted here (should I desire to continue posting) will be of the "off top of my head" variety, but will contain the occasional well though out idea and/or a short story or poem (must put my degree to use in some way).  I will, however, start with the quotable me, and re-post some of the things I have already posted elsewhere.  Enjoy.