American Elephants

Are Our Playgrounds Too Safe? Can We Fix It? by The Elephant's Child

There was an article in the New York Times a week ago about playgrounds, titled “Can a Playground Be Too Safe?” by John Tierney.  Do follow the link, for there is a lovely picture of a real jungle gym. I searched Google images for a good picture of a jungle gym, and jungle gyms have not only disappeared from the nation’s playgrounds, but there aren’t apparently any old pictures of them.

The playground in one of my neighborhood’s parks has become so safe that it appeals only to two and three-year-olds.  I don’t know whether at some point my city was sued successfully, or whether the city attorneys just warned of perilous possibilities. Some maker of playground equipment that runs to little houses with holes in the wall for kids to climb through apparently came to the city with a big dog and pony show, convincing city officials that kids would love to play make-believe in little houses.

Well, the little ones are too little for make-believe, and the bigger ones quickly get bored after climbing on the roofs of the little houses.  Watching kids there, you can sense their boredom and frustration.

Boise, Idaho has a hot spring somewhere under the city. They once had a splendid set of two near-Olympic size pools adjacent to each other. The water was warm and the pools were popular.  I suppose it was liability insurance that made the city fill them in and plow them under.  Fullerton, California once had a privately owned set of pools, wading, soaking and swimming, that were lovely and popular, but the land probably became too valuable and the liability insurance too costly. All gone.

When my daughter was young, there were stables where little girls could take riding lessons and love horses devotedly. All gone.  Mr. Tierney’s article quotes a professor of psychology from a university in Norway:

“Children need to encounter risks and overcome fears on the playground,” said Ellen Sandseter, a professor of psychology at Queen Maud University in Norway. “I think monkey bars and tall slides are great. As playgrounds become more and more boring, these are some of the few features that still can give children thrilling experiences with heights and high speed.”

After observing children on playgrounds in Norway, England and Australia, Dr. Sandseter identified six categories of risky play: exploring heights, experiencing high speed, handling dangerous tools, being near dangerous elements (like water or fire), rough-and-tumble play (like wrestling), and wandering alone away from adult supervision. The most common is climbing heights.

“Climbing equipment needs to be high enough, or else it will be too boring in the long run,” Dr. Sandseter said. “Children approach thrills and risks in a progressive manner, and very few children would try to climb to the highest point for the first time they climb. The best thing is to let children encounter these challenges from an early age, and they will then progressively learn to master them through their play over the years.”

Most adults have lost the perspective of childhood. They can’t remember the thrills and the challenges unless they were one of the many kids who tried to jump off the roof with an umbrella or by flapping their arms. Society has  become much scarier. Backyards are disappearing along with vacant lots. There were lots of vacant lots in my neighborhood when my kids were growing up and neighborhood kids had unauthorized treehouses on most of them.

Playgrounds are designed so that toddlers won’t hurt themselves, thus depriving older children of healthy exercise.  What happens in playgrounds is determined by tort lawyers.  Asphalt surfaces are gone, replaced by bark and rubber surface. Some kids may hurt themselves, they may fall, they may break a bone. We have too many lawyers. Some people are too ready to sue.  Loser pays would help. Surely we can find ways to make playgrounds that offer real challenges while removing the real dangers.

Perhaps childhood obesity is not due to kids eating too many happy meals. “Let’s Move” is good advice, but kids need better playgrounds on which to get moving. Somebody tell Mrs. Obama.

A Deal Must Remove Default Threat Through the Election! by The Elephant's Child
July 24, 2011, 6:13 pm
Filed under: Capitalism, Democrat Corruption, Economy, Taxes

Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner said on Fox News Sunday today that any proposal from Congress needs to “take default off the table for the next 18 months…through the election.”

That makes it pretty clear. The President first cares about his reelection. House Republicans care about cutting the out-of-control spending that is threatening the lives of ordinary American citizens.

The President knows he is in political trouble. The polls are pretty clear. If the election were today he would lose to a Republican— any Republican.  He needs to keep spending to buy the votes of his interest groups. He can’t offer favors without the ability to subsidize, bailout, offer loan guarantees and grants.  He doesn’t know how to create jobs, and he doesn’t believe in the way that Republicans claim that jobs are created.  He’s got to be able to spend lots more money. He must have revenue. And revenue comes from taxing the American people, and if you just tax rich people it won’t harm job creation, will it?

Obama tries to pose as a born-again spending cutter in public, while any details of what he is willing to accept remain secret.  The House Republicans have put forth the detailed Ryan Plan.  They have passed the Cut, Cap and Balance Plan. For all the demonizing and whining by the President and Secretary Geithner they have never offered a plan — any plan.  The budget that the President sent to Congress was defeated 97-0 by the Democrat controlled Senate.  The last verbal offer in the Biden led talks included $136 billion in new spending proposals.

The plans that the Republicans have voted for don’t offer any special goodies for Republicans, just budget balancing for the American people. Republicans don’t even get to do earmarks.

Geithner wasn’t adverse to a little threatening talk of his own.  “I never thought they would take it this close to the edge and let politics get in the way” he said. …”We do not have the ability to protect the American people.  We are doing the responsible thing, but only Congress has the ability to make sure people get their checks on time.

Old Liberal Trick: Scare the Old Folks! Needlessly. by The Elephant's Child

Stanford Law Professor Michael McConnell, the director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, corrects the President:

In his Friday night press conference, for the second time, President Obama raised the specter that Social Security checks might not go out if Congress does not raise the debt ceiling. His words: “Well, when it comes to all the checks, not just Social Security — veterans, people with disabilities — about 70 million checks are sent out each month — if we default then we’re going to have to make adjustments. And I’m already consulting with Secretary Geithner in terms of what the consequences would be.” Earlier he said in an interview on CBS News: “I cannot guarantee that those [Social Security] checks go out on August 3rd if we haven’t resolved this issue. Because there may simply not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

He must not be consulting with his lawyers, because this attempt to scare Social Security recipients is without legal foundation.

…reaching the debt ceiling will not affect the ability of the Social Security Administration to pay its obligations.

The Social Security trust fund holds about $2.4 trillion in U.S. Treasury bonds, which its trustees are legally entitled to redeem whenever Social Security is running a current account deficit. Thus, if we reach the debt ceiling (which I continue to think is a remote prospect, even if less remote than it seemed a week ago), this is what will happen. The Social Security trust fund will go to Treasury and cash in some of its securities, using the proceeds to send checks to recipients. Each dollar of debt that is redeemed will lower the outstanding public debt by a dollar. That enables the Treasury to borrow another dollar, without violating the debt ceiling. The debt ceiling is not a prohibition on borrowing new money; it is a prohibition on increasing the total level of public indebtedness. If Social Security cashes in some of its bonds, the Treasury can borrow that same amount of money from someone else.

At Dinocrat, the businessman whose website it is quotes a Democrat businessman who echoes the thoughts of Las Vegas mogul Steve Wynn:

There are only two possibilities at this point. Either this clown is a fool who has no idea what he’s doing, which is bad, or he knows exactly what he’s doing, which is far worse. In either case, my business is screwed until at least 2013. I’ll probably wind up laying off another 20% of my people.

%d bloggers like this: