A very nice visual represenation of a very old Joke.

I belive Cosby did this joke in his stage act in the 80's. Of course probably someone else did it befor him.

Still a cute way of representing the joke.

One additional child in one house likely won't affect the global dynamic. In fact, you will probably be a much more efficient household with a second child. You'll likely travel less, eat out less, and in general use less resources as a family than you would as two people, with a third that can be easily watched or left with others.

Recent findings suggest that without an immediate cessation in carbon emissions "catastrophic" global warming is inevitable.

At which point, one is left with the notion that perhaps the only logical thing to do is ride the wave.

The ocean levels are rising, so move out of low lying areas.

Buy a nice plot of land in the soon to be arable Yukon Territory, and start planting potatoes. Have a whole passel of kids to help work the land, and take your luscious potatoes to market, and live in balance with nature.

Humans are just another animal, and it isn't our existence that hurts the planet, just our lifestyle. So if you want to save the world, live responsibly, and have a bunch of kids who will also live responsibly. Sheer numbers are the only sure way to change anything in this world.

It is in Senator Clinton's best interest to beat Senator Obama like a rented mule. For her personal goals she has no other practical option other than to throw the kitchen sink at him.

Vicious unrelenting attacks will do one of two things, either weaken Senator Obama enough to allow Senator Clinton to earn the nomination, or it will leave Senator Obama so bloodied that Senator McCain will have no difficulty beating him.

If Senator McCain wins the presidency Senator Clinton will run again in four years saying "see I told you Senator Obama couldn't win, and now you must recognize that I should be the nominee".

Although certainly similar attacks will be made against Senator Obama by Senator McCain, it has a different tenor when the words come from a theoretical ally of Senator Obama.

From Senator Clinton's point of view the only reason not to utterly defame and destroy Senator Obama is out of a sense of loyalty to the Democratic Party and the Nation as a whole.

We will have to see exactly where the New York Senator's feelings truly lie.

Quite to the contrary the greatest negative impact a single person can have is to continue to live singely.

It is the inefficiency and temptation to luxury of single living that causes environmental degredation.

A couple, family, or commune of single individuals will always live more efficintly than a single individual living alone, driving alone, eating alone, and generally making an environmental foot print that encompases themselves alone.

Likewise, families are more likely to conserve just for economic considerations. While a single person might trott off to burningman, the arctic, or some other adventure to "reconnect" with the earth, a family is far more likley to vacation near their home and use less resources accordingly due to the more significant cost involved in doing things as a family.

It is simply a canard to think that controlling population will in any way limit the use of resources. Especially since the people most concerned about controlling population are the same people using the most resources for their own individual luxury.

Let's face it, the carbon foot print to create, maintain, and power the internet is enough to gaurantee that everyone of us has done their part to give Canadian Farmers a longer growing season. At least by sharing my computer with my wife and kids I don't contribute additionally unlike all those single folks out there.

"Even if I did "live singly" for my entire life, it would clearly be less impact than leaving an entire line of descendants with American lifestyles. But again, it has nothing to do with reproducing."

Exactly my point, it does have nothing to do with reproducing, but how you live.

Yes, an amish bachelor can sleep at night knowing that he has done nothing to harm the earth that the lord hath given him.

All others however are destroying the world.

Now, since you insist on destroying the world the question comes to whether or not you are doing all you can to protect the earth.

Unless you are useing a computer in a public library in a major city you are not doing enough to protect the environment. You are wasting resources so that you can have the convenience of living away from a population center and having access to personal electronic devices which require a great deal of infrastructure to make viable.

Babies don't destroy the environment, their parent's bad choices do.

So if you are living simply in a major city, or are an organic farmer using animals for work, then your choice to have children isn't the problem. If you are not one of those two things, then your choice to live alone, or your choice to have children really amounts to nothing in the grand scheme of things, since you are already doing your part to destroy the earth.

Mostly Black?

I don't know the exact racial composition of Mississippi, but I don't think it's 51% african american. 51% non-white perhaps, but 51% african american...unlikely.

If I need to be corrected, then please do so, but I've gotta with my gut on this.