Gallup Poll -- Pro-Choice or Pro-Life?

It appears from the latest Gallup Poll that there are more people in the US who consider themselves "Pro-Choice" than "Pro-Life"   I was surprised to see that somehow in the mid-1990s the so-called "pro-life" group actually outnumbered the pro-choice.  I wonder how that happened?  I suspect it was the influence of the "moral majority" group who really did a lot of marketing for their cause.
It is clear to me that the "pro-life" group is simply trying to impose their religious beliefs on the rest of the US citizens --and the world, if they could do it.  They believe that a fetus somehow has been bestowed a "soul" and is as much a human as any other human.  There is no science behind that belief, so it is driven by religion.
It is hard for me to understand why the Republican Party could stand generally for "Pro-life" when they are also "Pro Death Penalty" and "Pro Guns."  They generally claim they believe in the US Constitution, freedom of religion, and free markets.  But they, for some reason want to restrict women from having abortions, restrict Gays from marriage,  and restrict states from putting limits on guns.
One of the overarching problems of mankind is the continued increase in population in the world.  The growth of population increases the pressure on the limited resources of the world.  Yes Malthus was proven somewhat wrong, and the world was able to find food to survive a huge increase in population.  But at what cost?  There have been huge costs to the environment which simply cannot go on forever.
The world needs to get human population under control.  I believe we can do it.  China has shown it is possible, but there are less harsh ways to achieve population control by using other incentives.  The US needs to take a leadership role and control our population and accept immigrants until we can get those other countries to get their population controlled.  To do so, we need to dis-incentivize having more babies by eliminating tax deductions for babies, gradually increase costs to raise children by reducing subsidies for child care, medical care, and school to bare minimum for national health.  We also need to provide free medical help for birth control (such as pills, devices or sterilization) and abortion when necessary.

Two Encinitas YMCA Board Members Forced Out Over Youth Membership Dispute | KPBS

I saw an article in today's Union Tribune by Phil Diehl, about two Ecke YMCA board members being forced off the board.  The story is quite interesting.  Two members of the Ecke family (Lizbeth Ecke and Paul Ayers) whose family donated the land, and funded the construction of the Encinitas YMCA were opposed to a dramatic change in the YMCA membership and participation fees that were being forced upon them by the San Diego regional YMCA director.  Instead of allowing children to join or take classes for a cost of $100 or less, they now require payment of $1000 per year as a "family membership."   Ecke and Ayers have set up a website with additional info and their side of the story: http://www.ynowsd.com/. They also have a facebook page

I did find that there has been a LOT of information about it and a lot of discussion online.  First I found this KPBS posting:

Two Encinitas YMCA Board Members Forced Out Over Youth Membership Dispute | KPBS

There was an article on San Diego Sun Times,



I understand the concern of  Lizbeth Ecke and Paul Ayers.  The YMCA's primary goal in my mind is to serve the children in the area who don't have access to other, higher cost, facilities and supervision. They apparently now serve 2400 children in the area.   Families who can afford to pay $1000 to obtain a membership don't seem to be the ones in the "target" demographic.  If a family can afford to pay $1000, they can afford to send their kids to private coaches and facilities.  Why would the public be willing to donate funds to support that group?  Why would the Ecke family have donated their land and money for construction of a facility to support that group.  If the YMCA wants more adult memberships, the $1000 membership cost also seems high in comparison with the much more modest cost of gyms such as 24 Hr Fitness, LA Fitness etc which also have beautiful facilities.

The article pointed out that Herdelin Doherty, the San Diego County YMCA Executive Director was hired in 2010 with a salary of $400,000.  He is apparently pulling funds from all of the local YMCA's --apparently to help give himself a raise!  I do understand that managing such a large regional organization is a lot of responsibility.  It does have to be run like a business to make sure that it meets its organizational goals while also keeping the financial books balanced.  The Executive Director job does require some skill at management as well as fund raising.   However, I'm not sure that the position should be one that pays such a high salary.  It would seem to me that there are plenty of retired, highly skilled executives who would "volunteer" their time for a much lower amount of compensation.

I have served on boards, and I don't think this is the correct dynamics for a board.  If members of a board have a minority opinion, the board, or management shouldn't try to kick them off the board.  A board should allow, and encourage all members to speak freely.  Otherwise why have a board that just says "yes" to everything that management proposes?

I am very surprised that if Herdelin Doherty has not responded publicly, nor has any of the other YMCA board members to explain their side and rationale for making the changes they are proposing.  This sort of controversy is clearly a "black eye" to the YMCA and could affect future donations.  If Doherty is truly a leader, as he was hired to be, he should be out managing the news, explaining his side etc.

I can see how the YMCA might want to offer family memberships, and then offer discounted rates, priority or early registration for classes to family members.  Non-members could then sign up for space-available in the more over-subscribed classes.  I think it would also be good for the community if a certain number of "slots" were set aside in each class for non-members.  I agree that requiring families to apply for "financial assistance" when signing up for classes is somewhat demeaning, and would keep children who really need this type of activity from being able to take advantage of it.

It will be interesting to see how this situation plays out.

Catherine Rampell does the US really need more babies?

Catherine Rampell, of the Washington Post, wrote a column that was published by the San Diego Union Tribune that is titled: "We need more babies."  The essence of her column was that the birth rate in the US has fallen so low that we older folks won't have enough "workers" to support us.  So she thinks we need to increase our national birth rate.
I disagree with her for several reasons:
1. The world' resources are being used up at an alarming rate, which is contributing to extinction of many other important species.  Because of the increase in the world's population, we are increasing CO2, warming the ocean, polluting the ocean, and destroying the land.  The process cannot continue forever!  We need to reduce the global birthrate, not increase it!
2.The impact of Americans on the world's environment is many times larger than that of any other country.  Increasing our birthrate will impact the world much more severely than increasing it in other countries.
3. Her opinion, as presented, could be considered as "racist" since what she really means is that the US needs to increase the birthrate of "people like us" and not let people from other countries come to the use to "backfill" our under-performing birthrate. Can't we accept people from Africa, Latin America, The Philippines, or Asia?
4. Medical advances that have been made, and those "in the pipeline" will increase the life expectancy of everyone, and contribute even further to the impact on the global environment.  It will also allow more Americans to be able to live a longer, more productive life.  That will mean that we will be able to work longer and produce more in our lifetime, and maybe we won't need so many workers to help us.
5. Robotics is moving very quickly!  Many boring service jobs are being eliminated in the US and eventually around the world.  Many of the lower-paying service jobs involve caring for older people -- which may, in part, be replaced by robotics, electronics and computers.  The date of the "Singularity" when computers become smarter than people has been moved from 2100, to 2050, and now might be in the 2030's!  Self-driving cars are now on the road, will be sold next year, and might be in the majority by 2025.  Do we need more car and truck drivers to be born?  I don't think so!
6. As a nation, we should do everything we can to promote reduction in global birthrate, but should also try to import labor, as needed to fill the positions we feel are required to maintain our country.  To do that, we need to set an example of controlling our birthrate, and maintain high standards of welfare, political freedom, and security so that the best from other countries will want to emigrate to the US.
7. We may not want to "import" labor from other countries for all jobs.  We can certainly export a lot of our "work" to other countries  For example, we can establish health care standards and allow older people needing assisted living to move and be cared for in countries and facilities that embrace our standards.  We have already moved a lot of the low-paying manufacturing and call center jobs to other countries.  Why can't we continue that process?