Many children are growing
up today without an at-home father. This presents several problems, not
the least of which is where do the little ones go to ask those questions
that "only Dad" and other wise men know the solution to.
Hence this service to our readers. It's really for children of all ages...and
for those inquiring minds who need help in understanding news reports and
seek answers to other questions. Readers are invited to send their questions to: Curmudgeon@Lockport-NY.com
With hundreds of pages about the Lockport area
The Lockport Home Page is Today's
PICTURE OF LOCKPORT
Making the sour and
dour...light and bright
For those who have, or seek, a sense of humor we suggest:
Lockport Light and
Frontier Follies
The Lockport Curmudgeon regrets
that usually he can't provide personal answers to questions other than responses published
here.
Both questions and answers may appear slightly altered by the editor.
Motor Vehicle Questions
Q. Why don't they add more weight to Sport Utility Vehicles to lower the center of gravity and reduce the roll-over accidents?
A. Adding more weight would further reduce gas mileage, a factor in which the SUV is already a poor performer. It's reported that SUVs or like vehicles now make up nearly 40% of vehicle sales. They have been placed in the "truck" category which allows a more generous miles/per/gallon federal gasoline efficiency standard. Trucks get a lower standard because of all the cargo they are supposed to carry. But very few SUVs carry significant cargo other than passengers (and for that matter the same can be said for pickup trucks). Another interesting tidbit. You'll hear a lot of statistics quoted on how many SUVs are involved in accidents. But you don't hear word about how many are being operated over the speed limit! I'd bet that character of the driver and the speed have more to do with SUV rollovers than Firestone tires! However, it's a fairly good estimate that about 90% of the guard rails along highways in the country are too low for SUVs. When the SUV encounters them the rail is at such a (low) position that it actually encourages the SUV to go into a rollover. ---LC
Q. Why aren't motorcycles required to have mufflers? Why do some make more noise than others? Why is there such a widespread practice of "revving the motor" on these road machines? This summer has been a terrible one for motorcycle noise.
A. I don't know why motorcycles are not required to have mufflers. Maybe some of our readers can help out. It may be a matter of politics. Some make less noise because some do have a muffler system and are more responsibly engineered or operated. It's claimed some manufacturers tune their engines to exhaust gases more efficiently without a muffler. It is further claimed that the motor is revved to prevent stalling because they are tuned for "high speed" and thus tend to stall at low speed. This would be a sign of the motor not being properly engineered with any social responsibility. In fact, revving the motor by many has nothing to do with performance. It is instead a part of a culture that seeks to attract attention. --- L.C.
A reader writes: The reason for loud motorcycles are for the people in their cars to take notice so they will not run into them. Bikes do not have a chance against a car. Used to be that our headlights helped us because we ran them all the time. Now cars have them on all the time so that doesn't help much. But I don't need to worry about hearing people complain anymore up there about the noise like they do every summer cause I live in Jacksonville, FL. now and you never hear any one complaint. You see more cops on Harleys everyday then your average biker. It is a great city and I never plan on coming back to live in Lockport.
Some Notes On The News
Their "data" is a bit flawed and with more than a little bias. A group calling itself "Community Childhood Hunger Identification Project of the Nutrition Consortium of New York State is sending out press releases claiming thousands of children in the state live in constant hunger. They call it "food insecure." In Niagara County they declare there are 3,600 of these children who are hungry and 8,400 who are "at risk" of being hungry. This despite all the government food giveaways through the schools, welfare grants to "dependent children," several soup kitchens, many food pantries giving away food, and private charity giveaways of food and money to buy food. Plus another $22.8-million given away for "hungry children" by Gov. George Pataki in his latest budget. The Consortium seems to want more taxpayer money for their membership so that more food can be acquired by a larger quasi-public bureaucracy to dole it out. And do they provide us with a list of children or their parents so we can help them out? Of course not. Because there may be no such totals. They’re only "estimates" made by people whose jobs depend on there being large numbers of hungry children. And how do they define "hungry?" I think I know. And it’s not the same definition Frank McCourt would use in his biography (Angela’s Ashes) of growing up Irish. What’s next? Estimates on how many families don’t have cable TV?
Giving us just some of the figures, fewer of the facts, and a lot of estimates. At a time when unemployment is at a record low in Niagara County the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development sends out a report that claims 22% of the population of Niagara Falls is living below the poverty level. That level, it says, is $16,500 income for a family of four. The latest stats appear as an effort by HUD bureaucrat Andy Cuomo (Mario’s boy) to keep his name in the news in preparation for a state run for office in the next few years. And where did they get these figures? Certainly not from the census which complained of low-reporting in "poverty neighborhoods." Well, they’re estimates. That’s all. And of the 22%, over age 16, how many can work but don’t? Would you please, HUD bureaucrats, give us those figures? Oh, and please tell us, HUD heads, of the 22% claimed to be making under $16,500---how many enjoy unreported drug incomes in five figures? I mean, this is Niagara Falls, isn’t it? How much unreported income from prostitution? How much for robbery and theft? Why don’t you give us these figures?
Telephone Time
Q. My parents don't want me calling up my schoolmates at night. And they won't let me have a telephone in my room. What do you think? (received by e-mail)
A. A telephone in your room may be a question of cost. If it isn't, perhaps your family could get a cordless telephone and you could demonstrate your responsibility by using it in your room on a temporary basis to get a little privacy. Telephone etiquette, like most forms of etiquette may be ignored today by many but here are some guidelines. Normally, don't make any calls after 9 p.m. Don't call a stranger or someone you have not previously telephoned, after about 7 p.m. Don't call before 9 a.m. weekday mornings unless you KNOW the other family will all be up. Unless your family has two lines, restrict your telephone calls to about five to ten minutes. Don't make multiple calls, back-to-back. If you are asking an answering party to call someone to the telephone, give your name before they ask you for it....it is just common courtesy. If you don't know the telephone number of the person you seek, DON'T just start with the Phone Book calling listings with the same last name! Be reasonably sure you have the right number or don't call. If needed, research telephone numbers for more information on-line or in the library (city directories). Most people don't realize the tremendous positive impression the use of good telephone etiquette creates. --LC
What's So Special About "Special Education"
Q. The Lockport Page reports 11% of the student population in Lockport Schools are "special education" students. What was the percent when you were in school? Can you explain why there are so many "specials?" --A future teacher
A. We didn't have that terminology when I was in school (in Lockport). We
were much more direct. We called those now referred to under the various
"special" monikers as either "(physically) handicapped" or
"backwards." It was one or the other. And it wasn't near 10%!
Maybe 1 or 2%. The physically handicapped really had it tough and so did their
parents. Buildings back then were generally not "handicapped
accessible." Transportation was very difficult. You seek an explanation
so here it is. There are actually four possible reasons I give in order of
likelihood: 1) Increasing gene and other damage prior to birth caused by mothers
engaged with drugs and alcohol. Also, today's lifestyle of most mothers is more
inducible to problems developing in their children. Most women had a more
conservative lifestyle "then" compared to the norm in the past 20 to 30 years.
2) Parents today get financial government "grants" if they can establish
their children have certain types of "disabilities," "challenges," or
"disadvantages." To establish this, the child must be in a
"special" class. Thus many parents demand their child be put, at least
part time, in "special education." They can get pretty hostile when school
officials say there's nothing wrong. The cash grants go to the guardian and are in
the thousands. We're seeing a couple of these cases being litigated in this area at
present. I have it direct from several teachers who confirm this explanation. 3)
Back "then" those who could not become largely self-sufficient were not placed
in "mainstream" schools and thus were not considered part of the "school
population." They were at home or in institutions. 4) a factor that is too
complex and politically incorrect to detail here. --LC
Chances Are...If It's About Lockport:
The
Answer Is At The Lockport Home Page: www.Lockport-NY.com
The Biggest Niagara County Public Information Site On The World
Wide Web