<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: California wants to be your parent	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/03/california-wants-to-be-your-parent/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/03/california-wants-to-be-your-parent/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 22 May 2008 13:26:54 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Crash		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2007/03/california-wants-to-be-your-parent/comment-page-1/#comment-6353</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Crash]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Mar 2007 16:31:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/wpblog/?p=4650#comment-6353</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Personally, I think that increasingly larger television sets, booming home theater systems, and computers that are constantly on provide greater strain to our energy problems than incandescent lights do.

The idea of banning incandescent lights in favor of fluorescent lights brings to mind the water crusade in the &#039;90s.  Back then, there was much talk about how wasteful our plumbing was, and how much more environmentally friendly it would be to sacrifice a little water to save our future.  So, we ended up with toilets that don&#039;t flush and low-flow showers that do not refresh.

I&#039;ve since wondered whether any legislator has tried proposing a ban on bathtubs.  After all, baths use considerably more water than showers do.  If we truly want to save every drop of water we can, why even allow people the option of using water in such a wasteful way?
]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Personally, I think that increasingly larger television sets, booming home theater systems, and computers that are constantly on provide greater strain to our energy problems than incandescent lights do.</p>
<p>The idea of banning incandescent lights in favor of fluorescent lights brings to mind the water crusade in the &#8217;90s.  Back then, there was much talk about how wasteful our plumbing was, and how much more environmentally friendly it would be to sacrifice a little water to save our future.  So, we ended up with toilets that don&#8217;t flush and low-flow showers that do not refresh.</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve since wondered whether any legislator has tried proposing a ban on bathtubs.  After all, baths use considerably more water than showers do.  If we truly want to save every drop of water we can, why even allow people the option of using water in such a wasteful way?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
