First of all, driving on the freeway 14-16 hours a week really shines a light on my own frailties. That's right, I'm just a hot headed so and so. What good does it do me to become infuriated at a person driving 65.2 mph passing a person driving 65.1 mph for 10 minutes while I ride too closely behind? I'm sure they won't be experiencing heart failure before I do.
I found this cool picture at Space Weather.com It made me think about all the nights we got clouded out while I was still involved with the Magic Valley Astronomical Society. Often times when we get it in our heads that we want to do a certain thing, life intervenes. We want to see the stars, but instead we get lightening. We cannot control the weather any more than I can control how others drive. We might as well enjoy what is tossed in our paths.
Even if we could change the weather, should we? Janet D. Stemwedel (whose nom de blog is Dr. Free-Ride) thinks we should. But I would agree more with NASA administrator Michael Griffin who testified before a House committee in March. I do believe humans are effecting global warming, but I'm not convinced it will cause all of the doom and gloom that climatologists predict. I think it's a good idea to rein in the human causes, but the planet should have its way. Besides, even climatologists don't have everything right yet. They are constantly working and reworking the models, and until they can show that they have all their little crystal balls in a row, they should not claim that we currently have the best climate earth has to offer, and propose we should do everything in our power to keep it that way. They can't know that a warmer climate is worse than the climate at the end of an ice age. If we significantly reduce the human cause, and the global temperature continues to rise, we should accept it and learn to adapt. That is what natural selection would have us do, isn't it?
Apparently, we aren't too good at fooling mother natural selection. The save the pandas project has had a set back. They'll keep trying. Scientists are so set on making sure that the next generation of children experience the world we know today that they don't stop to think that maybe tomorrow's children have their own world to experience.
We have another actor who may have a shot at running the "free world". Actors are successful in office because they know how to pretend to be something/someone they are not. This one started campaigning as a character in Law and Order! So people already think they know what kind of a person he is. A smart tough legal expert who has superb leadership abilities. Do you think people won't see his character more than they see the man who portrayed that character?People are easy to fool, especially when they are desperate. (America is in a state of political desperation, is it not?) These parents were desperate to find someone to blame for their child's autism. After all, their lives are "utterly destroyed", a "fate worse than death" has befallen their child. Unable to accept that they have a child with nothing more than a (genetic?) disability, they are blaming the vaccine companies. Their lawsuit is being heard this week. Maybe reason will come out ahead in this one.
Not that reason reigns in this world. A police officer shot his daughter. She was sneaking back in. He though she was an intruder. Someone should relieve him of his gun!
It's not all bad. A new poll shows that fewer people believe in the literal interpretation of the bible. Maybe tomorrow's children will not be so easily fooled by crystal balls, and those who would fool mother natural selection, as long as they don't get shot to death sneaking back into their houses!
A little acceptance goes a long way, within reason.
0 comments:
Post a Comment