Thursday, July 9, 2009
Feynman
This is my last day of work before my wedding, so naturally I was thinking about physics. (I'm trying to keep myself grounded and calm.) Earlier I was thinking, "Gee, it'd be nice to read an article or something either by or about Richard Feynman." And, lo and behold, Mental Floss posted several youTube videos of an interview of him. So I played them in the background while working. Nothing is quite as soothing as listening to a scientific explanation when you're all stressed out. At least if you're me. =) Perfect timing, Mental Floss.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
A False Choice
I'm very annoyed at my congressman today.
A little background: I try to stay informed as to what my representatives are doing. One of the easiest (i.e. laziest) ways to do this is to sign up for electronic newsletters from my representatives. Obviously, they're going to try to spin things in their favor as much as possible, so I read the newsletters with a healthy amount of cynicism.
So I get the latest newsletter from my congressman, and he has a (fairly lengthy) article on why he opposed the current climate change legislation. Now, I understand there are legitimate grievances with this particular legislation (a lot of pork got stuffed on right at the end), but as far as I'm concerned that's normal politics. If you can find a piece of legislation that doesn't have pork stuffed in it, I've got some wonderful marshland in Texas you might be interested in.
Anyway, like I said, I understand some legitimate concerns with the legislation, but that's not why I'm upset. The major point my congressman was making was that he voted against the legislation because he wanted to protect his constituents from increased energy costs and business competition from overseas. I can understand why, as an elected representative, one might want to protect one's constituents (that's kinda the whole idea behind elected representatives...) but his article offered a false choice.
The choice is NOT "implement climate change legislation" or "protect constituents financially." One way or another, climate change legislation must be implemented; if not now, then later. And the longer we wait, the worse the pain will be. So the actual choice is "make constituents pay more now" or "make constituents pay a LOT more later." There will never be a time when climate change legislation is convenient or painless. (And, let's face facts, no one's going to save up for increased energy costs if we defer the change till later.)
There will never be a time when businesses will not suffer because of climate change legislation. Yet, it is necessary. The fact that my congressman does not see this (or at least pretends not to see this) demonstrates to me that he either 1) does not truly understand my interests or 2) does not particularly care about my interests. In either case, he will not get my vote.
A little background: I try to stay informed as to what my representatives are doing. One of the easiest (i.e. laziest) ways to do this is to sign up for electronic newsletters from my representatives. Obviously, they're going to try to spin things in their favor as much as possible, so I read the newsletters with a healthy amount of cynicism.
So I get the latest newsletter from my congressman, and he has a (fairly lengthy) article on why he opposed the current climate change legislation. Now, I understand there are legitimate grievances with this particular legislation (a lot of pork got stuffed on right at the end), but as far as I'm concerned that's normal politics. If you can find a piece of legislation that doesn't have pork stuffed in it, I've got some wonderful marshland in Texas you might be interested in.
Anyway, like I said, I understand some legitimate concerns with the legislation, but that's not why I'm upset. The major point my congressman was making was that he voted against the legislation because he wanted to protect his constituents from increased energy costs and business competition from overseas. I can understand why, as an elected representative, one might want to protect one's constituents (that's kinda the whole idea behind elected representatives...) but his article offered a false choice.
The choice is NOT "implement climate change legislation" or "protect constituents financially." One way or another, climate change legislation must be implemented; if not now, then later. And the longer we wait, the worse the pain will be. So the actual choice is "make constituents pay more now" or "make constituents pay a LOT more later." There will never be a time when climate change legislation is convenient or painless. (And, let's face facts, no one's going to save up for increased energy costs if we defer the change till later.)
There will never be a time when businesses will not suffer because of climate change legislation. Yet, it is necessary. The fact that my congressman does not see this (or at least pretends not to see this) demonstrates to me that he either 1) does not truly understand my interests or 2) does not particularly care about my interests. In either case, he will not get my vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
