Dear Mr. President,
Tonight I saw a movie with friends. Upon exiting, we all had vastly, radically different reactions. Some hated it, the others loved it. Few were in between. The ensuing shouting match, which might charitably be described as a debate, revealed both camps to be intractable. Luckily, we were arguing over Piranha 3-D and not health care, the environment, or anything that actually matters. I understand having different tastes in entertainment, but the stark contrast between those who loved what they saw and those who hated it reminded me of the kinds of shouting matches that political debate usually devolves into. How is it that we can have such differences of perception, even over verifiable facts?
Lately I've been cringing at the all-too-fresh memory of a situation I badly misjudged and, as a result, badly mishandled. I was so sure, so confidently convinced about my perceptions that, once I was slapped back into reality, it was as though the ground below me shifted. This is probably just another aspect of my control-freak personality disorder, but being so wrong about something I was so sure of has thrown me into intense self-doubt. What else am I sure about today that will seem laughably off-base tomorrow? If I'm capable of being so self-deceived, what other perceptions of mine are false?
This kind of doubt is actually good for me. It keeps me from the kind of arrogance that I am often prone to and it keeps me asking questions that need to be asked. In the end, it also often confirms my views, giving me stronger faith in the things I believe and helping me to articulate these beliefs more clearly in the future. I learn not to be so sure of anything that I can't process contrary evidence. I think that maybe a little self doubt might be good for some of the more ideologically entrenched in government. Our society is facing so many problems that we all ought to be wondering what beliefs we've falsely clung to, what choices we've badly made, and how we can change these as we go forward. I think this especially applies to those in government (particularly career incumbents) who continue to do what has always been done without wondering why; to declare the earth isn't getting warmer no matter how much new evidence comes to light, or to define family and citizenship and education in the same tired old terms. Evolution cannot happen without recognizing our mistakes and reaffirming what is important to us.
You have always struck me to be a contemplative individual. Mr. President, I know that flip-flopping is not something a political figure likes to admit to, but have you honestly re-evaluated any of your positions since the campaign? Has the work of government changed the way you view certain issues? How can we reward public servants with the courage to change their mind when presented with new information or alternate views, and encourage more of it in those who lack it?
I suppose for now I'm going to take comfort in the things I am certain about. Like the fact that Piranha 3-d is the worst movie ever made. No matter what Eric says.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Showing posts with label Climate change. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Climate change. Show all posts
Monday, August 30, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
Day 235-Eggs and the North Pole and the end of the world
Dear Mr. President,
As I read about the half-billion eggs being recalled, and the melting pack ice at the North Pole, I'm getting a familiar feeling of panic. "Globally, 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record." This line from the New York Times piece on the coming effects of climate change has been echoing in my mind since I read it to my roommate this morning. The article isn't even about preventing these disasters but about preparing for them in order to mitigate their destructive capacity. I guess you could say I'm confused. Don't we want to eat eggs without worrying that they have diseases? Don't we want a world that's safe for us and for the next generation? A world where oil doesn't gush into the Gulf of Mexico because of an accident? It seems like these costs of our lifestyles are far worse than the cost of reforming our currents systems to prevent disasters like this. Are we so afraid of the inconveniences of change that we'd rather go down with the ship than save ourselves?
A friend and I were recently talking about our post-apocalypse survival skills. (Jam-making, at least, we've got covered.) He's as committed as I am to decreasing the destructive impact we have on the world, but he's much more resigned to the idea that we're too far lost to avoid the disastrous end we have coming. I don't entirely disagree; if we can't talk people into spending a little more for their food (and consuming a little less of the products with the most harmful production processes) how can we talk them into making the big and society-wide changes that it is going to take to turn things around? Is it even too late to try? I generally don't like giving in to my fears and accepting that we're doomed, but I'm having a difficult time finding hope in our prospects.
Anticipating these apocalyptic fires and floods and droughts doesn't do much more than raise my blood pressure. However, just as I can't stop injustice by hiding from horrible news of it, I'm sure it doesn't do me any good to ignore the possibilities. Reforming our food system, getting the political will for actual clean energy legislation and a widespread alteration in our priorities when making every day decisions might all still save us- but I've just gotten too cynical to believe we can do it. So I'm going to keep trying to be better about my own negative impact on the climate, especially when it comes to the foods I purchase, but I'm also going to keep brushing up on those skills for the apocalypse. After all, I'll probably need more than jam when the times comes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
As I read about the half-billion eggs being recalled, and the melting pack ice at the North Pole, I'm getting a familiar feeling of panic. "Globally, 2010 is on track to be the warmest year on record." This line from the New York Times piece on the coming effects of climate change has been echoing in my mind since I read it to my roommate this morning. The article isn't even about preventing these disasters but about preparing for them in order to mitigate their destructive capacity. I guess you could say I'm confused. Don't we want to eat eggs without worrying that they have diseases? Don't we want a world that's safe for us and for the next generation? A world where oil doesn't gush into the Gulf of Mexico because of an accident? It seems like these costs of our lifestyles are far worse than the cost of reforming our currents systems to prevent disasters like this. Are we so afraid of the inconveniences of change that we'd rather go down with the ship than save ourselves?
A friend and I were recently talking about our post-apocalypse survival skills. (Jam-making, at least, we've got covered.) He's as committed as I am to decreasing the destructive impact we have on the world, but he's much more resigned to the idea that we're too far lost to avoid the disastrous end we have coming. I don't entirely disagree; if we can't talk people into spending a little more for their food (and consuming a little less of the products with the most harmful production processes) how can we talk them into making the big and society-wide changes that it is going to take to turn things around? Is it even too late to try? I generally don't like giving in to my fears and accepting that we're doomed, but I'm having a difficult time finding hope in our prospects.
Anticipating these apocalyptic fires and floods and droughts doesn't do much more than raise my blood pressure. However, just as I can't stop injustice by hiding from horrible news of it, I'm sure it doesn't do me any good to ignore the possibilities. Reforming our food system, getting the political will for actual clean energy legislation and a widespread alteration in our priorities when making every day decisions might all still save us- but I've just gotten too cynical to believe we can do it. So I'm going to keep trying to be better about my own negative impact on the climate, especially when it comes to the foods I purchase, but I'm also going to keep brushing up on those skills for the apocalypse. After all, I'll probably need more than jam when the times comes.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Day 47
Dear Mr. President,
*insert poorly-reasoned joke about global warming here* Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY times about the disappointing lack of understanding, and the inevitable bad jokes that result, with regards to the nature of climate change. Friedman proposes that the experts release "a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes." While former Vice-President Gore has gone a long way towards making climate change data simple and accessible to the larger public, he is too contentious a political figure to ever convince the people who don't already agree with him. Friedman may be on to a reasonable alternative.
You've made clean energy a clear priority for your administration. The concessions you've made with regards to nuclear energy, which I personally find concerning, should be enough for those still drinking the Lyndon LaRouche kool-aid to take down the pictures of you with a Hitler mustache. Nuclear energy, like some areas of foreign policy, is an area where I am willing to defer my judgment to your own, if only because I have faith in your administration's superior access to experts and information. That being said, I know that nuclear energy has its limitations, and I hope that your administration continues to push for the safer, more sustainable sources of energy.
Sadly, until then, you, Thomas Friedman and the rest of us who recognize that the decades of research backing up climate change will not be undone by one snowstorm, will probably have to put up with a number of jokes, tweets, and other self-congratulation from climate change-deniers. I think that it would ultimately be in our interest if something like the report Mr. Friedman proposes were funded and published in a thoroughly non-partisan way. As much as I'd like to pretend the deniers are irrelevant, we're still Democrats, and persuading those who disagree with us, rather than just legislating around them, is really more our style.
Anyway, enjoy the "snow-ver kill" or whatever they're calling it these days.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
*insert poorly-reasoned joke about global warming here* Thomas Friedman writes in today's NY times about the disappointing lack of understanding, and the inevitable bad jokes that result, with regards to the nature of climate change. Friedman proposes that the experts release "a simple 50-page report. They could call it “What We Know,” summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand, with unimpeachable peer-reviewed footnotes." While former Vice-President Gore has gone a long way towards making climate change data simple and accessible to the larger public, he is too contentious a political figure to ever convince the people who don't already agree with him. Friedman may be on to a reasonable alternative.
You've made clean energy a clear priority for your administration. The concessions you've made with regards to nuclear energy, which I personally find concerning, should be enough for those still drinking the Lyndon LaRouche kool-aid to take down the pictures of you with a Hitler mustache. Nuclear energy, like some areas of foreign policy, is an area where I am willing to defer my judgment to your own, if only because I have faith in your administration's superior access to experts and information. That being said, I know that nuclear energy has its limitations, and I hope that your administration continues to push for the safer, more sustainable sources of energy.
Sadly, until then, you, Thomas Friedman and the rest of us who recognize that the decades of research backing up climate change will not be undone by one snowstorm, will probably have to put up with a number of jokes, tweets, and other self-congratulation from climate change-deniers. I think that it would ultimately be in our interest if something like the report Mr. Friedman proposes were funded and published in a thoroughly non-partisan way. As much as I'd like to pretend the deniers are irrelevant, we're still Democrats, and persuading those who disagree with us, rather than just legislating around them, is really more our style.
Anyway, enjoy the "snow-ver kill" or whatever they're calling it these days.
Respectfully yours,
Kelsey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
