I'm up way too early this morning, surfing the internet for my morning dose of news. Reading is a daily occurrence; getting up this early is a result of going to bed early last night.
I read a couple of articles this morning that really chapped my hide. Let's begin with the Natasha Richardson article. I should probably start off by saying I don't have much to say about her death. It appears that she was popular and well-liked, but I'm not familiar with her work. What irritates me is the report that some politician in Canada is mulling a law requiring skiers to wear helmets as a result of Richardson's death. Come on!
Look, this can't possibly be Canada's first fatality caused by a head injury from skiing. And I sure don't believe that anyone proposed a helmet law previous to Richardson's death. I can just see the thought process now...
Several years back, some big-wig politician is reading the morning paper and drinking his morning coffee... "Oh, look ma. Some idiot died in a skiing accident. Oh well, I guess our tax revenue will decrease a bit this year, eh?"
Fast forward to a couple of days ago, where that same big-wig politician is once again reading the morning paper and drinking his morning coffee... "Oh, look ma. Some idiot died in a skiing accident. Oh well, I guess... HOLY SHIT!! That idiot was Natasha Richardson!! I had no idea that famous people could die in such an unbecoming way! We need to put a stop to this, eh? We need a law requiring everyone to wear helmets while skiing, lest we lose another celebrity!"
Sorry folks, I tend to think of this in the same manner that I think of motorcycle helmet laws, seat belt laws and even abortion and drug laws. It's my body. Quit trying to legislate what I can and cannot do to my own body. As I say this, please realize that I don't do drugs, I do wear a seat belt and a motorcycle helmet, and as a man it's tough for me to get an abortion. My point is that the government really shouldn't be trying to legislate away stupidity. Requiring the use of seat belts (and so forth) artificially reduces society's collective intelligence by protecting the very idiots that natural selection would remove from the gene pool. Since they're not dead, they're allowed to reproduce, thus watering down our gene pool with their stupidity.
The next story that chaps my hide comes from Diane Feinstein. It appears that the not-so-wise Ms. Feinstien is against putting solar panels in the desert. (Ummm... can you think of a better place for them?!?) Her rationale is based on two premises... first, that the desert will be less attractive, and second, a concern about what will happen to the local tortise population. Sorry, neither argument is valid in my book.
Let's start with the tortoise argument. The root of my position is that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one. This applies to individuals, and taking a logical extrapolation, it could expand to an individual species. I am also going with the assumption that global warming exists, and that burning fossil fuels contributes to global warming. (She's a liberal, so she will probably agree with this.) By placing solar panels in the desert, mankind is doing something to reduce our fossil fuel consumption, which will help alleviate global warming... the same global warming that supposedly contributes to the stress on countless ecosystems, threatening many species with extinction. Even if one species (the tortoises in this case) went extinct as a result of the implementation of solar panels, it would be worth it to save dozens of other species. Furthermore, there is nothing in the article that indicates the entire species would be decimated; it only states that she's "worried" about the local tortoise population. Well, Ms. Feinstein, thank you ever so much for your concern.
As for the second argument... the aesthetics... boo-fucking-hoo. You're going to possibly alter the scenery for what -- a few hundred of your constituents? And what's the payoff? Cheap electricity for tens of thousands. Look, I'm not recommending that we cover the desert in solar panels, but I am saying that the nimbys need to get over themselves. If I have to tolerate the blight of wind farms on my prairies, then you need to be prepared to put up with a few solar panels. Furthermore, the solar panels could be very easily placed in a non-intrusive location, where the scenery isn't compromised for the masses. Maybe a bump on the head would help Ms. Feinstein see the light. Let's all pitch in and get her a ski pass before the helmet law gets passed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Nobody seems to remember that Sonny Bono also died while skiing.
Of course, he ran into a tree.
So why no helmet prompting then?
What about the loss of Sam Kinison to a young driver?
Why not raise the driving age to like 26 in that case?
OR how about NOT letting country singers get pilots licenses?
If we'd had this law in place, then perhaps we'd still have John Denver around singing about saving trees.
today's word verification:rehersum
young starlet to Pa the director:"Um, mister director sir?
The show goes on in three nights and I don't know my lines."
Pa the director to young starlet:"Well we can't push back opening night, so you better rehersum!"
Ooooh, can open, worms EVERYWHERE!
The unfortunate fact is that people just aren't allowed to have accidents anymore. The world should be totally 100% safe, and if it isn't, there's always someone to blame and 'there should be a law'.
Then we get the politicians who like to use these accidents and tragedies to further their careers because by calling for a new law, they get in the papers and show how concerned they are about our safety.
As for the solar panels, there's always some asshole standing in the way of progress. When TV first became popular, people campaigned about the ugliness of TV antennas on roofs, and they did the same when satellite TV became popular.
It's the same as always, we want the benefits without the drawbacks.
Post a Comment