Monthly Archives: August 2011

.

“We are all entitled to our own opinions. We are

not, however, entitled to our own facts.”

-Patrick Moynihan

 

 Debate on Climate Change revolves around three main questions:

1. Are we experiencing unusual changes in climate?
2. If unusual changes are occurring, is this change at least partly man-made?
3. If changes are occurring and they are man-made, do we have the desire and ability to counteract these changes?.

The first two questions are simply issues of fact, not opinion. While discovering the facts may not be simple, one’s personal opinions and motivations are irrelevant in answering these two questions.

The third question, on the other hand, involves opinions regarding the prioritization of human and economic interests. It involves extremely complex issues for which one’s personal opinions will and should play a major role.

It logically follows then, that we should all be to find agreement as to the results of the first two questions, for we are simply not entitled to our own set of facts. After scientific assessment by the world’s leading experts (let us please leave it to the experts), we should all be able to agree on whether unusual changes in the climate are occurring and whether man is at least partly responsible for such changes. And since no one ever fully agrees on anything, I suggest a 95% consensus rate should be considered dispositive.

We can then save all our energy for the debate and arguments regarding what we should or should not do to counteract it –that is if and only if questions #1 and #2 are answered in the affirmative by the experts.

So let’s please stop are arguing:

• whether temperatures are increasing;
• whether polar ice caps are melting;
• whether sea levels are rising; or
• whether atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing.

These are just issues of fact that have been addressed by the world’s leading experts. Let’s instead save our debating for the third and most relevant issue. Such a plan will not only make us appear far more intelligent as a society, but may actually allow us to reach a consensus and act (or not act) accordingly — presumably in all our best interests.

Whatever they might be.

 

“”I would walk away from any financial compromise that offered     $10.00 in spending cuts for every $1.00 increase in revenues.”

.

So stated each and every candidate running for the Republican nomination for President of the United States during their live televised debate last night.

As I have been taught by my parents that it is unkind to call someone a liar, I will instead point out that this statement is eerily reminiscent of several other famous quotes we may have heard in the past:

*

*

.

 “I believe that Nicotine is not addictive.”

.

.

.“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”

.

.

“This little beauty was owned by a little old Granny
who only drove it to Church on Sundays.”

.

.

    “My dog ate it.”

 (Regarding the whereabouts of their homework)

.

.

You may draw your own conclusions. If, however, you still believe the Republican claim to be credible, I wonder if you might be interested in purchasing this little bridge in Brooklyn that I have the exclusive rights to….

.

*****

Against the advice of my friends and family who will now fear for my personal safety, I am writing this post as an open letter to the wild packs of bicyclists that race through our city streets, leaving a bloody trail of death and destruction in their wake. OK, so I’m a little prone to exaggeration, but please hear me out.

I do not object to anyone’s right to recklessly endanger his own life on streets that have repeatedly proved fatal to previous cyclist over the years. I do not even object to sharing our streets with riders who do not understand most of the customary rules of the road.  I do, however, have a few basic objections I would like to raise.

First, while I am sure that casually chatting shoulder to shoulder is a vital part of your sport, riding two and three abreast in the middle of the road while rows of cars back up behind you is unacceptable. Additionally, as your mothers should have taught you, it is inappropriate to yell hostile profanities to drivers who politely request that you ride single file.

Red lights really do mean stop and yield signs mean yield. And please refrain from barreling over the elderly in crosswalks. While I realize your really neat outfits and accessories make you feel special, it is arrogant to believe your hobby should interfere in the lives of those around you.

I have thought very long and hard trying to understand why otherwise rational and intelligent people would behave this way and I am working on several theories.  Maybe this is just the cyclists’ version of road rage we have been reading so much about. Or maybe these packs of riders are simply adopting the aggressive pack mentality of other species (e.g. the wild dingoes of Australia). My latest theory is that perhaps those excessively tight stretchy pants are somehow cutting off the flow of vital oxygen to the brain.

In any case, to those of you guilty of the above, please consider a few small changes to your routine. Ride single file. Stop when you’re supposed to. Consider a bike path and try to refrain from giving the finger to anyone who voices any objection to your habits.

Lastly, I realize that a letter of this variety will undoubtedly generate a certain amount of hate mail. To those of you who do insist on attacking my position, please do me one favor before responding:

Stop for one minute. Take off your tight pants and breathe deeply. Now doesn’t that feel much better?

Thank you for your time.

.