Thursday, January 30, 2014

Not so cold but more snow coming. How to trivialize weather woes. Miscellaneous and contrary thoughts.

We should be getting the firs of three waves of snow starting this afternoon.  The snow removal people our landlord brings in worked most of yesterday taking out some of the snow that last came in just before the deep freeze and clearing the snow from in front of the mail boxes.  We don't know if the post office simply didn't deliver on Monday and Tuesday because of the sub zero temps or if the carrier couldn't reach the boxes.  If anything blocks their access, they don't deliver.

Our news has focused on the weather troubles in the south--meaning Kentucky to the Gulf.  However, this story irritated me.  That little phrase "horror of horrors--buying cheap wine." is simply inane.  And what exactly does it mean that the woman they interviewed admitted that her responses to the cold was "simply an first world problem."?   And though the title touted "Heat or eat?" they quote her saying "Eat out? What is that?"  This article trivializes the whole problem of people facing double or triple their normal energy bills.  I look around our living room and see my shawl and lap blanket and Mom's lap blanket.  We are wearing layers.  Our thermostat is set at 70 degrees only because the actual temperature in the upstairs rooms is 65 and downstairs about 68.  Those adjustments, for us, are normal annual routines.

And now the blame game pitting politicians against the weather forecasters.  Frankly, I agree with the sentiment that the politicos should simply suck it up and admit they were wrong.  They did have warning of the possibility but, in our 24/7 365 culture, no one wants to close down.  Workers won't call off on a "possibility."  Shoppers won't stay home for a bad weather "possibility".  Business won't close on a "possibility."

Tomdispatch linked to this article.  I hadn't heard the term "dead muds" before but it sounds like an apt description of the fact.

I have followed a number of controversies concerning women (usually Muslim) who wear some form of veiling (and there are several levels of veiling).  This is one of the few where researchers actually asked the women themselves why they wear veils--in this case the niqab or face veil.  It refutes the notion that most women who wear veils are forced to do so.  I am always somewhat bemused by those on each side of the argument--those who claim it is a sign of oppression and those who insist it is a sign of religious purity.  Both are pure BS.

John Michael Greer always writes an interesting blog at the Archdruid Report.

No comments: