Saturday.

Nothing much planned for the day.  It may be dry enough to sweep up some of the leaves and other detritus that has settled in the crannies of the patio.  It needs a good washing down thanks to all the messy birds who scatter their seed all over.  I should start some more lettuce and some spinach upstairs.  Otherwise, I have a spring hat to finish crocheting over the next couple of days.  I am in stash busting mode between the hat and the new shawl.  Well the shawl is new in that I am crocheting a new pattern.  All of the yarn is left over from other projects and from an old favorite I took apart because use had finally (after about 35 years) worn a couple of holes in it.  It is becoming a "coat of many colors" with all of the remnants.

I have watched this phenomenon for a long time now.  It has become increasingly difficult to separate the shit from the pearls in the information tidal wave we are subjected to daily.  For many years now I file most of what I see and hear in the category of "yeah, but..."  The first question I ask about new studies is "who funded it and do the results pass the common sense test?"  Too often the answers are suspect on both counts.

I wonder if the real problem is with reporters asking the wrong questions.  The question shouldn't be are we or are we not concerned about climate change but what we can or cannot do about it.  In the background of articles like the one linked above is the notion that we have to have collective action but as I have asked before: what if there is no "we" to do what "we" should do?  Although there seems to be a consensus among climate scientists that climate change is happening, there is no political consensus either among populations or among governments on what should be done or who should pay.

I have written here before that I am very annoyed by the rise of politicians who view politics as business by other means much as Von Clausewitz saw diplomacy as war by other means.  Unfortunately we may be entering an era that will be dominated by that ridiculous notion.  Illinois has a gubernatorial candidate who promises to "run Illinois like a business."  We have seen two Supreme Court decisions which contend that corporations are persons with protected rights of political expression and basically equate money with political expression.  We have seen a billionaire arguing that votes ought to be proportional to the voter's wealth.  In case you think I am over stating the cause take a look at this.  The winner of the latest Supreme Court contest talks about the "political marketplace."  I just had an "ah ha" moment here.  I remember (thirty or so years ago) when the notion of academic freedom was justified in terms of a "free marketplace of ideas."  We now have bought science churning out the results the purchaser wants (and will boost the bottom line) and pressure groups insisting that their version of the "truth" be included in various schools often to the exclusion of other ideas.